69 replies to this topic

[Ethel]

Proberly,

Though you'd hope age is coincidental with driving experience, and it's actually what they're basing their premiums on. I agree, if you take your test when you're forty, you don't automatically become an equal risk to other 40yr olds - and even if you are they are entitled to wait for you to prove it.

[danrock101]

lol I didn't realise they were going that far into it too, I'd be very suprised if anything happend really, it is unfair that some of the lads I know pay stupid money for insurance (my mates pays nearly £2k in his first year of driving for his 998 mini and the mini is the cheapest thing on insurance he can find). If wasn't for my Dad and Grandad I'd of never of got the road but I don't think young females should pay for it, my sister who is 17 will be paying like £1400 for a banger ford ka, I know a girl who has a punto that cost her £300 and she pays £1800.

evry woman ive been in a car with has been sensible/careful

think I should introduce you to my Mum, she'd ruin that for you

[Juju]

Policy remiums should be weighted by the relative risk you represent as an individual. Simples.

[Carlos W]

I'm currently on the M1 with my other half driving! She can't plan ahead, she doesn't drive in the middle of her lane! I am the worst passenger in the world though

[Ethel]

Agree with you there Juju,

Question is how do you define that individual? You could decide black people are a greater risk, when the reality is it's just coincidence they are more represented in higher risk areas (like inner London) than they are in the leafy Home Counties.

t's only fair to look at someone's driving and car ownership, if that's what you're insuring them for.

[charie t]

That's one extreme example. Young womens rates are not usually half the rates for young men, typically they're around 2/3 of male rates. There are around twice as many male drivers as female.

Really? when i was 19, my g/f was paying less than half as her first premium than i was.
She had the same bleeding car!

Edited by charie t, 01 March 2011 - 03:02 PM.

[maggies_minder]

Policy remiums should be weighted by the relative risk you represent as an individual. Simples.

how can that happen unless the insurer sends someone to sit in your car everytime you drive?

i dont think as a 22 year old male im half as bad as my premium suggests.
then again i dont see my mini as a car, she gets better treatment than the misses so i dont want to mess her up in a bump.

my 17year cousin passed his test and got a quote for over £5k on a 10year old Ka, all because of his age and address, this sort of thing leads people to try and do everything they can to get a cheaper policy. including driving without insurance. not that my cousin is doing this.

[Mini Mad Drakeley]

its all just away for the insurance companies to rip us off more, my sister is a bad driver and my driving instructor even said that girls tend to be worse drivers than most guys, my instructor is a woman by the way lol, they will do another survey and will find something stupid and the premiums will go up alot further cutting out the 10% decrease, my familys toyota yaris, its only a 998cc and for my dad, sis and mum to be on the insurance was around £400 with my sis just off her R plates, for me to be on the insurance aswell it went up to £1200 ffs, if the insurance quotes wer done by an independant judge for young drivers as to how theyre driving is then it would be alot fairer

[Juju]

Agree with you there Juju,

Question is how do you define that individual?

Unfortunately, National (and International) statistics are the only method we have, bar tracking an individual's behaviour over their lifetime & readjusting the premiums accordingly.

Policy remiums should be weighted by the relative risk you represent as an individual. Simples.

how can that happen unless the insurer sends someone to sit in your car everytime you drive?

As above. But tracking individuals is not realistic with current technologies, so the only method we have is stats. Of course, those who unfortunately get lumped into a high risk demographic despite their own behaviour, will pay 'unfairly' until they accrue NCB.

In my little world, insurance would be totally overhauled. It's a rubbish system at the moment & it rewards 'n' penalises the wrong people. I shall stop there as I am in danger of ranting......in fact I've just deleted a paragraph of invective....

[maggies_minder]

but juju you have a wonderful command of the english language even your rants would make nice reading.

is it really fair to have every car fitted with a black box, monitoring everything you do.

sure your insurance should be cheap until you prove through crashing that your a risk and warrant a higher premium.

i wouldnt mind paying a small fortune for insurance if in the event i dont have a crash after 12months (the policy duration) a got a percentage of my premium back for being good.

[Ethel]

Invective? Did Dodge ou Buick make those?

I'd sooner see money paying wages to administer a fairer system than allowing a few Lloyds names cash in on something fundamentally unfair, if expedient.

The ability to own 'n drive a car is virtually a prerequisite to full participation in society (unless you live in a big city where walking is faster) so it's more of an issue than can be left to market forces.

[Juju]

I'd sooner see money paying wages to administer a fairer system than allowing a few Lloyds names cash in on something fundamentally unfair, if expedient.

Agreed. A more cooperative-style system would see those who truly deserve compensation & rebate receive it, and those who attempt to abuse the system are penalised. You could also include greater reward for 'safer' performance.

The ability to own 'n drive a car is virtually a prerequisite to full participation in soceity (unless you live in a big city where walking is faster) so it's more of an issue than can be left to market forces.

Ah, but driving is still only a privelege & not really a right. I agree that insurance can not be truly subject to market forces alone. That behemoth we call 'Society' has to take part in making some decisions. Ethics has been omitted from the sector for too long.

Maggies Minder - that's lovely to hear, thank you.

[Carlos W]

Unfortunately the increase in premiums this will cause will encourage more people to drive without insurance! And until the penalty is 10x the cost of having insurance people will carry on doing it!

The system isn't fair, but if young males are more likely to crash statistically, then they should pay more, if you're 50, and have been driving for 33 years and never had a claim, you should pay less!

[danrock101]

is it really fair to have every car fitted with a black box, monitoring everything you do.

You wouldn't need to go that far but actually it's not a bad idea, if people who stick within the speed limits want to earn some of their insruance payments back by fitting some kind of tracker it could be a good way of saving money for them


i wouldnt mind paying a small fortune for insurance if in the event i dont have a crash after 12months (the policy duration) a got a percentage of my premium back for being good.

I like this second idea and love how you say 'in the event i don't have a crash' you must be real acident prone huh?

[Ethel]

Hypothetical:

You work shifts, and together with your partner's income, you're just about keeping your head above water. Then your partner loses their job leaving you as the sole breadwinner: you can no longer pay to insure your car for the 30 minute daily commute as well as pay to keep a roof over your head. Is it in societies interests to punish you if you choose to drive uninsured rather than be homeless or go on benefits?

Hypothetical 2:

A premiere league footballer with a small fleet of £100k "toys". He has buying power when it comes to insurance, because he has the option to drive something less exotic or be chauffeured. Is it fair that an insurer discounts his premium, because it's still a tidy sum they'd sooner have than not, knowing that they can spread the risk with their other clients who don't have the same choice, need a car, and need to insure it. Is it even fair that your cover for your £2K Mini has to account for the risk that you may be liable for dinting the £200k Ferrari a pro footballer chooses to put on the public roads?