Why are people against CCTV and speed cameras on the roads?

[srw]

which are a series of technological problems well within existing tech to solve.

Touché.

Personally I'd say the Telematic database would need to be a seperate entity, ie not tied to one insurance company. Both drivers and insurance companies pay for membership...after a while it would become compulsory like VED.

That's more or less what's happening.

IMO the only thing that'll stop this is a collapse in vehicle useage due to fuel costs.

Or the innate conservatism of the insurance industry and the British public - or the suspicion of "big brother" devices.

Bear in mind that most of Europe doesn't even use the sex of the driver as a rating factor*, so complex algorithms for pricing insurance dynamically is way beyond them.

(*And I know it's being outlawed - but it will more or less only affect the UK).

 

[MacB]

Touché. - I thought you'd like that one

That's more or less what's happening.

Or the innate conservatism of the insurance industry and the British public - or the suspicion of "big brother" devices.

Bear in mind that most of Europe doesn't even use the sex of the driver as a rating factor*, so complex algorithms for pricing insurance dynamically is way beyond them.

(*And I know it's being outlawed - but it will more or less only affect the UK).

I'm sort of taking the view from two angles, examples of what's happened so far and thoughts around how it would all be done if we were starting from scratch and didn't already have an evolved car culture. The latter is the real variable as your comment on innate conservatism etc indicates. It's those known unknowns again and these ones are pretty susceptible to timing and significant triggering events.

But I do think that people are getting pretty sick of the spiralling costs of their insurance, in this respect we're very much not all in it together. It's amazing how much 'innate conservatism' can be overcome when it saves someone dosh.

 

[Norm]

I wonder if it is time to share this one...

 

[ufkacbln]

Yes maybe so.

How about this? Let's be overt. Everybody knows they are there. Someone being caught covertly means they have already been a danger. So would it not be bette to have a highly visible prevention rather than a cure?

There is unfortunately a bit of a problem with UK law in that you actually have to commit an offence before you can be censured for it!

Motoring offences are not exempt from this!

Whether the Police / Cameras or CCTV are overt or covert this remains the case

Again we have a massive red herring... A visible Police car only controls the immediate area in the same way as a speed camera does.

This magic, put a Police car on the road and everyone within a hundred miles will drive properly just simply does not happen... The drivers will behave properly when in it's vicinity and then speed, and drive badly as soon as they are out of it's sight.

 

[ufkacbln]

I would also say that the very reason the gatso is as ineffective is the very reason the extra visible police could be successful.

They are very effective in spotting poor inadequate drivers!
What we need to do is to be more proactive in dealing with these drivers.

Gatso: people see it know its there slow down.

Same with police vehicles, people see it and slow down, then speed up as soon as they are out of it's sight!

Would it not be conceivable that the same logic would apply to a bigger more visible police pressance? People know its there and therefore slow down for it and drive safer?

Naive, it simply odes not happen

 

[mangaman]

Not impossible, if insurance companies can ever work out how to cope with the volumes of data generated. They're used to one piece of data per policy per year, plus an additional one every five years or so (premium and claims respectively). Telematics introduces the possibility of one piece of data per policy every minute. That's more than a step change.

As far as I know, all the telematics experiments so far have been "pay as you drive" - the risk is assessed outside of the telematics box, and you pay a premium which is a pure function of the distance you drive. I believe that even the experiments with differential pricing by time of day have been abandoned. You'd need to go to "pay how you drive", which is very different, and very difficult.

That's interesting srw as I have recently been looking for some sort of system for reducing my premium (28 years of driving - no points / never had an accident / never claimed / don't speed).

I can see it would be a pain for the insurance companies and not necessarily in their interests to introduce complex technology (presumably, the higher the average premium, the happier they are).

The distance you drive is important, although I'm less convinced of the times - speed and excessive use of accelerator/brake would be great but more difficult. Even a breathaliser to puff into on entry to the car, that if you fail, immobilises the car would be superb.

I don't think any of that is that technologically difficult, but not really in the interest of the insurers who don't want to drive down insurance prices. And I can't see any other groups with any influence being interested, unfortunately.

In the end I gave up my search and renewed my old policy.

 

[srw]

Insurance companies are perpetually in search of lower prices. Personal insurance is bought almost entirely on price, so if you can identify the best risks and charge them the lowest price you win their business. Overall, motor premiums need to go up, but the holy grail is to find the people who will claim and get them to pay more, while allowing the people who won't claim to pay less.

If you can do that while being societally useful - for instance by finding a way to let 21-year-olds learn to drive without charging them more than they can afford - so much the better.

You've also got the first inklings of moves from Europe to ban certain rating factors traditionally used to rate insurance. You won't be able to price on the sex of the driver for much longer, because a Belgian consumer association has successfully argued it's discriminatory. There is certainly speculation that age is next, and it doesn't stretch the argument too much to rule out address sometime in the future.

When all that's left to identify good drivers is the car and any information on driving style you can collect from a black box in the car I suspect, with MacB, that the innate conservatism of the insurance industry and the British public will be overcome. But it'll take years.

 

[acrybb]

They are very effective in spotting poor inadequate drivers!
What we need to do is to be more proactive in dealing with these drivers.



Same with police vehicles, people see it and slow down, then speed up as soon as they are out of it's sight!



Naive, it simply odes not happen

I think im gonna unsubscribe cant be bothered. with this any more

Your gonna get peanuts on the road whatever you do. A machine will never ever be as good at this job as an actual person.

Your just trying and up to now succeeding in getting a rise from me. I thought you were actually wanting a proper debate. But you dont. You want the last word you want me and others around you to accept that you and you alone can only be right.

Here are the facts.

1. Gatso cameras do what they do well. The catch and prevent people from speeding at a pre determined point on a road however long it may be.

In my opinion That isnt much use on a road that is 20 miles long. A police car moving all the time means people have to behave on the road all of the time and not just at the pre determined point So having 3 or 4 cars on that road means that those 3 or 4 cars will always be patrolling even if they are stopped people know they are there because they see them at that point and know that they will be at other points.

2. Yes we need to proactive. There is no point in catching someone doing something. If they have been caught the danger has already occurred we need to stop it happening in the first place. Prevention is always always better than a cure. The gatso does this well at the predetermined point at that point in the road it has prevented an incident.

In my opinion a more visible and higher police presence on the road will show people that this type of behavior is being clamped down upon and is no longer acceptable. If you do it you will be caught rather than you might get caught by the camera you do or dont know about. A better way to deal with it (and you said i think) is education. Not everything can be educated away though. Some has to be stopped through other methods.

3. Yes this will happen with a police car

However in my opinion you wont ever know when its coming up so therefore you need to be more vigilant and pay more attention to the road. If you know they will be on the road then you will be less likely to take the risk.

So i respect your opinion but i am no longer going to argue or post on this thread.

So if you wish the last word. Have it

Good luck

 

[mangaman]

,,,,
When all that's left to identify good drivers is the car and any information on driving style you can collect from a black box in the car I suspect, with MacB, that the innate conservatism of the insurance industry and the British public will be overcome. But it'll take years.

Sadly I agree with you both, despite the obvious benefits to me of having a black box. Hey hum.

Especially when 80% of fast cars owners think they are above average drivers.

It reminds me of the Labour health minister a few years ago saying he didn't think there should be any below average doctors!

You wonder if they attended primary school maths sometimes.

 

[ufkacbln]

Insurance is another area where we need to start actually looking at the cost and drivers actually paying realistically.

In 2010 the amount paid out in vehicle accidents was some 2 billion pounds greater than that collected in policy payments.

This deficit is subsidised from other insurance payments such as personal and household policies

 

[MacB]

Insurance is another area where we need to start actually looking at the cost and drivers actually paying realistically.

In 2010 the amount paid out in vehicle accidents was some 2 billion pounds greater than that collected in policy payments.

This deficit is subsidised from other insurance payments such as personal and household policies

but we also need to understand what makes up those payouts, some insurance agents didn't come out smelling of roses when Watchdog looked at the tie in they had to medical claims. Isn't that a big part of higher insurance premiums for all especially younger drivers?

 

[ufkacbln]

There are also suggestions that "whiplash" is a big issue with claims.

However whether the claims are legitimate or not, the subsidy is still there

 

[ufkacbln]

We were also involved with another scam, a company called "DriveAssist"

Our ca was hit by another driver whilst stationary in a car park, and DriveAssist "dealt" with the matter incuding a replacement car

When it arrived the "family car" to allow us to take an elderly relative out was a high end sports soft top.

That is all they provide, with a higher fee reflecting this. We were also given a handheld device to "sign", as we were unable to read we wrote... "I have not been allowed to read these terms"

The repair went well, and the replacement car then spent three weeks on our drive awaiting collection.

We notified the insurance company and pointed out that we were not only paying a high rental, but for four weeks instead of one and asked for an explanation.

None was forthcoming, but we were delighted to see them on Watchdog a few weeks later!

 

[MacB]

There are also suggestions that "whiplash" is a big issue with claims.

However whether the claims are legitimate or not, the subsidy is still there

I don't think it can just be dismissed like that as there is a growing awareness that there are a small group around insurance, as with everything, that are doing rather well at the general expense. The make up of the grouping is normally a few movers and shakers with a hodgepodge of middlemen buffering and enabling them, lawyers, accountants, doctors, insurance 'professionals' and various adhoc others.

It feels, whether it's real or not, like victim blaming and then actually placing the costs on the victims. Like we pay higher home insurance premiums, need to buy better security and change our habits, but do nothing additional to tackle the root cause. Unlike that area car insurance does have technological solutions available that can not only act as a deterrent but can also place the costs firmly in the court of the miscreants.

 

[lukesdad]

I can see the possibility of an interesting cross over, using a technology the opposite way round from current. F1 teams monitor their cars' everything all the time to maximize speed, so they probably have a working method that someone could sell to monitor speed limit compliance. The GPS companies could readily add the local speed limits, advisory limits on specific corners and known black spots to their data, if not already done.

Yep its called a pit lane limiter and can be operated remotely. The trouble is it works on engine revs not speed herein lies the problem gearboxes.