The Norwich Union scheme to give low-mileage drivers lower insurance costs involves the fitting of a device which records length of journey, duration of trip, time of day, location of car (!) but not (yet) speed.
Could there be a government hand in this? Call me paranoid if you want, but we already know that the hand-wringing blame-everything-on-the-car brigade want to see satellite-controlled speed limiters in new cars, and this government is plainly in favour of anything to further regulate us.
Is this just a way of acclimatising us to 'spies under the bonnet'?
|
No, I don't think so, but then I don't subscribe to the 'this government is anti-car' theory, either (at least, no more than any other party).
Of more concern is the possibility that the insurance companies will combine to ensure that you can ONLY get insured if you have such a device. Human Rights issues here? Unless I heard wrongly on the radio, I thought the device could record speed, too.
|
Derek,
I believe this Government is far more anti-car than the other lot because Socialists want to control everything we do "for our own good" Too much government is not good government.
Look below to see what they have planned for us. Regular readers have seen this nonsense before.
europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/res_urban_trans...l
|
|
|
|
Andy,
over the past couple of years there has been alot of discussion on US auto sites about spies under the bonnet. A search for 'OBD III' should throw something up.
US auto makers are already being asked to plan for the introduction of OBD III in the name of 'environmental protection'.
Basically, it gives 'the authorities' the ability to query your engine management system from roadside or vehicle mounted sensors. The discussions have centered around how much information will be stored/collected and what it will be used for.
Not surprisingly, the insurance companies are wanting to add in their own little 'features'.
Kevin...
|
And who pays for this device to be fitted?
Andy
|
|
Yeah, and what if you want to change your insurer?
|
|
|
Andy,
it's not really 'fitted' as such. It's just a bit of extra hardware and software in the onboard computer. A bit more memory to store the information, a short-range receiver/transmitter and the software to hang it all together.
RAM is dirt cheap now, an ASIC based on cellphone technology and a few days software development and testing. Total cost to the auto industry probably less than £20 per vehicle.
Kevin...
|
According to an article in the Mail yesterday, it's a separate unit, and not an addition to the car's existing computer. The unit will initially cost around £300. The first people will have it fitted free, but from than on you'll have to pay.
Andy
|
Sorry Andy, I didn't make it clear that I was referring to OBD III.
The Norwich Union 'black box' *has* to be a seperate unit because it would be impossible for them to incorporate it into the ECU of existing vehicles without major expense.
The OBD III I mentioned is a plan by the State of California (and being closely monitored by the EPA), to force auto makers to build extra functionality into *every* new auto's ECU. That includes *any* auto maker who wants to sell vehicles in California.
I haven't been following the debates about OBD III recently so I contacted a friend back in Texas who explained some of the details.
The extra functions in the ECU will keep a history of the vehicle's operating parameters, similar to an aircraft black-box. Roadside or mobile sensors will then be used to read and record the data and VIN number from every vehicle that passes the sensor.
The rationale is that it will allow the authorities who operate the sensors to detect if an ECU has warned the driver that there is a problem and he has ignored it. They will then be able to send the owner mail telling him that he should take the vehicle to a testing station immediately, or his inspection sticker will be revoked/he will be fined/whatever.
This sounds like a damn good idea but civil liberties groups in the US are worried that the data will be used for other purposes.
It will be entirely possible, for example, for the roadside sensors to check the speed of every vehicle that passes and automatically issue speeding tickets.
Since the VIN is part of the data that is read by the sensor, it will also be possible to track a vehicle's (and driver's) movements as it passes each sensor.
Will the data be made available to insurance companies or other commercial organisations that may have an interest or see an opportunity ?
Will the data be used as evidence in court cases, perhaps in the event of an accident ?
There is even talk of the system being able to disable a vehicle remotely.
My friend informs me that some objectors are quite vociferous (acute paranoia perhaps) and there are some serious legal issues that would have to be resolved, but California's target date of 2005 (I think) is entirely possible. He's an advisor to the DA so I believe him.
I can see benefits from this type of system but I think that in the end it boils down to a question of whether you trust the authorities who operate the system, or not.
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I think it is nonsense. If insurers wanted to make it fair for less risk drivers they would simply rely on their past record. There is no substitute for this. I have been insured for 44 years and have never fortunately made a claim or been involved in any accident. (shouldn't say that that cause it can happen tomorrow) However my insurance premium has gone up in general with all others and I believe that recording short journeys and what type of roads etc has nothing to do with risk assessment but is purely a gimmick or has an hidden agenda which we haven't yet realised.
The duty of the insurers is to their shareholders firstly and whatever scheme they come up with is planned to increase revenue. The bulk of this must come from the people who are not making claims and it follows that they will not be looking to make cheaper insurance for them. Its in the same guise as the water companies who advise that having a meter will reward them with lower bills. Yes it will in the short term perhaps but ultimately they are looking for more revenue not less so ultimately you will have to pay more.
beware of insurance companies bearing.....
alvin
|
|
|
£19,468was £19,899Details
£16,000was £16,200Details
£26,875was £27,928Details![2022 Lexus UX 250h 2.0 F-Sport 5dr CVT [Nav]](//images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/vehicles/pictures/7530ea0cf06390ea1b7326c49eadbe2d/88b41916a078db87068da34298c5b037.jpg)
£28,990was £29,750Details
![2022 Lexus UX 250h 2.0 F-Sport 5dr CVT [Nav]](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/vehicles/pictures/7530ea0cf06390ea1b7326c49eadbe2d/88b41916a078db87068da34298c5b037.jpg)
