| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
|
| Motor Insurance | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by steve of oxford: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 03:27 | 1st Post |
| Maybe we have a member who is an insurance broker?, if so I'd like to know how this works: My younger Son, 20, is charged £1,500 for comprehensive on a motorised carpet slipper i.e. Peugeot 106 etc. I'm told he cannot be insured for a convertible, MX5....not even a 700cc Suzuki Cappuccino because he isn't 21. Yet, amazingly, for slightly less than £1,500 they'll insure him for the Jag. This is bizarre, the MX5 has better road holding than the Jag, is much less powerful at only 1.8L but the Jag is much faster and capable of 150MPH. How on earth they justify their excuses about powerful cars and youngsters baffles me.
|
| Posted by Robert: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 04:29 | 2nd Post |
| I think you are confusing your perceived assessment of performance with the cost of claims insurance companies have to pay out on. My Marlin has (by todays standards) lousy brakes, poor weight distribution and untested crash resistance, almost nothing in the way of crash survival technology and a very high (relatively speaking) power to weight ratio. Premium: £126 fully comprehensive which includes claims management? and road side assistance and recovery. Which may even go down with the new gender rules, (which BTW I don't agree with). I would expect roadside assistance and recovery to cost best part of that premium??? The way I see it is that people who own premium high performance cars TEND to drive them carefully, as do Marlin owners. Of the 600 members of the owner club this year I have heard of one collision sustained by a Marlin, that was with a large rock on a trial. It wiped out the o/s suspension upright and steering arm. The owner posted a request on the forum for bits and was up and running in days for the price of a beer. I suspect it has little to do with the nuts (and bolts) of the car, more to do with the nut behind the wheel. The insurance companies have all the statistics and experience they need to cover their exposure, it seems that young (male) drivers are statically, a disproportionally high risk. The trouble is today we live in a world of litigation and blame, when I was a young lad and we had a bump we hammered it out and were back on the road later the same day. Now it involves claims and blame. It's partly because of the general wealth of the nation, OK, scoff but when I first started motoring £5 wasn't unusual price to pay for a good runner. Today I am hard pressed to find anything under £200. Most people would expect to pay well into four figures, so when it get's bent, either by mistake, carelessness or recklessness the bills are high. Consequently the claims are even higher. Don't get me started on whiplash... A widespread fraud which we are all paying dearly for.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 04:43 | 3rd Post |
| With the latest ruling regarding sex biased premiums I can see this is one step away from a similar ruling regarding ageism. Whilst certain age and sex groups have higher accident rates these would seem to be discriminatory if applied so the logical outcome is...... Flat rate insurance premium on a car model with accident penalties for drivers. In other words innocent until proven guilty. So drivers with no accidents get a base rate insurance premium and if they have an accident then there is a multiplier adjustment to the premium. This seems very reasonable to me. I have had no accidents in my 40 years other than two people driving into the back of my car whilst I was stationary in traffic jams!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by steve of oxford: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 04:48 | 4th Post |
| I've since talked to a fellow Jaguar mate who's said pretty much the same thing, so I'd tend to agree with your summary. Just seems bizarre a young un can get behind the wheel of a 4 Litre 150MPH motor which has a roof, but is refused for a 1.8L with no roof. The way I understand, the risk reckoning is psychological, in that a youngster in a moderately fast convertible / sports car is 'perceived' as more likely to a**e around than a young lad driving a prestige car. Just a shame the road tax is 500 quid a year ! I also reflect on how cheap cars used to be.....my first was an A30, advertised....£50 'with engine' Then I went through the bike phase....Kawasaki Z1000, Z750, Suzuki Gs1000G, several Nortons & Triumphs.....then Kids!
|
| Posted by steve of oxford: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 05:02 | 5th Post |
jk wrote:With the latest ruling regarding sex biased premiums I can see this is one step away from a similar ruling regarding ageism. Whilst certain age and sex groups have higher accident rates these would seem to be discriminatory if applied so the logical outcome is...... Flat rate insurance premium on a car model with accident penalties for drivers. In other words innocent until proven guilty. I wondered when you would pop your head up on this one JK. Though I have to say, in my opinion I don't think the current driving ability criteria for OAP's is sufficient. I've studied this for years, and in my view OAP's should be physically tested, not simply discriminated against because of age. The prime cause of OAP accidents are caused by a few simple issues that could easily be tested for.....leg strength, reaction time, neck turning time. ....a lot of OAP's couldn't do an emergency stop to save their lives or anyone else's. They often don't have the leg strength especially if they can barely walk. An alarming number of them have difficulty in turning their neck's...so manoeuvre mishaps become common. ....a kid or pram might come out in front....then three weeks later they decide it might be a good idea to stop. I think for a GP to ask the OAP what day it is simply isn't good enough, so maybe the time is right for the law to require GP's to assess OAP's to some more realistic criteria, which could of corse be done in a dignified and private way at the surgery.....perhaps some kind of simulator?
|
| Posted by Eric: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 07:28 | 6th Post |
| Male drivers don't have numerically more accidents than female drivers. Its just that male accidents tend to be higher speed related and hence significantly more expensive to repair/compensate. That wont change with EEC rulings....so the girls are getting a rough deal. My 90 year old Dad has been a bad driver for years. (impaired peripheral vision) If you see a dented car anywhere in Yorkshire, there is a good chance it was him that hit it!!! As a result, like young drivers without noclaim bonuses, his insurance is high ....but like female drivers his accidents are slower impacts. So I dont begrudge him being on the road as he is paying significantly for his frailties...I just make sure I always drive when we visit!!!!  As a matter of course now, elderly drivers involved in a road traffic accidents are required to have a fitness to drive assessment. At least they are in West Yorkshire.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 08:31 | 7th Post |
| Doesn't all this beg the question of the meaning of insurance? The simplistic example is a farmer wants to insure his sheep from theft... this can only be covered if lot's of farmers want to pay to insure against their sheep being stolen. Some farmers live in very remote locations and their Herdwick sheep wander the mountains for 365 days a year, so spread out that at best a thief might be lucky to catch 6 after a mighty effort, other farmers living in the lowlands have hundreds of tame sheep in a single small field very close to a main road. The risk varies but should the premium? My perception of insurance is the risk is shared, all farmers paying a contribution into a pot, so any among their number unfortunate enough to have their sheep stolen can be compensated. Or, the farmer takes the risk. While I can see a bonus for not claiming year on year, and some small variation depending on individual circumstances may be reasonable, the variation in motor insurance seems to me to be grossly disproportionate, bordering on extortion. My Astra insurance is about £400, The car is worth less than £200, OK it can do much damage in the wrong circumstances but in my eyes that premium is way too high. About 4 years ago I was paying about £180, so what has changed? I haven't had a claim, it's virtually the same car, same location and same everything else. Perhaps it's all these spurious, fraudulent claims which are bumping up the overall risk. We are told it's also caused by uninsured cars, but with continuous insurance or SORN now there should be far fewer uninsured cars around.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by steve of oxford: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 08:37 | 8th Post |
| "Male drivers don't have numerically more accidents than female drivers. " Exactly, I've been saying this for years. It's just that women have different kind of accidents, doesn't mean they have less of them. "So I dont begrudge him being on the road as he is paying significantly for his frailties" But eventually you might find yourself in the position I was with my late father.....having to take his license off him before he hits a mum with a pushchair or something like that. My dad was having mini-strokes, so the decision was obvious really, had to be done upsetting as it was.
|
| Posted by Eric: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 10:44 | 9th Post |
Robert wrote:Doesn't all this beg the question of the meaning of insurance? Why is you insurance so much? My car was only £280, fully comp this year!
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 10:59 | 10th Post |
| I don't know, it's in Sharon's name, I tried getting quotes but because I have had Astra vans, almost identical to the Astra estate... the NCB isn't transferrable, I had 60% NCB going back for many years but because the last ten years or more were with vans that doesn't count??? Another stupid rip off policy the insurance people come up with, so we decided to leave it in her name with me as named driver. Once I have the Marlin on the road and build up a NCB with that then perhaps things will change?
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 11:24 | 11th Post |
Robert wrote:I don't know, it's in Sharon's name, I tried getting quotes but because I have had Astra vans, almost identical to the Astra estate... the NCB isn't transferrable, I had 60% NCB going back for many years but because the last ten years or more were with vans that doesn't count??? Another stupid rip off policy the insurance people come up with, so we decided to leave it in her name with me as named driver. Have you had a speculative quote for a Marlin? 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by steve of oxford: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 12:50 | 12th Post |
| You think you have expense...I've got a Son wanting a Jaguar and a daughter wanting a Suzuki sports car. I already bought three cars in the last year....and I'm paying for petrol, tyres, road tax, parts, and insurance on all three of them.
|
| Posted by Robert: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 13:01 | 13th Post |
Eric wrote:Robert wrote: Yes, that was a very early action, I didn't want all that work and not be able to insure it, £126 fully comp with 'claims management' whatever that is? including roadside assistance and recovery. Not sure if that extends to recovery from Spain? As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't have fallen of my perch if I had been asked that premium just for the roadside assistance and recovery. Also, any claims on that don't affect the NCB status.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by steve of oxford: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 15:09 | 14th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Seems to me you have a reasonable premium, I wish my insurance was as cheap.
|
| Posted by steve of oxford: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 15:11 | 15th Post |
jk wrote:With the latest ruling regarding sex biased premiums I can see this is one step away from a similar ruling regarding ageism. Whilst certain age and sex groups have higher accident rates these would seem to be discriminatory if applied so the logical outcome is...... Flat rate insurance premium on a car model with accident penalties for drivers. In other words innocent until proven guilty. 3:)
|
| Posted by jk: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 15:40 | 16th Post |
| Personally I dont believe in insurance. I only pay insurance for my car as I need to by law. I have never met a Lloyds member who was anything other than very well off. However they always plead poverty (last to open wallet at the bar). Therefore I think they run a rip off business and are first to whinge if there is a payout to be made by them!! I rest my case. 
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by steve of oxford: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 15:50 | 17th Post |
jk wrote:Personally I dont believe in insurance. Snakes in suits
|
| Posted by Eric: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 16:46 | 18th Post |
jk wrote:Personally I dont believe in insurance. I thought it was a prerequisite for names at lloyds to be rich in the first place? Like the channel isles...you can't get in without cash up front!
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 17:36 | 19th Post |
Eric wrote:jk wrote: That is true but the guy who I used to play hockey with was always keen to plead poverty even though he still managed to drive a Porshe 911 compared to my Ford Fiesta XR2.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Dec 24th, 2012 20:12 | 20th Post |
jk wrote:Eric wrote: Now I have grey hair, maybe it's time for a Porsche? 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Tue Dec 25th, 2012 04:08 | 21st Post |
Eric wrote:jk wrote: Why is your middle name Lloyd? Or do you want a faster version of the Volvo? A Porsche Cayenne!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by richw: Wed Dec 26th, 2012 17:57 | 22nd Post |
Eric wrote:
If you can afford one do it!
|
| Posted by Ray Ninness: Wed Dec 26th, 2012 21:09 | 23rd Post |
| They do it, because they can, and the State goes along for the ride, making sure we all have "Insurance" Cost no object!! :makemyday: 
____________________ Ray Ninness F8Photos.com Bedford, New Hampshire USA |
| Posted by Ed Hutchinson: Thu Dec 27th, 2012 02:37 | 24th Post |
| Insurance Co.s are in the same pen with politicins SCUM SUCKING BOTTOM FEEDERS and I am not talking about fish. There is not enough room here for me to state the underhanded backstabbing lying things they have done to us over the years.  Sorry BAD Ed BAD Ed be nice Ed  Ed
____________________ R.O.C.E.D. retired old cranky extremely dangerous! |
| This is topic ID = 439 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Totally Off Topic Stuff > Everything Else > Motor Insurance | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0714 seconds (66% database + 34% PHP). 173 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0714 seconds (66% database + 34% PHP). 173 queries executed.