You MUST have a 'box' installed before insuring you - wtf?
Discussion
There's not really a harm in checking the mainstream companies, might as well see what they offer.
What about something like an Atom V8. "Sir, we record your car doing 0-60mph in 2.3 seconds multiple times. Would you please come into your nearest delearship to have the black box fixed", 
otolith said:
Rick101 said:
An Elise or GTR must set off the s
t alarms big time. I can imagine sirens, red flashing lights and tactical teams being dispatched sharpish!
"The system is reporting that you've probably been punted up the arse by an HGV, are you ok?"t alarms big time. I can imagine sirens, red flashing lights and tactical teams being dispatched sharpish!LoonR1 said:
BertBert said:
What rubbish. If I want to look on a comparison website for insurance for my GTR why not? It's a production car from a production car manufacturer.
Bert
For a pedant, you're not very precise are you?Bert
You can look wherever you want for insurance, just like you can take your Ford Galaxy to Bentley for servicing. Probably not the best idea, but as you say, they are a car dealer, and you want a car servicing.
The point I was making is that aggregator sites are for mainstream policies for mainstream cars for the mainstream person. A Nissan GTR, or an Elise for that matter, hardly fits that criteria.
The majority of cars are production cars, from production car manufacturers, that doesn't make them all mainstream vehicles.
Back to my point. I disagree with you as to whether comparison websites are appropriate for GTRs. Perhaps you could tell me what it is about the GTR that makes it inappropriate to use comparison websites to get quotes?
Bert
BertBert said:
It's pretty predictable that every time I disagree with you you have a pop. I suggest if that's what you want to do at least make it a proper one. Calling me a pedant doesn't really cut it does it Mr Superior?
Back to my point. I disagree with you as to whether comparison websites are appropriate for GTRs. Perhaps you could tell me what it is about the GTR that makes it inappropriate to use comparison websites to get quotes?
Bert
It actually goes back a while, back to when I posted a generic explanation of NCD being earned over 5 years, which is true for the majority of the industry and you took issue as a handful have longer periods than that. I'd call that pedantic.Back to my point. I disagree with you as to whether comparison websites are appropriate for GTRs. Perhaps you could tell me what it is about the GTR that makes it inappropriate to use comparison websites to get quotes?
Bert
You've continued this here.
What makes the GTR inappropriate for price comparison sites is that after messing about for a few hours my mate had a nosey at some of the higher end brokers and ended up with a much more appropriate policy. Simple as that really, a £73,000 tended to exclude a lot of the maintream policies as too expensive for them to quote, those that did charged a significant amount for inferior cover. Instead he chose a policy with a guaranteed , agreed value, no messing about with approved repairers (if needed), straight to a repairer of his choice with no argument, a reduced excess and no mileage limit.
Happy now?
LoonR1 said:
It actually goes back a while, back to when I posted a generic explanation of NCD being earned over 5 years, which is true for the majority of the industry and you took issue as a handful have longer periods than that. I'd call that pedantic.
You've continued this here.
What makes the GTR inappropriate for price comparison sites is that after messing about for a few hours my mate had a nosey at some of the higher end brokers and ended up with a much more appropriate policy. Simple as that really, a £73,000 tended to exclude a lot of the maintream policies as too expensive for them to quote, those that did charged a significant amount for inferior cover. Instead he chose a policy with a guaranteed , agreed value, no messing about with approved repairers (if needed), straight to a repairer of his choice with no argument, a reduced excess and no mileage limit.
Happy now?
Thanks that's actually helpful. If you'd have said that first rather than dressing it up in your normal superior generalisations it would have been better. If you are still hung up over our spat of a while ago, I'll happily continue thinking of you as a bit of a stuck up tYou've continued this here.
What makes the GTR inappropriate for price comparison sites is that after messing about for a few hours my mate had a nosey at some of the higher end brokers and ended up with a much more appropriate policy. Simple as that really, a £73,000 tended to exclude a lot of the maintream policies as too expensive for them to quote, those that did charged a significant amount for inferior cover. Instead he chose a policy with a guaranteed , agreed value, no messing about with approved repairers (if needed), straight to a repairer of his choice with no argument, a reduced excess and no mileage limit.
Happy now?
t who has ideas of grandeur. I was happy to move on, but as you don't seem to be, then you've just re-inforced my view.Bert
Bert
BertBert said:
Thanks that's actually helpful. If you'd have said that first rather than dressing it up in your normal superior generalisations it would have been better. If you are still hung up over our spat of a while ago, I'll happily continue thinking of you as a bit of a stuck up tt who has ideas of grandeur. I was happy to move on, but as you don't seem to be, then you've just re-inforced my view.
Bert
Bert
I'm not hung up on it at all, I simply remember it, much like many other things.t who has ideas of grandeur. I was happy to move on, but as you don't seem to be, then you've just re-inforced my view.Bert
Bert
I'd hope, that given this forum is full of petrolheads, that they'd know that they're not mainstream and that a broker is the better source of specialist insurance. This site does have close affiliations with one, albeit not one I'd personally use.
My generalisations aren't "superior" they are an explanation of the market overall. To cover off every individual scenario just isn't feasible.
You can call me / think of me as a "stuck up t
t" as much as you like. Those who know me, know that is far from the truth. I'll avoid building on that comment and leave it be.LoonR1 said:
You can call me / think of me as a "stuck up tt" as much as you like. Those who know me, know that is far from the truth. I'll avoid building on that comment and leave it be.
Well that is good to know. I'll stop that train of thought and think nice things about you. But my honest feedback, and please take this as a positive , heartfelt comment, is that you do come across as a know-it-all who reacts badly to people who dare to differ.t" as much as you like. Those who know me, know that is far from the truth. I'll avoid building on that comment and leave it be.Hugs?
Bert
BertBert said:
Well that is good to know. I'll stop that train of thought and think nice things about you. But my honest feedback, and please take this as a positive , heartfelt comment, is that you do come across as a know-it-all who reacts badly to people who dare to differ.
Hugs?
Bert
Let's go with a more manly Hugs?
Bert
I'm quite blunt, that extends to my posting style, but everyone can read that with whatever inflection they choose and hey presto an image is formed, whether it's reflectd in reality, or intended may be very different.
By the same token, I do find some posts repetitive and drifting off topic as if to prove oneupmanship for themselves. The Atom V8 post above is a good example where a point is laboured continuously.
I've always got better quotes by phoning brokers for the most part.
Comparison websites are ok if you're just insuring a run of the mill car and/or aren't fussed about the particulars (eg track day insurance, DoV, etc) but as soon as you get into something reasonably exceptional it pays to do the legwork imo.
GTRs being what they are value wise would certainly qualify as exceptional. You have to think that most of the companies on the comparison websites either don't want the business or are ill prepared for it.
Comparison websites are ok if you're just insuring a run of the mill car and/or aren't fussed about the particulars (eg track day insurance, DoV, etc) but as soon as you get into something reasonably exceptional it pays to do the legwork imo.
GTRs being what they are value wise would certainly qualify as exceptional. You have to think that most of the companies on the comparison websites either don't want the business or are ill prepared for it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
skwdenyer said:
Insurance should be about spreading risk, not cherry-picking the best risks.
They are not cherry picking the best risks, they are offering a discount for the worst risks by making them slightly less risky.This is not a conspiracy, it's technology and capitalism working together.
What I meant was that, if every risk is considered individually, one gets to the point where certain risks might as well self-insure, as their premiums will be too high.
Market economics might suggest that those people would stop driving. Human nature says that they will not stop driving at all. They will resort to lying on proposal forms, fronting, changing their names, or simply not bothering with insurance at all. Market economics will not solve the problems society as a whole seeks to solve.
We - by and large - accept that, as citizens, we have to pay for some things that we don't need or want in order for society to function properly. As a driver, I accept that I will perhaps be paying more than my 'fair share' to subsidise 17 year olds who need to be insured. The black box approach, and the massively-hiked premiums for some groups (especially the young), fly in the face of this.
The market will not be able to fix this alone; its interests are not the same as society's. Society has to mandate that certain things are done in a certain way for the benefit of all.
I do not wish for a nanny state at all; by and large, I think there is often 'too much government'. But I also recognise that society has to function well, and that it cannot do this by marginalising groups of people, or pretending that they won't do things that pragmatists know that they will do.
If society wants all drivers to be insured then I believe society has to find a way to do that. I'm afraid I'd be quite happy with a model that looked something like this:
- insurance is divided into, say, 20 bands based upon age and driving experience;
- no regional variations exist;
- the 20 bands operate in some clear progression of some kind;
- discounts are applied evenly for certain milestones (e.g. additional training);
- NCB operates as expected.
I don't mind how the rest is organised - a single underwriter, multiple underwriters, and so on; there are many models. But all insurers would have to operate the same model, and all insurers would have have to offer cover to all on the same basis. The spread between highest and lowest premiums would be mandated - lower them for 1 group and you must lower them for all.
Otherwise, what is the alternative? Wonga-esque deals for the highest risks, and 'decent' deals for everybody else? That is IMHO pie-in-the-sky stuff for those who think that it will act in society's best interests. Just as we can't marginalise people out of jobs or housing, we can't marginalise them out of doing things that many will just carry on doing in any case. Society has to be set up so that most people can succeed in meeting its aims, not by wielding an ever-bigger stick.
If that makes me left-wing them so be it, although my record on other political issues would not suggest so.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What total tripe. Honestly, is that the best argument against it you've got.
How about "there was a huge tailback, I used far more fuel than I planned to, couldn't afford to fill up so parked up illegally." Do you think that would work.
Some of the anti black box stuff is beyond stupidity. Grow up, ffs.
It wasn't the best argument; it was the first I thought of. Sorry to have so clearly offended you.How about "there was a huge tailback, I used far more fuel than I planned to, couldn't afford to fill up so parked up illegally." Do you think that would work.
Some of the anti black box stuff is beyond stupidity. Grow up, ffs.
When young, in the middle of the countryside, I had many friends who had to walk home having run out of fuel and without more money to pay for it. For most, these days, it is pretty hard to find somewhere to park legally in such a situation
insurance is compulsory, because it is deemed to be in the best interests of society. I simply fail to understand why insurance should be allowed to, in effect, lapse for those without money because of some provision which clearly seeks to defeat society's purpose in having insurance for all.
Also, think about where this is going. Would you be happy with a box in your vehicle because every insurer has decided that they can 'more accurately tailor your premium'? Where is the end point of this? You may think this silly, but if lots of 'careful drivers' sign up, only the 'not so careful drivers' must be those who don't want one, therefore rates will go up for those without, and so on. Although it is an over-used phrase, this really is the thin end of the wedge.
I have no problem at all with the third-party element of insurance being provided within fuel taxation, and the remainder being black-box related, if you are wedded to the boxes - although I'd prefer not to have one.
I've done the insurance in petrol tax thing several times on here. It's 48p per litre along with other wider social and economic impacts. None of which are particularly favourable.
Thin end of the wedge? What do you know that I don't? I know expected uptake rates and also the cap being applied on uptake.
Thin end of the wedge? What do you know that I don't? I know expected uptake rates and also the cap being applied on uptake.
skwdenyer said:
- insurance is divided into, say, 20 bands based upon age and driving experience;
- no regional variations exist;
No regional variations? Just checked your profile, and you're in the South East, one of the higher rated areas! There's a coincidence.- no regional variations exist;
People in rural communities are already finding it hard to run a car, with the higher mileages they have to do on school runs, shopping trips etc. Now you want to whack up their insurance costs by having them subsidise those living in cities. You really haven't thought this thru have you.
Ps. I live in London. I like your idea, but from a fairness point of view as opposed to a self interest stance, why should some bloke in the wilds of Norfolk subsidise my lifestyle choice to live in London.
skwdenyer said:
... if every risk is considered individually, one gets to the point where certain risks might as well self-insure...
I'd quite like to self-insure for the comprehensive element and the 3rd party element that I could afford. I'd insure myself for 3rd party above a certain limit and legal protetion, and that's it. But for me, 3rd party only costs the same, or more than, TPF+T, and the comprehensive element is only an additional 15%.Unfortunately, I am not incentivised to do so. Insurance companies want to know if I have a knock that results in a zero pay-out and it affects my "profile". If I don't claim on my, or anyone else's insurance, the insurance companies shouldn't need to know.
They should even be told if I've had an accident caused by me that damaged only my property and that I paid for out of my pocket.
Re black boxes, I'll avoid them until I need to have one, even if it costs me more.
pingu393 said:
I'd quite like to self-insure for the comprehensive element and the 3rd party element that I could afford. I'd insure myself for 3rd party above a certain limit and legal protetion, and that's it. But for me, 3rd party only costs the same, or more than, TPF+T, and the comprehensive element is only an additional 15%.
Supposing you could do that, insure yourself for tp up to a certain limit you could afford and then buy insurance for the rest. In effect, tp insurance with an excess. Say you decided you'd pay tp claims up to £10k, and you bought cover for anything over £10k. You buy an annual policy in january and in March you lose your job, or have some other financial disaster. By the time you hit me in July, you no longer have £10K. Where do I get my money??? TwigtheWonderkid said:
pingu393 said:
I'd quite like to self-insure for the comprehensive element and the 3rd party element that I could afford. I'd insure myself for 3rd party above a certain limit and legal protetion, and that's it. But for me, 3rd party only costs the same, or more than, TPF+T, and the comprehensive element is only an additional 15%.
Supposing you could do that, insure yourself for tp up to a certain limit you could afford and then buy insurance for the rest. In effect, tp insurance with an excess. Say you decided you'd pay tp claims up to £10k, and you bought cover for anything over £10k. You buy an annual policy in january and in March you lose your job, or have some other financial disaster. By the time you hit me in July, you no longer have £10K. Where do I get my money??? Podie said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
pingu393 said:
I'd quite like to self-insure for the comprehensive element and the 3rd party element that I could afford. I'd insure myself for 3rd party above a certain limit and legal protetion, and that's it. But for me, 3rd party only costs the same, or more than, TPF+T, and the comprehensive element is only an additional 15%.
Supposing you could do that, insure yourself for tp up to a certain limit you could afford and then buy insurance for the rest. In effect, tp insurance with an excess. Say you decided you'd pay tp claims up to £10k, and you bought cover for anything over £10k. You buy an annual policy in january and in March you lose your job, or have some other financial disaster. By the time you hit me in July, you no longer have £10K. Where do I get my money??? 
. At the end of 20 years they get the money back with interest.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff