Speed awareness - notifying insurance
Discussion
Cooperman said:
"Compare the Meerkats" or "Go Compare".
Admiral never seem to come up with the best quote anyway and now they might be 'trying it on' in respect of SAC's.
Likewise, abd there's always these folks - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...Admiral never seem to come up with the best quote anyway and now they might be 'trying it on' in respect of SAC's.
I got quotes from mEERKAT/COMPARE and one firm ,which I was with kept coming up cheapest, but they then said they charged £20 for introducing me to Ins co . Grasping gits, they get commission from firm and a fee from me. So I got a quote from Flux. After taking their rescue package and fully comp I ended up over £50 cheaper than the blokes with horned hats, who use a seagull on their ads.
jagracer said:
sugerbear said:
A SAC course seems like a no brainer. In Essex the cost of the course is £97.50 vs 3 points + £100.
Why would anyone want three additional points on their licence when they can avoid them (and save a massive £2.50 in the process).
Because some people still believe It's revenue raising and like to cut their noses off to spite their faces. Why would anyone want three additional points on their licence when they can avoid them (and save a massive £2.50 in the process).
Davidonly said:
The pricing is set to sustain the market for SAC's: It is revenue raising but simply to feed the parasitic infrastructure and scumbags that run it. No net gain for Government or society.
Do you honestly believe that tripe? Really? Or is it just utter crap you feel compelled to spout in order to fit in with the rest of the tunnel vision meatheads.Before SACs, many people were saying fines and points were not the answer, but education was the way forward. Now we have it, they're still bleating.
I know 2 people who have been on SACs and both say it's made them re evaluate certain aspects of their behavior, and they learnt stuff they never knew about comparative stopping distances and suchlike.
If just 10% of participants take something positive from an SAC, that may lead to a few less deaths per year. And given the cost to society of having a person die in their prime in an RTA, there's a very real benefit to society.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dairymilk said:
If an insurance company increases your premium after a SAC choose another company; you can and should.
Why would you do that if they were still offering you a good price and the terms and conditions that suited you, even with the SAC loading?In principle I would refuse to do business with a company that asked the question in the first place as it is my opinion that companies that ask the most questions are seeking to gather more reasons not to honour their responsibilities in covering loss.
If Admiral represent the best deal then sure, use them but I would be put off by the signals the unreasonable question sends out.
Dairymilk said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dairymilk said:
If an insurance company increases your premium after a SAC choose another company; you can and should.
Why would you do that if they were still offering you a good price and the terms and conditions that suited you, even with the SAC loading?In principle I would refuse to do business with a company that asked the question in the first place as it is my opinion that companies that ask the most questions are seeking to gather more reasons not to honour their responsibilities in covering loss.
If Admiral represent the best deal then sure, use them but I would be put off by the signals the unreasonable question sends out.
Personally, I couldn't care less if they charged me extra for baldness and being left handed, so long as it was still the best quote. Having said that, I wouldn't insure with Admiral because imho their policy wording is rubbish, they don't cover some stuff that nearly all others do and even at a low price I think it's a poor value product. But that's just my personal take on it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You could argue that the firm that asks the most questions are looking to offer the most taylor made quotes so they can offer the very best price to the type of risks they wish to attach.
Personally, I couldn't care less if they charged me extra for baldness and being left handed, so long as it was still the best quote. Having said that, I wouldn't insure with Admiral because imho their policy wording is rubbish, they don't cover some stuff that nearly all others do and even at a low price I think it's a poor value product. But that's just my personal take on it.
I think he - like a disappearingly small number of us - objects to the principle. It's about liking companies who you do business with. I know it's a quaint idea these days (cf the hatred of Rupert Murdoch and the mass addiction to Sky, etc), but it shouldn't be too hard to grasp.Personally, I couldn't care less if they charged me extra for baldness and being left handed, so long as it was still the best quote. Having said that, I wouldn't insure with Admiral because imho their policy wording is rubbish, they don't cover some stuff that nearly all others do and even at a low price I think it's a poor value product. But that's just my personal take on it.
EskimoArapaho said:
I think he - like a disappearingly small number of us - objects to the principle. It's about liking companies who you do business with. I know it's a quaint idea these days (cf the hatred of Rupert Murdoch and the mass addiction to Sky, etc), but it shouldn't be too hard to grasp.
Bang on , some people buy into the ethos of the company. Some people stopped buying coffee from Starbucks after hearing of their tax policy , others like their coffee and would buy it irrespective of said policy. joe_90 said:
Jakg said:
nonuts said:
2)Does the speed awareness course actually count as a conviction?
No.Admiral ask, but don't charge extra for it. Yet!
Cheers
Flipper
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dairymilk said:
If an insurance company increases your premium after a SAC choose another company; you can and should.
Why would you do that if they were still offering you a good price and the terms and conditions that suited you, even with the SAC loading?TwigtheWonderkid said:
Davidonly said:
The pricing is set to sustain the market for SAC's: It is revenue raising but simply to feed the parasitic infrastructure and scumbags that run it. No net gain for Government or society.
Do you honestly believe that tripe? Really? Or is it just utter crap you feel compelled to spout in order to fit in with the rest of the tunnel vision meatheads.Before SACs, many people were saying fines and points were not the answer, but education was the way forward. Now we have it, they're still bleating.
I know 2 people who have been on SACs and both say it's made them re evaluate certain aspects of their behavior, and they learnt stuff they never knew about comparative stopping distances and suchlike.
If just 10% of participants take something positive from an SAC, that may lead to a few less deaths per year. And given the cost to society of having a person die in their prime in an RTA, there's a very real benefit to society.
bad company said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dairymilk said:
If an insurance company increases your premium after a SAC choose another company; you can and should.
Why would you do that if they were still offering you a good price and the terms and conditions that suited you, even with the SAC loading?TwigtheWonderkid said:
bad company said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dairymilk said:
If an insurance company increases your premium after a SAC choose another company; you can and should.
Why would you do that if they were still offering you a good price and the terms and conditions that suited you, even with the SAC loading?bad company said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
bad company said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dairymilk said:
If an insurance company increases your premium after a SAC choose another company; you can and should.
Why would you do that if they were still offering you a good price and the terms and conditions that suited you, even with the SAC loading?If Admiral are right, and SACs do correlate to a higher claim risk for the future, then they will price themselves out of unprofitable business, others will pick it up and lose money, and then they might start loading too.
That's the way it works. No cartel, no conspiracy, no collusion, just many different insurers all trying to get the jump on each other.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Look, it's really quite simple. If SACs do not mean that participants are more likely to claim in the future, Admiral will price themselves out of profitable business. Other insurers will pick that business up and make money. If they start loading too, they will compromise their own ability to pick up the business.
If Admiral are right, and SACs do correlate to a higher claim risk for the future, then they will price themselves out of unprofitable business, others will pick it up and lose money, and then they might start loading too.
That's the way it works. No cartel, no conspiracy, no collusion, just many different insurers all trying to get the jump on each other.
As you say it's really quite simple. Insurance companies are businesses and their business is making money. If they can get away with charging for SAC's they will do so. It follows that if Admiral are seen to get away with it others will follow.If Admiral are right, and SACs do correlate to a higher claim risk for the future, then they will price themselves out of unprofitable business, others will pick it up and lose money, and then they might start loading too.
That's the way it works. No cartel, no conspiracy, no collusion, just many different insurers all trying to get the jump on each other.
That's the way it works. No cartel, no conspiracy, no collusion, just companies trying to maximise their profits.
Edited by bad company on Wednesday 18th June 11:00
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff