Technology
Email your opinions to
editorial@barkerbrooks.co.uk
Not all it's made out to be? Not everyone is convinced of their worth, however. Neil Thomas
is head of APU, the accident investigation company that helped bring the 'cash for crash' crime to light. He fears that initial enthusiasm over cameras could give way to disappointment. "There are a number of telematics and camera devices on the
market, not all of which provide the sort of accuracy of data that would be needed to defend an insurance claim," says Thomas. "However if the consumer chooses the right option, there are
no doubt some benefits of joining up the technologies. [But] the choice for the driver or fleet operator would be to decide whether their aim is to reduce costs and improve driver behaviour and invest in telematics, or budget for something which is statistically unlikely to happen, and choose a camera to protect against a staged collision." There are a number of products on the market which are
reasonably cheap for individual users and have no running costs, however when the cost is multiplied to cover a fleet, they can become an expensive extra cost which could not be passed on to the customer. "They could provide some protection against whiplash claims however they do not provide all round protection and the quality
52 /Claims Magazine/Issue 11
of the imagery could be adversely affected by weather conditions, visibility and lack of routine maintenance." In comparison, he argues, the right telematics device, which
has an ability to provide collision data, supported by driver and witness statements, is sufficient to defend a claim and provide far more cost benefit to fleet operators and individuals who are looking to reduce fuel and maintenance costs. "In my experience, most operations managers see the use of
advanced telematics as an effective way of protecting their fleet costs," he says.
Chalk and cheese Other commentators have identified additional problems with
cameras which, as Tim Eaves, head of telematics provider In-Car Cleverness, argues, makes marrying the two tools both difficult and unnecessary. "Telematics is both immediate and robust – the increasing
adoption of this technology is a trend which is sure to continue moving and developing," he says. "Pairing this capability with in-car camera equipment is
possible, though I see little synergy between telemetry and camera technologies. Camera recording equipment fitted into
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60