back to article Spy under your car bonnet 'worth billions by 2016'

Technology that allows cars to snoop on motorists and tell insurers about their bad driving will form a worldwide market worth $14.4bn (£8.95bn) by 2016, analysts reckon. A new report from Juniper Research suggests intelligent vehicles chock-full of gear for navigating, recording info for insurance purposes, and telling the AA …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Vic
Silver badge

Re: compensate for hazard?

> Do accidents happen because of behaviour that can be reasonably

> assumed or expected to occur

Almost always, yes.

The problem is that so many road users simply don't put enough effort into working out what can be expected to occur.

Once again, I'm going to plug "Roadcraft". If you haven't read it yet - you should. It's cheap, and it *will* save you at least one accident. And make you feel very inadequate[1].

Vic.

[1] Strangely, it also made me much faster. Although I no longer drive or ride at the same top speed as I used to, the observational skills I learnt from the course mean that my average speed is quite a bit higher.

0
0

Re: compensate for hazard?

I'm glad more than one person has read and understood it :)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Actually, I don't think that's true.

"By far the majority of the people I meet do not understand a square law relationship." - indeed, hence a speed limit, not a kinetic-energy limit

"a vast number of people cannot see that safety is not a black-line demarcation" - indeed, and since they refuse to shift their perceptions, at least give them a black-line demarcation that makes a moderate degree of sense.

I too would rather people looked at ways to avoid accidents, rather than just mitigate the damage. But for all those who fail to do so, let us at least have something in place to help mitigate the damage. Something that can be objectively measured, so that enforcement or compliance becomes possible.

I'm sure you all think you are quite good at driving, but since I have no reason to trust your belief, I'd rather you limited your speed to mitigate any potential damage.

And I too am quite good at driving, but since you likely have no reason to trust my belief, perhaps you also might rather I limited my speed to mitigate any potential damage?

1
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Actually, I don't think that's true.

> at least give them a black-line demarcation that makes a moderate degree of sense.

And that's exactly the inability to understand speed I was talking about. No such black-line demarcation can possibly make sense, beause hazard is inherently a probability function, relying on many other variables as well as speed.

By convincing the population that 29mph === very safe and 31mph === very dangerous, we are making a huge mistake. The amount of sleep the driver had the night before is likely to be far more significant than a few mph. Ditto the state of his personal relationships, his job, ...

What we need to do is to get people to take responsibility for their own actions, not give them trite little "rules" which bear little or no relation to reality.

> perhaps you also might rather I limited my speed to mitigate any potential damage?

No. I'd rather you be regularly assessed for competence to drive, and I'd rather you be held personally responsible for any damage you cause.

I disagree with mandatory sentencing, but I would like to see an *expectation* that any driver hitting a pedestrian or cyclist will do jail time.

Vic.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Actually, I don't think that's true.

"What we need to do is to get people to take responsibility for their own actions, not give them trite little "rules" which bear little or no relation to reality."

Good luck. Self-denial is practically a survival trait in the modern man. So you either Keep It Simple, Stupid or no one's going to listen. Otherwise, you're basically saying that since the only way people will be safer is to be responsible and most people are categorically incapable of being responsible, we're in a no-win situation. You either let them drive and kill people or bar them from driving to work and grinding modern civilization to a halt since many people can't walk, ride, or use mass transit to get where they need to go (no mass transit nearby) or do what they need to do (big grocery run--need a vehicle with a boot).

0
0
MJI
Silver badge

Re: Speed != bad driving - Steve Evans

As someone once said to me they would rather be hit by a car travelling at 25 (speedo watcher) than missed by a car at 35 (watching road),

He was insistant in this and did not understand that people need to look out of the big window in front of them and that what was happening out there was more important than what an instrument said.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

No more parking directly outside Madam Lash

I'll have to park outside the church instead.

6
0
Joke

Tin-foil hats, I say!!!

(over the GPS antenna, natch!)

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

The whole speed "safety" industry is a money making con

In the UK you'll often find speed cameras on straight stretches of road where this is an unreasonably low speed limit and it would be quite safe to go faster (A40 and A23 spring to mind). The only reason to put those cameras there is to catch the unwary and make some money. But if they REALLY cared about safety they'd put speed cameras outside schools for example to catch the idiots doing 35 through packed streets when kids are trying to cross. But has anyone ever seen a speed camera outside a school? I haven't. And you know why? Because most people stick to the limit and so they wouldn't make much money. The fact that a single individual one in a while might kill a kid, weeeelll , who cares eh? There's no money in saving lives is there?

11
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: The whole speed "safety" industry is a money making con

Not every county is the same...

Some don't put speed cameras in stupid places, and round my way there are places with Speed cameras outside/near schools.. Where they should be!

0
0

Re: The whole speed "safety" industry is a money making con

Why would you put a speed camera up where most people don't speed? Speed camera's can be a distraction, so sometimes having them in front of a school can be dangerous.

Where I live there is a school just inside a 30 MPH limit where it drops from a 60 and there is a camera. I am sure it was put there because people didn't slow down in time before they got to the school, so that was appropriate (IMO).

The reason those camera's are on the A40 / A23 are, as you said, because people think the speed limit is too slow and SPEED. Your own argument justifies the whole situation.

4
6
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: The whole speed "safety" industry is a money making con

"Why would you put a speed camera up where most people don't speed?"

Because the consequences of speed are potentially far greater therefor it only requires a few people to speed for it to be a problem.

"The reason those camera's are on the A40 / A23 are, as you said, because people think the speed limit is too slow and SPEED. Your own argument justifies the whole situation."

No, they make the limit artificially low then put speed cameras up. Its a money making scam.

4
3

Re: The whole speed "safety" industry is a money making con

"The reason those camera's are on the A40 / A23 are, as you said, because people think the speed limit is too slow and SPEED. Your own argument justifies the whole situation."

Not quite. A few years ago I might have agreed. But since councils started lowering the limits - and then put in cameras - it weakens this argument.

It used to be the case that speed limits were set based on the behaviour of a certain percentile of road users (i.e. the speed at which most sensible drivers had independently assessed as safe). Now it's all about risk avoidance: the limits come down and thus need more enforcement for the drivers who know it's safe to travel faster (and perhaps were allowed to go faster a few years previously on the same road). Parts of the A40 have been reduced to 40mph (down from 70).

I long for a return to the days when drivers' judgement was considered enough. The prosecutions happened to the drivers with the worst judgement.

7
1

Re: The whole speed "safety" industry is a money making con

I'm envious of anyone who can get >10mph past a school when it's emptying time!

1
0
FAIL

Clearly not for me

I thought I'd look for interest at the quotes being offered for me.

One refused to quote because I'm too old (at 38)

One refused to quote because I do too many miles per year (25,000)

One refused to quote because I use the car to drive to business meetings.

One refused to quote because parking sensors have been fitted to the car.

Not quite ready for the mainstream yet?

0
0
Thumb Up

As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

I've never had a speeding ticket, infringement notice, been the cause of an accident (some fool ran into me though), I've never even had a parking ticket! I've been driving for 25 years.

I have simply never had the need to speed - I passed physics at high school so I understand the laws of momentum.

4
3

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

You failed to say what speed you passed physics at ?

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

I think a healthy dose of realpolitik is needed here. While you're self-righteously pottering along at the legal speed limit, you are building up a queue of increasingly impatient people behind you. Eventually, they will be tempted to overtake when perhaps it's not safe to do so and risk killing themselves and you in the process. This is one reason why insurance companies will often hike premiums after an accident even if it was technically not your fault.

4
5
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

"I have simply never had the need to speed - I passed physics at high school so I understand the laws of momentum."

In that case you'll also understand that T = D / V. The faster you go the quicker you get somewhere and for people under time pressure that matters.

Why do I get the feeling your the sort of sanctamonious muppet driving along in some one point buggerall wheezmatic midget mobile at 25 in a 30 zone with a 300 metre trail of cars behind you?

8
7

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

Not sure of the speed, but he was accelerating at 9.8 m/s².

0
0

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

Meanwhile, I've had about ten speeding tickets, but zero infringement notices, never been involved in any accident at all, and no parking tickets either, and been doing a lot of driving over the same 25 years. And I understand both the laws of momentum, and the laws of courtesy and common sense - please also obey the "slower traffic keep to the outside lane" law, and we'll get along fine.

2
2
Mushroom

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

Whoa there! You're having a go at a guy because he CHOOSES to always drive within the legal limits, and so *might* be annoying other drivers who chose to break them?? What next, the mean bastards who lock their doors and wind up the burglars?!!

You sir are a cock.

11
4
Trollface

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

"I've never had a speeding ticket, infringement notice, been the cause of an accident (some fool ran into me though)"

Would that have been just after you were brake-testing them for "fun" by any chance (as per your earlier comment)?

You might not be the cause of the accident as far as liability goes, but as a friend of mine discovered, the fun soon vanishes when the other driver fails to stop and they're in a stolen car.

0
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

Why not just ban fully comp insurance covering accidents? 3rd party only.

Then everyone pays according to their behaviour.

/sarc

I have a feeling the "good drivers pay less" is a marketing tool, rather than what the insurance companies actually want. If everyone drove perfectly, their business would evaporate.

0
0

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

please also obey the "slower traffic keep to the outside lane"

Slower traffic should keep to the inside lane. You overtake on the outside.

4
1

@Ian Halsted - Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

Are you trying to say he drove off a cliff?

0
0

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

the insurance will be cheaper if you have the box.

simply because if you choose not to have the box you must be a terrible driver that drives everywhere at 200mph while running over grannies on zebra crossings, therefore insurance costs will go up by 100% for the non box insurance policies while they only go up by 50% for the policies with the boxes, therefore they can claim that by being a good driver with the box you can get cheaper insurance

oh, sorry!

did you mean insurance costs actually being cheaper than they are now?

1
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

"Whoa there! You're having a go at a guy because he CHOOSES to always drive within the legal limits, and so *might* be annoying other drivers who chose to break them?? What next, the mean bastards who lock their doors and wind up the burglars?!!"

Poor analogy. The roads are public space so you're oblidged to take other drivers into consideration. Most peoples houses are not.

0
2
WTF?

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

I'd love to know why this earned me a down vote...

1
0
Facepalm

Re: inside/outside

Uh, overtaking on the outside sounds rather dangerous for the UK.

Drive on the near-side and overtake on towards the off-side.

0
0

Re: As long as we get CHEAPER premiums for being good drivers!

So would I. I drive in the US, and was attempting to make my point geography-independent. In the US, the inside (left) lane is the fast lane, and the outside/right lane is the slow lane. I thought in the UK the inside=fast would be the same (as you do join the highway from the outside, right?), and left/right would be reversed for fast/slow lanes.

0
0

If they were that serious about improving road safety they would stop manufacturers making cars that go over the speed limits in the first place.... not that I'd actually buy one.

I wonder how many people will end up with the premiums going up when their insurance companies interpret all the pot holes as going off road!

0
6

"they would stop manufacturers making cars that go over the speed limits in the first place"

Actually they do that, they don't allow manufactures to make cars that go over the speed limit of German highways.

No that they have any problem enforcing it, after all, going past the speed of light is kind of hard.

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Yup, limit cars to 20 mph - never break a speed limit again.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Cheaper in-sewer-ants ? Oh dear...

This things are NOT made to make things safer, cheaper r in any way beneficial to the user. They are meant to introduce more fine print to the ever increasing number of backdoor clauses in in-sewer-ants contracts so the companies don't have to cough up their cash when required.

5
0

speed what speed ??

come on everyones been on the motorway .. cars flying past a 90-100mph ..

and if your in a newish car the police really don't do much ..

then you have those lovely tank drivers racing along in the second lane taking 20 mins to over take there m8 ..

both ends of the scale ..

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Speed is not dangerous

Speeding is not dangerous, inappropriate speeding is dangerous - for example, 100mph on a 3 lane motorway at 1am in clear, dry conditions is not dangerous but 40mph in a 30mph zone near a school at home time is.

There are many more issues on the the roads which this will not address like undertaking, using mobile phones, tailgating, careless driving, not using mirrors, jumping red lights - the list goes on. Each one of these are as dangerous as inappropriate speeding yet cannot be detected so why would lack of speeding make someones insurance premiums drop?

Put more traffic police on the road and you will make driving safer. Do anything else and it is just yet another tax.

16
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Speed is not dangerous

Totally agree,

I would happily pay double my road tax, IF it meant raising speed limits on Motorways/Dual Carriage Ways, and introducing more traffic police to pull over dangerous drivers...

speed is not dangerous, inappropriate speed is.

90 on a motorway, safe if you keep appropriate distance, but doing 90 in torrential rain, not a good idea.... Although many on the M6/M5 didn't seem to get that...

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Speed is not dangerous

"There are many more issues on the the roads which this will not address like undertaking..."

Whilst I basically agree with you, I would say that if there was enough room and enough time for someone to be undertaken, there was almost certainly enough time for that person to be considerate enough to use the lane to the left (UK) of them.

7
0

Re: Speed is not dangerous

Except traffic police tend to go for the low-hanging fruit, the easily-enforced speeding violations; their radar guns (and more modern variations) enable them to detect speeders at hundreds of meters away, but distracted/careless driving, not using mirrors or signals, and (to a lesser extent) tailgating all require a much closer look.

2
0
Silver badge

Bah!

Yeah, I had a friend who used to feel that way. Then there was the time he was doing 70 on a deserted stretch of the A45 with a clear view for miles and a badger ran out in front of him, froze then executed a leap-and-scream Kamikaze-attack on the radiator grille, demolishing most of the front end of the vehicle and leaving my pal in an uncontrollable ballistic missile.

Oh how we laughed. He didn't.

It didn't do the badger much good either, and the insurance guy had a problem identifying exactly what had been liquidized all over the engine compartment.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

What a really quick way of getting voted out.

Men just drive fast. It's the way they are. If you log the driving, lads will just steal someone else's car.

If you limit the speed, lads will just brake later, or not at all. Limiting the speed to 70, will just make lads crowd round corners that can only be taken safely at 55. Women coming the other way will still die in the head on.

Some die, some kill bus stops full of children, but most survive, and because of their experiences, they become better drivers, thus causing less accidents in the future.

I don't mind carrying a phone, even though I know it...

is used as a geolocator,

is used as a listening device etc

because I know that the government will never use that information in a court of law, they'll have to have other proof, and that's costly, so that's the safeguard.

However, this is just to generate money. I have no problem with MI5, GCHQ, HMGCC etc knowing my driving habits. In fact I'd even declare it on a job application if they asked, because I'm sure they'd check. But this is a money making scam.

(On another note - not relevant, in an earlier post, I speculated that the reusability industry would recover in a few months, when the lobbyists had learned their lesson, and started bribing the incoming govt, instead of the outgoing one. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/26/david-cameron-greenest-government-ever?newsfeed=true)

Bizarre that something's finally come up in the news that I actually care about, my right to break the traffic laws because men are better drivers. I normally don't care about anything government does, and just argue for the fun of it.

1
9
Devil

Insurance, what Insurance?

I've been telling others about how we'll be pushed into using auto-driven cars via increased insurance to drive freely, what I hadn't thought of til now is, why do I need insurance on a auto-driven car? I'm not in control, It won't be worth stealing, any contents can be covered on home insurance. Bah who am I kidding

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Insurance, what Insurance?

Yes, an auto driven car presumably needs to be ensured by the software company that wrote its software, not the occupant.

A bit like a taxi has to be insured by the driver, not the passenger.

An interesting legal nightmare on its way.... maybe thats why the insurance companies are jacking the prices up, because their product will be extinct in the next few years ;-)

Yes, thats it...

0
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

White Van Man

Neet I say any more?

Especially to the *^^&^&&^&& who ran into the back of me last Friday on the M3 while I was travelling at 40mph in traffic.

'Didn't see you Guv'.

WTF.

The Plod wern't very impressed by his excuse either especially when they found two bald tyres, no Tax or MOT.

Now I find out he wasn't insured either.

3
0

Re: White Van Man

most insurance companies will use No MOT as a get out on their policies, so no mot means the insurance policy is void.

1
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: White Van Man

> most insurance companies will use No MOT as a get out on their policies

Insurance companies are legally prohibited from using such issues to refuse third-party claims. They must pay if the claim is proven.

They will, however, attempt to recover such losses from the driver.

Vic.

0
0

Re: White Van Man

insurance companies will get out of paying any way they can.

A friend had his insurance claim refused (third party fire & theft) after his car was stolen from his driveway (while it was up on ramps) and wrapped around a tree at the end of his road.

the reason it wrapped around the tree was because it had no brake pipes (which was the reason it was on the ramps)

the insurance company refused it on the grounds that the vehicle was not in a roadworthy condition at the time, and that he was negligent in leaving the vehicle overnight in such a state.

he took the company to court in the end (and won)

0
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: White Van Man

> A friend had his insurance claim refused (third party fire & theft) after his car was stolen

Yeah, you'll notice I said that insurance companies are prohibited from avoiding *third-party* claims. I said nothing about theft.

Your friend made a claim against his own insurance because of theft. This is not a third-party claim.

Vic.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018