All young people must have telematics. So claimed telematics firm ingenue this week, or sometime recently. Which, to paraphrase the late lamented Randy Mice Davies, is pretty much what they would say, wouldn’t they.
Ingenue have done some highly sophisticated statistical stuff to prove that, because they will otherwise insist on killing themselves in unacceptable numbers, the youth of today need to be telematicised PDQ.
Applying some deeply questionable logic, ingenue claim that because their customers (i.e. mild-mannered milksops who’ve chosen to undergo voluntary telematicisation) crash less often than those bold renegades to prefer to fly unmonitored, forcibly fitting all of the latter with spy technology will automatically reduce motor death among the young by 40%.
Black box kids crash within their first year in a mere one out of eight cases, compared, ingenue claim with, off-radar youth drivers who crash in a whopping one in five instances during their first year on the road.
It’s time to legislate, ingenue argue. Together with their “partner”, insurance firm Ages UK, ingenue want the government to exempt good children who telematicise themselves from the Insurance Pain Threshold (IPT) levy applied to anyone who insists on buying an insurance policy, not least a compulsory one like motor insurance. This, ingenue hope, will incentivise all those currently box-free to surrender to the data harvesters.
When ingenue and Ages recently cornered transport minister Robert Goodwill, the latter professed himself favourably disposed in principle to offer all appropriate support and assistance, assented to the almost entirely meaningless proposition that “telematics was delivering for young drivers” and said he’d look into it.
Perhaps a simple law banning unmonitored youth driving would be simpler.
No responses yet