Commercialism rant! (long but worth a read)

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

Very true, but in the case of home insurance the claim is most likely to be more than a single years insurance premium, to a young driver thats not always the case.

Yet again I am not against the fact that i have paid for insurance and got nothing back, I am against the amount I had to pay in to get nothing back.

I'm not sure that's the case take the young driver who drove up the back of my oh's car so hard he wrote both cars off. Luckily no one was hurt but the cost of replacing my oh's car was probably a lot more than his insurance. You don’t seem to be able to get it into your head that is not damage to your car you’re insuring against but the damage you do to other people’s cars and the people themselves, which can easily exceed the premiums you pay.

Percy1983

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't believe accurate figures can exist, do they? -as there is no requirement to claim...and I don't believe all who don't claim do declare, some one having made no claims could have an accident every year and twice in a leap year and not claim while their finances allowed them to.

This is an interesting point, as my 7 years now claims have cost me £6700 if I was in an accident now and it was a few hundred quid to sort I would probably pay for it rather than declare.

lostinrates

Percy1983 wrote: »

This is an interesting point, as my 7 years now claims have cost me £6700 if I was in an accident now and it was a few hundred quid to sort I would probably pay for it rather than declare.

You mean pay rather than claim I hope. It is fraudulent not to declare I think.

Procrastinator333

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't believe accurate figures can exist, do they? -as there is no requirement to claim...and I don't believe all who don't claim do declare, some one having made no claims could have an accident every year and twice in a leap year and not claim while their finances allowed them to.

Fair point, perhaps it should have been rephrased to accurate statistics of the number of people who make a 4th claim after a 3rd claim. While insurance companies would I'm sure like to still know, it doesnt' really matter to them if you drive in to a wall every single year, scratching the bumper and paying £200 to have it fixed yourself. It doesn't cost them anything.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure that's the case take the young driver who drove up the back of my oh's car so hard he wrote both cars off. Luckily no one was hurt but the cost of replacing my oh's car was probably a lot more than his insurance. You don’t seem to be able to get it into your head that is not damage to your car you’re insuring against but the damage you do to other people’s cars and the people themselves, which can easily exceed the premiums you pay.

I do understand this, but why on the other side when my dad had an accident which in cost more than his previous 10 years premiums did his renewal go up by £20.

All I call for is balance.

LilacPixie

Percy1983 wrote: »

Out of interest at what point would you say an experienced driver could be classed as worse than a new driver. I ask this as a new young driver would get quote more than a 40 year old who has had 3 accidents in the last year. Now the older driver is a proven bad driver and the new driver is an unknown.

My point is if you are the right age bracket you can be a proven awful driver but the stats say that you generally aren't a risk so you will get better quotes than a perfectly safe new young driver.

I do believe the stats are 1 in 5 crash with new drivers which yes is high and that 1 in 5 should be charged the earth, but what about the 4 in 5 who never do anything wrong?

How about a rebate system as in we all pay more and he good drivers get x amount back, it could work, with that I do believe proven bad drivers should get much harsher renewals rather than going with there age group is less likely to crash look at it as they have crashed.

my dad is 62 and now at the stage that I actually save him money on his insurance being a named driver. He has a clean licence though just getting older

Percy1983

lostinrates wrote: »

You mean pay rather than claim I hope. It is fraudulent not to declare I think.

Not sure on the legality to be honest, but does it not concern you that I have put £6700 and still don't think it would be worth my while to use the service I have paid for.

The system is so backwards that if you are young, financially it makes no sense to use the insurance you have been forced to buy.

Yes there is legal issues no doubt but could you blame anybody?

Procrastinator333

Percy1983 wrote: »

I do understand this, but why on the other side when my dad had an accident which in cost more than his previous 10 years premiums did his renewal go up by £20.

All I call for is balance.

Because he is still a better risk than a younger unkown driver.

Look, it is what it is. Whatever you or I think. If you want it changed, go set up your own insurance company along the lines you suggest.

lostinrates

Percy1983 wrote: »

Not sure on the legality to be honest, but does it not concern you that I have put £6700 and still don't think it would be worth my while to use the service I have paid for.

The system is so backwards that if you are young, financially it makes no sense to use the insurance you have been forced to buy.

Yes there is legal issues no doubt but could you blame anybody?

does it concern me that YOU have paid insurance and not used it? No more than it concerns me I and my husband have done the same.

I do think insurance now is a crippling cost. I bought a car when I was 17 and my insurance was a fraction of what it is now. I've had a good few years driving experience since, a couple of sp30s inmy twenties, no accident thats my fault (I've been driven in to two or three times, but nothing serious and not counted against me) and my insurance is now more expensive than it was when I was 17...so are a lot of things.

How unfair this is generally depends, IMO, where you live and what your choices are, what you drive and why you drive.

Finally your attitude to legality that cancels out a lot of how much I care tbh.

PhylPho

Gawd. I wish I could remember what insurance I paid on my Mini Cooper (with green roof) in 1966, wonderful car, always let me be Paddy Hopkirk with my girlfriend alongside and another couple in back as a group of us in our Hillman Imps and Minis hurtled without seat-belts out to and back from a favourite country pub when the breathalyser had never been heard of.

All these years later, I look back and shudder to think how I really was an accident waiting to happen because as Donald Rumsfeld once attempted to say, it's what you don't know that you don't know that's a b*gger.

Nowadays my insurance is with Saga and I drive a Passat semi-auto and don't think I'm Paddy Hopkirk. Nor do I cram the car full of friends or speed out to the pub and come back fairly sozzled.

But -- and it's a big "but" -- surprisingly enough, young people don't change. No generation has a monopoly on youth: everyone gets old.

It's a thought that occurs whenever my wife and I are out on the roads around here at night, and some kid in a souped-up Astra with blown exhaust overtakes me at breakneck speed or crests a bend that I can tell, just from watching his driving, that it'll be touch-and-go if he makes it. But then: I passed my driving test in 1965. From the looks of it, he passed his the day before yesterday. The 45 years' driving experience that separates us actually does count for something.

That same thought occurs to insurance companies too, albeit in an age infinitely more expensive than the one I knew, where whip-lash was something that happened on telly in "Rawhide", the compensation culture simply didn't exist and nobody had ever heard anyone saying the word "damage" in the plural.

The young are renowned for taking chances. The older are renowned for not. You don't need to be an expert in stats to confront the reality of human nature -- whether you're an insurer or not.

Meantime. . . vrooom, vroom!