Car insurance in the thousands after at fault claim

MattMattMattUK

Frozen_up_north said:

"All" new cars have auto braking to reduce the risk of running into the back of the car in front, which is a very common collision. Maybe the insurance cost for older cars reflects the increased chance of claims for low speed collisions?

Sometimes yes they do factor that in. It is about fifteen years ago now but an old boss got a new Audi S8, he tended to drive like an idiot at the best of time and he disliked that the safety systems kept kicking in and applying the brakes. He claimed this was because they were "broken", we all knew, having had to sit in a car with him, that it was because he would regularly get within a meter or two of the back of the car in front at any speed, it did not matter if it was 30 or a motorway, he would always tailgate, because of this he disabled the system, something you could do back then and it would stay off (now it only stays off for a short period of time or until the engine is turned off). As expected the inevitable happened (as has happened several times before) and he drove into the back of another car. The insurers questioned how that was possible as the safety radar should have braked the car, he told them he had turned it off as it was "annoying". They told him that it was a condition of his insurance policy that he should not disable any of the vehicles safety systems and withdrew cover his insurance cover, that meant not only did they not pay out for his four month old S8 that he had written off, but they subsequently took him to court to recover the third party costs that they had to pay out as well, all in all it cost him (or more accurately the company) around £240k.

The causes of accident is almost always the "dumb meat" in control of the two tonne metal box, catastrophic mechanical failure is less than 0.1% of all accidents. Whilst 1.8% of accidents are put down to mechanical failure most of them are things finally failing that are obvious issues which the driver choose to ignore until they result in an accident. It is the reason that the insurance industry is so against driverless cars, once cars are driverless accidents will become almost non-existent and the people still driving their own cars will be the ones who are liable, before the business model dies entirely as people driving vehicles ends up being banned. 

HillStreetBlues

Frozen_up_north said:

While individual circumstances will give rise to variations in costs, I am just over 70, been driving since the early 1970s, only had one claim when another driver wasn't paying attention and ran into the back of my car (there's a common thread here). That claim was around 10 years ago.

I am retired and drive a new Seat leon, with fully comp and 10,000 miles per year. The cost of insurance last March was £355, the previous year it was £348, an increase of £7.

"All" new cars have auto braking to reduce the risk of running into the back of the car in front, which is a very common collision. Maybe the insurance cost for older cars reflects the increased chance of claims for low speed collisions?

I haven't found that, my car is starting to get old (no auto braking) insurance decreased from £159 (£114 after cashback) last year to currently £114 (£89 after cashback)   Excess also dropped from £250 to £175.

Frozen_up_north

Talking of insurance and cashback, I used that irritating Meerkat site to switch house and car insurance, we save typically between £6 and £14 on eating out each week, at least £200 a year with little effort, just clicking on the app.

sheramber

I am 78. drive a 2017 fabia and my annual premium reduced by £40 last month.

ElefantEd

I'm 108, I drive a Model T Ford and my premium reduced by 3 groats a few decades ago.

oldagetraveller1

My renewal reduced, earlier this year, by about £70, same cover, same insurer, same car, 11 years old with no fancy collision warning/braking, lane departure warning etc..

Yes, I am ancient too.