Why do we insure the DRIVER and
Discussion
R1 Loon said:
GeraldSmith said:
In the UK we insure the car and not the driver.
The only difference is that in order to cut premiums it is usual to restrict who can drive, but you can insure for any driver, it just costs more. OK some policies do let you drive other cars but but only third party that is dying out.
So really there is very little difference between our system and the one proposed, switching to making all policies 'any driver' would just put premiums up for most people and not give benefit for most.
Actually we insure the driver for a specific car.The only difference is that in order to cut premiums it is usual to restrict who can drive, but you can insure for any driver, it just costs more. OK some policies do let you drive other cars but but only third party that is dying out.
So really there is very little difference between our system and the one proposed, switching to making all policies 'any driver' would just put premiums up for most people and not give benefit for most.
GeraldSmith said:
No we insure the car for a specific driver or set of drivers. Actually the point is that we do both, it's the same thing.
Whilst it iss the same, the law is that a driver must be insured not that a car must be insured. The effect is the same, but given the topic on this thread effectively what we do in this country is to assess the driver first followed by the car.If they want all cars to be OK then premiums will rocket.
rottie102 said:
You don't travel a lot, do you? 
Well actually I do. But it's not like I've been to every country in Europe. When I say Europe I suppose I am refering to North-Western europe: Scandinavia, France, Holland, Germany, Austria... not Italy, Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Greece...GeraldSmith said:
No we insure the car for a specific driver or set of drivers. Actually the point is that we do both, it's the same thing.
There is a big difference in insuring a car for one specific driver and insuring a car so that anyone legally allowed to drive in the UK can drive your car (i.e couple hundred million people) vs a few specific people.The 'third party on another car' is being phased out (I think).
So next time you need to borrow your wife's estate instead of your porsche you can't. You need to either go through the hassle of temporary car insurance or put yourself on the policy for the possibility you might 1 or 2 times a year need to borrow the car.
Edited by RoastedNut on Sunday 3rd April 20:16
RoastedNut said:
GeraldSmith said:
No we insure the car for a specific driver or set of drivers. Actually the point is that we do both, it's the same thing.
There is a big difference in insuring a car for one specific driver and insuring a car so that anyone legally allowed to drive in the UK can drive your car OP face it, the insurance industry in the UK is not going to change how it works, just because you're struggling to pay the insurance premiums they want from you as a 17 year old male
Edited by AndrewW-G on Sunday 3rd April 20:39
RoastedNut said:
here is a big difference in insuring a car for one specific driver and insuring a car so that anyone legally allowed to drive in the UK can drive your car (i.e couple hundred million people) vs a few specific people.
The 'third party on another car' is being phased out (I think).
So next time you need to borrow your wife's estate instead of your porsche you can't. You need to either go through the hassle of temporary car insurance or put yourself on the policy for the possibility you might 1 or 2 times a year need to borrow the car.
Or you could just put yourself on each other's policies as named drivers and, as you're married / cohabiting partners, benefit from a reduction in premium.The 'third party on another car' is being phased out (I think).
So next time you need to borrow your wife's estate instead of your porsche you can't. You need to either go through the hassle of temporary car insurance or put yourself on the policy for the possibility you might 1 or 2 times a year need to borrow the car.
Edited by RoastedNut on Sunday 3rd April 20:16
R1 Loon said:
Or you could just put yourself on each other's policies as named drivers and, as you're married / cohabiting partners, benefit from a reduction in premium.
Exactly, I have 4 vans on one policy and when I made all drivers allowed to drive all vans the policy was cheaper than if they would just drive their own vans.rottie102 said:
Exactly, I have 4 vans on one policy and when I made all drivers allowed to drive all vans the policy was cheaper than if they would just drive their own vans.
Similar in practice, but different in theory. You'll have a Commercial policy that has slightly different underwriting criteria more appropriate to a business rather than Joe public.AndrewW-G said:
Yes normally several hundred pounds of difference!
OP face it, the insurance industry in the UK is not going to change how it works, just because you're struggling to pay the insurance premiums they want from you as a 17 year old male
Hey, if you can find a better way for me to try and get cheaper premiums as a 17 year old male than trying to reform the whole insurance structure in the UK please let me know OP face it, the insurance industry in the UK is not going to change how it works, just because you're struggling to pay the insurance premiums they want from you as a 17 year old male
Edited by AndrewW-G on Sunday 3rd April 20:39
RoastedNut said:
ey, if you can find a better way for me to try and get cheaper premiums as a 17 year old male than trying to reform the whole insurance structure in the UK please let me know
How is it a better way to get a cheaper premium when what you're looking for will undoubtedly increase the risk exponentially and therefore the premium?RoastedNut said:
ey, if you can find a better way for me to try and get cheaper premiums as a 17 year old male than trying to reform the whole insurance structure in the UK please let me know
Persuade everybody your age to stop crashing their cars, spend some time looking for the cheapest car to insure, irrespective of whether or not it will help you lose your virginity, add your parents to the policy as second drivers, startyour own insurance company etc etc . . . . . . Anything but trying to make insurance more expensive for everybody else thinfourth2 said:
So you want me to pay the same to insure my car as a spotty little 18year old who has had 3 write offs and a speeding ban.
Might I suggest you p
s off
And all of his mates are allowed to drive his car too!Might I suggest you p
s offIt's a crap system as the driver is the main risk profile, not the car, so every 17 y/o would pass their test and buy the fastest thing they can. Then they would crash even more and rates would rocket.
thinfourth2 said:
So you want me to pay the same to insure my car as a spotty little 18year old who has had 3 write offs and a speeding ban.
Might I suggest you ps off
Couldn't have put it better myself. I have an uncle in his 60's who has a Ferrari 550 for occasional use, as a 3rd/4th car. He has been driving for over 40 years, and hasnt had an accident in over 30 years. He pays less to insure a 6.0 V12 Ferrari than I pay for a 1.2 Fiat Punto.Might I suggest you p
s off@OP
Should he really pay as much as a rockstar or footballer (or me) to insure it?
R1 Loon said:
Whilst it iss the same, the law is that a driver must be insured not that a car must be insured. The effect is the same, but given the topic on this thread effectively what we do in this country is to assess the driver first followed by the car.
No the law is that the car and driver combination must be insured, there is no need for the driver to have any insurance in their name whatsoever so long as the insurance on the car covers them to drive itR1 Loon said:
If they want all cars to be OK then premiums will rocket.
Absolutely, it's a barking suggestion, it means that we all would insure for any driver instead of named driver.GeraldSmith said:
No the law is that the car and driver combination must be insured, there is no need for the driver to have any insurance in their name whatsoever so long as the insurance on the car covers them to drive it
I think we're going in circles. In practice it is the car & vehicle combination. However, some policies such as Trade, for example, have a driver insured for any car, along with a premium to match.The RTA states, that it is the user of the vehicle who requires insurance for the vehicle, not the vehicle needs to be insured for the user.
143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks. E+W+S
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
RoastedNut said:
GeraldSmith said:
No we insure the car for a specific driver or set of drivers. Actually the point is that we do both, it's the same thing.
There is a big difference in insuring a car for one specific driver and insuring a car so that anyone legally allowed to drive in the UK can drive your car (i.e couple hundred million people) vs a few specific people.RoastedNut said:
The 'third party on another car' is being phased out (I think).
Yes it's been going for yearsRoastedNut said:
So next time you need to borrow your wife's estate instead of your porsche you can't. You need to either go through the hassle of temporary car insurance or put yourself on the policy for the possibility you might 1 or 2 times a year need to borrow the car.
I'm a named driver on my wife's car and on my parent's cars as well in case I need to drive them, it costs nothing to add me. Meanwhile my company cars are insured for any employee to drive.As I keep saying, we insure the car and not the driver, the only difference is that we usually insure the car for named drivers and not for any driver. You don't need to have insurance yourself to drive a car so long as the policy on that car covers you. Similarly the fact that you are covered to drive one car does not automatically give you cover to drive another.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Deva Link said:
DOC was only ever meant for moving cars that were in your way at a party etc, not for use on the open road.
Absolute rubbish. With DOC the insured can drive any car, anywhere, anytime and insurers are fine with that. Only difference is the vehicle being driven is not insured for damage to itself.No insurer would be happy with a policyholder insuring a Fiesta and then regularlyy using the cover to drive a Ferrari. It's technically legal though.
Direct Line, for example, describe it as being for emergency use: http://www.directline.com/about_us/news_141005.htm
The only reason most of you find this system "strange" and "illogical" is because it's what you're used to. I bet you: If you went to one of these countries and said "Hey guess what, we're gonna change the system so now you insure each individual car with each driver, some of you will get cheaper insurance and some will get more expensive" They would find it strange, stupid and tell you to fk off.
From what i've found out, most average cars cost a couple hundred pounds a year to insure. If it makes it cheaper when you're younger and more expensive when you're older, does it really matter? It balances out in the end anyway, it's like a loan, you pay less when you're younger but you pay it back when you're older.
I don't think changing to this system is suddenly going to cause a surge of accidents by young drivers.
In fact, it would probably decrease uninsured drivers, there would be a much higher mandatory excess (especially for younger drivers) (People would be more careful). I don't see why some people on here think that insurance is there to solve problems such as keeping young drivers from driving powerful cars. Why not change the DVLA point system: "If you speed over 10MPH in your first 5 years of driving you're banned for 10 years". "If you get banned twice you get banned permanently." It would greatly reduce the incentive to break the rules, and the ones that still break the rules are severely punished for it. WHO AGREES WITH ME?
Why aren't there more racetracks? Why doesn't the government build a racetrack somewhere, make everyone sign a "If I die it's not our problem" form, maybe stick a McDonalds next to it to entice local chavs and just make the penalties for driving on public roads much much severer, as everyone would have a local racetrack they can play around on, there'd be no excuse.
Sometimes you got to lose some to gain some...
okay, I'm rambling...
k off.From what i've found out, most average cars cost a couple hundred pounds a year to insure. If it makes it cheaper when you're younger and more expensive when you're older, does it really matter? It balances out in the end anyway, it's like a loan, you pay less when you're younger but you pay it back when you're older.
I don't think changing to this system is suddenly going to cause a surge of accidents by young drivers.
In fact, it would probably decrease uninsured drivers, there would be a much higher mandatory excess (especially for younger drivers) (People would be more careful). I don't see why some people on here think that insurance is there to solve problems such as keeping young drivers from driving powerful cars. Why not change the DVLA point system: "If you speed over 10MPH in your first 5 years of driving you're banned for 10 years". "If you get banned twice you get banned permanently." It would greatly reduce the incentive to break the rules, and the ones that still break the rules are severely punished for it. WHO AGREES WITH ME?
Why aren't there more racetracks? Why doesn't the government build a racetrack somewhere, make everyone sign a "If I die it's not our problem" form, maybe stick a McDonalds next to it to entice local chavs and just make the penalties for driving on public roads much much severer, as everyone would have a local racetrack they can play around on, there'd be no excuse.
Sometimes you got to lose some to gain some...
okay, I'm rambling...
RoastedNut said:
From what i've found out, most average cars cost a couple hundred pounds a year to insure. If it makes it cheaper when you're younger and more expensive when you're older, does it really matter? It balances out in the end anyway, it's like a loan, you pay less when you're younger but you pay it back when you're older.
If I were you, I'd wander away from this topic, before people are a little more harsh than simply calling you a fking idiotGassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff