Van insurance - £3K!!!!

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

As they don't appear to be having more accidents then they ever did, perhaps we'll see fairer premiums on the way.

Do you know how risk is calculated? Yes or no answer will suffice.

mikey72

Yes...........

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

Yes...........

So you will know that R=pL.

If p decreases, what would lead to R increasing?

suburbanwifey

mikey72 wrote: »

The figures for 17 to 24 say they have about twice as many accidents as older drivers.
They appear to show a steady decrease in accidents by younger drivers, and exactly the same ratio as older drivers year on year.

If this is true, why are insurers now saying they have so many more accidents, insurance has to be ten times what an older driver pays,and not merly twice the amount, and have they managed to create an urban myth that others are happy to repeat without seeing any real proof.

It may be a worrying trend that "younger drivers" now go up to age 24, so they will be hammered as well soon.




Ah, a 2CV driver then.

:rotfl:A 2VC driver? nope, don't think so :rotfl:thanks for the giggle, you're cute

(I just looked them up, they are those horrible French things that have a gear stick on the wheel? LMAO !!!!!!)

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

So you will know that R=pL.

If p decreases, what would lead to R increasing?

You can tell you're in insurance, the questions go on forever.

My age group still has to go some to cover Gary Hart.
£50 million and still counting isn't it?

mikey72

suburbanwifey wrote: »

:rotfl:A 2VC driver? nope, don't think so :rotfl:thanks for the giggle, you're cute

(I just looked them up, they are those horrible French things that have a gear stick on the wheel? LMAO !!!!!!)

Just a bit of fun, it was the cat thing.

I do believe it's unfair to tarnish all younger drivers as a bad risk though.
Particuarly those who have got jobs, and either need to drive for work, or drive to get to work at antisocial times.
They are priced out, and to face a lifetime of unemployment isn't a good result.
I'd rather subsidise their insurance, than pay for them to sit at home claiming benefits.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

You can tell you're in insurance, the questions go on forever.

Well, I'd rather the questions go on forever than the "urban myths".

mikey72 wrote: »

My age group still has to go some to cover Gary Hart.
£50 million and still counting isn't it?

Gary Hart's accident was overwhelmingly covered by reinsurers, and even a one-off large loss like that is a drop in the ocean when compared to the whole market (over £9bn GWP). It is well established that young drivers have a greater chance of causing an accident and when they do cause accidents they are significantly more severe.

Of course we all do hope that young driver insurance comes down to more reasonable levels. Legal reform (banning of referral fees, evidentiary burden of "whiplash") and technology (telematics) will help. But it is too simplistic so say that risk and premiums will fall for young drivers purely because the accident rate is decreasing. This ignores trends in the severity of loss ("L" above) and how young drivers affect insurer's expenses in other ways (e.g. reinsurance inflation for insurers that have a high proportion of young drivers on the books, due to uncertainty around PPOs). As long as the Government ignores the fact that young drivers learn to pass a test - not learn to be competent drivers - they will continue to face much higher insurance premiums than their older counterparts.

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

....... But it is too simplistic so say that risk and premiums will fall for young drivers purely because the accident rate is decreasing. This ignores trends in the severity of loss ("L" above) and how young drivers affect insurer's expenses in other ways (e.g. reinsurance inflation for insurers that have a high proportion of young drivers on the books, due to uncertainty around PPOs). As long as the Government ignores the fact that young drivers learn to pass a test - not learn to be competent drivers - they will continue to face much higher insurance premiums than their older counterparts.

It's hard to learn to be competent without experience.
But when they pass the test, they're deemed competent enough to satisfy everyone else.
So there has to be a risk. Any method to give some "off road" or "pre driving" experience would just shift the cost to a different area.
Younger drivers pass a much harder test than I did.

We'll never agree, as I don't like paying cheap insurance at the expense of younger drivers, I'd happily sudsidise them, if the money I paid went there, rather than to extra profits.
So from my point of view, the government should be looking to cap young drivers premiums, as a percetage of that offered to older drivers with the same other criteria, (apart from driving experience).

Derivative

I have been quoted £7k for a small transit, 21 years old.
Put a stopper on the 'camper van' idea quite quickly.

suburbanwifey

EdgEy wrote: »

I have been quoted £7k for a small transit, 21 years old.
Put a stopper on the 'camper van' idea quite quickly.

Oh, I'd love a camper van! they look such fun