• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Question about car insurance - not specifically about male-female drivers


feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
This deserves its own thread.

Has there ever been any objective data about a person's measurable driving habits that correlates well with their overall risk of being in a crash?

Note: I said driving habits. Not age or gender.

I'm thinking about electronic data that would be possible to measure. For instance, the radar tech that tells you how far you are from the wall behind you should also be able to tell how closely you tailgate the driver in front. It seems intuitive to say that people who habitually drive close to the car in front will usually crash more often, although I'd need to see proper field data to reach that conclusion.

But a simple recording of speed would also provide good data, I assume.

Has this ever been seriously tried? Or even proposed? Imagine: an insurance system where your premiums are based on how you drive, as measured by unbiased electronic devices, not your age or gender.
 


shenana

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
402
Wait till the new driver licencing legislation kicks in, next year then most of you will get a bloody nose!!!
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
40,632
This deserves its own thread.

Has there ever been any objective data about a person's measurable driving habits that correlates well with their overall risk of being in a crash?

Note: I said driving habits. Not age or gender.

I'm thinking about electronic data that would be possible to measure. For instance, the radar tech that tells you how far you are from the wall behind you should also be able to tell how closely you tailgate the driver in front. It seems intuitive to say that people who habitually drive close to the car in front will usually crash more often, although I'd need to see proper field data to reach that conclusion.

But a simple recording of speed would also provide good data, I assume.

Has this ever been seriously tried? Or even proposed? Imagine: an insurance system where your premiums are based on how you drive, as measured by unbiased electronic devices, not your age or gender.
Actuaries spend their entire working lives assessing these risks.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
Actuaries spend their entire working lives assessing these risks.
Actuaries spend their entire working lives poring over data from electronic devices that measure individual drivers' driving habits? News to me. I have never heard of anyone I've ever known having an electronic device fitted to their car that would allow their driving habits to be measured.

Does such technology exist? Yes. Is it affordable? Yes.

So why not deploy it to test each driver's habitual behaviour fairly?

I'm willing to bet a ton that 99% of licensed drivers who cause fatal collisions drove like flawless angels on their driving tests. It's clearly a flawed measure of suitability to drive and should be augmented immediately by electronic habit-measurement, if habit-measurement proves to be a statistically-valid predictor of car crashes.

Argument against that?

Please god don't give me that "Big Brother" nonsense. Your right to not have your driving habits scrutinised ends the moment you drive onto a public road where other peoples' lives are in your hands.
 

dizillusioned

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
14,869
Actuaries spend their entire working lives poring over data from electronic devices that measure individual drivers' driving habits? News to me. I have never heard of anyone I've ever known having an electronic device fitted to their car that would allow their driving habits to be measured.

Does such technology exist? Yes. Is it affordable? Yes.

So why not deploy it to test each driver's habitual behaviour fairly?

I'm willing to bet a ton that 99% of licensed drivers who cause fatal collisions drove like flawless angels on their driving tests. It's clearly a flawed measure of suitability to drive and should be augmented immediately by electronic habit-measurement, if habit-measurement proves to be a statistically-valid predictor of car crashes.

Argument against that?

Please god don't give me that "Big Brother" nonsense. Your right to not have your driving habits scrutinised ends the moment you drive onto a public road where other peoples' lives are in your hands.
Do you drive?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
40,632
Actuaries spend their entire working lives poring over data from electronic devices that measure individual drivers' driving habits? News to me. I have never heard of anyone I've ever known having an electronic device fitted to their car that would allow their driving habits to be measured.

Does such technology exist? Yes. Is it affordable? Yes.

So why not deploy it to test each driver's habitual behaviour fairly?

I'm willing to bet a ton that 99% of licensed drivers who cause fatal collisions drove like flawless angels on their driving tests. It's clearly a flawed measure of suitability to drive and should be augmented immediately by electronic habit-measurement, if habit-measurement proves to be a statistically-valid predictor of car crashes.

Argument against that?

Please god don't give me that "Big Brother" nonsense. Your right to not have your driving habits scrutinised ends the moment you drive onto a public road where other peoples' lives are in your hands.
I replied directly to the question that you asked which was:
Has there ever been any objective data about a person's measurable driving habits that correlates well with their overall risk of being in a crash?
Actuaries spend their entire careers making these assessments based on enormous amounts of data.

You are proposing an alternative type of data and a means to trap it.

That's a different matter.

I answered the question that you posed.
 

dgl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
783
This deserves its own thread.

Has there ever been any objective data about a person's measurable driving habits that correlates well with their overall risk of being in a crash?

Note: I said driving habits. Not age or gender.

I'm thinking about electronic data that would be possible to measure. For instance, the radar tech that tells you how far you are from the wall behind you should also be able to tell how closely you tailgate the driver in front. It seems intuitive to say that people who habitually drive close to the car in front will usually crash more often, although I'd need to see proper field data to reach that conclusion.

But a simple recording of speed would also provide good data, I assume.

Has this ever been seriously tried? Or even proposed? Imagine: an insurance system where your premiums are based on how you drive, as measured by unbiased electronic devices, not your age or gender.
Yes, it's known as telematic insurance and it's been done, but hasn't taken off yet in a big way. Aviva tried it in the UK.

Recent changes forcing unisex rates may revive it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telematics
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
40,632
BTW your habitual driving habits are only one component of your insurance. Your address, your profession etc are taken into account.

Myself and some colleagues had some fun a few months ago when we mounted a competition to see who could get the highest insurance quote online by using false details etc. Address was a surprisingly big contributor to the quote.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
Thanks!

Trials conducted by Norwich Union in 2005 have found that young drivers (18 to 23 year olds) signing up for telematic auto insurance have had a 20% lower accident rate than average.
Wow! Why hasn't this been made mandatory? How many cemeteries have we needlessly filled since 2005 by failing to impose this all over the country?

Was it really worth it, losing all those people for the dubious luxury of not having telematic measuring?
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
BTW your habitual driving habits are only one component of your insurance
There's where we differ.

I don't care about the weird voodoo insurance companies currently do, such as look at gender, age bla bla bla.

I care about objective likelihood of being in a crash measuring things that directly contribute to being in a crash. Insurance companies seem to disregard such objectivity.
 

Northtipp

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
22,217
There's where we differ.

I don't care about the weird voodoo insurance companies currently do, such as look at gender, age bla bla bla.

I care about objective likelihood of being in a crash measuring things that directly contribute to being in a crash. Insurance companies seem to disregard such objectivity.

But insurance is not only based on crash. It's also based on theft and fire . Hence location can be vitally important
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
40,632
There's where we differ.

I don't care about the weird voodoo insurance companies currently do, such as look at gender, age bla bla bla.

I care about objective likelihood of being in a crash measuring things that directly contribute to being in a crash. Insurance companies seem to disregard such objectivity.
Where you park your car at night makes a difference. What you use your car for makes a difference. The time that you drive makes a difference. A crude example:

There are two doctors who do house calls - occasionally at night. They are both ery careful drivers and telemetry shows that they are scrupulous about safe driving habits. One of them lives in Drumcondra with on street parking and the majority of his call-outs are in the inner-city. The other lives in Castleknock, which is where the bulk of his patients are.

Do you think that they are equal risks?

Regarding the bolded bit roughly half of the parties involved in two-car incidents are likely to have been driving within the law.
 

dgl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
783
Thanks!

Wow! Why hasn't this been made mandatory? How many cemeteries have we needlessly filled since 2005 by failing to impose this all over the country?

Was it really worth it, losing all those people for the dubious luxury of not having telematic measuring?
Be careful not to assume cause and effect. Monitoring of driving habits may have reduced risk, but the main reason for lower claims is probably self-selection by those who took out this form of insurance. Those who know they are safe drivers are more likely to adopt this type of policy, and hey presto their claims are lower!
 

dgl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
783
But insurance is not only based on crash. It's also based on theft and fire . Hence location can be vitally important
True, but Fire & Theft claims cost much less than injury claims, so the main factor is driving style.
 

Northtipp

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
22,217
True, but Fire & Theft claims cost much less than injury claims, so the main factor is driving style.
That is true but the package must be considered. We could go back to old fashioned TPO of course but I'm not sure it would make much difference.
 

dgl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
783
That is true but the package must be considered. We could go back to old fashioned TPO of course but I'm not sure it would make much difference.
There's nothing to stop the pricing algorithm to calculate the cost of the TPO and F&T bits using a different method, eg telematics for TPO and traditional methods for F&T.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
Regarding the bolded bit roughly half of the parties involved in two-car incidents are likely to have been driving within the law.
If true, it means that objective likelihood is unaffected. What matters is stuff that makes objective likelihood higher or lower.
 

Northtipp

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
22,217
There's nothing to stop the pricing algorithm to calculate the cost of the TPO and F&T bits using a different method, eg telematics for TPO and traditional methods for F&T.
Lol. Dont be going all algorithms on me. I will get Dr Reily for you.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
If telematics caused insurance premiums to rise in real time after a bout of speeding or tailgating, for example, with immediate direct debits walloping racers' bank balances, I bet we'd see a dip in fatalities.
 

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top