Can I drive any car with fully comp insurance?
Discussion
vikingaero said:
It's OK to bleat on about what would be ideal for you, but few people want to pay for it. Essentially you want the world on a stick and everyone else to pay for it.
Spot on. Most people aren't into cars. They are 40+, with a 1.4 eurobox, paying £200 or less for husband and wife cover. They don't want to pay for insurance that doesn't take into account they they don't drive exotic supercars. And they don't want to pay for you to do so.If we insured the driver and not the car, then twins living in the same house, one with a Ferrari and one with a Micra, would pay the same. Great for the Ferrari guy, crap for the Micra owner.
People should pay for the risk they pose, which is why the OP is getting stick. because he's trying to avoid this.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
So my wife and I would need 2 policies to drive our car, or 4 if I want my two sons to drive. f
k that for a game of soldiers. All that extra admin, plus the cost. Stupid idea.
Now imagine we live in one of the countries where they do exactly as I have suggested, your post would say,k that for a game of soldiers. All that extra admin, plus the cost. Stupid idea. "So I'd need two policies to drive both of my cars, or three if I want to be able to drive my mate's car home from the garage? f
k that for a game of soldiers... Etc etc"Neither system is perfect, but I happen to prefer the compromises of insuring the driver.
2CV - aren't you always telling us that the car being insured in basically irrelevant to the cost, because insurers assume everyone will crash into a gold-plated Lamborghini and paralyse a dozen Premier League footballers? It won't, therefore, really make any difference to your premium.
Alternatively, do it like the AA and give people the option to choose to insure just the car or the driver for all cars, or the driver for all cars of a certain type, or specified vehicles, or a specified car for any driver fully comp. Basically anything other than our current system of 'you might be insured, you might not. Life's a lottery, be lucky'.
ferrariF50lover said:
2CV - aren't you always telling us that the car being insured in basically irrelevant to the cost
No.ferrariF50lover said:
because insurers assume everyone will crash into a gold-plated Lamborghini and paralyse a dozen Premier League footballers?
That explains that "My car is only worth £500 so why am I paying £2500 premium".But is a 17yo in a Hyundai i10 more or less likely to do that than a 17yo in a hot Corsa?
ferrariF50lover said:
2CV - aren't you always telling us that the car being insured in basically irrelevant to the cost, because insurers assume everyone will crash into a gold-plated Lamborghini and paralyse a dozen Premier League footballers? It won't, therefore, really make any difference to your premium.
.
Of course the car is relevant. Most claims are tp damage and injury, but the more powerful the car you're in, the more likely you are to hit someone else, and when you do, you are more likely to be going faster. .
Christ, this isn't rocket science.
And no, I don't need 4 policies to drive 4 different cars. The owners of those other cars just have me as a named driver.
The UK system is just fine. In Europe, insurance is cross subsidised. Low risk drivers driving low group vehicles subsidise the rest. I pay about £285 for my insurance. My friends in Germany can't believe it. They all pay around 4 times that much, forced to pay for any driver cover they don't want or need.
The only people who don't like UK insurance are young drivers, and other high risk groups. They don't like it because it's fair, and they pay what they should be paying.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The only people who don't like UK insurance are young drivers, and other high risk groups. They don't like it because it's fair, and they pay what they should be paying.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. You pay based on a generalisation that may be totally inapplicable to you.From the age of 17, I paid what I thought was treasonable and had no accidents bar on aquaplaning back lane incident that could have happened to anyone. The only claim i ever made was for the theft of a motorcycle and that was not age-related either.
Sadly, "fair" these days is unfair because most of that premium goes to the modern fetish of funding injury claims. Older folk may be a lower overall risk but many young drivers are a significantly lower risk again. Shafting young drivers has become an insurance sport and a way to justify stupid premiums that they can't get away with, elsewhere. The arbitrary nature is exemplified by adding an older driver to a young driver's policy and there goes £300 off the policy but I'll bet the older driver never gets behind the wheel for a second.
Of course, I'm not suggesting young drivers aren't stupid and inexperienced and may contribute to accident statistics but i wouldn't mind betting the payouts got to savvy middle-aged and older people who know they can claim free cash off the back of it.
If you think about it carefully, the advent of black boxes pretty much removes the high risk of young drivers - they have to abide with speed limits and drive carefully and keep under 6 points in the first two years and yet the premium is still stupid. I know because, like many parents, I have to pay them.
LuS1fer said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The only people who don't like UK insurance are young drivers, and other high risk groups. They don't like it because it's fair, and they pay what they should be paying.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. You pay based on a generalisation that may be totally inapplicable to you.LuS1fer said:
From the age of 17
New drivers are harder, because they have no record. Equally, they have no experience. That's why black boxes are so popular in this demographic.LuS1fer said:
I paid what I thought was treasonable and had no accidents bar on aquaplaning back lane incident that could have happened to anyone.
You didn't crash... except when you crashed. Now you have more experience, do you still aquaplane on wet roads and crash?LuS1fer said:
The only claim i ever made was for the theft of a motorcycle and that was not age-related either.
No, but it was vehicle- and location-related. Which are the other two elements that premiums depend on.LuS1fer said:
If you think about it carefully, the advent of black boxes pretty much removes the high risk of young drivers - they have to abide with speed limits and drive carefully and keep under 6 points in the first two years and yet the premium is still stupid.
Because they are still a demonstrably high risk, compared to older, more mature, more experienced drivers.I have no issue with the cost of insurance.
Yes I may think it is high on certain cars I have owned but at the end of the day, cars are more expensive to repair, everybody wants to involve an accident management firm so they are in a like for like courtesy car, compensation culture and Injuries, not to mention theft and careless drivers who don't give a toss about damaging someone else's property.
If I have to pay £30-40 a month to be covered for £30,000 of asset, the ability to drive other people's car, have a new windscreen for £70,have a replacement car if mine is damaged/stolen and be covered legally then frankly it is bargain.
Yes I may think it is high on certain cars I have owned but at the end of the day, cars are more expensive to repair, everybody wants to involve an accident management firm so they are in a like for like courtesy car, compensation culture and Injuries, not to mention theft and careless drivers who don't give a toss about damaging someone else's property.
If I have to pay £30-40 a month to be covered for £30,000 of asset, the ability to drive other people's car, have a new windscreen for £70,have a replacement car if mine is damaged/stolen and be covered legally then frankly it is bargain.
TooMany2cvs said:
LuS1fer said:
I paid what I thought was treasonable and had no accidents bar on aquaplaning back lane incident that could have happened to anyone.
You didn't crash... except when you crashed. Now you have more experience, do you still aquaplane on wet roads and crash?popeyewhite said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Spot on. Most people aren't into cars. They are 40+, with a 1.4 eurobox, paying £200 or less for husband and wife cover.
Average cost of FC motor insurance is £485 according to the ABI. One wonders what decade you're living in.LuS1fer said:
Sorry, I can't agree with that. You pay based on a generalisation that may be totally inapplicable to you.
From the age of 17, I paid what I thought was treasonable and had no accidents bar on aquaplaning back lane incident that could have happened to anyone. The only claim i ever made was for the theft of a motorcycle and that was not age-related either.
When you aquaplaned, did you hit loads of people in the 40s, 50s and 60s who had also aquaplaned? No, thought not. Just you.From the age of 17, I paid what I thought was treasonable and had no accidents bar on aquaplaning back lane incident that could have happened to anyone. The only claim i ever made was for the theft of a motorcycle and that was not age-related either.
Also, theft is hugely age related. Young people are less likely to keep car off the road when not in use, more likely to have it parked in town late at night, more likely to take less care about locking it etc. More likely to have stuff in it and on it to make it more theft attractive. Young drivers have more theft claims than older people.
Honestly...."when I was young I never claimed, apart from the crash and the theft that weren't age related!!!"
Nothing to do with your lack of experience and lifestyle.
You couldn't make it up.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
popeyewhite said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Spot on. Most people aren't into cars. They are 40+, with a 1.4 eurobox, paying £200 or less for husband and wife cover.
Average cost of FC motor insurance is £485 according to the ABI. One wonders what decade you're living in.popeyewhite said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Spot on. Most people aren't into cars. They are 40+, with a 1.4 eurobox, paying £200 or less for husband and wife cover.
Average cost of FC motor insurance is £485 according to the ABI. One wonders what decade you're living in.It's very easy for a relatively small number of very high premiums to skew the mean dramatically.
9 x £200 + 1 x £2000 = mean of nearly double the premium of 90% of policyholders.
ZOLLAR said:
Depending on the value of the claim they may investigate further, the outcome of which is unknown.
I think that a smallish claim would likely go un-investigated, £5k for a bit of hire car, fix a head lamp and bent wing would they bother? Not so sure.The problem, I would think would arise when there was a big claim paying tens or hundreds of thousands out, would I imagine result in the insurer doing everything they could to void from inception and pursue the insured for every penny they had.
popeyewhite said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Mean, median or mode?
It's very easy for a relatively small number of very high premiums to skew the mean dramatically.
Or very low. It's very easy for a relatively small number of very high premiums to skew the mean dramatically.
popeyewhite said:
Are we going on to outliers, skewness and kurtosis next?
Oh, gawd, please no. I hated stats when I studied it, 30 years ago.TwigtheWonderkid said:
LuS1fer said:
Sorry, I can't agree with that. You pay based on a generalisation that may be totally inapplicable to you.
From the age of 17, I paid what I thought was treasonable and had no accidents bar on aquaplaning back lane incident that could have happened to anyone. The only claim i ever made was for the theft of a motorcycle and that was not age-related either.
When you aquaplaned, did you hit loads of people in the 40s, 50s and 60s who had also aquaplaned? No, thought not. Just you.From the age of 17, I paid what I thought was treasonable and had no accidents bar on aquaplaning back lane incident that could have happened to anyone. The only claim i ever made was for the theft of a motorcycle and that was not age-related either.
Also, theft is hugely age related. Young people are less likely to keep car off the road when not in use, more likely to have it parked in town late at night, more likely to take less care about locking it etc. More likely to have stuff in it and on it to make it more theft attractive. Young drivers have more theft claims than older people.
Honestly...."when I was young I never claimed, apart from the crash and the theft that weren't age related!!!"
Nothing to do with your lack of experience and lifestyle.
You couldn't make it up.
I also drove 15000 miles a year so a few yards in 60000 miles is just a touch judgmental.
However, I am sure that you are a brilliant driver and that black ice, for example, will consider your age and experience before forcing you to lose control.
One thing I did learn, as I grew older, is that older people have as many and probably more accidents (poorer reactions and poorer eyesight) but they claim less, having worked out that the increased premiums are not financially sound, compared to paying for reasonable damage themselves (or driving off sharpish). Of course, insurance companies may know this too. There again, I know someone in their 50s who managed to hit 3 cars in one year, all put through the insurance and he still pays peanuts for his insurance.
The motorcycle was a targeted follow, stolen within 5 minutes of it being parked, in a residential area, so location was irrelevant, it was a random probability.
Edited by LuS1fer on Tuesday 16th January 17:18
LuS1fer said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LuS1fer said:
Sorry, I can't agree with that. You pay based on a generalisation that may be totally inapplicable to you.
From the age of 17, I paid what I thought was treasonable and had no accidents bar on aquaplaning back lane incident that could have happened to anyone. The only claim i ever made was for the theft of a motorcycle and that was not age-related either.
When you aquaplaned, did you hit loads of people in the 40s, 50s and 60s who had also aquaplaned? No, thought not. Just you.From the age of 17, I paid what I thought was treasonable and had no accidents bar on aquaplaning back lane incident that could have happened to anyone. The only claim i ever made was for the theft of a motorcycle and that was not age-related either.
Also, theft is hugely age related. Young people are less likely to keep car off the road when not in use, more likely to have it parked in town late at night, more likely to take less care about locking it etc. More likely to have stuff in it and on it to make it more theft attractive. Young drivers have more theft claims than older people.
Honestly...."when I was young I never claimed, apart from the crash and the theft that weren't age related!!!"
Nothing to do with your lack of experience and lifestyle.
You couldn't make it up.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff