Possible curfew for 17-24 year old drivers

More important, ignoring everything else what would concern me is getting a letter saying your insurance is going up as your driving is 'risky' - but you don't get provided with the information OR how your driving is 'graded' so it's like a constant test and you don't know what the criteria are.

Allows companies to exploit young drivers - this would HAVE to be so closely regulated.

Originally Posted by ClunkintheUK

Only for a while. If the trend continues, soon you'll only be able to afford insurance by having a black box. Bazzers included, and you'll be right back where you started, but with black boxes.

And the 'Bazzers' would obviously be the first ones ones to get their boxes 'chipped' so that it always reports that they've been driving 2 miles a week in a manner somewhere between a granny and a saint.

[munkygunn182]

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. I drive for a living...generally 500 - 600 miles in a day. I'm 22 (for another few days at least) and my driving is one of the better standards on the road. For the sheer sake of argument, why don't we focus on the loonbags that drive the mercs and bmw's at 1000000mph through the 30mph zones because their executive lifestyle is 'so important'. I'll bet they'd kick up hell if that was even suggested, but because it's the "young'uns", that makes it okay.

Originally Posted by Fordward

even if that's true, it has reduced claims

Has it reduced claims overall for that age group or has that sample (with the black box) shown claims reduced compared to a random sample whilst claims trends remain normal and have not dropped overall?

Originally Posted by Spank86

Has it reduced claims overall for that age group or has that sample (with the black box) shown claims reduced compared to a random sample whilst claims trends remain normal and have not dropped overall?

Even that wouldn't be scientifically rigorous. Surely part of the 'black box' deal is that the less miles you do the less likely you are to have a crash, and therefore the less you pay.

Therefore, do the black box kids leave their cars at home more often than the other sample.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

I take it you'll be having one on your bike then?

if installing one meant I woke up in the 17-24 bracket like tom hanks in big, i'd do it in a shot!

I said it would have to be a matter of choice

Originally Posted by Spank86

Has it reduced claims overall for that age group or has that sample (with the black box) shown claims reduced compared to a random sample whilst claims trends remain normal and have not dropped overall?

if it's not in that article you'd need to ask the Co-op

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by Spank86

Has it reduced claims overall for that age group or has that sample (with the black box) shown claims reduced compared to a random sample whilst claims trends remain normal and have not dropped overall?

You're spot on. While black boxes are voluntary, there will be positive selection in their use. By which I mean, you won't opt to have if you enjoy driving like a knobber.

The people selecting the black box are overwhelmingly receiving a discount because they already exhibit the characteristics likely to bring a reduction in premium - the main one being very few miles covered.

In other words, they were 20% less likely to have an accident before they got the black box fitted.

Dog owners have fewer car accidents. Should we attribute that to a characteristic in the person choosing to own a dog, or should we give the dog the credit for reducing accidents?

Originally Posted by Fordward

if it's not in that article you'd need to ask the Co-op

They wouldn't know. They're not that cheap for non black boxed drivers so those that choose not to have one would be likely to go elsewhere.

Originally Posted by SvNewbie

Even that wouldn't be scientifically rigorous. Surely part of the 'black box' deal is that the less miles you do the less likely you are to have a crash, and therefore the less you pay.

Therefore, do the black box kids leave their cars at home more often than the other sample.

Good point, realistically you'd need to select a group and randomly assign them black boxes and monitor miles to compare the two goups with regard to crashes per mile travelled before comparing to the wider population.

Originally Posted by TamSV

You're spot on. While black boxes are voluntary, there will be positive selection in their use. By which I mean, you won't opt to have if you enjoy driving like a knobber.

It's like the luminous jacket argument.

Lots of bike safe and IAM riders wear luminous jackets, very few lunatics on high performance sports bikes blatting round the country roads at insane speeds on their weekends do so (stereotypes I know but they're actually useful here) so studies on hi-viz use that merely look at their prevalence in accidents are bound to be equally flawed.

[Littlepeahead]

Originally Posted by TamSV

You're spot on. While black boxes are voluntary, there will be positive selection in their use. By which I mean, you won't opt to have if you enjoy driving like a knobber.

The people selecting the black box are overwhelmingly receiving a discount because they already exhibit the characteristics likely to bring a reduction in premium - the main one being very few miles covered.

In other words, they were 20% less likely to have an accident before they got the black box fitted.

Dog owners have fewer car accidents. Should we attribute that to a characteristic in the person choosing to own a dog, or should we give the dog the credit for reducing accidents?

Maybe the dogs are driving and they are really safe because they slow down at every lamp post.