| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|||||||
| Motor Insurance - Page 1 | |
Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 02:27 |
|
1st Post |
steve of oxford
|
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: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 03:29 |
|
2nd Post |
Robert
|
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: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 03:43 |
|
3rd Post |
jk
|
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: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 03:48 |
|
4th Post |
steve of oxford
|
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: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 04:02 |
|
5th Post |
steve of oxford
|
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: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 06:28 |
|
6th Post |
Eric
|
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: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 07:31 |
|
7th Post |
Robert
|
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: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 07:37 |
|
8th Post |
steve of oxford
|
"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: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 09:44 |
|
9th Post |
Eric
|
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: Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 09:59 |
|
10th Post |
Robert
|
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. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 439 Current time is 20:49 | Page: 1 2 3 | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Totally Off Topic Stuff > Everything Else > Motor Insurance | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| 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@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0526 seconds (65% database + 35% PHP). 82 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0526 seconds (65% database + 35% PHP). 82 queries executed.