It’s interesting how certain individuals, groups, and organisations can dig the most bizarre meanings out of simple and honest facts if it fits in with their warped agendas.
I saw this article in the newsfeeds from This is Money, about what they call “pay as you drive” insurance. They refer specifically to the AA’s Drivesafe Box, which I commented on recently, pointing out that everyone who gets one starts off on 50 points, and this goes up or down depending on how fast you go, how sharply you turn corners, and so on.
They then add:
But drivers living in areas where there are many winding roads — such as the countryside — will have to work harder to keep a good score, as insurers view these areas as more risky.
That is total speculation. Technology is a lot smarter than many journalists – something many journalists appear to be blissfully unaware of.
But it isn’t from This is Money’s mouth that this rubbish originates. It is the Countryside Alliance [broken link] – that group “representing the countryside” – which advocates, among other things, the legalisation of tearing foxes apart with hounds for the perverted pleasures of country types, shooting anything that moves, using whippets to tear rabbits apart “to control them”, the defence of its members who illegally kill Hen Harriers (a bird of prey) because the Harrier kills Grouse (which they farm to shoot), and so on.
One can only guess at their take on Hare Coursing and Badger Baiting to “control” the populations of those particular animals.
I also seem to remember that they took up graffiti – painting slogans across roads and stuff – when the original fox-hunting ban was being pushed through. They certainly stuck a huge number of their flyers up illegally on traffic signs (you still see some of them around). And they are not particularly vocal about the blatant violation of that law by hunts around the country whose members still get their sexual kicks out of chasing and killing foxes.
So, on this current matter, they say that it is unfair to penalise people for living in rural areas!
…we are also concerned that rural roads can be tricky to drive, so this device should recognise and not penalise rural drivers unfairly.
It doesn’t. It won’t. It penalises people for driving like pillocks – you could spend 100% of your time on rural roads and still get a good rating out of the thing, even without having to change anything.
It seems like these village idiots have got it into their heads that the AA’s device, which monitors how you turn corners (among other things), actually penalises you for going round them. What it does is give you a black mark if you try and go round them on two wheels!
Now, if the Countryside Alliance’s members are wont to drive that badly – speeding and such like (which of course, we all know they aren’t) – then they deserve to pay higher insurance. But they aren’t going to get penalised just for driving on country roads or going round corners. And while we’re on the subject, I don’t recall the Countryside Alliance throwing a hissy fit over the Co-op’s Smartbox, which uses the same technology.
Mind you, assuming they have been quoted in context, the AA hasn’t helped itself – the article doesn’t quote them directly, but says that the AA “concedes rural dwellers could pay more.” I suspect there was much more to that in the interview.
These devices are aimed at boy racers. Just because they might also happen to be young farmers doesn’t make them immune to the effects of juvenile testosterone.