Commercialism rant! (long but worth a read)

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

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

Which is why it's priced according to risk.

pinkteapot

Percy1983 wrote: »

:wall:

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

If you could, your quote would be huge!

Percy1983

Do you wonder how many insured drivers are geniune people who really can't afford the quotes they have been given?

Yes they will always be a problem, but the problem is getting worse with more people being priced out, not because they are proven bad drivers but because they were born in the wrong year.

pinkteapot

It's nearly the end of the week, it's nearly Christmas, let's not start the "my generation is worse off than any before it" debate.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Yes they will always be a problem, but the problem is getting worse with more people being priced out, not because they are proven bad drivers but because they were born in the wrong year.

My first insurer charged me more for having testicles as well as being born in the 'wrong' year. Go figure.

I'd hate to be 19 again and having to put up with this injustice.:(

pinkteapot

insurance

Definition
A promise of compensation for specific potential future losses in exchange for a periodic payment.

http://www.investorwords.com/2510/insurance.html#ixzz18wxA3nuN

Please note: potential future losses

The ONLY way to gauge the potential for future losses is by applying relevant statistical factors. There IS a correlation between age and frequency of accidents. And not just because younger drivers are all new drivers. Statistically, a new driver who is 17 is more likely to crash than a new driver who is 40. They therefore pay more.

Talk about being a "proven safe driver" completely misses the point of what insurance is.

System

Percy1983 wrote: »

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?

So, do you think insurance companies are making considerably more profit from these policies than ones for older drivers?

nicko33

Percy1983 wrote: »

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

How do you know this isn't happening already? The people not making claims are always paying for those that do. Why not extend it to people who don't have cars, go and ask them for tenner each.

Don't get me started on Contents insurance though, move all your stuff into a house with 1 more bedroom, and suddenly that same stuff costs more to insure. How come? It's the same stuff. Burglars can't nick any more of it just because it's now spread across more rooms.

pinkteapot

nicko33 wrote: »

Don't get me started on Contents insurance though, move all your stuff into a house with 1 more bedroom, and suddenly that same stuff costs more to insure. How come? It's the same stuff. Burglars can't nick any more of it just because it's now spread across more rooms.

Larger properties are more likely to be targeted by burglars in the first place, hence the likelihood of you claiming has gone up, even if the value of the claim will be the same.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

My first insurer charged me more for having testicles as well as being born in the 'wrong' year. Go figure.

I'd hate to be 19 again and having to put up with this injustice.:(

At least you are brave enough to admit the young have it harder these days, I am only 27 and glad I am not 19, I had it bad and they now have it worse.