Being a reliable driver gets you punished

Dannydee333

Quite simply, I think it is disgusting that your car insurance price can go down for several years and then all of a sudden jumps back up again even when you have NEVER CLAIMED once in your entire life. I'm not just talking about renewal; you go on to the comparison sites YoY and random overinflated figures pop up.

I don't care about the industry jargon they spew, because essentially, the translation is "other people claimed, so we need to punish you for that by charging you more"

That is is the literal truth of the matter.

Your individual record is far less important than they pretend it is. You are not being priced solely as you; you are being priced on whatever commercial targets they have that year.

The price can fall for years, then suddenly jump because their algorithm has decided you are worth squeezing, or because they no longer particularly care whether they retain you at the previous price.

Stinking sharks. That's what they are.

flaneurs_lobster

Needs moving to Rants….

Is there some kind of "Beginners Guide to How Insurance Works" with particular reference to 'Risk Pooling'?

Peter999_2

I worked for the largest car insurance company in the UK. We made yearly profits of 1.8% of income - and we got a bonus that year as it was so high. They are not making the sort of profits you think they are.

Woodstok2000

You sound angry. Maybe that puts you in a higher risk bracket.

Mildly_Miffed

Must be nice to only ever drive on roads with no other cars or trucks, in a car that'll never get stolen or hit will parked, or catch fire.

Exodi

Sorry but I disagree with how you've characterised this - risk profiling is on aggregate, but of course we all like to think we are unique or special. In the absence of a crystal ball being able to tell us exactly who will have an accident, we all pay according to our risk profile.

I think in context of your gripe - unfortunately it is a flaw of living creatures that we deteriorate with age: our reactions get slower, our eyesight degrades, our flexibility worsens, etc.

When my stepdad was in his seventies, he wore the fact he had never been involved in an accident like a badge of honour, yet ironically going out in the car with him was absolutely terrifying - not just akin to parents overreacting when their child drives at 31mph in a 30 zone, genuinely dangerous. The amount of cars he pulled out in front of, driving in the wrong lane, and the worst bit - completely and utterly oblivious to it all. All the near misses he would occasionally notice were always rationalised by blaming the car he just pulled in front of.

While my sisters and I urged him to stop driving for years, he maintained that he was an excellent driver, as evidenced by his track record. Our efforts were fruitless, we ended up just refusing to get in the car with him. Eventually a few years later (much to our relief) he was forced to stop driving on medical grounds (which he described as a load of old cobblers).

People who were recently involved in an accident already pay increased premiums. The No Claims Discount system reduces this over a period of up to 10 years. What you're implying is you'd prefer a system where it's instead spread over their entire lifetimes - e.g. someone in their sixties, who may have been involved in an accident when they were in their twenties should carry on paying increased premiums ad infinitum, if it brings yours, 'a good driver's, premium down?

I'm probably going to get a lot of raised eyebrows here, but I do think (UK based) insurers do regularly get unfairly characterised.

MikeJXE

I agree with Dannydee333 but I'm not annoyed as it's the system and I can't change it but it is unfair to the good drivers

I was born in 1940, I passed my tests in 1962 for motorcycle and car, I have never made a claim, never had an accident, my premium goes up because I'm getting older and the system says I'm a higher risk than someone who's 40 years old.

No matter how you spin it how is that fair to me

I am a good and not a high risk as I will prove when I pass my advanced driving test in the next couple of months

HHarry

Yeah, that’s how the insurance industry works. Your individual circumstances are taken into account because you will pay proportionally less than a riskier driver. But if the general costs of parts and labour are increasing through supply or inflation issues, that’s reflected in everyone’s premium.

You may not have had an accident for 40 years, but if you do it’s not getting fixed at 1980’s prices.

Expecting insurance costs to coninually fall or remain static is unrealistic.

Alanp

a bit like the jasper carrott joke about his mother in law “ she’s never had an accident in forty years of driving, she’s seen hundreds, but never had one herself “…

Mildly_Miffed

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82080487#Comment_82080487

You don't think that there might, just perhaps, be statistically solid information to show that people in their mid-80s, like you, are not as safe as you think you are?

Reaction times. Eyesight. Mobility of neck/upper body to turn and look.

It's a simple fact that - yes - you ARE a higher risk to insurers than somebody less than half your age. And they charge as little as they think will be profitable for somebody who fits your risk profile.

If the insurers thought your advanced driving test pass showed you were a lower risk, they'd ask about it and charge less because of it. Remember - they actually WANT business that is nice and profitable and low-risk…

Aretnap

"I've been driving 64 years without an accident therefore insurance companies should give me cheap premiums" really is a bizarre argument to make. I'm a completely different person to the one I was 30 years ago. I'm sure that you've even more different to the person that you were 60 years ago. Why would anybody be remotely interested in whether 22 year old you had any accidents on the roads of the 1960s?

Quite obviously if you say that, insurers are going to hear "I am very old", not "the fact that I managed not to have an accident when I was 22 proves that 86 year old me is still physically and mentally capable of driving safely".

Plus if for some strange reason insurers did decide to give people credit for 60+ years of safe driving, the inevitable flip-side would be that if you had an accident on the way to a Beatles concert in 1964, you would still have to declare it and pay extra for it now in 2026. I imagine that would be an outrage and really unfair as well. There are good reasons whi insurers are only interested in a few years of claims history.

Really when people say "insurers should be fairer to safe drivers" what they mean is "they should give ME more credit for the things that I think make ME a good driver, and ignore all the things that point towards me being a higher risk". Erm, no, they're not going to do that.