s2rrr Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 We had this type of thing fitted to all our vehicles whilst I worked abroad. They had GPS and sensors which could tell you, times places, acceleration, braking force, speed just about everything. The use of a special coded key even loaded the drivers details. The idea was that the locals who kept rolling cars would slow down a bit. They certainly helped in fact I was told I was speeding once but could prove that my car hadn't left the compound and that the vehicle they had thought was mine must have had a dodgy number painted on the side ( theres always a basic way around technology). I would suggest that for a young driver who wants to get a decent discount its a good step as any indiscretion is recorded. If you have nothing to hide you wont mind. Not a bad thing but not for the more responsible driver me thinks.The do gooders and freedom of movement folk will object no doubt. All our vehicles were also restricted to 85kph. Bob Quote
Rory's Dad Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Might give some misleading results on a trackday :d Rory's Dad Quote
Leftfield Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Interviewed someone for a job last week. Told him there are trackers fitted on the vans. He asked what time we switched them off, We dont, I replied, my vans , I want to know where they are. Under data protection laws and privacy laws , I cant spy on my employees on their time, he says. Guess who's still unemployed. Quote
s2rrr Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 I can sort of understand the cries of "spying" on people but if it is made perfectly clear to them before they take the vehicle, whats the problem ?. Not for normal everyday use and some would say the thin end of the wedge I suppose. But to carry out the logistics in a fleet of vehicles, security or for the intention of allowing younger drivers to drive without financial excessive penalties I guess its a personal trade off when you make the decision. Your potential employee decided he didn't want to have the vehicle located, why you may ask, has he something to hide or was he a serious exponent of civil liberties. I know which one I would go for. When my younger kids start driving if the trackers are available and a significant discount is given then that's what they will have. I can see some advantages not just financial but can also see the big brother aspects. How many CCTV cameras are there and do we notice them, have they done more good than harm ?. My personal view is if they are not in my face I'm not bothered, nothing to hide no issues. When I'm robbing banks then thats different. They slated tachographs when they first came out " spies in the cabs" eventually took out most of the cowboy operators, that's progress. Its when you don't know about something it becomes and issue. Bob Quote
SootySport Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 It may help youngsters afford insurance when the otherwise sky high premiums would prevent them getting on the road. My daughter is thinking of this idea if the premium falls way below the £2k asked of new young drivers. A spy in the car, yes it is and I wouldn't like it but if helps sensible youngsters get mobile then I'm for it. Quote
housebeautician Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Put money on people who dont consent to it get higher premiums. Its like your phone bill, do it by direct debit or we charge you to send a bill Just another con for the motorist. I thought that was what NCB was for. I don't have anything to hide, i just think its another pee take, and like everything else it will be forced onto us by the back door. I remember a while back one MP said we will never price people off the road, hole was wrong there then. Miserable git mode off. Quote
Martin Keene Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 I can't believe anybody thinks these are a good idea. The box and it's installation is going to cost, who is going to pay for that cost? Because you'll bet your life it want come from the profit margin. Therefore by it's very existence, it has to make you insurance more expensive. Quote
ianstewartshouse Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 I can agree with both points of view, good points and bad points. My take would be great if you want to save some money on insurance as a young driver but i would be concerned that the long term motive is either to get them into all vehicles over time or as housebeautician says above an excuse to charge more for those who dont want one in the car..... It probably does come down to the fact that at times maybe i do drive a bit too quick or 'agressively' in some peoples opinion and maybe this would be a bit like having a speed cam everywhere and slow me down a bit!! Quote
Hoon68 Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 I think the idea is good. But I dont want it. To judge people in this manor seems somewhat wrong. When my ex had to renew her car insurance, it was up 100 quid from the previous idea. She asked why and was told because the insurance company had had to pay out a lot of money over the past year. She didnt see any of it because she had never crashed. I think lower the cost to a sensible price, then the people whi 'cant afford 2k' insurance will be able to pay a more sensible price. Improve driver training in the first place and that will lower accidents along with improving the roads. This seems to be a quick 'fix' which will mean insurance companies can charge more and blame you from 'their' data. Im worried for the future of this country! Quote
DerekJ Posted February 11, 2012 Author Posted February 11, 2012 Surely, if it's only about reducing premiums for careful drivers then why not just boost the No Claims Discount to 99.9% over (say) seven years. No hi-tech gadgets and easy to monitor. Simples! Quote
s2rrr Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Cos the the thieving insurance companies wouldn't have an easy way of ripping us off. I believe they have to make a profit and bogus claims aren't helping but the youngsters are being priced off the road, maybe a good thing but we all had to start somewhere. If I had a gismo fitted I would be banned first journey out but its not for me to have one or the other 99% who speed regularly its for the yoofs who need some sort of restriction to try and ensure they drive at certain times and stick to the rules, tough but necessary. Bob Quote
housebeautician Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 How do you prove to the Ins co that you have not been driving like a pratt when they say you have according to THEIR data and this is the exorbitant cost of your renewal. Lets face it they will charge you whatever they like, it's going to be legalised theft, and its no good trying to swop about cause they will all jump on the bandwagon. The anti car brigade who think this is a worth while safety issue are a bunch of twonks, this is forced control by price. I always thought the AA and RAC were on the side of the motorist, cause it dont look like it to me. I reckon they want us to buy cars, pay through the nose for them and not use them. Tooosers Quote
Lordbenny Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 My nephew has one in his car, he pays £2500 premium on an £600 Fiat Punto and gets money off each month the more careful he drives, if he doesn't drive too late at night, the fewer miles he drives etc! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.