viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
What a shame they don't base it on fact rather than perception.
and help to keep the site free for all
Car insurance rip off
- Thread starter Garry Edwards
- Start date
What a shame they don't base it on fact rather than perception.
mattyg
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,078
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is based on fact. But maybe too many facts. And not the individual case by case.
At the day its the accountants that run the businesses nowadays. I'm glad in my business the service HAS to come first. But cost is always a present issue
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Loading the costs because previously 500 blue cars have had an accident vs 1 red car, is not based on the facts of what has already occurred, because what's already occurred is irrellivant; it's not even based on the probability of what may occur. It's based on conjecture.
Fodrigal
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 509
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would imaging the calculations they do are more complex than 500 of one and 1 of the other. It would almost certainly be done as an accidents per year average across all cars of that colour.
So e.g blue cars on their books have 0.6 crashes per year and red ones have 0.2 crashes
So if they then decide that this statistic has even a slight correlation to the colour (harder to see at night for example) then the prices will go up. Now obviously the majority of the incidents (if not all) could just be coincidence and irrelevant to the outcome of the accident, but they wouldn't be managing the risk if they didn't even consider it when faced with evidence that showed a pattern.
Not saying it is right as I believe that insurance companies are 95% of the time just chancing their arm and hoping to keep lazy renewers on at inflated prices, but as with anything you can make the statistics support it if you really want to, and it is still 'fact'.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So if you want to improve your chances of winning the lottery would you move to the county to that has had the most winners. It's just a random statistic that has no real bearing on winning, same as the colour of the car.
yorkshirechap
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 205
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think we can all agree that insurance is an utter rip off and needs an enormous overhaul in terms of legislation. For something which is legally required to be entirely in the hands of the private sector, is guaranteed to be to the detriment of the general public.
Attempting to rationalise insurance quotes is a waste of time. I tried last year and did actually manage to speak to an underwriter directly, which was a minor miracle in itself! What he told me was utterly unbelievable. I honestly can't be bothered to go into the full details as it is incredibly long winded. But in a nutshell, in my particular case, fraud claims within a specific postcode area were the problem. It's a shame that the specific area happened to be 10 miles away and had I lived on the other side of the street, literally XX1 1XB vs XX1 1XC and less than 10 meters away...my quote would have been 75% lower. My area is semi-rural, minimal crime, the area concerning high instances of fraud is metropolitan and high crime, yet it mattered not.
Prime example, among many, of why regulation is needed.
Attempting to rationalise insurance quotes is a waste of time. I tried last year and did actually manage to speak to an underwriter directly, which was a minor miracle in itself! What he told me was utterly unbelievable. I honestly can't be bothered to go into the full details as it is incredibly long winded. But in a nutshell, in my particular case, fraud claims within a specific postcode area were the problem. It's a shame that the specific area happened to be 10 miles away and had I lived on the other side of the street, literally XX1 1XB vs XX1 1XC and less than 10 meters away...my quote would have been 75% lower. My area is semi-rural, minimal crime, the area concerning high instances of fraud is metropolitan and high crime, yet it mattered not.
Prime example, among many, of why regulation is needed.
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know motor insurance is a 'risk' game for both parties but (speaking hypothetically) what happens to your premium if you push the excess beyond the value of the car so that the insurance company know you will never ever make a claim ?
Can you take that risk yourself and pay peanuts or are we just getting back to 3rd party ?
Can you take that risk yourself and pay peanuts or are we just getting back to 3rd party ?
Last edited:
dejongj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm loving the insurance companies and their risk based calculations. Even better now they take modern technology into account as well. I couldn't belief it when my insurance premium for my brand new fully comprehensive without any further voluntary excess VW Golf R hyper hatchback came out at £136 per annum.
What people seem to bypass here is that the study of becoming an actuary is one of the most tough studies there is. The simplistic nature with which some of the "risk" is being banted around on here is just unbelievable and just clearly highlight a lack of appreciation on what is involved.
And yes the insurance companies are in the business of making money. That shouldn't come as a surprise at all.
What people seem to bypass here is that the study of becoming an actuary is one of the most tough studies there is. The simplistic nature with which some of the "risk" is being banted around on here is just unbelievable and just clearly highlight a lack of appreciation on what is involved.
And yes the insurance companies are in the business of making money. That shouldn't come as a surprise at all.
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
To be honest I bought my diesel 6 1/2 yrs ago.. yes a premium over a petrol equiv, however £30 tax a year instead of £120 or so, offsets that and best part of averaging high 60's MPG instead of 40 when I had the petrol equivalent. Same BHP. OK 105 is not much but good enough for a tin can punto with bags of torgue ok 190Lb (but enough to shift that!)
I insure it via the company I work for, who is considering introducing a car rating scheme... (i.e. costs no more!)
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
Interesting one... I will ask one of the senior techs today. My thinking is you'll basically end up with Third party only or even the bare minimum under the RTA. Will get back to you on that tonight. End of the day last known insururer is responsible for covering third party costs.
mattyg
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,078
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, Because one reason could be because they have more players or spend more money on the lottery. So hardly Random.
dejongj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
the national lottery spends quite a bit out of their operating budget on verification and confirmation that random is random. Some very clever people are involved with that.
But let's not let that get in the way of inventing some meaning and stuff around it.
But let's not let that get in the way of inventing some meaning and stuff around it.
JonathanRyan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,765
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If they did that, they would load the premium on the "facts" of knowing which people are going to crash
Insurers are trying to predict the future. It's in the interests of people who don't crash/get their car stolen/etc that they are good at this. It's in the interests of people who do one of those things that they are bad at it.