Would you insure your car if it weren't the law?
Discussion
You rarely risk damaging someone else by driving your house around the streets at speeds of up to "70mph".
I would certainly have third party cover at least.
For travel; repatriation of injured people costs LOTS.
Your house burning down would've unfortunate with no insurance - esp if you still have a mortgage.
Contents insurance is more debatable, but caravaggios are expensive to replace and there is my extensive collection of smiths vinyl!! ;o)
Guess I am getting risk averse....
I would certainly have third party cover at least.
For travel; repatriation of injured people costs LOTS.
Your house burning down would've unfortunate with no insurance - esp if you still have a mortgage.
Contents insurance is more debatable, but caravaggios are expensive to replace and there is my extensive collection of smiths vinyl!! ;o)
Guess I am getting risk averse....
Stuart70 said:
SystemParanoia said:
No i wouldent. No fkin way.
But then car insurance would be almost free if they didnt have the law forcing people to buy it.
Why?But then car insurance would be almost free if they didnt have the law forcing people to buy it.
moebiusuk said:
In my opinion, car insurance shouldn't be privatised. If it's the law, the government should handle it. It would be so much cheaper.
When did the motor insurance industry last make a profit? Competition, ppo's and whiplash fraud are all ensuring it is a cut throat business. Sadly that does not mean it is cheap!, Arguing against the free markets and arguing that the state could do it better/cheaper - and you are arguing it on piston heads. Wow!!
) its the Numbties, that would be b
king about at ninety plus past schools etc that f'*k it up for the minorityOf course I would. £500 a year to insure against damage/theft of a £35K asset seems fair enough to me.
The only people who would say no are young drivers with cheap cars who seem to have a problem understanding that it's not their car that is so expensive to insure, it's the possible damage they could do to another car due to their lack of experience.
The only people who would say no are young drivers with cheap cars who seem to have a problem understanding that it's not their car that is so expensive to insure, it's the possible damage they could do to another car due to their lack of experience.
Coolbanana said:
I would.
For £352/year I get peace of mind should my Porsche be damaged. Fully comp, NCB Protected. Not bad in my book.
I change insurers every year by shopping around.
Yup For £352/year I get peace of mind should my Porsche be damaged. Fully comp, NCB Protected. Not bad in my book.
I change insurers every year by shopping around.
totaly agree, I ve just paid £350 also, les than £1 a day to insure my boxster
its a no brainer
SystemParanoia said:
Because nobody would buy it at the rip off prices they charge now.. especially young drivers.
I have never ever paid less for my insurance than my car Is worth.. its an extortion racket
Do you think you are only insuring for the damage you could do to your car? Do you understand what 3rd party means?I have never ever paid less for my insurance than my car Is worth.. its an extortion racket
If you had to take financial responsibity for all damages one of your mates could do in their car, how much would you think you would charge?
Edited by 98elise on Sunday 29th September 16:38
Was thinking of posting this!
I wouldn't,
Also to al those older chaps out there, I'd be interested to hear if you added up all of your money you spent on insurance over the years vs how much you should have paid for the repairs/replacement of your car/the other sides car.
Because I reckon unless you're getting into 20k plus value of your car, you'd be better off over a lifetime not paying insurance every year but just taking it on the chin when you did crash. Hell you could even put 300 into an account every year and then it wont come as a shock, plus you could use the money on repairs when you need it.
However there will of course be people saying that if you crash into someones new 80k range rover then you wont be laughing, but I think it is outrageous that it should be compulsory, although if there was flat rate third party insurance based on years driving that wouldn't be as bad if the prices weren't mental as they are now.
I wouldn't,
Also to al those older chaps out there, I'd be interested to hear if you added up all of your money you spent on insurance over the years vs how much you should have paid for the repairs/replacement of your car/the other sides car.
Because I reckon unless you're getting into 20k plus value of your car, you'd be better off over a lifetime not paying insurance every year but just taking it on the chin when you did crash. Hell you could even put 300 into an account every year and then it wont come as a shock, plus you could use the money on repairs when you need it.
However there will of course be people saying that if you crash into someones new 80k range rover then you wont be laughing, but I think it is outrageous that it should be compulsory, although if there was flat rate third party insurance based on years driving that wouldn't be as bad if the prices weren't mental as they are now.
moebiusuk said:
Stuart70 said:
SystemParanoia said:
No i wouldent. No fkin way.
But then car insurance would be almost free if they didnt have the law forcing people to buy it.
Why?But then car insurance would be almost free if they didnt have the law forcing people to buy it.
Fantuzzi said:
Was thinking of posting this!
I wouldn't,
Also to al those older chaps out there, I'd be interested to hear if you added up all of your money you spent on insurance over the years vs how much you should have paid for the repairs/replacement of your car/the other sides car.
Because I reckon unless you're getting into 20k plus value of your car, you'd be better off over a lifetime not paying insurance every year but just taking it on the chin when you did crash. Hell you could even put 300 into an account every year and then it wont come as a shock, plus you could use the money on repairs when you need it.
In 20 years you would have £6000 (not counting inflation )
yes that should cover it if you killed someone
However there will of course be people saying that if you crash into someones new 80k range rover then you wont be laughing, but I think it is outrageous that it should be compulsory, although if there was flat rate third party insurance based on years driving that wouldn't be as bad if the prices weren't mental as they are now.
I wouldn't,
Also to al those older chaps out there, I'd be interested to hear if you added up all of your money you spent on insurance over the years vs how much you should have paid for the repairs/replacement of your car/the other sides car.
Because I reckon unless you're getting into 20k plus value of your car, you'd be better off over a lifetime not paying insurance every year but just taking it on the chin when you did crash. Hell you could even put 300 into an account every year and then it wont come as a shock, plus you could use the money on repairs when you need it.
In 20 years you would have £6000 (not counting inflation )
yes that should cover it if you killed someone
However there will of course be people saying that if you crash into someones new 80k range rover then you wont be laughing, but I think it is outrageous that it should be compulsory, although if there was flat rate third party insurance based on years driving that wouldn't be as bad if the prices weren't mental as they are now.
Fantuzzi said:
Was thinking of posting this!
I wouldn't,
Also to al those older chaps out there, I'd be interested to hear if you added up all of your money you spent on insurance over the years vs how much you should have paid for the repairs/replacement of your car/the other sides car.
Because I reckon unless you're getting into 20k plus value of your car, you'd be better off over a lifetime not paying insurance every year but just taking it on the chin when you did crash. Hell you could even put 300 into an account every year and then it wont come as a shock, plus you could use the money on repairs when you need it.
However there will of course be people saying that if you crash into someones new 80k range rover then you wont be laughing, but I think it is outrageous that it should be compulsory, although if there was flat rate third party insurance based on years driving that wouldn't be as bad if the prices weren't mental as they are now.
An 80k range rover is no where near the top end of your liabilies, you need to be closer to a few million. If you killed a couple of people then you might as well flush your life down the drain financially.I wouldn't,
Also to al those older chaps out there, I'd be interested to hear if you added up all of your money you spent on insurance over the years vs how much you should have paid for the repairs/replacement of your car/the other sides car.
Because I reckon unless you're getting into 20k plus value of your car, you'd be better off over a lifetime not paying insurance every year but just taking it on the chin when you did crash. Hell you could even put 300 into an account every year and then it wont come as a shock, plus you could use the money on repairs when you need it.
However there will of course be people saying that if you crash into someones new 80k range rover then you wont be laughing, but I think it is outrageous that it should be compulsory, although if there was flat rate third party insurance based on years driving that wouldn't be as bad if the prices weren't mental as they are now.
Personally I'm happy to pay the £300 per year.
SystemParanoia said:
I have never ever paid less for my insurance than my car Is worth.. its an extortion racket
Unfortunately a muppet driving a £100 car is well able to cause many ££millions of damage to other people in a crash.At least expensive insurance prevents some young drivers getting loose on the roads in powerful cars.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff