Will black boxes lead to better driving standards?

[GadgeS3C]

Having followed some discussion on the appearently increasing use of black boxes by insurers on this
thread I'm intrigued to what the views of the advanced driving community are.

I see two distinct questions:
1 Will they reduce accident statistics?
2 Will they improve driving standards?

Let's leave the tinfoil hat stuff to the other thread (please!).

I can see they will lead to people obeying the speed limits which may reduce accident severity (basic physics) but suspect the unintended consequences may not be as positive.

Thoughts?

[ashleyqprw12]

Miss daisy pulls out of junction, accelerates at a steady pace so she is not punished. However the box doesn't see that she has pulled out on me, so i have to brake suddenlly to avoid hitting her. I will be viewed as in the wrong by the 2 boxes.

Not a fan of them myself, this being the main reason for me.

[carinaman]

Did you hear the bit on You and Yours on Radio 4this afternoon (weds)? They had a household on that had one fitted to one of their cars.

[Ki3r]

As has been said above, it won't pick up bad driving, tailgating, or even doing 60mph when its chucking it down with rain, loads of fog, snow etc.

[simoid]

As I understand them, they're mostly about measuring speed and G forces and such things. It's perfectly possible to be a ste/dangerous driver who is also slow and doesn't create much accel/decel/cornering G.

[7mike]

ashleyqprw12 said:

Miss daisy pulls out of junction, accelerates at a steady pace so she is not punished. However the box doesn't see that she has pulled out on me, so i have to brake suddenlly to avoid hitting her. I will be viewed as in the wrong by the 2 boxes.

Not a fan of them myself, this being the main reason for me.

Devils advocate & all that; I guess they could say the box has identified a lack of observation & anticipation on the part of the driver who had to brake hard.

Ki3r said:

As has been said above, it won't pick up bad driving, tailgating, or even doing 60mph when its chucking it down with rain, loads of fog, snow etc.

The tailgaters I see ahead seem to show their brake lights an awful lot, I'm sure anyone checking on the data will figure out what's been going on.

...but no, I don't one in my cars either.

[Dogwatch]

I think they are intended to give rise to fewer claims for the insurers by pricing out the riskier drivers (over 80mph etc ). More compliant drivers may result but this has nothing to do with improving driving standards.

[DocSteve]

Bloody moronic idea, only to benefit the insurers. It will just lead to yet more slow, unobservant and uninvolved drivers.

[Nigel Worc's]

It wont suit everyone.

It may reduce the severity of accidents.

It may enable my daughter to keep her Z3 come insurance time, as she'll lose the advantage of being a girly this year.

It wouldn't be an issue to either my "non advanced" daughter or my "non advanced" wife, it'd probably be cancelled weekly on "their senior observer advanced" dad/husband !

I don't think it'll make a jot of a difference to driving standards, but I'm not sure that's what it is about, I think it is about reducing claim costs.

[DuncanDisorderly]

I struggle to understand how fitting a black box of electronic tricks to measure what the car is doing can possibly improve driving standards. It doesn't change the driver judgement and skill. It may have a short term impact on driver attitudes, but this is likely to wear off quite quickly.

What I don't struggle to see is how the insurance industry will use this to their advantage. It is the cycnic in me I realise, but how long will it be before the story is not one of getting a discount if you have one fitted, but being penalised for not having one.

There are also many studies to demonstrate that speed is not a factor in many accidents. And accidents are just that, I haven't met many who deliberately set out to crash into another car (insurance scammer stories aside) so fitting a black box to record what was going on wont prevent the accident.

[Munter]

DuncanDisorderly said:

I struggle to understand how fitting a black box of electronic tricks to measure what the car is doing can possibly improve driving standards. It doesn't change the driver judgement and skill. It may have a short term impact on driver attitudes, but this is likely to wear off quite quickly.

What I don't struggle to see is how the insurance industry will use this to their advantage. It is the cycnic in me I realise, but how long will it be before the story is not one of getting a discount if you have one fitted, but being penalised for not having one.

There are also many studies to demonstrate that speed is not a factor in many accidents. And accidents are just that, I haven't met many who deliberately set out to crash into another car (insurance scammer stories aside) so fitting a black box to record what was going on wont prevent the accident.

It's not designed to improve driving standards. It supposed to identify those who engage in driving practices the insurers consider risky. If you refuse to be identified as a "good" driver why shouldn't they charge you more. What are you hiding?

If they don't identify high risk drivers (and therefore allow them to charge more to high risk drivers). They will be withdrawn as they are of no use to them.

[davepoth]

"I couldn't slow down to let you through - it would have put my insurance up!"

[DuncanDisorderly]

And following on from the thread titled "Are people right to be angry with me" .... I couldnt accelerate to get past you safely as it would put my insurance up.

[Dark85]

Not a fan of them at all, but...

Could they not settle the whole speed = dangerous argument?

I imagine the insurance companies will analyse the driving of people who have accidents very closely, it would only take them so long to find if drivers that bimble along have as many as those who make swift progress. Could lead to a change in attitude as to what makes a dangerous driver.

[simoid]

I do wonder if the black boxes can distinguish between heavy acceleration on a short motorway slip road (very safe) - and dawdling up the same slip road, attempting to join the motorway at 40mph (borderline suicidal).

Obviously the same G force ratings may not be as appropriate if one is accelerating heavily on a B road up to a bend that doesn't have motorway visibility.



ETA: Perhaps we should, as a community of enthusiastic drivers, aim to accelerate as quickly as possible and have as few accidents as possible (as we often do) but instead, do it with black boxes so we can skew the figures...

[7db]

Seems that my insurance is based on location currently, and this is a move to measure first order changes to that (speed) and perhaps second order changes (acceleration).

It would be interesting to correlate third-order changes -- ie rate of change of acceleration (or "jerk") -- with good driving (defined by lack of claims).

The data from these boxes might be able to do that. I wonder whether the insurers that have the data would.

[RenesisEvo]

Munter said:

If you refuse to be identified as a "good" driver why shouldn't they charge you more. What are you hiding?

I don't believe that these devices could adequately identify who is and is not a good driver. Holding an advanced driving qualification should hold far more weight than noisy data from an accelerometer. The apparent narrow-mindedness of the approach by the insurance companies makes me very suspicious. I fear the inevitable premium for not having one of these devices, assuming anyone will insure you to drive without one.

[Munter]

RenesisEvo said:

Munter said:

If you refuse to be identified as a "good" driver why shouldn't they charge you more. What are you hiding?

I don't believe that these devices could adequately identify who is and is not a good driver. Holding an advanced driving qualification should hold far more weight than noisy data from an accelerometer. The apparent narrow-mindedness of the approach by the insurance companies makes me very suspicious. I fear the inevitable premium for not having one of these devices, assuming anyone will insure you to drive without one.

If you take that out of the context of the post it doesn't make any sense.

If there is no correlation between "bad" activity on these devices, and people who make claims, then the insurance companies will not use them. Because their job is to let the insurance companies identify risky drivers, and set their premium appropriately. So if they don't do that it's just a waste of cash to them.

If they do however find a correlation between "good" activity on the devices and low levels of claims. Why wouldn't you want to be identified as a good driver who's less likely to make a claim?

[trashbat]

It would be possible to have hardware that measured the 'advancedness' (ugh) of a driver. There's a thread on here that describes what people look for when assessing whether another driver is any good - things like when brake lights do/don't come on, behaviour through bends and so on. You could measure some of these.

It is unlikely that this will happen.

It seems to me that they are well applied to a particular subset of drivers (mostly male, mostly young) to discourage a certain mode of fairly obnoxious driving. Beyond that I have my doubts.

Edited by trashbat on Thursday 18th October 13:19

[RenesisEvo]

Munter said:

If you take that out of the context of the post it doesn't make any sense.

If there is no correlation between "bad" activity on these devices, and people who make claims, then the insurance companies will not use them. Because their job is to let the insurance companies identify risky drivers, and set their premium appropriately. So if they don't do that it's just a waste of cash to them.

If they do however find a correlation between "good" activity on the devices and low levels of claims. Why wouldn't you want to be identified as a good driver who's less likely to make a claim?

It appears I misunderstood your point, and yes I agree -especially thhe point about correlation (I imagine the companies are still in the data-gathering phase). I would prefer to be identified as a good driver by less contrived means, e.g. advanced driving qualifications. Having said that, the upside of a black box is that it could monitor real-time, continuously, so it can rule out 'behaving for the test'.

trashbat said:

It seems to me that they are well applied to a particular subset of drivers (mostly male, mostly young) to discourage a certain mode of fairly obnoxious driving. Beyond that I have my doubts.

Given the accident statistics, this isn't surprising really - targeting the group that causes the largest claims seems sensible. I agree that beyond that, it will be an uphill struggle.

Edited by RenesisEvo on Thursday 18th October 13:27