Driving After A Driving Ban?
Discussion
Pica-Pica said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
moneymakestheworldgoaround said:
GT03ROB said:
Statistically you were probably a higher risk due to your inexperience, than somebody who had been convicted of drink driving. Insurance companies are about pricing their perception of risk not administering punishment.
Fair point about the inexperience. A mate of mine's wife passed her test aged 49. He immediately gave her his Audi A4 3.0 Cabriolet, and he bought something else. Her insurance was only about £500, which he thought was outrageous at it had only been about £250 for him.
swagmeister said:
And you are far more knowledgeable than results derived from £millions being spent on research, statistics, risk analysis and computer formulas ???
Not what I said, but please, go on.swagmeister said:
I havent had an accident in 15 yrs.
Congratulations.swagmeister said:
My car is valued at £15k, why dont you cover the risk for me in that if I have an accident
And you're already ranting like an idiot.This wasn't about someone having an accident. This was about a random event which they were not a part of. They were not in the car, they were in no way able to influence the possibility of this happening within reasonable means (i.e. locking their car in complete isolation).
Insurance companies cover that risk, but the idea that a person's risk has increased as a result of a random incident they have no influence over is complete and utter rubbish.
The insurance companies are instead trying to recoup their costs, which in reality should be recovered from the premiums the person may have paid for 10, 20, 30 years previous without claim and thus been zero cost to the insurance company.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Statistics don't really work like that. Whilst you may well not suffer the same accident twice, evidence shows that if you claim on you policy you are more likely to claim again. Clearly you may not claim again, insurance is not about individual certainties, its about risk profiling.
I assume you would like wider insurance than just for a given tree falling on your car?
Evanivitch said:
Insurance companies cover that risk, but the idea that a person's risk has increased as a result of a random incident they have no influence over is complete and utter rubbish.
The insurance companies are instead trying to recoup their costs, which in reality should be recovered from the premiums the person may have paid for 10, 20, 30 years previous without claim and thus been zero cost to the insurance company.
I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that.The insurance companies are instead trying to recoup their costs, which in reality should be recovered from the premiums the person may have paid for 10, 20, 30 years previous without claim and thus been zero cost to the insurance company.
1) It is a statistical reality that the pool of people who have claimed in the past is more likely to claim in the future. It's simply true. There are millions of data points to prove it.
2) The insurance companies are working in 1 year cycles - there is no "recouping last year's loss"
3) It is a cut throat business with very tight margins. If company A decides to overcharge you in their quote so that they can take a higher margin, then a cheaper company B will get the business. Both of those companies know that business written at a low margin is better than no business written at a high margin.
The regular suggestion that the insurers are 'working together to get you' is just wrong.
The one exception I would make to that statement is the fact that laziness at renewal will generally cost you. Always shop around at renewal.
Hairsy16 said:
I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that.
1) It is a statistical reality that the pool of people who have claimed in the past is more likely to claim in the future. It's simply true. There are millions of data points to prove it.
I'm not sure I buy that. How many people go an entire 60yr driving career without being in a single incident? How many involved in more than one?1) It is a statistical reality that the pool of people who have claimed in the past is more likely to claim in the future. It's simply true. There are millions of data points to prove it.
I can't find the number, I'm intrigued.
Hairsy16 said:
2) The insurance companies are working in 1 year cycles - there is no "recouping last year's loss"
Not entirely true. Car insurance renewal is based on the assumption that X will auto renew year upon year without challenging the price, so there is indeed a year on year model regardless of whether you've had an incident.Hairsy16 said:
3) It is a cut throat business with very tight margins. If company A decides to overcharge you in their quote so that they can take a higher margin, then a cheaper company B will get the business. Both of those companies know that business written at a low margin is better than no business written at a high margin.
But the industry has made it that way by failing to reward loyalty and driving customer service out of the business. Some insurers are now beginning to protect not-at-fault incidents and legislation on personal injury has hugely benefited the profit margins of the business.Hairsy16 said:
The regular suggestion that the insurers are 'working together to get you' is just wrong.
Again, not entirely true given that they have a massive shared database that records your every interaction with your insurance firm (again regardless of claim or responsibility).Evanivitch said:
DoubleD said:
croyde said:
Odd considering someone crashed into my car whilst it was safely parked and admitted fault yet my insurer still loaded my policy
That's how insurance works. If something has happened before, then it could happen again.
If you flip a coin once, twice, fifty, hundred times and you get heads, it doesn't increase the probability that you will get tails on the next flip. It's still 50/50.
Insurance companies are able to screw us because they can hide behind such poor understanding of this.
Horf said:
Not as strange as catching a bus or riding a bike for that matter. I've not done either for about 20 years! Regarding insurance I guess it depends to some extent what you were banned for.
I sometimes catch a bus home when I leave my car at the garage all day, not a bad experience imho in fact I quite like it very relaxing etc just watching the world go by^TX
^I'm not based in London which I imagine is a gruesome experience crammed in next to various down and outs
Jamessd said:
Regarding insurance hit, I had a 20 month ban reduced to 16 for attending a drink drive awareness course, 11 or 12 years ago. Insurance went from circa £750 a year to just shy of £5k in the first year back in a car. Dropped by around a grand each year over the next few years.
Wtf 
just out of interest does NCB remain intact; was the £5k with full NCB?TX.
Terminator X said:
Wtf just out of interest does NCB remain intact; was the £5k with full NCB?
TX.
I managed to keep my NCB by keeping the car insured whilst it was on my drive. I managed to drop it down to the most basic cover used for cars on SORN. Think it was about 11 quid a month through Tesco. just out of interest does NCB remain intact; was the £5k with full NCB?TX.
Evanivitch said:
This wasn't about someone having an accident. This was about a random event which they were not a part of. They were not in the car, they were in no way able to influence the possibility of this happening within reasonable means (i.e. locking their car in complete isolation).
Insurance companies cover that risk, but the idea that a person's risk has increased as a result of a random incident they have no influence over is complete and utter rubbish.
A set of twins who live in the same house and drive the same model of car, both work for the same firm. One works in office A and parks in their new, well lit car park. The other works 100m down the road in office B, with their crappy old badly lit and poorly laid out car park. The twin in office B gets his car hit whilst parked in the car park. The culprit leaves a note. 100% non fault claim. Insurance companies cover that risk, but the idea that a person's risk has increased as a result of a random incident they have no influence over is complete and utter rubbish.
Which twin is more likely to be hit again, and the next time they might not leave a note.
Within all the people who are hit whilst parked, a percentage of them would have been hit because of a factor that may replicate itself. Thus, a large group of people who have non fault claims will have a percentage in their number who are likely to be victims again. Thuis as a group they will have a slightly worse record going forward. Be it because a few of them often park in a risky place, or often use a dodgy roundabout or whatever.
Not all random non fault incidents are random. If your car is damaged because 2 blokes having a fight fell on it while you were parked outside your mum's house, the chances of that happening again because on Saturday afternoon you visit your mum who lives next to the football ground, are higher than average.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
A set of twins who live in the same house and drive the same model of car, both work for the same firm. One works in office A and parks in their new, well lit car park. The other works 100m down the road in office B, with their crappy old badly lit and poorly laid out car park. The twin in office B gets his car hit whilst parked in the car park. The culprit leaves a note. 100% non fault claim.
Which twin is more likely to be hit again, and the next time they might not leave a note.
Within all the people who are hit whilst parked, a percentage of them would have been hit because of a factor that may replicate itself. Thus, a large group of people who have non fault claims will have a percentage in their number who are likely to be victims again. Thuis as a group they will have a slightly worse record going forward. Be it because a few of them often park in a risky place, or often use a dodgy roundabout or whatever.
Not all random non fault incidents are random. If your car is damaged because 2 blokes having a fight fell on it while you were parked outside your mum's house, the chances of that happening again because on Saturday afternoon you visit your mum who lives next to the football ground, are higher than average.
Last time I checked the insurance company asked where my car is kept overnight, and asked where my car was kept during the day at the office. They also know what job I do. It wouldn't be a huge step to have that postcode to and from their statistics they'll already know the history of both my home and work addresses.Which twin is more likely to be hit again, and the next time they might not leave a note.
Within all the people who are hit whilst parked, a percentage of them would have been hit because of a factor that may replicate itself. Thus, a large group of people who have non fault claims will have a percentage in their number who are likely to be victims again. Thuis as a group they will have a slightly worse record going forward. Be it because a few of them often park in a risky place, or often use a dodgy roundabout or whatever.
Not all random non fault incidents are random. If your car is damaged because 2 blokes having a fight fell on it while you were parked outside your mum's house, the chances of that happening again because on Saturday afternoon you visit your mum who lives next to the football ground, are higher than average.
Your scenarios however just don't stand up in reality. 2 people fighting are going to repeatedly fight on the same car? No. What's more likely is you live on a street with a neighbour with a grudge who will target your car repeatedly.
Evanivitch said:
Hairsy16 said:
I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that.
1) It is a statistical reality that the pool of people who have claimed in the past is more likely to claim in the future. It's simply true. There are millions of data points to prove it.
I'm not sure I buy that. How many people go an entire 60yr driving career without being in a single incident? How many involved in more than one?1) It is a statistical reality that the pool of people who have claimed in the past is more likely to claim in the future. It's simply true. There are millions of data points to prove it.
I can't find the number, I'm intrigued.
Evanivitch said:
Hairsy16 said:
2) The insurance companies are working in 1 year cycles - there is no "recouping last year's loss"
Not entirely true. Car insurance renewal is based on the assumption that X will auto renew year upon year without challenging the price, so there is indeed a year on year model regardless of whether you've had an incident.Evanivitch said:
Hairsy16 said:
3) It is a cut throat business with very tight margins. If company A decides to overcharge you in their quote so that they can take a higher margin, then a cheaper company B will get the business. Both of those companies know that business written at a low margin is better than no business written at a high margin.
But the industry has made it that way by failing to reward loyalty and driving customer service out of the business. Some insurers are now beginning to protect not-at-fault incidents and legislation on personal injury has hugely benefited the profit margins of the business.Hairsy16 said:
The regular suggestion that the insurers are 'working together to get you' is just wrong.
Again, not entirely true given that they have a massive shared database that records your every interaction with your insurance firm (again regardless of claim or responsibility).Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that insurers are perfect. Far from it in fact.
Hairsy16 said:
The insurer doesn't have access to every detail of every claim so they look at pools of people. And all I can ask is that you believe me when I say that it is a fact that if there are 1,000 people who have made a claim in the past and 1,000 who haven't, the first group will make more claims in the future. It just happens. I promise!
To be entirely clear, we're not talking about people making claims, we're talking about people being involved in an incident. An incident that they could have absolutely no reasonable influence on.Obviously if we're talking about at-fault claims then I don't dispute that you're more likely to make a claim again.
Evanivitch said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
A set of twins who live in the same house and drive the same model of car, both work for the same firm. One works in office A and parks in their new, well lit car park. The other works 100m down the road in office B, with their crappy old badly lit and poorly laid out car park. The twin in office B gets his car hit whilst parked in the car park. The culprit leaves a note. 100% non fault claim.
Which twin is more likely to be hit again, and the next time they might not leave a note.
Within all the people who are hit whilst parked, a percentage of them would have been hit because of a factor that may replicate itself. Thus, a large group of people who have non fault claims will have a percentage in their number who are likely to be victims again. Thuis as a group they will have a slightly worse record going forward. Be it because a few of them often park in a risky place, or often use a dodgy roundabout or whatever.
Not all random non fault incidents are random. If your car is damaged because 2 blokes having a fight fell on it while you were parked outside your mum's house, the chances of that happening again because on Saturday afternoon you visit your mum who lives next to the football ground, are higher than average.
Last time I checked the insurance company asked where my car is kept overnight, and asked where my car was kept during the day at the office. They also know what job I do. It wouldn't be a huge step to have that postcode to and from their statistics they'll already know the history of both my home and work addresses.Which twin is more likely to be hit again, and the next time they might not leave a note.
Within all the people who are hit whilst parked, a percentage of them would have been hit because of a factor that may replicate itself. Thus, a large group of people who have non fault claims will have a percentage in their number who are likely to be victims again. Thuis as a group they will have a slightly worse record going forward. Be it because a few of them often park in a risky place, or often use a dodgy roundabout or whatever.
Not all random non fault incidents are random. If your car is damaged because 2 blokes having a fight fell on it while you were parked outside your mum's house, the chances of that happening again because on Saturday afternoon you visit your mum who lives next to the football ground, are higher than average.
Your scenarios however just don't stand up in reality. 2 people fighting are going to repeatedly fight on the same car? No. What's more likely is you live on a street with a neighbour with a grudge who will target your car repeatedly.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well my scenario does stand up, because many insurers have found a correlation between non fault accidents and future accidents, which is why some charge more. Insurance is based on stats, not spite.
Where's the evidence? Do they publish it?The reality is not all insurers do it, and those that due hide behind the "evidence".
Again, I would like to see the figures for how many people go their entire driving career without an incident (not a claim). I can't think of anyone I know that hasn't at least had a scraped bumper (which by letter of contract you have to report to your insurer).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff