Insurance Of The Future

[Iron Chef]

That is what I mean, the law says if it looks like someone has been hit in a rear ender (if it was actual rear ender or someone made it look like one and you can not prove otherwise) then the person behind in the eyes of insurance is in the wrong.

No two ways about it, don't know why you posted that up for, it only confirms what I said????

Because, having initially backed the F100 guy's story, they looked into it further after my mate kicked up a stink and by examining the damage more carefully, worked out he was right and sent the F100 guy packing. My point was that the person behind isn't always 100% at fault in a rear end hit.

[joeyjoejoejuniorshabadoo]

my mother had to pay out for some douchebag lawyer in his range rover that hit her when she was reversing out of a parking space

police deemed it to be HER FAULT as she was reversing, even though the lawyer was on the wrong side of the road.

insuance companies agreed due to her admitting to reversing

[Kujotk]

Because, having initially backed the F100 guy's story, they looked into it further after my mate kicked up a stink and by examining the damage more carefully, worked out he was right and sent the F100 guy packing. My point was that the person behind isn't always 100% at fault in a rear end hit.

lol that is if it can be proved there was revers involved..... otherwise the guy behind is usually up shit creek even if he isn't in the wrong

[GTR-N1]

^^^... which leads us back to Post #15

[evil_weevil]

can you honestly see...

GIO

JCI

Shannons

LSV

taking on this?

very short answer..NO!!

I wouldnt be worried about it

[Kujotk]

can you honestly see...

GIO

JCI

Shannons

LSV

taking on this?

very short answer..NO!!

I wouldnt be worried about it

Shannons has already asked a 458 Italia to install it in Melbourne, the owner of the car told them to get stuffed.

I'm not worried, but if it starts getting popular, then education not to accept these devices is the only thing we can do to try to stop insurance companies that try to make us use such devices.

Otherwise owning a track/road car will be a thing of the past. We all know most SAUers use their car at the track and drive the same registered car home, if everyone has to get a trailer and buy a car specifically for the track then Imagine the SAU memberships drop like a rock then....

[evil_weevil]

Tom,

I wouldnt beleive what you hear from other people.

It wont happen.

it will cost too much for an insurer to implement, manage and monitor

Im not worried....

but then again...if you can afford a fezza....like yourself...whats the issue..?

[joeyjoejoejuniorshabadoo]

think outside the box

[Kujotk]

As a condition to my European car insurance, I have been told I have to install one of these things into my cars in Austria. Apparently the one I have does not send a GPS signal unless manually activated in the cabin or during a hard accident.

It is meant to find the car if it is ever stolen and it is used if your car breaks downin the middle of nowhere and you don't know where you are, you activate it and the equivalent of the NRMA comes out to you. Or if it is activated by a car accident, the police, fire and ambos are sent to you automatically.

[TerminalWraith]

I can tell you for a fact this device breaches the Australian privacy laws. We will have government issue black boxes before this device.

[TerminalWraith]

Kujotk - on the flip side the insurer of the person in front has to prove it too. Stop spreading BS plz kthx

[Chris Rogers]

bit extreme.

its called fleet management. councils use it, trucking companies use it and it does pretty much what you describe but the owner of the fleet has access to it and no one else.

I used to have a the brisbane ferry fleet on remote control . I could pull those up and see what these were doing and diagnose them via PC if something went wrong.

the one you have is a alarm based tracking system. slightly different critter.

as for the idea. nothing new. I have been fitting all sorts of these things for years and some oz companies have requested them on WRXs and other high target cars for years.

so by the look of it someone has gotten a skewed view of the original idea and run with it.

its nothing new. if you want to put a spin on it then look at the USA where some cars log what happens when an accident occurs and they have the potential to pull the info out of the cars computer and use that.

food for thought.

[mid life crisis]

They will all still drive, you think its a good idea that thousands of people are driving around with no insurance?

look how many people get there cars pinched just from this site that have no insurance already and whinge when they get stolen and burned out

[TerminalWraith]

Exactly there is no change. Just higher risk people paying more... like they should

[Silvia GTR]

Event if this idea came in I doubt many people would come on board, oh and nice digging you found a winner.

[tweety bird]

http://smh.drive.com.au/future-cars/black-box-spies-on-young-drivers-20111115-1ngx7.html

[GTR-N1]

^^^ "Black Box" means that parents may know where the car has been; but if in an accident, the insurance company might look for a clause to enable refusal of "Cover"

[zebra]

lol...I want one of those...then go do a track day and see how many times it sends me a message

[Cowboy1600]

Just a quick correction the car that is behind is always at fault unless the front car was in reverse. If you hit somebody from behind at traffic lights or braking hard then yes your at fault but if that person was in reverse gear (they don't even have to moving just gear engaged and reverse lights on) then they are at fault assuming you can prove they were in reverse which would be practically impossible, therefore you're pretty much boned.

There'ya. I just tidied that up for you.

[tweety bird]

^^^ "Black Box" means that parents may know where the car has been; but if in an accident, the insurance company might look for a clause to enable refusal of "Cover"

yep i can see it now

a subpoena for documents or records, insurance company looks through the records, ''you were doing 63kmph in a 60kmph zone 3km before the accident no cover for you''

but they'd say it in some lawyer talk.

Edited November 24, 2011 by tweety bird