Commercialism rant! (long but worth a read)

Percy1983

Cleaver wrote: »

So the annual insurance for my first car was about the same as the value of the car. But that's not really the issue - the cost of the insurance was based on the fact that I was 20 years old and 20 year old drivers cause more chaos on the road than other drivers.

Yet again I won't disagree with that fact, but it does seem that every 20 year old is vilified before they have done anything wrong.

On the flipside I could be awful driver now (at 27) and make a few claims and still get cheaper quotes than a sensible 20 year old just because most people my age are better drivers, to which I also think it is wrong.

JonnyBravo

Percy1983 wrote: »

Anyway, my point is rather than trying to get every age group to balance its self I am in short saying make a loss on young drivers and charge the rest (the majority) a small amount more. In many respects if the government forced a s capped insurance with conditions the insurance companies would do this anyway to recoup the loss.

Hang on.
You started saying it was outrageous that young drivers were charged far more than it could ever cost to insure that group and that it was outrageous such discrimination could take place.

Now, when it is pointed out to you it probably does cost that much to insure young drivers and why it costs that much your solution is to discriminate against another age group?

Is that not a little illogical bordering on hypocrisy?

JonnyBravo

Percy1983 wrote: »

Yet again I won't disagree with that fact, but it does seem that every 20 year old is vilified before they have done anything wrong.

On the flipside I could be awful driver now (at 27) and make a few claims and still get cheaper quotes than a sensible 20 year old just because most people my age are better drivers, to which I also think it is wrong.

But what is your solution to determine how good a driver is?

If a driver is bad and claims a lot then their policy goes up does it not?
If you come from a statistically proven group of "likely claimants" how do you propose you prove it otherwise?

ILW

I wish I was 20.

PhylPho

Hopefully the younger generation's understanding of real-world economics isn't being accurately reflected here. The OP's initial "rant" seemed intended to spark a rousing debate -- fair enough. But the more the OP posts the clearer it's becoming that this thread is a wind-up.

Percy1983

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Hang on.
You started saying it was outrageous that young drivers were charged far more than it could ever cost to insure that group and that it was outrageous such discrimination could take place.

Sorry my point wasn't clear on this, my point is that no single age group should be treated as singluar entity when it comes to pricing as there is bad drivers in every generation (a higher proportion in the younger I agree). Rather than each age group having to balance in its own rights why not accept that some young drivers are going to cost alot but instead of charging ALL young drivers due to SOME poor drivers the same age why not treat the whole spectrum the same to which will mean a small increase to all and lessor or premiums for the young drivers who do drive sensibly.

I don't have the exact numbers but what ia m saying is rather than dumpig the cost of young drivers on all other perfectly good young drivers with large premiums why not distribute it over everybody which will have little impact.

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Hang on.
Now, when it is pointed out to you it probably does cost that much to insure young drivers and why it costs that much your solution is to discriminate against another age group?

In short insurance has always worked by making money off those who don't claim to pay for those who do. its not descrimination to spread the costs accross all customers but it is descrimination to make a small group pay just because some drivers who are completely different people but share the same age and gender only are bad drivers.

As I say all I want to see is a level of protection for the young and sensible and safe drivers who do prove themselves to be just so, those who are complete tools will soon get points or make a claim to which they should then be at the mercy of the insurance companies.

As I say I wouldn't mind a small rise on my premiums if it meant young drivers who where sensible and safe could get a reasonable quote. I am not defending the Hamiltion/Button etc wannbes in the slightest.

ILW

PhylPho wrote: »

Hopefully the younger generation's understanding of real-world economics isn't being accurately reflected here. The OP's initial "rant" seemed intended to spark a rousing debate -- fair enough. But the more the OP posts the clearer it's becoming that this thread is a wind-up.

It could be possible that he is just an idiot.

ILW

Percy1983 wrote: »

Sorry my point wasn't clear on this, my point is that no single age group should be treated as singluar entity when it comes to pricing as there is bad drivers in every generation (a higher proportion in the younger I agree). Rather than each age group having to balance in its own rights why not accept that some young drivers are going to cost alot but instead of charging ALL young drivers due to SOME poor drivers the same age why not treat the whole spectrum the same to which will mean a small increase to all and lessor or premiums for the young drivers who do drive sensibly.

I don't have the exact numbers but what ia m saying is rather than dumpig the cost of young drivers on all other perfectly good young drivers with large premiums why not distribute it over everybody which will have little impact.



In short insurance has always worked by making money off those who don't claim to pay for those who do. its not descrimination to spread the costs accross all customers but it is descrimination to make a small group pay just because some drivers who are completely different people but share the same age and gender only are bad drivers.

As I say all I want to see is a level of protection for the young and sensible and safe drivers who do prove themselves to be just so, those who are complete tools will soon get points or make a claim to which they should then be at the mercy of the insurance companies.

As I say I wouldn't mind a small rise on my premiums if it meant young drivers who where sensible and safe could get a reasonable quote. I am not defending the Hamiltion/Button etc wannbes in the slightest.

Another solution would be to increase the driving age to 21 or possibly 25.

JonnyBravo

Percy1983 wrote: »

Sorry my point wasn't clear on this, my point is that no single age group should be treated as singluar entity when it comes to pricing as there is bad drivers in every generation (a higher proportion in the younger I agree). Rather than each age group having to balance in its own rights why not accept that some young drivers are going to cost alot but instead of charging ALL young drivers due to SOME poor drivers the same age why not treat the whole spectrum the same to which will mean a small increase to all and lessor or premiums for the young drivers who do drive sensibly.

I don't have the exact numbers but what ia m saying is rather than dumpig the cost of young drivers on all other perfectly good young drivers with large premiums why not distribute it over everybody which will have little impact.



In short insurance has always worked by making money off those who don't claim to pay for those who do. its not descrimination to spread the costs accross all customers but it is descrimination to make a small group pay just because some drivers who are completely different people but share the same age and gender only are bad drivers.

As I say all I want to see is a level of protection for the young and sensible and safe drivers who do prove themselves to be just so, those who are complete tools will soon get points or make a claim to which they should then be at the mercy of the insurance companies.

As I say I wouldn't mind a small rise on my premiums if it meant young drivers who where sensible and safe could get a reasonable quote. I am not defending the Hamiltion/Button etc wannbes in the slightest.

But the insurance companies only have data on groups of people. They don't know whether Jason or Grant is more dangerous/careless than Wayne or Mark.
They do know if they come from a "group of high risk" or not. That is the first point of pricing. The next point is past history. Have they claimed before or not? If they haven't they get the benefit of lower priced policies and building NCB.

You are not able to prove safe/unsafe for a length of time through any other means than demonstrating it over a length of time.

If you introduce a test for "safe" people will simply learn to pass it and then some of those will go back to "careless/dangerous". The only way to tell for sure is by demonstrating it over time.

The good thing about capitalism is if there genuinely was a way of doing this in a profitable manner someone would probably be doing it. If there isn't and you think you can, you should do it yourself.

Ingsy

ILW wrote: »

Another solution would be to increase the driving age to 21 or possibly 25.

Would help reduce congestion too. I good idea I say!