I Hate Car Insurance

[martinb 0]

Your license shows you have passed the required test in order to drive but insurance is based on risk and statistically new drivers do have far more claims.

 

Thinking back to when I passed my test at 17, I have no doubts that I was a greater risk immediately after passing my test. I would come and go at all hours, have distractions such as friends and stereo etc which I would never have whilst under supervision. Like you say, it was only once I passed my test, that I properly learnt how to drive…including learning from some early mistakes!

 

Based on what you have said, your personal situation does not sound typical of most new drivers as you are older and more mature (presumably! :D), so I can understand your frustration at being classed as a “new” driver.

 

Despite working in the industry, I don’t necessarily agree with all the points made, however I’m just trying to give you a viewpoint from the other side of the coin as I get too see it from both sides (being a car enthusiast and driving a modified Corrado myself). I suppose I should also add something along the lines of “the opinions given are my own and not necessarily those of the company blah blah :D).

 

Martin :)

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I worked in the Insurance industry for 8 years and I *do* agree with all the (negative) comments made so far.

[VR6 0]

Martin ... would an insurance company ever try to catch you out, in the event of a claim, by claiming that a named driver never actually used the vehicle?

 

I mean, the whole point of adding someone else is that they are classed as lower risk than you, and will be driving the vehicle 'some' of the time, thus lowering the risk to the insurance company. So if that person has never even driven the car, would/could they void a claim?

 

Unlikely I know, because if it came to a claim, the named driver could just say they used the car once a week.

[tentonhammer 10]

Based on what you have said, your personal situation does not sound typical of most new drivers as you are older and more mature (presumably! ), so I can understand your frustration at being classed as a “new” driver.

 

I like to think I'm older and more mature than most new drivers - the missus would say other wise :D Thanks

 

Regardless of how many years experience I have driving motorcycles + the year(s) experience driving heaps of different cars and the fact I passed my test 1st time (theory + practical) with virtually zero minors etc - I do get lumped in with the reckless teenagers when it comes to car insurance unfortunately. I don't usually dwell on regrets but for me, passing my test in my later years was the worst (and greatest) thing I've ever done. On one hand I was legit at last. On the other, car insurance costs for new drivers are so high I very nearly didn't get a car! Home life however requires us to have one and so I am forced to pay extortionate rates (£1900 approx) for my car insurance, I don't have a choice.

 

Martin - As a man in the know ;) is age taken into consideration when applying for car insurance? I'd bet my lunch that older new drivers in their 30's have less accidents than teenagers

Edited October 29, 2012 by tentonhammer

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Regardless of how many years experience I have driving motorcycles + the year(s) experience driving heaps of different cars and the fact I passed my test 1st time (theory + practical) with virtually zero minors etc - I do get lumped in with the reckless teenagers when it comes to car insurance unfortunately.

 

Yep, because Insurance companies have hidden, or should I say; been allowed to hide, behind their 'statistics' pricing structure for decades. If one silly dork drives his car into a ditch, we all pay.

 

Until the whole industry is reformed and people are treated and indeed insured as individuals, the current daylight robbery will continue.

 

Sadly, this will mean the use of GPS monitoring. But personally speaking, if it puts some of the more unscrupulous insurers out of business, I'm all for it.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Kevin Bacon

[jamiehamy 0]

I'll be honest, I was a hero driver when i was young. I deserved big premiums, even tho I only had one small bump. I truly think all boys my age were the same, most never admit it tho.

 

Since then I've calmed down a lot, but looking back, how I never got killed or seriously I'll never know. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't reckless as such, but did like treating back road like my own private racetrack. But now I'm older, I realise that there are just as many idiots on the road that should not be there that are of a completely different demographic, and I think in 10eyars time, I'll not be classing myself as one of them.

 

 

Solution? Everyone should be made to resit a driving test every 10years. Can't pass? Don't drive. Simples. I reckon with one fell swoop, half the crap drivers out there (and I'm not talking just young) would be gone. Old people with no spatial awareness, '40 everywhere' drivers, all those with broken wrists that means they can't indicate, those who learned to drive in abroad and forgot that the inside lane is on the LEFT in the UK.

 

Not only will roads become safer, but insurers will only pay out for accidents, rather than payout for 'You're a stupid f'ing idiot who should never have been on the road-idents'.

 

Phew - I blame Kev for putting me in rant mode.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

So was I mate, but I never injured anyone or damaged any 3rd party property!

 

The only way to do it fairly, is GPS monitoring and possibly cameras too, but that would get a bit too big brother for some people, and would be expensive to implement / enforce.

 

It would cut out the complete farce that is "knock for knock". Data such as vehicle speed, braking, throttle position, engine rpm etc can all be gathered from both parties and blame apportioned fairly. Well, technically that can be gathered already from the ECU.

 

It's a nonsense that 2 people are both at fault for the same accident and therefore both insurers pay out. It's always 1 person who is the root cause. But if both people were speeding, then neither would get a pay out if both cars were destroyed. Things like pile ups would be easier to find the culprit too as the GPS gathered from all those involved will show who was tailgating etc etc. It would also catch the utter chunts who "brake test" people. i.e. slamming their brakes on to show their contempt at the driver behind.

 

The claims process would also be massively sped up when proper, factual information can be used

 

It does infringe on civil rights and all that, but I predict it's where things are heading. People who drive sensibly have nothing to fear. People who speed everywhere and jump red lights etc will just have to change their habits, or hang up the keys and walk.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Kevin Bacon

[daleyboy 0]

 

The only way to do it fairly, is GPS monitoring and possibly cameras too, but that would get a bit too big brother for some people, and would be expensive to implement / enforce.

 

 

Then they'll know how fast you were going and when, obviously not a problem if you never speed, where would you draw the line?

 

Who would pay for that, it wouldnt be them would it ?

 

Knock for knock is so common place because its so expensive to fight, especially when its one persons word against another, its just not worth it to them.

 

We will end up with car's that drive themselves and drivers just press a couple of buttons, when humans are involved mistakes are always going to happen, i think what we have at the moment covers most bases. Insurance fraud on the other hand is costing us all a lot, tougher sentences is the only way to stop it, not just a couple of months in a cushy open prison.

Edited October 29, 2012 by daleyboy

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Then they'll know how fast you were going and when, obviously not a problem if you never speed, where would you draw the line?

 

Who would pay for that, it wouldnt be them would it ?

 

Knock for knock is so common place because its so expensive to fight, especially when its one persons word against another, its just not worth it to them.

 

We will end up with car's that drive themselves and drivers just press a couple of buttons, when humans are involved mistakes are always going to happen, i think what we have at the moment covers most bases. Insurance fraud on the other hand is costing us all a lot, tougher sentences is the only way to stop it, not just a couple of months in a cushy open prison.

 

Dunno, that's a tough one. A "3 strikes and you're out" policy? Don't get me wrong, we all appreciate the relative 'freedom' we have and 9 times in 10, the only consequence of speeding is getting points when caught. I'm sure some people don't mind paying through the nose for that privilige.

 

Indeed fraud is a problem. Insurance companies always bang on about this as the excuse for increasing premiums, but how can they be trusted when they are in cahoots with ambulance chasing lawyers?

[Jim 2]

Dunno, that's a tough one. A "3 strikes and you're out" policy? Don't get me wrong, we all appreciate the relative 'freedom' we have and 9 times in 10, the only consequence of speeding is getting points when caught. I'm sure some people don't mind paying through the nose for that privilige.

 

Indeed fraud is a problem. Insurance companies always bang on about this as the excuse for increasing premiums, but how can they be trusted when they are in cahoots with ambulance chasing lawyers?

 

You mean the insurers who sell your details on to these third party companies and then blame them for the increases in your policy, because they're bleeding them dry with injury claims? No.. I never quite worked that one out either.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Exactly Jim!

 

95% of the population are honest and never make illegitimate claims. It's easy to accidentally on purpose drop a laptop down the stairs and claim for a new one, taking full advantage of the "new for old" policy, but we resist it. Does NCD exist on household policies? The whole idea of insurance is the less you claim, the less you pay in premiums. That doesn't seem to work in this country.

 

The 5% of people who don't give a damn ruin it for everyone else, and that has to change. Bringing the massively out of date insurance industry up to date is the only way.

[Peebee 0]

My standard Honda Crv is more on insurance than my Corrado 24v all mods declared. Work that out. £450 on the Corrado, just over £500 for the Crv.

 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

[guildmage 11]

Topics about car insurance are always boiling my blood! Hate the fact they will suck every penny out of you, without giving you much in exchange. I could never understand how come insurance premiums raise if every year politicians bloat about reducing amount of accidents on the roads.

 

I've been driving for 12 years now (not a single accident - and hope it will stay that way) yet my premium keep raising every year! How is that even possible? We are all being scammed in the most cunning way every invented!

 

The other day I read that it is the uninsured drivers causing all the increase... but as I said before... If you are caught as uninsured driver = you should pay £1000 or prison for 6 months. If you are caught second time, your car gets destroyed, you pay £5000 or prison for 12 months. Simple! After a year or two, I kid you not, there will be no uninsured drivers left! Harsh? Don't think so! Harsh is the fact I almost pay the value of my car every year as insurance!

 

ps. On a side note, it's always been that adding my girlfriend to my policy was reducing the price in the end.

Edited October 30, 2012 by guildmage

[Peebee 0]

The only issue with that mate, is prisons not horrible enough these days. It's really getting to something when ex cons are breaking back in. We're keeping these ass holes when we pay our taxes.

 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

[joebloggsVR69 0]

Prisoners should be made to break rocks and paint coal white.

[Peebee 0]

Whatever floats your boat hahahaha front line cannon fodder I think!

 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

[joebloggsVR69 0]

Also, if I was in power, I'd make the Running Man a real TV show :lol:

[BLCSO 0]

I have used 'NEED TO INSURE' for the last few years. A good bunch of people in a small office and they know what a Corrado is, always a good start.

 

The renewel for the wife's MK4 Gti came through at £420, spent 30mins on compare the market and found a cheaper price £260. Phoned the above up and they came back with a quote of £240 Fully Comp. I also have my A4 and Golf Mk2 Gti with them, they quoted £630 for both, again both fully comp Golf on a classic policy. Had a haggle and said it would be nice at a round £600 he came back with a nice round £580, can't argue with that and I would highly recommend them.

 

Their number is 01623 720081 or needtoinsure.co.uk

[Ralphead 0]

I just got a classic policy with 2gether for £150, nearly £70 less than the next best! £150 excess and only £30 more if I wanted commuting as well.

 

It's cheaper to insure my Volvo on a standard policy and the Corrado on a classic than just the Corrado on a standard one.

 

http://www.2getherinsurance.com/

[Ralphead 0]

I just got a classic policy with 2gether for £150, nearly £70 less than the next best! £150 excess and only £30 more if I wanted commuting as well.

 

It's cheaper to insure my Volvo on a standard policy and the Corrado on a classic than just the Corrado on a standard one.

 

http://www.2getherinsurance.com/

 

Scratch that. They gave me the quote, took my money and sent me documents. Then yesterday a letter dated the 16/11/12 arrived telling me that the policy was cancelled and my cover would cease on 23/11/12! So I've been driving around with no insurance for over a week! I can't blame them for the letter being late with any certainty as Royal Mail is involved but not even a phone call to ensure that I knew. WTF! I got in late last night so called them today, they admitted to making an "error" and that they provided me with instant cover only to be turned down by the underwriters later on.

[MurdoMac 0]

Just had to vent..been phoneing round for a quote today..all ask how much NCB, fine 30years would be good I thought..not really because "you can only have NCB on 1 policy so it doesn't actually count" wtf what the point!! I am insured..ME..I have not had any accidents or claims in 30 years and some snotty school leaver is telling me "it doesn't count"

 

And the quotes, 3 quotes from 3 companies that actually turn out to be one company (H.I.C/Adrian Flux and some other flux something or other) each one offering me the same insurer but with 3 different prices, none of which are in the slightest bit competative... so then I tried the "Classic car" insurers, no difference there either so far.....jez compare the market.com gave me prices that were just as good as these so called "specialist"

 

I really really hate insurance companies.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Yep, car insurance is nothing short of legalised theft imo.

 

Unfortunately car insurance is against both the car and you. They give you a policy against the car so that you can't use your bonus on a second car and the premiums are loaded against any accidents YOU (not the car) have had, in ANY car. Absolute dick turpin thieving robbin bastids the lot of them.

 

But yep, Compare the Market will successfully rid the world of the useless companies. If the car is standard, it's the best place to get a quote. £350 to insure my R32 via CTM. £900 through a so called "VW specialist" underwritten through Lloyds.

[seanl82 23]

I just got mine insured today through classicline (check out other post). Its gone up since the quote I got last month, but still only £241. Thats £100 excess, and all the trimmings. The NCB doesn't make a single bit of difference to them, as I questioned it when I called to set it up (I put down online that I have 5 years, but that was on the daily.) Its limited to 4k miles, but unless its a daily, I'd say thats more than enough for most!

[MurdoMac 0]

I just got mine insured today through classicline (check out other post). Its gone up since the quote I got last month, but still only £241. Thats £100 excess, and all the trimmings. The NCB doesn't make a single bit of difference to them, as I questioned it when I called to set it up (I put down online that I have 5 years, but that was on the daily.) Its limited to 4k miles, but unless its a daily, I'd say thats more than enough for most!

 

Yep, actually I did see the other post and gave them a ring and they are coming in the best price so far and as you say excess is low/breakdown cover included £160 fully comp, although to be honest I do feel that I should get it for less still. Does anyone ever just get TPF&T instead? since I guess most any claim on a Corrado and the insurers are just going to write it off anyway so theres probably not much point claiming for anything except a total loss.

[VAG-hag 0]

I just got mine insured today through classicline (check out other post). Its gone up since the quote I got last month, but still only £241. Thats £100 excess, and all the trimmings. The NCB doesn't make a single bit of difference to them, as I questioned it when I called to set it up (I put down online that I have 5 years, but that was on the daily.) Its limited to 4k miles, but unless its a daily, I'd say thats more than enough for most!

 

Snap! Ive just gone with these guys all mods declared, came in at £300 which is nice.