I wonder how long it will be before someone works out how to drive the car while this is disconnected, creating the impression of someone who uses the car very infrequently.
New driver-snooping satnav could push down UK insurance premiums
The idea has been hovering in the ether for some time, but TomTom is the first satnav firm to sign on the dotted line and bring insurance to drivers through their GPS. The Dutch company has joined up with Motaquote insurers to offer UK drivers "Fair Pay" insurance, where customers pay lower premiums because their satnav …
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 14:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
I wonder how long it will take people to realise that their premiums will continue to rise, only now, when questioned, the call centre drone on the phone will blame the increases on the "mysterious and secret computer algorithm" that "analyses" your driving style and spits out a in increased premium.
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:22 GMT BristolBachelor
@BlinkenLights
Absolutely, and this bit is totally crap: "... or have to brake suddenly"
So does that mean if a child runs out in front of me not looking, I get a lower premium for not braking suddenly, even though it means I hit them?
Oh and I hope that TomTom have updated their maps at last. I had to turn off the stupid "you are going too fast alarm" because they had the speed limits wrong in places and it would suddenly say the limit is 30 in the middle of a 60 stretch!
On the other hand, I have been very tempted by the devices that you fit to the car to record your jouneys to use in the event that some plonker drives into the side of you on the motorway (at least he admitted responsibility).
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
It wont pick up on the people who manage to smash into your parked car in tescos car park either.
It also wont be able to tell the difference between a relatively safe "spirited drive" in a well maintained sports car driven by a middle aged advanced police driver compared to a 17year old ragging the crap out of a never been serviced 1.2 corsa trying to impress his mates around the A roads.
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
"It also wont be able to tell the difference between a relatively safe "spirited drive" in a well maintained sports car driven by a middle aged advanced police driver compared to a 17year old ragging the crap out of a never been serviced 1.2 corsa trying to impress his mates around the A roads."
Won't they? They presumably will know the age and model of car, its location, its speed.
Maybe for their purposes there is not a significant difference beyond that, regardless of driver qualifications (or maybe those will obtain a proportional discount on premiums).
Whatever, it's a commercial venture and if it doesn't convince, don't give it your money.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:04 GMT Timmay
@ DJ 2
"lose signal and then recover it 10 mins later, they record that you broke the speed of light by moving instantaneously"
Umm, 10 minutes or instantaneous, which is it? If you're doing 30mph and lose signal in one place and pick it up 10 minutes later 5 miles away, that's still an average speed of 30mph, not "faster than the speed of light".
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 11:07 GMT Hnk0
If you have corners AND drive at 30mph max, then your average over the same time will be LOWER than if you're driving in a straight line.
Say your drive A to B is 2 miles and 10 min, that's 12mph average (you live in London and there is no traffic). The GPS is borked and thinks you drove in a straight line between A and B, 1 mile in 10 min, average speed 6mph average. Ta-da, no premium to be paid.
That said I have had my GPS record me running very briefly at 60mph round a track once, so I do hope there is some sanity-checking in place.
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 12:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Sanity checking?
Don't be silly. That wouldn't give them t he out that they want.
"If you have corners AND drive at 30mph max, then your average over the same time will be LOWER than if you're driving in a straight line."
You mean, I CAN'T go around corners and along a straight at the same speed? My car must be better than I thought, as it manages to go around corners without my lifting off - with nary a squeal of tyres or hairy moments.
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 17:00 GMT DJ 2
lose signal at point A.
gain signal at point B.
One moment you are at point A, then you are at point B. = distance traveled in 0 time.
or if it worked by using average speed in a straight line, they would get you for driving over fields, into that local pub on the corner, and across the duck pond.
joke because that's what it was originally ;)
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 16:41 GMT Velv
Like all statistical data used by actuaries it will take time to build the data models. Not every driver who drives fast is dangerous. Not every driver who drives smoothly can see properly. It doesn't take account of actual road conditions or driver ability, all factors that can contribute to accidents.
Overall, this will not "push down" premiums. The overall cost of insurance is likely to remain static. What it will do is shift who pays the higher or lower premiums. Not knocking it - just pointing out that actuaries are only as good as the data.
It should be interesting for the EU to comment on why premiums based on the statistics of driving style are OK, but premiums based on the statistics of sex (and soon age) are not OK.
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:15 GMT Colin Miller
> It should be interesting for the EU to comment on why premiums based on the statistics of driving style are OK, but premiums based on the statistics of sex (and soon age) are not OK.
Because you can do something about your driving-style, but it's impossible to do anything about your age, and not many people would want to do something about their sex just to reduce their premiums.
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 20:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
I have a cunning plaaaaan...
"Like all statistical data used by actuaries it will take time to build the data models."
Making now the perfect time to get one. If enough people get one fitted and then drive like loons within the law and the statistics will make everyone thereafter look like Mother Theresa.... but alive. Unclassified roads would be ideal for this as they're largely 60mph zones and you'll need to use the brakes and accelerator a lot. Your fuel and tyre consumption will be crap but it would be offset by your insurance a few years down the line.
In case your wondering, this 'plan' comes from someone who's written off* a Micra in a head on crash on a slimy single track road. It was interesting driving a car with a bent chassis the remaining 5 miles home. Got a stiff neck for a couple of days :|
*as in a "Your vehicle is worth sod and it will cost slightly more than sod all to fix it so we've written it off" write off.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 20:36 GMT Graham Dawson
Steve Renouf, what makes you believe they're talking about a blind corner? There are plenty of corners that can be safely driven at a speed appropriate to the road conditions and the tolerances of the car without the risk of hitting someone, as the corner is not blocking your line of sight. Such corners would easily topple a Smart (or that ugly, top-heavy range rooney everyone seems to be driving nowadays) but which could easily and safely be navigated at much higher speed by other cars.
-
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 15:47 GMT alexh2o
Wow judging by the voting here, IT professional =/= automotive engineers!
Showing a very basic lack of understanding about how cars perform, and even just driving, if you fail to see why a Ford Puma can corner safely, faster than a Smart Car. It's not actually worth bothering trying to explain if it isn't just strikingly obvious to you. GCSE Physics? CoG? Moments? Friction? Ringing any bells...
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 13:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
yes that was my first thought as well
The Police alredy have access to number plate auto recognition cameras throughout the road network though. I read a story about some guy that drove around the m25 for 2 days as he was lost, they used number plate recognition cameras to locate him after he wa reported missing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK
I dont really like it but it seems that this is where everything is leading.
On the safety side of things, whilst driving in the snow the other day, i slid down a hill unable to slow down and only just able to control my direction, the bloody hill had a speed camera at the bottom (30mph limit) and i went through it at about 35/40mph which was terrifying (i think, the spedo was not accurate since i had no traction) I''m pretty sure it flashed although i was concentrating quite hard on not crashing.
So when the auto generated ticket comes my way i'm probably going to have to pay it and take the points when i suspect a human police officer would probably understand that i had no choice but to go down the hill faster than anyone would have liked.
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 19:12 GMT Keep Refrigerated
Actually...
You write back asking for the photographic evidence. When (if) they send it, you examine the visibility of the license plate (was it snowing?), the road markings (used by experts to determine actual speed of travel if in doubt).
Road markings were covered in snow you say?
And if you don't feel like arguing the technicalities, you always have the option of appealing to a Magistrate, who is a real person, and will likely take such circumstances into consideration.
We should never fear appealing to a court, since that is our right. It is there to protect you, not the establishment; it is the last thing that stops the country from slipping into a police state.
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 16:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
One wonders if the satnav will penalise you
for blindly obeying its own directions to drive up a dead-end dirt track and off a cliff?
@MarvinOGBF - having worked for a vehicle tracking outfit, the lengths to which 'professional' drivers will go to to disable the equipment foisted on them by the bullshit middle-managers our bullshit sales teams sold to would intrigue and amaze with their resourcefulness. Knowing exactly which low bridge would wipe out the appropriate antenna whilst leaving the rest of the vehicle unharmed was just one example.
@Blinken - and since the system is selective in its application they won't have a suitable random data set to base their calculations on, so what the system deems 'safe driving' is purely speculative. That means they'll be struggling to find an underwriter to genuinely offer lower premiums on the basis of anything other than people who think they're safer drivers coming forward.
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 16:57 GMT g e
They will
You just know it. Or, charge a massive amount for not doing it.
Nothing to hide? Nothing to fear.
It would be nice if one day insurance companies could afford computers that could count into double digits for no claims years, too. Given the premiums they charge you'd think they could support no claims back to the birth of the Universe by now.
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 11:16 GMT peter 45
"insurance companies could afford computers that could count into double digits for no claims years, too."
Yeh, and managed to sort out the no-claims information they give you at the end of the year and the information they insist on to take out insurance.
Last insurance company I went with would only give an 'over 5 years' type of information at the end of the year, but their insurance quote form insisted on an exact number of years (and would then only allow 5 years if you got an 'over 5 years' statement.)
I have not had a claim for over 10 years, but can now only claim 6 because of this .
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 11:50 GMT Vic
> I have not had a claim for over 10 years, but can now only claim 6 because of this .
I sometimes wonder about the whole "no claims" thing.
I had about 15 years accrued without claiming. Strangely, the premium never seemed to go down.
Then I got rid of my car - I did <1000 miles one year, so it just wasn't worth keeping.
I bought a van last year. But because it's been more than 2 years since I last had a policy, all my no-claims bonus is gone. I had to start from scratch.
I'm now driving a much bigger, heavier vehicle from the same manufacturer as my car. I have changed from a SDP policy to a commercial one And I have no NCD. Yet my premium is about the same...
Vic.
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 10th February 2012 16:09 GMT Colin Miller
The GPS logger has to cross-reference your location to a road database to determine the speed limit for your current location. If you are on a private road or on a race track, it should have no entry for the speed limit, and thus not penalise you for doing 70+mph.
Melt - the idea is that once you apply for it, you can not turn the speed recording functionally off, otherwise if you wanted to speed for one journey, you'd just turn it off.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 01:46 GMT Mark 65
@AC
What I think the OP is getting at is that everyone will pay higher insurance and those without such a device will pay higher still due to lobbying/bullshit practices whereby it's claimed to "make the roads safer" and/or "lead to more effective calculation of premiums". It's all bullshit, they just want to rob you blind - home and car/vehicle owners are just sitting ducks.
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:03 GMT Shardik
Push down premiums? Nah, this will INCREASE premiums to all those people who don't want to be snooped on 24/7 by a GPS device designed to provide a superficial risk assessment based on faulty assumptions?
Seriously... When was the last time an insurance company pushed DOWN premiums? Who believes this stuff?
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:03 GMT Darren Coleman
Great idea in principal
...but as stated already in practice there are far more metrics than just how fast you travel and how harshly you corner and brake.
There are many very capable drivers who drive in a spirited manner (i.e. not necessarily adhering to every speed limit). Likewise there are some ridiculously unobservant drivers who routinely drive below the limits.
The above said any step towards more granular assessments (the roads you travel on and times of day you travel are significant) is a good thing really. I'd be interested to know how you pay for this sort of premium - is it calculated monthly with rises and decreases according to your driving style over the course of that month? Are you penalised for driving in colder weather? Is it fully itemised so you can see what contributed towards a price rise/decrease?
If they just say "this is how much your premium is" then that's not good enough in my opinion, especially if they're basing it upon data which you've given to them willingly.
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
" "LIVE services". The latter will alert the motorist to upcoming traffic issues (presumably to stop them slamming into the back of a long queue that has formed)."
Any driver who needs a box to tell them that a Q of traffic is ahead of them shouldn't be on the roads! 10 Years of driving and I've never needed one.
Mind you, watching the numpty drivers in England today, at least 1/2 of them need one!
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:08 GMT jubtastic1
A claim you say? I'm sorry, it seems your policy has been voided.
"a week ago, due to [petty offence] you would have been notified when our system got round to it"
Funny story, my sister brings her fella, an insurance broker, around for dinner and he tells a tale; a distraught woman has phoned him, squirrel has got into her lounge and torn the place up while the family has tried to get it out, curtains and sofa are ruined, so he's making sympathetic noises to her and offhandly asks what colour it was, "grey" says she, "vermin" says he, "you're not covered" LOLs from him, silence from the rest of us. Wanker.
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 11:31 GMT peter 45
Claims assessors are even worse
Once knew a Claims Assessor and he described his job as a Claims Prevention Officer.
Does not matter that the Insurance companies say their job is to 'assist' the Claimant to make a 'fair' claim, 'cos his job was basically to find any excuse possible to disallow or reduce the claim. He got bonuses based on the difference between the claimants claim and the final payout.
Claim assessor come to your house to 'help you assess the damage' ? Don't make me laugh. His job is to poke into all corners of the house, damaged or not, noting ALL the content's value 'cos if the value is higher than the insured limit, it gets reduced and he get a bonus. Even though you are claiming for damage and not theft, he will check the security of your windows. If it isn't the same as stated on the insurance form, claim will be rejected.
It is the householder responsibility to fill the form in accurately, but be under no illusions what a Claim Assessor is there to do when the insurance company sends him round to 'help you'.
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 12:00 GMT Vic
> his job was basically to find any excuse possible
They're all at it.
Each year, a bunch of us go skiing. Last year, we booked a holiday with a guy that ended up being a right shyster[1].
But that wasn't really a problem - he was a member of an travel agent association. He had a bond. We'd get our money back.
But the bond is basically an insurance policy. And although he had a certificate of insurance (which he presented to the association on joining), the insurance company underwriting it have now decided that he didn't tell them something[2] pertinent, so they have voided his policy "ab initio". That certificate is worthless...
I smell court time...
Vic.
[1] If you saw articles on the telly about some guy leaving school parties stranded around the world - yes, it's him.
[2] They won't tell us what.
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 14:44 GMT despairing citizen
Re: Claims Prevention Officer.
Not all insurance companies operate the same way.
Claims Management done right is about preventing fraud, and a number of companies have made ex-gratia payments in the past, even when the policy has been clearly breached. (the unqualified idiot maintained his own brakes, and they subsequently didn't work)
At the other end of the scale of claims management is CLAIMS EVASION, this ranges from "sharp business practice" through to outright fraud by the insurer. (if you want to see this in action look at the FSO web site for legal expense cover claims)
so when you buy your "cheap" car insurance, you have to ask yourself, why is it cheap?, could it be the insurer has no intention of paying up on claims?
as usual if the offer is too good to by true, it probably is.
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:14 GMT JimmyPage
As others have said not "push down" but "redistibute"
premiums.
What will happen is that safer (well, lower risk) drivers will get lower premiums, as younger, or convicted (drunks and skunks as we call them in the industry) drivers have their premium raised even more (because this is how insurance works). Which will give them more of an incentive to drive around without insurance ...
Personally, I would have no problem with much more draconian penalties (forfeiture of car, for a start) against uninsured drivers. The problem is that "the man" needs as many people to be able to drive as possible, or he wouldn't be able to have such low wages.
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
It's not the first
Have a look at coverbox.co.uk
They come and fit a gps box to your engine and bill you according to speed, distance, how quickly you accelerate/corner etc and offer you a cheap initial quote.
Then have a search for complaints and you find pages of people complaining the person fitting the box broke their car, the company refuses liability, customer service being non-existent and most telling - people being overcharged because the box says so. I wouldn't go near any kind of service like this.
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 09:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
'Presumably' would be wrong, the tracker boxes I've seen being fitted have to be wired into the car's power and rely on GPS for speed etc. I would guess that cornering and braking would be measured by an accelerometer.
FWIW, the company that fitted 10 boxes to the company fleet as a trial managed to fuck up two cars, one car spent a week in a dealership and got the company a rather large bill, the other only too a day to fix.
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 17:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Can't wait
I will bet money that staying within the speed limit and keeping the G forces down has no impact on driver safety. Maybe negative impact.
My theory is that the people who drive fast and corner hard are the ones who are interested in cars and excited about driving and pay more attention and do a better job of it.
Meanwhile I suspect the people who meander about below the speed limit are more oblivious and crash-prone.
I downloaded the State Farm driver safety app for my iPhone last year and was able to rack up over 20 "potentially dangerous" cases of hard acceleration/braking/cornering in a 5 mile stretch while being in absolutely no danger. Also--I've never had an accident in my life.
Can't wait to see how the statistics work out for this one...
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 01:53 GMT Mark 65
@AC
"My theory is that the people who drive fast and corner hard are the ones who are interested in cars and excited about driving and pay more attention and do a better job of it."
My theory is that the people who drive fast and corner hard are a fucking liability and a danger to other road users. They are also likely to be rat-boys driving cars that look like they've been covered in superglue and driven through Halfords. Fast driving and hard cornering belongs on a track. You want to do it then pay and enjoy yourself - just don't think that road tax entitles you to use the public highway as such.
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 12:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Mark 65
That's it, be insulting in a debate when you obviously don't have a clue.
Driving fast and cornering hard does NOT mean that someone is a liability, fucking or otherwise.
Nor does it mean that the car is being driven badly or dangerously, but then don't let your prejudices hold you back.
"Rat-boys (whatever they are) driving cars covered in super-glue......"
Methinks you have been sniffing too much of the substance yourself. It has addled your logical thinking.
Have you not heard of cars capable of going around corners safely fairly fast, without needing to be on a track?
Funnily enough, most modern cars will do that - even if some of the drivers are incapable of it, and it's called normal driving.
Perhaps you fit into that category of citizen who considers that anyone driving slightly faster than them is a liability?
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 17:06 GMT Hnk0
My theory is that you're a prick, substantiated by the fact that you have theory that panders uniquely to your prejudices while having no data to back it up. There is a reason your insurance premium goes up when you are caught speeding on the public highway, and it's not only because insurers love money. Get on a track.
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 18:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
> My theory is that the people who drive fast and corner hard are a fucking liability and a danger to other road users.
Let's say I'm first in line at a red light and it puts a smile on my face to press the pedal a little harder than average when the light turns green. No tires losing traction and there's literally nobody in front of me to have an accident with. Yet the State Farm app would call it a "potentially dangerous" event and you're calling me a danger to others. Yeah, sure.
> My theory is that you're a prick, substantiated by the fact that you have theory that panders uniquely to your prejudices while having no data to back it up.
Eh? That's how science works, for one. People have theories and THEN run experiments to test them. What world do you live in where people have theories only when the data already exists to confirm them?
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 22:54 GMT John Brown (no body)
Naturally. The same as will happen with "smart" 'leccy meters. It's a "choice", but if you choose not to have one, it will (eventually) become more expensive to exercise your choice to say no.
It's called the "free market". But that only applies to companies, not consumers. Why else would MS put up the UK price of windows to European levels? instead of banning sales of UK versions to the EU (oops, can't do that). But they can ban sales of even cheaper Windows from the US or Thailand.
It's all part of the same system to fleece consumers while creating artificial demand. But it's all for our benefit, ie safety/economy/fairness for all. Oh, and they are, of course THINKING OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!! Only a rabid baby killer would ever object.
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 18:06 GMT NomNomNom
How can this possibly be safe? What if it gets cloudy and the satellite link is lost? Does the car just career out of control until it hits something? If anything if I was an insurance company I would charge more insurance for GPS controlled cars because they will be crashing all the time. It's staggering that they could even think of this idea. I bet this is in the Daily Mail tomorrow.
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 18:15 GMT despairing citizen
I smell marketing rather than actuaries behind the idea
The insurance premium is based on a predictive risk assesment (i.e. %chance of having an accident in the next 12 months multiplied by sum at risk)
therefore the data being collected after the initial underwriting is not that useful, and this data would appear to be only marginally influential on determining the risk, given all the limitations involved.
a more accurate way to create a driver specific premium, would be to demand a current eye test, as 1 in 4 drivers are driving with uncorrected defective eye sight.
given the maths, logic and cost involved, I suspect marketing gimick rather than an actuary (i.e. evidence) led method of personalising premiums
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 18:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
That tech already existed...
... a couple of years ago, sans navscreen. The tracking and phoning home ("in certain conditions") and everything was there, though. I know at least one company made such a thing though it went tits-up in the meantime. Then again it was a start-up and didn't have the resources tomtom still has, despite their dwindling income, as selling premium satnav devices gets harder when everybody already has one.
So what happens next, besides the risk of prohibitively high insurance unless you "volunteer" for this? Possibly governmental tracking for billing-by-the-mile and later automated speeding tickets too. Eventually the thing might get a direct reporting feed to the now-not-just-ANPR-any-longer database. Perhaps plenty of overly curious people figuring out how to fool the thing, too. We'll see.
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 20:13 GMT Stuck-Record
Norwich Union used to offer insurance where they fitted a hidden GPS to the car which calculated your insurance based on how much you drove on certain roads. It was (with one tiny technical issue*) absolutely brilliant. My insurance, as a London driver was, get this, £110 per year!
For 'some reason' they stopped the scheme and dumped me into a normal insurance policy where every year since, regardless of provider, the premium has been £350 pa.
*The 'issue' was the devices were prone to low level drain of the car's battery if wired incorrectly.
-
Wednesday 8th February 2012 20:14 GMT Winty
This is a horrible idea.
For a while now, some insurance companies have been passing contact details to lawyers in the event of an accident for a fee...
What if they try to sell details of your driving habits\location to anyone who will pay? Imagine it...
Parked at Tesco's for 30 minutes? Get texts pointing out how much cheaper a rival is.
Old car stuck in a garage for a few weeks? Expect a call from a local car showroom.
Park or drive slowly through a red light district? You get spammed with porn sites.
Seems far-fetched now, but I suspect some insurance companies are thinking about it.
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 12:09 GMT Vic
> going for minimum legal cover
Only ever get the TPFT quote as a *second* quote.
There is some actuarial data to show that those going for such cover are cheapskating on everything - and are a statistically higher risk. It is, apparently, possible to get a higher TPFT quote than a fully-comp one.
The last few times I've enquired, there has been about a fiver difference between the two quotes.
Vic.
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 08:34 GMT Zog The Undeniable
Actually, insurance companies aren't ripping you off
Nearly all of them have lost money on motor business* for several years, because people drive like muppets. Want to know why premiums are £3,000-4,000 for a 17-year old boy? Because the claims experience shows that he is probably going to crash, and crash hard, in his first year.
Anecdotes: a work colleague's son got a car at 17. I suggested this was unwise as he was going to write it off as soon as he got out alone with his mates. No, he's a sensible boy, I was told. It actually took 6 weeks to write it off, fortunately with no-one seriously injured. Also, a friend of mine at 6th form wrote off three cars in his first year of driving.
I don't work for an insurance company, before you ask, but 25 years of driving and cycling in Britain makes me realise that many people really shouldn't be allowed on the roads.
*I asusme they cross-subsidise from home insurance etc to keep afloat
-
Thursday 9th February 2012 12:05 GMT sleepy_chicken
Good Scheme
Although this approach is not new, the co-op offer an excellent scheme aimed at young drivers. My son (17) passed his test in November and got a quote the same day for £800 (covering me, the mrs and him - I'm the lead driver).
The premium is reviewed every 90 days based upon speed, cornering, braking, road types and (crucially) time of day - they really frown upon driving between 11:00pm and 6:00am.
Just received our first email stating that we are due a refund on the premium because the recorded driving parameters meet with their approval. This is without doubt the most affordable method of motoring for young drivers and I take satisfaction from the fact that my son knows he has a spy in the cab!
-
Monday 20th February 2012 12:40 GMT Iain Leadley
So if you crash your car because you were looking at the screen to see how safe you were driving will that be OK?
What a load of tosh, driving too close or with bald tyres means driving at half the speed limit and slowly round corners is dangerous.
There should be a chimp icon as this idea came from one.