What is the point in NCB?

[Barks]

Right, and young males tend to do silly things, especially with peer pressure, which is why they present such a high risk to the insurance. It probably seems very unfair to you, but insurance companies aren't specifically sexist or ageist, they are "risk-ist". Sadly with the enormous increase in compensation claims, and the very poor performance of the market, premiums will be increased to remain profitable, and the higher risk drivers will get hit harder.

They have no implicit bias against young males, any more than they have bias against an older person with a DD record. They simply have to balance their risk with the premium.

It's tragic really that the more sensible drivers among us are punished. It seems horribly unfair but I guess if you paint a picture of the statistics it's justified. It will however never be fair, only justified. I can't believe if I were a daughter and not a son I could be insured on my dad's car

 

[Barks]

The fact that some of your mates have 4 years NCB DOES mean they're safer drivers because they have 4 years PROOF that they are safe drivers. You dont. For all they know, you SUCK at driving and will kill 50 people in your first year. Your friends are STATISTICALLY far less likely to do that.

Why cant you understand that? What is so difficult for you? You put more in, you get more out.

That is completely incorrect.

Friend - He buys a Focus at 17 and has been driving it since. His policy is in his name.
Me - I shared a car with my mum since 17. I drove it (before uni) on average about 30 minutes a day for 2 and a half years. As I was not the policyholder I didn't earn NCB.

So in that situation I am, statistically, 0% more likely to be in a crash than my mate.
I do NOT however deserve to be in the same bracket as someone who passed their test at 17 and did not step foot in a car until they were 21. In that case, you have indeed hit the nail on the head.

 

[DampCat]

Secondly, I don't pay a penny of my own hard earned money towards insurance as I don't own the car I drive/share. However, I do like to question the fairness of how the insurance industry trade. I have accepted that women crash less often. I have accepted men account for more serious accidents.
What fills me with rage is adding a girl identical to myself (age, history etc) puts the quote down by £100. Changing the gender of that hypothetical driver to Male puts the policy up by circa £1,500.
Statistics aside, that is grossly and sickeningly unfair, especially given we are talking about a 21 year old driver where AGE is far more important than gender.

Who said it is more important? You? What do you know?

21 year old girls cause less accidents than 21 year old boys. 21 year old boys, as a result, pay mroe money to insure themselves.

That's as simple as i can make it for you. If you can't accept this, then you seriously need to think about where you're going wrong. Sorry mate.

Also, you'd be interested to know how many insurance companies actually make a profit from car insurance. Seriously, hardly anyone makes ANY profit from car insurance, and they rely solely on income investment and private lines insurance to boost their proft margins. The reason for this is the number of claims and the nature of them, and that the market is so flooded with such ludicrously competitive rates at the moment. You think things are bad now, you should be aware that thanks to the recession and lack of trust in the banking system, no one is investing their income, so they're going to be looking to make that money elsewhere. Ie, from you.

You're rates are about to go up. Don't worry, it'll only last for a couple of years

 

[DampCat]

That is completely incorrect.

Friend - He buys a Focus at 17 and has been driving it since. His policy is in his name.
Me - I shared a car with my mum since 17. I drove it (before uni) on average about 30 minutes a day for 2 and a half years. As I was not the policyholder I didn't earn NCB.

So in that situation I am, statistically, 0% more likely to be in a crash than my mate.
I do NOT however deserve to be in the same bracket as someone who passed their test at 17 and did not step foot in a car until they were 21. In that case, you have indeed hit the nail on the head.

I'm sorry i dont understand your completely flawed logic.

Why does being on your mum's policy make you statistically safer than he is? You have 0 proof of your ability to drive, he has 4 years of no claims.

 

[Barks]

I'm sorry i dont understand your completely flawed logic.

Why does being on your mum's policy make you statistically safer than he is? You have 0 proof of your ability to drive, he has 4 years of no claims.

Please tell me you are joking.

We are not talking about proof we are talking about fact. Read it again and you will see that, despite what statistics may say, I am an equal risk as he is. I know in terms of NCB and statistics I may be a far greater risk, but in reality I am not. Do you understand my point now?

 

[DampCat]

No, because insurance has nothing to do with your personal background*, it has everything to do with statistics. Statistically he has 4 years of safe driving. Statistically, you dont. Statistically he costs less to insure, statistically you dont. He pays less. You dont.

Im sorry, but however you feel about it, it really is just that simple.

*Unless you have proof of it. The reason i'm bringing proof into this, and it IS relevant however much you want to debate it, is because he has PROOF that he is a safe driver. You dont. That's the price you pay for getting cheaper insurance early on. That's what NCB is, and why it isnt a big con to rip you off.

 

[Glaucus]

As above, what is the actual point in this?

Firstly, a lot of accidents are, funnily enough, accidents. A skilful driver may pose a lower risk but essentially accidents can occur to anyone.
Protected/Guaranteed NCB. Doesn't this defy the whole point?
What is the difference between having 3 NCB or simply 3 years without any history of claims/accidents.

A lot of point to them, statistically you are less liekly to crash. or be crashed into. you might react better or have better obstical reading ability.

NCD protection doesn't stop your insurance going up, it just protects you xx% discount. Which you pay about 20-30% a year for.

 

[Barks]

No, because insurance has nothing to do with your personal background*, it has everything to do with statistics. Statistically he has 4 years of safe driving. Statistically, you dont. Statistically he costs less to insure, statistically you dont. He pays less. You dont.

Im sorry, but however you feel about it, it really is just that simple.

*Unless you have proof of it. The reason i'm bringing proof into this, and it IS relevant however much you want to debate it, is because he has PROOF that he is a safe driver. You dont. That's the price you pay for getting cheaper insurance early on. That's what NCB is, and why it isnt a big con to rip you off.

I am not talking about statistics. I know I am seen as a greater risk. I am talking about FACT.

If you read the example, all I'm saying is the FACT is we are both the same risk when it comes to driving. That's the reality of it!

I am NOT saying that this is true in the eyes of the insurance company because they have no idea the fact we have perfectly equal driving experience is actually the case.

No, because insurance has nothing to do with your personal background*, it has everything to do with statistics. Statistically he has 4 years of safe driving. Statistically, you dont. Statistically he costs less to insure, statistically you dont. He pays less. You dont.

Yes. BUT in reality we both have 4 years of driving experience. We are the same risk. I accept I pay more because the insurance company cannot possibly see this is the case, but it is.

Understand

 

[DampCat]

Outside of statistics you're still not the same risk.

You spent 4 years driving your mum's car. You're less likely to drive too fast to avoid speeding convictions being dropped through her letterbox in her name. You're less likely to drive fast to avoid destroying a car that isn't yours. You spend less time in a car that belongs to you, thus being less aware of it's capabilities and it's limits.

All of which is moot, because insurance isn't built on individual people. It can't be. It's impossible to do it. See the other trhead where i already explained this to you. To circumnavigate this, they designed No Claims Bonus. See above.

 

[rypt]

There are far more than 5 or 6 underwriters.

UK has pop of 60mil, and there are atleast 33mil cars on road (2006 figure) - the rate of increase is about 1.5-1.8% per year, so we are talking about 35ish mil now.

Every car has to be insured, this means that even if we assume that there are 10 underwriters (which there aren't I think the figure is closer to 8, with a few of those being only for fleet sales) each company has atleast 3.5million customers.

A few customers either way is not going to make a difference if you already have 3.5mil, hence the level of competition is low.

 

[stoofa]

I am not talking about statistics. I know I am seen as a greater risk. I am talking about FACT.

If you read the example, all I'm saying is the FACT is we are both the same risk when it comes to driving. That's the reality of it!

I am NOT saying that this is true in the eyes of the insurance company because they have no idea the fact we have perfectly equal driving experience is actually the case.


Yes. BUT in reality we both have 4 years of driving experience. We are the same risk. I accept I pay more because the insurance company cannot possibly see this is the case, but it is.

Understand

So basically what you're saying is that you should be able to phone up an insurance company.
They say "Are you a safe driver?"
You say "Well I've driven for 4 years without accident on my mum's insurance"
They say "Can you prove your 4 years of accident free driving"
You say "No, I can't, just my word on it"
They say "Oh fine, that's alright then, if you're putting your word on it here, have 4 years NCB

 

[Burnsy2023]

Yes. BUT in reality we both have 4 years of driving experience. We are the same risk.

No you are not. You said yourself, you drove your mums car 30mins every day for 2 1/2 years (which I assume would be at the same time of day). This works out at about 450 driving hours. That is relatively little compared to someone who has access to their own car whenever they want. Like it or not, you do not have the same amount of experience.

 

[DampCat]

UK has pop of 60mil, and there are atleast 33mil cars on road (2006 figure) - the rate of increase is about 1.5-1.8% per year, so we are talking about 35ish mil now.

Every car has to be insured, this means that even if we assume that there are 10 underwriters (which there aren't I think the figure is closer to 8, with a few of those being only for fleet sales) each company has atleast 3.5million customers.

A few customers either way is not going to make a difference if you already have 3.5mil, hence the level of competition is low.

That's all lovely, but i work for underwriter number 218. I know of at least 75 i've worked against in the last year and a half.

Thanks anyway.

 

[BigglesPiP]

To make you think you're getting a great deal.

 

[Lopéz]

I am not talking about statistics. I know I am seen as a greater risk. I am talking about FACT.

If you read the example, all I'm saying is the FACT is we are both the same risk when it comes to driving. That's the reality of it!

I am NOT saying that this is true in the eyes of the insurance company because they have no idea the fact we have perfectly equal driving experience is actually the case.


Yes. BUT in reality we both have 4 years of driving experience. We are the same risk. I accept I pay more because the insurance company cannot possibly see this is the case, but it is.

Understand

It doesn't matter if you really are a brilliant driver. You cannot prove you are because you have nothing to authenticate your claims. That is why you represent a greater risk - you cannot prove your driving record.

It would be like me walking into an interview claiming to have single-handedly revolutionised my previous employers business procedures - if I can't back it up with evidence or references the claim is worthless to my new employer as they probably aren't just going to take my word for it.

 

[Barks]

It doesn't matter if you really are a brilliant driver. You cannot prove you are because you have nothing to authenticate your claims. That is why you represent a greater risk - you cannot prove your driving record.

Thank you. That's exacty what I've been trying to say.

 

[Barks]

Outside of statistics you're still not the same risk.

You spent 4 years driving your mum's car. You're less likely to drive too fast to avoid speeding convictions being dropped through her letterbox in her name. You're less likely to drive fast to avoid destroying a car that isn't yours. You spend less time in a car that belongs to you, thus being less aware of it's capabilities and it's limits.

How can you possibly make such ridiculous assumptions about my use of the car. We bought that car when I started the lower Sixth, I passed my test shortly afterwards. That was almost two years of driving to school every day. In fact I would say, before university, I used the car far more than she did.

The fact I didn't pay petrol enabled me to drive it a LOT more than my mates who quite often got lifts with me to save on petrol costs.

I understand your point about not wanting to damage her car but I honestly don't care. I drive it as if it's my own, which technically it is as my dad bought it for me and her to share. If you want to argue this case, then why is it so much cheaper to take out a policy with myself as the main driver and not a named driver. We're about to buy a new car for mum and I to share. It's about £400 cheaper if I take the policy out in my name as opposed to being a named driver on her policy. By your logic statistically I should crash less on the latter, so why is it more expensive?

So what about this Mini we're about to buy... we're putting the insurance policy in my name this time. As I'm at uni my mum will be driving it about 50 times more than me. So in 4 years time I will have been driving for much less of the time than I have in the past 4 years, yet I'll have 4 years NCB.

Stuff statistics, I'll accept they are what car insurance is based on but they are only statistics. They cannot describe everyone and they certainly cannot differentiate between fact and fiction.

 

[DampCat]

Then you're fronting, which is illegal. And if you start to make this personal then it's going to be the end of the conversation.

I make these assumptions because it's the most likely scenario. As an insurer, i cannot interview every person that has a car and charge them a premium based on my opinion of them. We've been over this 5 or 6 times.

It's not a ridiculous assumption at all. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption that when using other peoples property, you treat it better than if you were using your own. That you don't care about it only goes to further the reasoning that you should be charged more, because you dont care about the condition or damage you cause to the car?

You cannot just stuff statistics. I really just dont understand why you are taking this so personally, like they're doing it just to upset you. At which point did i say it was going to benefit every person on the road?

Go back and read the other thread, and then maybe, just maybe, you will understand why it doesn't really matter who you are, or what you think you're capable of, or why you're being screwed... because honestly, all 21 year old boys are a risk wether you like it or not.

That's the end of the discussion. You can continue your silly little crusade with someone else, because i just cannot understand what you're confused about. I've answered your questions completely and legibly, and now you're returning to arguments we already settled in the other thread.

Yes scott212, NCB was invented to screw you over. Sucks to be you i suppose, go scream about it outside.

 

[Tom|Nbk]

The 3 years I lost made my premium go up by £200..

 

[DampCat]

No, because insurance has nothing to do with your personal background*, it has everything to do with statistics. Statistically he has 4 years of safe driving. Statistically, you dont. Statistically he costs less to insure, statistically you dont. He pays less. You dont.

Im sorry, but however you feel about it, it really is just that simple.

*Unless you have proof of it. The reason i'm bringing proof into this, and it IS relevant however much you want to debate it, is because he has PROOF that he is a safe driver. You dont. That's the price you pay for getting cheaper insurance early on. That's what NCB is, and why it isnt a big con to rip you off.

We are not talking about proof we are talking about fact. Read it again and you will see that, despite what statistics may say, I am an equal risk as he is. I know in terms of NCB and statistics I may be a far greater risk, but in reality I am not. Do you understand my point now?

It doesn't matter if you really are a brilliant driver. You cannot prove you are because you have nothing to authenticate your claims. That is why you represent a greater risk - you cannot prove your driving record.

Thank you. That's exacty what I've been trying to say.

Wait.. what? he says what i said, and you agree with him? You claim it's got nothing to do with proof, the Lopez says it does, then you agree like that's what you thought all along?

So this IS just a personal attack on me then.. right? So if Lopez just copies and pastes what i write, will you understand? Perhaps i'll send an email request.

this really is quite unbelievable. Enjoy getting raped by your insurer