46 replies to this topic

[mikey72]

...... If anything the situation was less favorable back in the day than it is now, twenty years ago there were no internet comparison web sites, so the insurance market was far less competitive than it is today. Sooner than you think you will be 40 something, with 25 years driving experience and a full no claims discount. At which point having paid your high premiums all those years & having earned your right to a lower cost policy, you will suddenly find the situation an awful lot less unfair...everyone always does!

No, it was a lot cheaper to insure a 17 year old when I was 17, more than 20 years ago. I can't tell you the price, but I could easily afford it.
And I think the situation is extremely unfair now.
It won't improve, drivers over 60 are facing the same "high risk" classification now, and when that group and the 17 year olds are priced out of the market, it'll just be the next group that faces the "high risk" premium.

[mikey72]

You aren't saying they will, but the insurers are saying they will pay more, which amounts to the same thing.

You can say with greater certainty that women are more likely to leave a job because they are pregnant than men. Would you allow employers to discriminate on that basis?

There aren't the same social imperatives in jumping off cliffs, I don't think it's a particularly effective way in getting to work for most people.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/8544715.stm.

Claims management companies & ambulance chasers are surely an argument to take it out of the private sector, you'd be able to have tribunals, as we do for social security & employment. Both those areas are often intimately involved in dealing with the consequences of the higher value claims so there's likely to be economies in bringing the whole business closer together.

Highest referrals to claim management companies comes from your own insurers, they get a very nice referral fee, in every third party claim. That should be banned.

[maryquant]

As a small business owner, I have a rather different point of view to the maternity leave situation than perhaps... women do... but maternity leave is governed by the state which means that business owners cant discriminate.

But in private enterprise, if that law wasnt there - you can bet they would! No company (which operates with profit at his heart) would employ a women who statistically could leave for months of maternity. Think about it as if you were in the position of having to replace that member of staff after having paid potentially thousands to train her. Economically its just not sensible.

The state corrects this by helping small businesses pay for maternity leave - this is a slight alleviation on the business but still doesnt help with the cost of any down time, re-training a second member of staff to work part time etc etc etc.

Now on the same token, if the state offered insurance companies compensation for when the higher risk categories crash, and regulated the prices of insurance that would be fine.

I don't like playing devils advocate, but the majority of people will look it this topic from their own point of view and think "This isnt fair". But it is.

The only thing we can do (as men) is become the lower statistic and therefore benefit from reduced premiums.

[Ethel]

There aren't that many truly independent insurance companies. How often will it be the same parent company behind both parties? The bottom line is businesses exist to make profits, not compensate the victims of road accidents.

Insurance certainly was much cheaper years ago, I think there was also a larger difference in the cost of comprehensive and 3rd party cover. I think cars were mostly of a lower value too, and the roads were certainly quieter.

[AVV IT]

As if anything is ever likely to be taken out of the private sector and placed under state control, let alone the insurance industry!! After all, aren't we currently under the rule of a regressive Tory government that aims to increase private sector involvement in our core public services? With that in mind we are hardly likely to see nationalisation of any industry let alone the insurance sector! So it would seem that we are stuck with the current commercial insurance system for the foreseeable future. That is unless the industry should collapse under a future Labour government and therefore have to be balied out at the expense of the tax payer. In which case it may well become be a state owned industry, but have no doubt that in which case there would still be no state control, just like the Banks it would still do what ever the hell it likes!!

[Ethel]

I can dream can't I?



Suppose I should be grateful we still have national insurance at work. I wonder if itwould've been different if the plebs could afford motors back when that was introduced.

[AVV IT]

No, it was a lot cheaper to insure a 17 year old when I was 17, more than 20 years ago. I can't tell you the price, but I could easily afford it.

Interesting... you see I can tell you the figures that I was referring to!

In 1993 I was paying £672 per year to insure a 12 year old 1.3 Astra TPFT (I remember this specifically as I used to have to take my cheque for £56 to the local brokers office every month on payday), meanwhile my father was insuring his 3 year old 2.0 Litre Sierra Sapphire fully comp for around £70. Much like todays examples that is still a ratio of around 10:1 by comparison, and do bare in mind that this was before the introduction of insurance tax and the compensation culture which is now factored into todays premiums as well. In my experience the modern insurance market is certainly more competitive than it was 20 years ago, I think we just see the figures in thousands these days instead of hundreds and forget about the effects of 20 years of inflation.

I can dream can't I?

Yes you must keep dreaming, only don't let anybody find out about it, otherwise Mr. Cameron might try and privatise that too

Suppose I should be grateful we still have national insurance at work.

Yes and you should be grateful... (for now at least), because by the end of this term it will no doubt be sold off too and rebranded as the "Compulsory Health & Welfare Subscription" brought you by Securicor & HSA

Edited by AVV IT, 05 February 2011 - 06:26 PM.

[Scallywag630]

The only thing we can do (as men) is become the lower statistic and therefore benefit from reduced premiums.

I think that a sex change is out of the question for most of us

[maryquant]

Just did a quick calc on a website - your £672 in 1993 is equivalent to £1021 based on inflation records.

So your absolutely right! hehe

[mikey72]

Just did a quick calc on a website - your £672 in 1993 is equivalent to £1021 based on inflation records.

So your absolutely right! hehe

The only one I can remember, 1980 ish, my age about 19/20, was a supercharged 1600cc beach buggy, fully comp, student, it was just over £300. So that's about £800 now.
I remember that as it was so high, in fact about 2 to 3 times what I had been paying for a Chysler Alpine, sporty 1500 model with twin barrel weber carb the year before. So I guess that would be equal to about £300 to £400 now.
It's gone up.

[mini_legend]

That's why I advocate universal 3rd party cover paid out of road tax - or better fuel duty.

We'd pay to drive, without also paying insurers to make a profit, the more, faster, and bigger car, you drive the more you'd pay - all factors related to the amount of risk you create. Insurance premiums only penalise drivers on their ability to pay, the emphasis should be on penalising those convicted for poor driving - fit the black boxes in their cars until they've shown they've improved their driving habits.

It's not so radical, we have universal employment insurance and put black boxes on the ankles of wayward kids and prisoners on parole. It would be radical to let insurers administer their own ASBO scheme for motorists who can't afford better.

I agree to a point, that the more powerful the car, the potentially more dangerous, but size isn't an issue. Its proven that being hit by say, a landrover discovery, at x mph will do you less damage than being hit by a mini or a corsa at x mph. This is because of where the car hits you. Bit car, high up front end hits a lot of you, but the force is spread out, pushes you forward and away from the car. In a smaller car, the front is much lower, so the area of the car hitting a pedestrian is much smaller, therefore much more force on less area of the body. Also, the lowness of the car will take out your legs, and more likely throw you up and over the car, and potentially into the path of another car.
Larger cars can sometimes be a blessing
But yes,
I am 17, drive a standard (as far as the engine goes) 998 mini city. I pay £750 a year for TPFT insurance with free breakdown cover, EU travel and unlimited mileage. Still pricey, but I had quotes from the self proclaim 'cheap' insurers of £3/4/5 k just for TPFT!!!!
It proves if you look about you can get a good deal.
I am also opposed to the black box idea. Its essential with some companies, yet they charge you for it, to fit it, to remove it, for maintanence, and who wants big brother!!!!!!!!

[scb]

I can understand young/old, as you get older you'll start to save. But male/female is wrong, I'll never become female so I'll never get the saming a female gets.

It bugs me hugely that my 18 year old sister had crashed twice in his first year of driving a 1.1 Saxo, writing off 3 cars (hers once, the other 2 she hit). She bought a 1.6 206 and got insurance for £780, this was only 2 years ago. I remember 6 years ago paying £880 for a 1.6 Seat Cordoba and I'd not crashed and had taken the pass plus.

I am now 26, never had a crash and it cost me £460 to insure a 1.9 diesel Laguna, yet my 21 year old sister is driving a 1.6 Saxo STR and paying £500 despite having written off all the cars mentioned above. I've also in the past owned a Lotus Elise and a 2.8 Beemer, now surely driving big powerful cars and downsizing to a 1.9 diesel and neve rhaving crashed them fast powerful cars makes me a better driver than someone who smashed up a 1.1 Saxo twice? But oh no, I have a penis!

[AVV IT]

I can understand young/old, as you get older you'll start to save. But male/female is wrong, I'll never become female so I'll never get the saming a female gets.

But rightly or wrongly, statistically females are proven to have less accidents (although to be fair, your sister clearly isn't the best example of this ). You can cast what ever aspersion or hypothesis you like as to why this is, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a reality. If you yourself were an insurer and you were presented with insuring one group of people who were proven to be more likely to crash than another, then as a commercial business it would be financial suicide to charge them both the lower premium, regardless of how fair or unfair the inequality may be deemed by the groups concerned. Unfortunately for us guys, insurers exist to make a profit based on statistical risk, not to treat all people equally regardless of risk. At the end of the day, the data shows that if you have a penis you are more likely to crash and theres not really a lot we can do about that.

Edited by AVV IT, 07 February 2011 - 02:46 PM.

[Ethel]

I'm not buying the big cars are safer theory. I don't doubt there are circumstances where you could come off worse, but you could think of at least as many where it would be the other way round: increased risk of going under the car, children's head height...

Two facts are constant, heavier cars have more inertia to do damage with and all are cars bigger than pedestrians so the limiting factor on dissipating forces is more likely to be their body rather than the car's.

You'd pay for the black box either way, but as an itemised cost it's something else than can use to tie you in to your policy.

[Jacko-lah]

there also a company called young marmalade where you buy there car its either bran new or nearly and get dirt cheap insurance as they no its a moden safe car
it also has the black box i was going to do it but you got charged an extra 45 pound per night if you drove between 10pm and 5am but i work night so it was a no no for me!

Marmalade are GOOD for Provisional ONLY insurance, because you get to learn in any RHD car up to group 14, provided the 'teacher' (parent) has fully comp on the car for themselves. All for £256 for 3 months.

But it's a con, because it's a loss leader to get you in the door, and what they are really about is selling your kid a car on easy finance, but they factor in 2 years insurance into the finance deal too, so it looks like a good deal, but it's not.