Thread: Would you install a car tracker? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025478
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Insurance companies are offering this, and giving price breaks on insurance if you agree to install a tracker.
quote:
Car-tracking devices spark privacy concerns
The telematic devices, already in use in other parts of the world, attach to the diagnostics port of the car and are able to record the number of kilometres driven annually, the number of times a driver brakes hard or accelerates quickly and the time of day that a car is driven.
The article goes on to discuss that your tracker could be used against you if you have an accident and lawsuit. The police could also probably figure out your speed and where you sped, giving you a ticket for that.
I'm feeling on the "no" side of this, and would not have one. Would you have one installed. How much money would you need to be offered to put one in?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Insurance companies wouldn't be giving breaks for the installation of these devices if they didn't somehow lead to higher profits (which, for insurance companies, generally means paying out less money in claims). So, no--because saving the money on your premium may mean that you won't get a payout when they can say that the tracker's data means the accident was your fault, and therefore they don't have to pay the claim.
Plus, since you were involved in an accident, they are now raising your premium. Double win for them!
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The article goes on to discuss that your tracker could be used against you if you have an accident and lawsuit. The police could also probably figure out your speed and where you sped, giving you a ticket for that.
A good crash investigator (not accident investigator, all road crashes are avoidable) doesn't need a telemetry device for that.
For a cheaper alternative to a tracking device, just use a POV camera such as a GoPro, Contour, Drift or one of the many no-name imitations. One in the front, one in the back and spare batteries in the glovebox.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Insurance companies wouldn't be giving breaks for the installation of these devices if they didn't somehow lead to higher profits
Well, sure - but that doesn't mean it might not save you money too. It depends how much you drive - if you drive a few thousand miles a year, they can reduce your premium and still make plenty of money off you.
My insurance company charges me less because I tell them that my car is normally kept garaged, and they can afford to do so because it's less of a theft risk.
Of course, if this kind of thing becomes widespread, people who don't have it will be more likely to be heavy users of their cars, and so their premiums will go up.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If all there were to insurance was saving money, then that might work, LC. But the whole point of insurance is to be there if you need a pay-out, and if they are going to withdraw that privilege based on what the tracker records, then you stand to lose big.
"Think how much money you could save" isn't enough reason to do something.
Imagine that you could buy an insurance policy which said: if you get in an accident, we'll roll a 6-sided die, and if it comes up 3, we won't pay. They charge a lot less for that policy, so you can save a bunch. But is it worth it?
[ 13. June 2013, 19:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by birdie (# 2173) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
<snip> (not accident investigator, all road crashes are avoidable) <snip>
Tangent - but I'm genuinely interested in your thinking behind this. A few years ago a close friend of mine lost her father when his car crashed. There were no other vehicles involved and he was alone in the car. Accident investigators and the post mortem indicated that he had had a massive heart attack while driving. He had no history of cardiac problems.
I'm interested to know how this was avoidable.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If all there were to insurance was saving money, then that might work, LC. But the whole point of insurance is to be there if you need a pay-out, and if they are going to withdraw that privilege based on what the tracker records, then you stand to lose big.
It's all in the small print. If you are paying less money because you say you drive 5000 miles a year, but you actually drive 25,000 miles a year, you should expect to not be covered, just like if you claim a discount on your home insurance for security systems you don't own, you shouldn't expect to be covered when burglars break in.
I don't think it's legal in any jurisdiction for an insurer to deny coverage based on "the black box says you were doing 35 mph in a 25 mph zone, and we only insure you while you are obeying the law" - but you would certainly expect your premiums to go up if the black box indicated your driving contains certain risk factors.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
I was offered such a device, to be used in a one-month trial study of my driving patterns. The carrot was a reduction in my insurance premium. The insurance company's claim was that they wanted to reward drivers with safe and consistent driving patterns. Understandably they did not mention the privacy issues.
My Android phone already tells Google (and who knows who else} where I am every moment of the day, so I went along with the offer. This violated my principles, but I'm one of the millions who slavishly accepts the oversight of Google in return for useful things like search, account-linking, free aps, etc. (I am not proud of this.)
Unfortunately, I failed the test and did not get the discount -- apparently due to my tendency to accelerate too quickly after being stopped at traffic lights, etc.
I can imagine that my month's worth of data is now floating around in some Patriot Act database, with my "driver's profile" waiting to be plucked out and studied the next time an elderly white man in a silver 4-door sedan is observed racing away from the scene of a terrorist atrocity.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If all there were to insurance was saving money, then that might work, LC. But the whole point of insurance is to be there if you need a pay-out, and if they are going to withdraw that privilege based on what the tracker records, then you stand to lose big.
Indeed. For an insurance company to be viable, it must take in more premiums than it gives out in payments. So the average customer must pay out more in premiums than they ever receive. So on average, you lose money on insurance. So, on average, you should save money by not taking out insurance, right?
(C) Department of Dodgy Logic
Posted by birdie (# 2173) on
:
Back on topic (sorry!) - I get the impression that these are particularly marketed at recently-qualified drivers, especially those who are hoping to be insured to driver their parents' car!
The cost of insurance for newly qualified drivers is crippling, and I know of a few parents who have had trackers installed in order to bring down the cost when adding their children on to the insurance of their car.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think it's legal in any jurisdiction for an insurer to deny coverage based on "the black box says you were doing 35 mph in a 25 mph zone, and we only insure you while you are obeying the law"
Based on what?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Ricardus, I think your logic works as far as it goes. We don't take out insurance policies to make money. We take them out to be protected from catastrophe.
Installing a car tracker only seems like a good idea (ignoring privacy issues) if one thinks one is better than normal in some way*. It's just that most people think they are better than normal even when they aren't.
*Drive less than they think you do, drive better than the average, etc.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So, on average, you should save money by not taking out insurance, right?
Yes, of course. This is why large organizations often self-insure against certain risks. Individuals, of course, can't usually survive a single big loss - unless your name is Warren Buffet, it's unlikely to be a long-term winning strategy.
(On the other hand, I never buy the insurance for white goods and electronics, because I can afford to replace the washing machine if it breaks. Legal requirements aside, replacing my car, your expensive car, and paying your medical bills is a little out of my budget, so I have car insurance.)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Installing a car tracker only seems like a good idea (ignoring privacy issues) if one thinks one is better than normal in some way*. It's just that most people think they are better than normal even when they aren't.
Absolutely - those people who are better or less frequent drivers do stand to benefit. They will do it at the cost of the rest of us, though - the insurance companies aren't going to dig in to their profit margins, they're going in increase the premiums on the heavy driving, unsafe rest of us.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Not so. You pay the insurer a premium now, in return for a risk-based payout in the future.
In financial terms, you are making a loan to the insurance company with a risk-based collection term.
In reality, losses typically exceed premiums for insurance companies in an amount equal to the finance rate obtainable on the market. The actual insurance contract is used as a form a leverage by the insurer to purchase investments, which actually produce the profits. The loss ratio is the cost of obtaining the leverage loan.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I almost wonder why insurance companies don't make these things mandatory. When you take out a life insurance policy, someone shows up at your house to draw blood, take your blood pressure, etc. Yet when you get auto insurance, they do very little to test your answers about the distance you drive in a day. I actually do drive around 5000 miles a year, and I wouldn't mind if my insurance company had a way to shift more of the burden onto people who say they drive that little but actually drive further.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I almost wonder why insurance companies don't make these things mandatory. When you take out a life insurance policy, someone shows up at your house to draw blood, take your blood pressure, etc.
Bad analogy. They don't put 24/7 health monitors on you that report back to the company about your lifestyle choices when you die.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
In reality, losses typically exceed premiums for insurance companies in an amount equal to the finance rate obtainable on the market. The actual insurance contract is used as a form a leverage by the insurer to purchase investments, which actually produce the profits. The loss ratio is the cost of obtaining the leverage loan.
Can you put this in much smaller, non-jargony words?
[ 13. June 2013, 20:44: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I changed insurance companies recently and agreed to install a tracker in the Amandamobile.
They claim that the device can't know what the speed limit is, or if you are violating it. (Makes sense.) It tracks the start time and finish time of each trip, the speed(s) at which you travel, and the number of "hard brakings" you make.
My beef is with their definition of "hard braking", which is a certain percentage reduction in speed during a certain given time interval.
Even if you are traveling along at or under the legal speed limit and have a light turn from green to red, and have to brake suddenly to avoid going through the red light, it can count as a "hard braking". Would they rather I sail right through the red light?
I'm seriously considering removing the device from the Amandamobile and sending it back to the insurance company with a "Thanks but no thanks."
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I almost wonder why insurance companies don't make these things mandatory. When you take out a life insurance policy, someone shows up at your house to draw blood, take your blood pressure, etc. Yet when you get auto insurance, they do very little to test your answers about the distance you drive in a day. I actually do drive around 5000 miles a year, and I wouldn't mind if my insurance company had a way to shift more of the burden onto people who say they drive that little but actually drive further.
This seems different. The parallel would be that the life insurance company would put a monitor on you that goes off every 20 minutes to take your blood pressure (halter monitor they are called here, I've had one twice, no fun) and draws your blood daily.
About the payout thing. Does not happen in no-fault insurance jurisdictions. There are no lawyers and no courts, no suing and no limitation of them fixing your car nor medically (you have to opt for lawsuit based insurance or no-fault when you insure, and almost no-one does the suing/lawyer kind). The use of a tracker would be to solely estimate premiums.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
With life insurance, they give you a temporary premium based on a few questions they ask at the office, and then adjust your premium once your test numbers come in. That rate is locked in for your term (20 to 30 years). What I am suggesting is that the auto insurance companies do the same thing; start with a rate based on your answers, but test for a month or so to see that you were telling the truth. The ongoing test model works better for auto insurance than life insurance because your auto term is only 6 months, and they can adjust the rate frequently. A constant heart monitor on a life insurance client wouldn't be much use to the company, as they have already committed to a rate for 20 to 30 years.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I almost wonder why insurance companies don't make these things mandatory. When you take out a life insurance policy, someone shows up at your house to draw blood, take your blood pressure, etc.
Bad analogy. They don't put 24/7 health monitors on you that report back to the company about your lifestyle choices when you die.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
In reality, losses typically exceed premiums for insurance companies in an amount equal to the finance rate obtainable on the market. The actual insurance contract is used as a form a leverage by the insurer to purchase investments, which actually produce the profits. The loss ratio is the cost of obtaining the leverage loan.
Can you put this in much smaller, non-jargony words?
Insurance Company A receives premiums P in a year. It pays out losses Q. (Q-P)/Q = a%. However, the insurer receives premiums before it pays out on a contract, so it invests the premiums in the securities market. The premiums are like a loan, and the losses are repayment of that loan, with interest. The loan at a% is invested in securities which give a return of b%, where b%-a% = p%, the net profit.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Insurance Company A receives premiums P in a year. It pays out losses Q. (Q-P)/Q = a%. However, the insurer receives premiums before it pays out on a contract, so it invests the premiums in the securities market. The premiums are like a loan, and the losses are repayment of that loan, with interest. The loan at a% is invested in securities which give a return of b%, where b%-a% = p%, the net profit.
Now plug this back into how rates are set, which was the actual issue.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
We're hearing that their profit is generally a 50/50 thing. They pay out 50¢ of every dollar and keep the rest as a target. So if you have to invest to fund your pension, buy insurance stocks. And banks, which also make profits even when they shouldn't.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Insurance Company A receives premiums P in a year. It pays out losses Q. (Q-P)/Q = a%. However, the insurer receives premiums before it pays out on a contract, so it invests the premiums in the securities market. The premiums are like a loan, and the losses are repayment of that loan, with interest. The loan at a% is invested in securities which give a return of b%, where b%-a% = p%, the net profit.
Now plug this back into how rates are set, which was the actual issue.
Are you being really pedantic today, or what?
Insurance premiums are set to cover just less than insurer's losses. Premiums also depend on investment returns, lower returns means higher premiums
no prophet, cite your source because I think the fact is off.
Sure, insurers are profitable but they aren't THAT profitable. Like any good NDP'er I support Public Auto Insurance.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Not a chance.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Sure, insurers are profitable but they aren't THAT profitable.
Define "THAT profitable." They come in at #9 on the top 52 industries for profitability. Not bad, I'd think.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
It's not a profit rate of 50%.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It's not a profit rate of 50%.
Nobody makes a profit rate of 50%, at least not on that chart. So what?
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Insurance Company A receives premiums P in a year. It pays out losses Q. (Q-P)/Q = a%. However, the insurer receives premiums before it pays out on a contract, so it invests the premiums in the securities market. The premiums are like a loan, and the losses are repayment of that loan, with interest. The loan at a% is invested in securities which give a return of b%, where b%-a% = p%, the net profit.
Now plug this back into how rates are set, which was the actual issue.
Are you being really pedantic today, or what?
Insurance premiums are set to cover just less than insurer's losses. Premiums also depend on investment returns, lower returns means higher premiums
no prophet, cite your source because I think the fact is off.
Sure, insurers are profitable but they aren't THAT profitable. Like any good NDP'er I support Public Auto Insurance.
The Wikipedia article on "loss ratio" (ratio of claims paid plus adjustments to premiums collected) cites a 2007 article in which the Consumer Federation of America computed loss ratios ranging from 43.5% to 56.1% for several large insurance companies (AIG, Allstate, Progressive, Hartford, etc.).
According to Missouri's 2012 Property and Casualty Supplement Report the loss ratio for all private passenger auto insurance in that state was between 58% to 69% for every year from 2003 to 2012 (see page 26.)
Perhaps you'd care to provide your source for the claim that "losses typically exceed premiums for insurance companies"?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It's not a profit rate of 50%.
- The profit is not the entire picture. Industries often structure expenses in such a way to avoid classifying it as profit.
- 9% might seem low to you, but it is the number that it is a percentage of that is important.
- A significant portion of Warren Buffet's portfolio is insurance. Maybe this is part of his charity work?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by lil buddha:
quote:
The profit is not the entire picture. Industries often structure expenses in such a way to avoid classifying it as profit.
There are many businesses that play the 'deficit' game here that really should be called the deceit game. If a company made a profit of €30 million in 2011 and in 2012 made a profit of of @10 million, they start harping on about how over a year period they made a loss of €20 million, which totally ignores the fact they made a massive profit. It's often used as leverage to reduce wages, withdraw privileges etc.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
the giant cheeseburger asserted: quote:
all road crashes are avoidable...
I was in an accident a couple of years ago that certainly was avoidable; I was driving around a roundabout, minding my own business in the correct position in my lane and some complete idiot pulled out of his lane to go across mine and scraped the side of my car.
At the moment when he started to move, my car must have been directly in front of his windscreen. I even saw him coming (through my wing-mirror). There was absolutely nothing I could do to avoid him, because my car won't go sideways and it was impossible to accelerate without hitting the car in front of me.
However many precautions you take and however careful a driver you may be, you cannot guarantee that you will never be involved in a crash because the road is full of other people doing unpredictable (and occasionally insane) things and the situation also includes many other variables - the weather, stray animals, tyre blowouts, unexpected medical emergencies.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
"All road crashes are avoidable" - yes, by not letting anyone drive. That won't happen, so there will be accidents. They can be reduced, of course, but not entirely eliminated. Not while we maintain any shred of personal privacy.
As far as I am aware, and I could be wrong, my insurance policy will pay out whether or not I was obeying the law at the point of the crash. Of course, my premiums will increase if I wasn't etc. I have had one accident where I was not obeying the law - I missed seeing a red light - and they payed out without a problem.
Of course, if I was doing something perfectly legal, but excluded from the contract, then they would not pay out.
Would I have a device fitted to the car I normally drive? No way. Would I have one fitted to the car my son can drive, if it lower the premiums significantly? Probably, and i have considered it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
SPK,
Munich RE, a large reinsurer, has a forecast to spend 350 million on the recent floods and still be on track for a 3.5 billion profit.
Insurance is such a good business that insurers have insurance.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
They renamed or is it "rebranded" car accidents from MVA - motor vehicle accidents - to MVC - motor vehicle collisions, I suppose because they believe humans are in complete control of everything. It is also a subtle way of blaming injured people for their injuries. I suppose all deaths are also avoidable.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
They renamed or is it "rebranded" car accidents from MVA - motor vehicle accidents - to MVC - motor vehicle collisions, I suppose because they believe humans are in complete control of everything. It is also a subtle way of blaming injured people for their injuries. I suppose all deaths are also avoidable.
No it isn't. However, it's a reflection of the fact that collisions almost invariably occur because someone fouls up - it may not be the injured party.
I worked in motor insurance for a couple of years. In all that time I never saw a single claim for a collision that was actually a genuine accident in the sense that no-one's negligent driving was to blame.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Don't be hitting a moose.
Newfoundland don't be hitting a moose sign.
Not hit a moose myself, which is often an accident that kills due to 2000 lbs of animal with its legs taken out coming through the windsheild. But white tailed deer spring across the roads in herds here. More deer than people. The error seems to be that we drive at all, the fault of the deer, or that there are too few hunters.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
They renamed or is it "rebranded" car accidents from MVA - motor vehicle accidents - to MVC - motor vehicle collisions, I suppose because they believe humans are in complete control of everything.
Or just because it's a more accurate and descriptive description. Paranoid any?
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
SPK,
Munich RE, a large reinsurer, has a forecast to spend 350 million on the recent floods and still be on track for a 3.5 billion profit.
Insurance is such a good business that insurers have insurance.
Your point? I've known that for years.
Insurance companies typically have an underwriting loss, costs exceeding premiums, which includes both claims and general costs of doing business.
Profit = earned premium + investment income - incurred loss - underwriting expenses.
The ratio of premiums to ordinary business costs and losses is known as the combined ratio and that generally hovers around 100%.
Example from a Canadian auto insurer
A sustained underwriting profit is possible but exceptional. Warren Buffett's GEICO has managed it for years through strict underwriting, but GEICO has long been the exception in its underwriting practices.
A insurance company which runs an underwriting profit is getting an investment loan at a negative interest rate. That's the secret of Buffett's success and why he's into insurance so much: he uses his insurance companies to acquire an investment loan at lower than prime rates, often at a negative rate.
He's a good underwriter and a good investor but it's only with those two things together that he becomes so truly exceptional.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
. When you take out a life insurance policy, someone shows up at your house to draw blood, take your blood pressure, etc..
Really? Visists your house? I've never heard of anything like that! Maybe I just don't know anyone with life insurance.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
It depends on how large the policy face amount is (financial risk for the insurer) and if you declared any medical conditions of concern in the questionnaire you fill out with the agent. But yes, it is very common. Insurers have standard guidelines tables for what is needed with what policy size and which conditions.
I have purchased life insurance and as a Type I Diabetic (insulin-dependent since childhood) the life insurer asked for a paramedical including urine sample and blood test (same standard battery my physician does). They sent a nurse to my house and asked me to roll up my sleeve, that's why I wore a short-sleeved shirt.
In Canada (and the UK too) the insurer sends a nurse to your house as it is a commerical transaction and they don't need to bother with public facilities and their lines. The house visit also confirms your identity. Nurses have a special duty to make sure they take samples from the right person; this very much includes watching you pee so you don't switch samples.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Nurses have a special duty to make sure they take samples from the right person; this very much includes watching you pee so you don't switch samples.
I was ripped off. Twice. No one ever watched me pee! And I never thought of doing the switcheroo with grandma's urine. Damn.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
I had the dubious pleasure of having a nurse watch me take a leak. Switches do happen, and the fact that you weren't observed meant you weren't seen as a high risk medically.
I, OTOH, am a high risk and always merit more scrutiny.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I, OTOH, am a high risk and always merit more scrutiny.
Ah yes, a preacher's kid. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
. When you take out a life insurance policy, someone shows up at your house to draw blood, take your blood pressure, etc..
Really? Visists your house? I've never heard of anything like that! Maybe I just don't know anyone with life insurance.
I have had this happen. A nurse (probably getting some private work to boost his NHS salary) came round, prodded, poked and weighed me before sending his findings off to Legal and General. It must be an age, lifestyle, or insured amount thing they use as to whether they send someone round.
But as someone who drives a lot (about 20,000 miles per year), I would love cars to come fitted with little webcams front and back that fed into a 32Gb memory chip.
They would cost about £30 (and the car compaies would charge about £300 of course) but it would be nice to know that the dickhead who rolled backwards into you at traffic lights, or the twat who was weaving in and out of lanes before side swipping you would get their comeupance!
If it also saved me a few quid off my insurance then win/win. As for tracking my whereabouts, well if someone wants to track me then all I can say is "get a life!". If tracking me makes living in England safer generally then go for it. I'm too busy trying to ensure the prick of a taxi driver 6 inches from my arse-end doesn't kill me!
[ 14. June 2013, 22:34: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Isn't the video camera the Russian method? You see Youtube compilations of crazy accidents on Russian roads, and I believe that they are captured by people with cameras in their cars for the precise reasons you cite.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Dickheads, twats, and pricks, deano? You have a much more interesting time behind the wheel than I do, alas.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
. When you take out a life insurance policy, someone shows up at your house to draw blood, take your blood pressure, etc..
Really? Visists your house? I've never heard of anything like that! Maybe I just don't know anyone with life insurance.
I have had this happen. A nurse (probably getting some private work to boost his NHS salary) came round, prodded, poked and weighed me before sending his findings off to Legal and General.
Same here.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But as someone who drives a lot (about 20,000 miles per year), I would love cars to come fitted with little webcams front and back that fed into a 32Gb memory chip.
They would cost about £30 (and the car compaies would charge about £300 of course) but it would be nice to know that the dickhead who rolled backwards into you at traffic lights, or the twat who was weaving in and out of lanes before side swipping you would get their comeupance!
Having driven a company car for about 150,000 miles with a system which included front and rear cameras (the front image overlaid with my speed, location, date, time and a frame counter to prevent misuse) I now feel safer with a system in my personal car such as
this
1 – it makes me drive a little less stupidly, thus reducing the likelihood of my causing a crash and
2 – it might help demonstrate something wasn’t my fault
I'm too busy trying to ensure the prick of a taxi driver 6 inches from my arse-end doesn't kill me!
If you’re serious about making tailgaters back off – the rear camera was white and fixed to a remotely controlled movable mount. Install one of those and move it to point directly at the driver – in most cases – job done - instantly.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If you’re serious about making tailgaters back off – the rear camera was white and fixed to a remotely controlled movable mount. Install one of those and move it to point directly at the driver – in most cases – job done - instantly.
[/QUOTE]
Cool. I will investigate. This sounds interesting.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I used to get lifts from someone who was a habitual tailgater, and it was scary. One day on the motorway the car in front flashed a sign, in it's rear window, saying 'KEEP BACK.'
I've never seen one since
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
I once saw a car with a sticker inside the rear window which read "when people talilgate me I get really nervous and drive slowly."
The ironic thing is I saw that car being winched onto a tow truck as the driver and her kids watched after she ran up the back of the car in front. Oops!
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I used to get lifts from someone who was a habitual tailgater, and it was scary. One day on the motorway the car in front flashed a sign, in it's rear window, saying 'KEEP BACK.'
I've never seen one since
Quite possibly a covert police car - the message boards are controlled from a handset or a touchscreen and flip up or down when activated. At one time the officers could create any message they wanted but some took novel and non-textbook advantage of the facility and most ended up with a preset list of options.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0