Commercialism rant! (long but worth a read)

FTBFun

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Direct Line let you get your own no claims on your parents policy.

Tesco do as well - although when I came to use this no claims bonus when I first had my own car a year ago the quote was more than double Admiral's!

Percy1983

olly300 wrote: »

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

Quite a few other posters have pointed out until such a time that an insurance company can distinguish between individuals then they have to use statistics.

BTW the job you do, your country of birth, your marital status, your postcode (where you live), the children you have and having other drivers on your policy is all priced into insurance systems.

The Admiral group got caught out this year for charging significantly more for people who were born aboard regardless of age - even if they moved here when they were babies and therefore were educated and learnt to drive here.

My point is they do have a way to distinguish individuals, by there driving record.

Have you made a claim?
Do you have points on your license?
How long have you been driving?

By all means start the quote with a figure which comes from the age, power and value of the car then then use basic multiples based on the 3 things above which are all directly related to how you drive as an individual.

You can base insurance on those things surely. With that a new driver will get the same quote if they are 20 or 40, male or female (assuming the same car of course). Points on you license will cost you the same, things will get cheaper with more years experience (not just age).

My point is insurance should be based on you, not assumptions they make about you due to cetain things about you (look up descrimination).

pinkteapot

No one is "putting their life on hold" if they don't drive. It's a modern day convenience. You don't like the cost of it? Don't do it.

I didn't have my own car until I was 27 (sporadic borrowing of the family car) and hubby didn't start driving till he was 32. Somehow, we made it through life till that point.

As for the OP, I'd suggest some time living in one of the remaining communist countries to see how well that works for you. Interestingly, just this week I was chatting to a lady from Poland that I work with about what life was like under communism. She remembers it well. Especially parts such as her parents having to trade away her ration cards for sweets to get extra meat for the family. Oh and the part where utilities only worked during certain hours of the day. Sounds utopian to me. Everyone had the bare essentials. It was difficult for people to attain much more than that.

pinkteapot

If everyone who had never made a claim (irrespective of age) got cheap insurance, then the price was whacked up after a claim, people would drive until they had a claim and then give up. The insurance companies would go under in no time.

Insurance is NOT about your past (as you seem to think), it's about what they expect to pay out to you during the time you have a policy. Since the insurance companies don't have a crystal ball and can't tell what you're going to do in the next year, they can only base this on statistical, demographic factors as well as the historical questions you mentioned.

nicko33

Percy1983 wrote: »

My point is they do have a way to distinguish individuals, by there driving record.

Have you made a claim?
Do you have points on your license?
How long have you been driving?

And they already do use those things. And others.

ILW

Percy1983 wrote: »

Makes sense, is fair to all involved and doesn't descriminate.

Sounds perfect.

Insurance is supposed to discriminate on a basis of risk. That is how ot works.

Percy1983

The end of the day I am all up for public transport and use it for work, but I can also say there is many things in my life so far which just wouldn't be possible or heavily inconvienced without the use of a car.

I am not saying we should all be able to insure sports cars, but if somebody is going to be sensible with a small car as there first car and prove to drive it safely and sensibly why should they be charged the earth for it.

The end of the day I am not against new drivers paying more, but the situation has got out of control and out of proportion, am I the only one who can see that charging a young sensible driver with a 1.0 Micra £2.5k for insurance is wrong?

How many of you had to up 1/3 of your salary to insurance the most basic small car you could find?

As I say there is millions of insurance policies in this country, if all the 'I'm alright jack' lot all payed an extra £10 a year that could shave hundreds off the bills for our younger generations which will really help the sensible none crashing amoungst them and the none sensible ones will soon ramp there prices up all by themselves.

Is it just me who actually thinks maybe we should help the generations below us a little, I don't think just because they have bigger Tv's and better mobile phones available to them we should f**k them over with everything else.

pinkteapot

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am not saying we should all be able to insure sports cars, but if somebody is going to be sensible with a small car as there first car and prove to drive it safely and sensibly why should they be charged the earth for it.

:wall:

You cannot prove that you won't crash it during the time you have the policy that you are paying for.

How many more ways can we say it?

Premiums have risen due to:
(1) Increasing number of fraudulent claims
(2) Surge in personal injury claims which has increased the average claim payout
(3) Increasing number of uninsured drivers (insurance companies have to fund the Motor Insurers' Bureau which pays out when people are hit by uninsured drivers, cost gets passed on to people who do pay)

If a third of your net salary is £2.5k then you're earning around £8k and might want to have a word with your employer as you would seem to be earning less than the minimum wage for an 18-20 year old (assuming a 35 hour working week).

Percy1983

pinkteapot wrote: »

:wall:

You cannot prove that you won't crash it during the time you have the policy that you are paying for.

How many more ways can we say it?

:wall:

You cannot prove that you will crash it during the time you have the policy that you are paying for.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Is it just me who actually thinks maybe we should help the generations below us a little, I don't think just because they have bigger Tv's and better mobile phones available to them we should f**k them over with everything else.

Does explaining how car insurance works not count as help?