What needs to be fixed in the Motor Insurance game

Spiderham

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

maybe restrict new drivers to certain hours. Most young drivers have accidents after 11pm.

This part I have trouble with. One of the major arguments given for nationalising car insurance (which would lead to cross-subsidy) is that it is unfair on young drivers being priced out of insurance and makes it harder to get jobs etc. The argument partially being that public transport is inadequate to be relied upon. Now this would rule them out of jobs needing them to commute to them at night. If public transport is bad during the day, it's bloody awful at night, so I don't think this can reasonably be done with the nationalisation of insurance.

On the power thing though, that could well be a goer, seems to work for motorbikes.

I'm not against nationalisation of car insurance per se but I do think people see it as a magic cure all when actually the results may be somewhat unpalatable for many.

anniecave

Back to the original post...

Cut down on overinflated car repair costs. I had a simple accident where someone drove into the back of me, damaging my bumper, and the amount the repair company charged for just replacing a generic ford ka bumper was a rip off.

Also why isn't the car hire repair time minimised where possible?

My insurance company were perfectly willing to offer me a hire car for an extended period of time whilst they took the car into the repair centre, got it inspected, ordered parts, waited for parts to be delivered, waited for repairs to be done.

I arranged for the car to be inspected and parts ordered before, and the repair centre took less than a day to do the repair on my car. So I didn't get a hire car at all.

I dread to think what the car hire bill would have been.

My insurance company didn't care, as the other driver's insurance company was paying out.

If the car is perfectly driveable, why isn't it normal practice for the car to be inspected and parts ordered and delivered ready, BEFORE the hire car is delivered? It would cut down on a lot of cost.

corbyboy

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Training of new drivers needs to be improved and the test needs to be harder.

I have big problems with the way the driving test works now and making it harder won't make any difference.
I passed my driving test on the 5th attempt. Was it a case of me being a bad driver for the first four and a good driver on the fifth? No, I just happened to drive well on the fifth.
Taking a 1-hour snapshot of your driving to judge whether you are a suitable driver is not a good way of certifying drivers.

I think a minimum number of supervised hours would be helpful, but this would make it hard for people to be taught by family.

mikey72

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Training of new drivers needs to be improved and the test needs to be harder.

Maybe restrict type of car in first 2 years and maybe restrict new drivers to certain hours. Most young drivers have accidents after 11pm.

How would that work?


You could make the test harder, but if most younger have accidents after 11.00pm, that suggests that they would need to move the test to nights, when the roads are quieter, so it would actually be easier to pass.

So the test just proves they are actually capable of driving well, to an agreed standard, which I'm sure a lot of us couldn't meet now.

When do other drivers have the most accidents, for a comparison?
If we all have them after 11.00pm, fair enough.
If it's just young drivers, why them?
Adressing the problem would help, not just adressing the symptom, by stopping them driving, either by a test no one can pass, or only letting them drive in the day.

corbyboy

mikey72 wrote: »

So the test just proves they are actually capable of driving well, to an agreed standard, which I'm sure a lot of us couldn't meet now.

I forgot to mention this too.

I always think it's very infair that older people pass their tests and then want to move the goalposts to make it harder for the youngsters to pass their test.

Any changes to make the driving test more difficult should be coupled with mandatory retests for all drivers, say every 10 years?

mikey72

corbyboy wrote: »

I forgot to mention this too.

I always think it's very infair that older people pass their tests and then want to move the goalposts to make it harder for the youngsters to pass their test.

Any changes to make the driving test more difficult should be coupled with mandatory retests for all drivers, say every 10 years?

The strain on the NHS due to stress would cost more than the whiplash claims, and thankfully, the mp's are at least my age.

mikey72

anniecave wrote: »

Back to the original post...

Cut down on overinflated car repair costs. I had a simple accident where someone drove into the back of me, damaging my bumper, and the amount the repair company charged for just replacing a generic ford ka bumper was a rip off.

Also why isn't the car hire repair time minimised where possible?

My insurance company were perfectly willing to offer me a hire car for an extended period of time whilst they took the car into the repair centre, got it inspected, ordered parts, waited for parts to be delivered, waited for repairs to be done.

I arranged for the car to be inspected and parts ordered before, and the repair centre took less than a day to do the repair on my car. So I didn't get a hire car at all.

I dread to think what the car hire bill would have been.

My insurance company didn't care, as the other driver's insurance company was paying out.

If the car is perfectly driveable, why isn't it normal practice for the car to be inspected and parts ordered and delivered ready, BEFORE the hire car is delivered? It would cut down on a lot of cost.

I had that with a claim for our car.
I insisted on a dealer repair, not an approved bodyshop, they submitted a quote, agreed it, got the parts in, about two weeks after the accident we took the car in, the dealer gave us a car for a couple of days, we got the car back repaired.
Two days, rather than three weeks hire charges.
Our insurer wasn't that happpy, but did play ball when I insisted.

tberry6686

How about giving insurance companies a set time to deal with claims. My own car has now been off the road for over a month and the third parties insurance has not even arranged an inspection by their engineer yet - they accepted liability straight away. I don't actually need the car as I have access to another but a month and not inspected is taking the P.

Quentin

The third party has no obligation to act quickly.

But they would have an incentive were you using a hire car that they would end up paying for!

Maybe you need to get a claim handler to concentrate their minds!

InsideInsurance

Certainly the idea of a centralised RTO cover is appealing, I always struggle to some degree with a legally required certificate only being issued by private/ commercial entities. That said, given the history of governmental departments spendings etc I am not sure that it would lead to a significant reduction in insurance costs for the majority.

If this was done it also somewhat manages the no win no fee issue as if you reintroduce the legal aid type system then the government are paying for the solicitors no matter what and as per legal aid I am sure they can get lower rates agreed.

I have always argued that peoples duty to mitigate losses should be much more strongly enforced (and yes I have been the innocent party in RTAs). I used to see far too many people getting £300 a day hire cars just because they drive a BMW 5 series though have no demonstrable need for such a vehicle. I can even remember one case with a Porsche at nearly £1000 that was given to the TP for 5 days and yet the log sheet the hire company sent us showed he didnt drive the car even 1 mile.