Someone drove into me and now it puts £300 on my policy

rs65

mikey72 wrote: »

No, it's not.
We know your views on promoting corporate capitalism, but mutual societies still exist, and offer products that are often cheaper than ones that pay huge bonuses to staff and shareholders.

CSIS car insurance is underwritten by RSA though ....

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

I suspect that buying from one of these societies isn't the answer to cure all ills.
If it were then it's the advice we'd all be giving out left right and center.
Don't get me wrong - it would be lovely if it was, but I haven't seen it solving all the collective issues, so I remain to be convinced.
Be back later - just going out to do something positive for road safety.

Why did I think you wouldn't be liking the idea?

mikey72

rs65 wrote: »

CSIS car insurance is underwritten by RSA though ....

Can't win them all.
But one less band of bonuses and shareholders is better than nothing.

vaio

lisyloo wrote: »

.....I find that my age, location, claim history, NCB, conviction history, gender, equipment and qualifications actually bring the premium down.....

and the best way to reduce your premium.....

lisyloo wrote: »

..... my choice is no car so it's costs nowt.......

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

vaio

lisyloo wrote: »

.......How else would they do it?
Apart from grouping people the only thing I can think of is that they individually check out your daughter e.g. driving test and interview- which would mean you'd have to pay for that to get a quote. Would you be willing to pay for an individual asssesment just to get a quote? Somehow I doubt it......

or rather than each company running their own driving test maybe we could have a government controlled driving test system which you do once and then all companies accept the result?

mikey72

I guess some of us aren't alone in seeing the danger of corporate capitalism at any cost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15610181


"........... that people felt "let down" by aspects of business, finance and politics which "seem in touch with the richest 1% - but badly out of touch with the reality facing the other 99%"

olly300

jackyann wrote: »

Thanks for reminding me! I did apply to attend a local IAM but discovered it was actually more of a social group & they asked me to their Xmas dinner! I then completely forgot about contacting them again!
And yes, it is a choice to live where I do, but to answer someone else: I stick to the speed limit and I do get overtaken.
I can't believe that any course is going to tell me to do 40 mph in a 30 zone so that doesn't happen!

What advanced driving instructors tried to teach you is to anticipate the actions of other drivers on the road.

For example there are lots of people who seem unaware of the large turning circles of buses and HGVs, so either overtake in a stupid place or stop stationary in a stupid place at lights causing problems.

Oh and I'm quite happy for and do allow speeders to overtake me. Particularly as I live in an area which can have lots of police cars out and about randomly.

jackyann

Yes I will contact IAM again.
I have to say that the worst problem I had was when I regularly did a motorway drive of about 15 miles - often there was an advisory speed limit of 40 or 50 mph. I found that when I kept at or just above it, I would often get lorries come up behind me hooting & gesticulating (the drivers that is!) and flashing (lights!) quite agressively - and no, I didn't slow down abruptly or sit in the middle lane.
I asked a police officer what I should do, and he said to tuck in behind a lorry in the slow lane, at a safe distance, and keep at the lorry's speed, even if that was above the advisory limit.
The most annoying is a windy lane leading into my village - most of us drive it at 40-50mph as we're used to it, but strangers sometimes slow down to 30. That's fine, I sit a distance behind them and tootle along quite happily - UNTIL they get to the village, and its straight road with a 30 limit and then they SPEED UP!!!!

lisyloo

I totally agree jacky.
Often it is safer to keep to the speed of the surrounding traffic rather than others getting impatient and tailgating you.
It's a tricky area because officially a police officer coudln't condone illegal speeding (although I appreciate in your example it's an advisory limit).

Most advanced motorists would make up their own mind depending on the conditions.
For example - I have no issue with saying I would speed to save my own life.
A friend of mine got clipped by a lorry on the motorway and his car got pushed along horizontally stuck to the front of the lorry. In many cases the car is "rolled" and the driver/passengers are killed.
Better to be convicted by 12 (jury) than carried off by 6 (in a coffin).

So we all have to make our own decisions in the individual situations.
I have to say the number of times I find it to be genuinely necessary to speed for safety (as opposed to planning) are actually few and far between and if someone is being a real pain there is always the option of pulling over and letting them overtake.
But yes I agree that driving below the speed of the surrounding traffic can cause issues.

These are the type of things we debate both on a one-to-one basis and sometimes at group talks.
Actually going out and driving/riding gives plenty of material to discuss.
I really do hope you join and get a lot out of it.

MarkyMarkD

IMHO, lorries rarely speed at compulsory speed limited sections of motorway. Advisory limits are almost always unhelpful - they indicate that their might be a problem ahead, in which case all they really need to say is "be aware", or they indicate that you are already unable to go at a speed far lower than the suggested limit because the traffic has slowed to a snail's pace.

Also bear in mind that lorries have properly calibrated speedometers as part of their tachographs, whereas all car speedometers over-read by some margin. Typically a lorry driving at 56mph will appear to be driving at 60-61mph to a car driver who believes their speedo.

If you have a sat nav, it will normally show your true speed and that will evidence to you how much your car speedo over-reads.

This thread is very interesting (apart from the repetition by those with blinkered minds to the logic being espoused) but:

(1) the insurance market is very competitive, and suggestions that there is a cartel are ridiculous;
(2) in a competitive market, the idea that any one insurer can (in the long run) gain by unfairly loading particular risk factors is nonsense - if they do, other insurers who more accurately load that risk factor will under-cut them, and the first insurer will eventually have to reduce the factor loading to remain competitive;
(3) some insurers simply choose not to operate in certain market segments, but do this via pricing rather than refusing cover. So, they may offer unbelievably high rates as a result of certain risk factors applying;
(4) insurance premiums have not increased overall by as much as the increased cost of claims, and car insurance is not a very profitable business for most insurers. This is because of vastly increased fraud, increased cost of repairs, increased theft of and from cars, and increased propensity of non-insured vehicles; and
(5) there are very few mutual insurers in the car insurance market, and the ones that exist are not particularly competitive.