The usual teenage stuff, fronting, non declaration of mods.. and a crash

[Fr0dders]

Okay so health insurance works better in the UK than here, I just tried the same data on a quote site except move my birthdate between 1991 and 1951, both 98 per month .

lol why do you continue to do this.

you're forever making silly posts here based around circumstances in your own country like you live in the same one as us.

Then somebody points out that you're wrong and it dawns on you. Do you have some burning desire to live in england or something ?

 

[snowdog]

lol why do you continue to do this.

you're forever making silly posts here based around circumstances in your own country like you live in the same one as us.

Then somebody points out that you're wrong and it dawns on you. Do you have some burning desire to live in england or something ?

I'm curious why you guys accept it that a 17 or 18 year old isn't allowed to own something like an M5 in the UK realistically unless he earns about 10k per month... Or why you think it's acceptable that adding a bonnet scoop increases ones insurance premium or even voids his insurance, this is unfair to the people who don't crash.

 

[Kutter]

I'm curious why you guys accept it that a 17 or 18 year old isn't allowed to own something like an M5 in the UK realistically unless he earns about 10k per month... Or why you think it's acceptable that adding a bonnet scoop increases ones insurance premium or even voids his insurance, this is unfair to the people who don't crash.

I think you'll find that lifes unfair and you just have to deal with it.

 

[Fr0dders]

I'm curious why you guys accept it that a 17 or 18 year old isn't allowed to own something like an M5 in the UK realistically unless he earns about 10k per month... Or why you think it's acceptable that adding a bonnet scoop increases ones insurance premium or even voids his insurance, this is unfair to the people who don't crash.

Because this is what happens when you give a 17 or 18 year old an M5

Young lads like to drive fast and show off. Giving this type of driver an M5 is a receipe for death.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/26/airstrip.car.crash/index.html

The reason insurance premiums are so high is that an incident like this is so likely to happen, most insurers dont want the risk so make the premiums so high they cant afford it. And it has the usefull by product of meaning 17 or 18 year olds cant get cars like this, which most probably keeps them alive.

And the reason that adding bonnet scoops raises insurance premium is because of morons like the one in the news article. With a modified car, fronted insurance, and causing a fatal accident exactly as the statistics predicted he would.

 

[mattyprice4004]

What is considered a modification over there then ? Exterior? Mechanical ? Interior. Would someone replacing his wiper blades with flatblades, adding a subwoofer in his boot or blinding his rear window be modifying ?

Any deviation away from the specification of the vehicle when it left the factory is classed as a modification.

 

[snowdog]

Any deviation away from the specification of the vehicle when it left the factory is classed as a modification.

So, do you guys with an aftermarket headunit & an amp in the back declare this to insurance ?

 

[lawz]

So, do you guys with an aftermarket headunit & an amp in the back declare this to insurance ?

The headunit I indeed did, Elephant basically said we dont care/thats fine. Though, they do include a couple of K worth of stereo cover in their policies.

On the other hand, wanting to upgrade my brakes to something better i.e SAFER would cost me a flat fee of, I think it was about 30-40 quid. Same if I changed wheels etc.

So the brakes that will stop me quicker and more safely and that you cant see will cost me, but to have an aftermarket Headunit that will make people want to break into my car and steal wont?

Remind me to setup an insurance company sometime with 'sensible' policies and watch the money roll in.

 

[Rich_L]

The problem is not so much the high premiums - that is based on simple statistics and is hard to argue against - a more valid argument perhaps is the lack of available options for young drivers to differentiate themselves from the 'average' to lower the premiums from the 'average' risk - does Pass Plus, for example, even make a difference these days?

Unfortunately there isn't really any incentive for the insurance companies to come up with any ideas though, as with the mandatory insurance requirement they can pretty much charge whatever they want - it would be nice to see some form of regulatory pressure put on the companies to come up with ways to allow young people to lower their premiums by putting themselves in a 'lower risk category'.

Something along the lines perhaps of having portions of the premium refundable after set periods of no-fault, no-points periods, splitting yearly no-claims bonuses into 3, 6 month periods etc.

 

[[TW]Fox]

So the brakes that will stop me quicker and more safely and that you cant see will cost me, but to have an aftermarket Headunit that will make people want to break into my car and steal wont?

Fitting upgraded brakes marks you out as the sort of driver who drives hard - your gran wouldnt even think about doing it.

Remind me to setup an insurance company sometime with 'sensible' policies and watch the money roll in.

Oh sure, the money would roll in. Then roll right back out the door again as payouts.

 

[iaind]

Insurance is generally non-sensical.

I have been doing some insurance quotes on a Focus ST and for a start, it is £50 more if i park it in my driveway as apposed to the street . So because of the stupid way insurance profiling works, i have to pay £50 more to park my car in a far safer and more sensible place. Even better is that when i choose "kept in garage" it would cost me £150 more! LOL WUT?

Also, out of interest I looked at the difference on a brand new one compared to a 2006 model.....£200 difference ( 2006 model being more expensive). Now i know why this is, but it still makes no sense, it is the same car! You already have my age, occupation, where i live e.t.c. but i assume the older one is more expensive as it is more likely to be driven by someone younger ( who can afford it)? Again, makes no sense.

Also, declaring a previous accident that was my fault made ZERO difference to the quote.

The most annoying thing about all of this is that you wont be able to talk to someone who has common sense about these flaws/issues , you just have to get the price their stupid computers tell you.

So to summarise, mr insurance company would like £350 for parking my car in a locked garage and buying a 2006 car instead of a 2010 one (exactly the same car though)....

Did you completely ignore my post explaining this, or did you not understand it? Who cares what you think is logical - insurance companies don't really care why the statistics say what they do, but they dont lie. I really don't know why some people struggle so much with it.

If you keep your car I'm the garage, statistics say you're more likely to make a claim. Does it matter why?

Honestly, it's like trying to explain something to a brick wall

 

[iaind]

The headunit I indeed did, Elephant basically said we dont care/thats fine. Though, they do include a couple of K worth of stereo cover in their policies.

On the other hand, wanting to upgrade my brakes to something better i.e SAFER would cost me a flat fee of, I think it was about 30-40 quid. Same if I changed wheels etc.

So the brakes that will stop me quicker and more safely and that you cant see will cost me, but to have an aftermarket Headunit that will make people want to break into my car and steal wont?

Remind me to setup an insurance company sometime with 'sensible' policies and watch the money roll in.

Please do, I'd love to see it. I've already explained why you wouldn't make a penny profit. If you did set one up and lost a few million, it might put an end to threads like this at least

I don't understand why nobody ever counters a decent explanation of why the insurance imductry works like it does, instead they just keep spouting the same old drivel of "oh but this makes me safer!!!"

 

[[TW]Fox]

If you keep your car I'm the garage, statistics say you're more likely to make a claim. Does it matter why?

To be fair this one is rather bizarre. It is fairly obvious that the theft risk is considerably reduced if a car is locked in a garage and the risk of accidential damage is considerably reduced if a car is parked on a driveway rather than by the side of the road.

How many people on this forum alone have suffered hit and run damage to cars parked beside the road?

How many people have suffered this damage when the car is on a drive or parked in a garage?

 

[ubersonic]

How many people have suffered this damage when the car is on a drive or parked in a garage?

One guy on a Honda forum with a mint car had it written off (and substantial damage to his house) when a 4x4 in the drive off the house opposite which had been parked up for months had its handbrake failed, it rolled down their drive, across the road, down his drive and into his car knocking it into the house and cracking the wall. the 4x4 was uninsured.

Not arguing your point just wanted to point out it does happen

 

[Mucky_Pup]

I'd suspect the reason for increasing the premium for a garage would be because it takes more to park it in a garage than it does just plonking it on the road, so there are more thigns you could possibly hit. Also you store stuff in a garage so more chance of a lawnmower being dragged down the side of it, or stuff falling of shelves etc.

But yet again, it's the insurances choice, and they don't have to justify the charges they make. Everyone just has to pay them.

 

[stoofa]

Going back to the original story.
Put aside the mods, the fronting and everything wrong with the insurance policy.

The important thing here is that the story implies that the insurance company have successfully voided the policy.
It also implies that they won't be paying out to the third party involved.

It has always been the case that even if a policy is found to be void that the third party would still be paid.
That an insurance company cannot "pass-over" their third party obligations.
This story implies that is exactly what they have done.

Surely this sets out an extremely dangerous precedence?
That if somebody is involved in an accident and the insurance wasn't "fully legit" then the insurance company need only go to court to dismiss their third party obligations?

 

[SGWills]

I'm curious why you guys accept it that a 17 or 18 year old isn't allowed to own something like an M5 in the UK realistically unless he earns about 10k per month... Or why you think it's acceptable that adding a bonnet scoop increases ones insurance premium or even voids his insurance, this is unfair to the people who don't crash.

because the other way they would insure people is blanket the insurance price so everyone pays the same no matter what their details are, which wont work for most people as they would normally look at charging a few thousand due to the amount insurance companies pay out over the year for claims/false claims/fronted policies

Remind me to setup an insurance company sometime with 'sensible' policies and watch the money roll in.

the money wouldnt just roll in, a good insurance company comes down to their claim department to look thru the details, if you knew how much the claim would have cost the company i think you would have thought differently about paying out

 

[Malc]

Did you completely ignore my post explaining this, or did you not understand it? Who cares what you think is logical - insurance companies don't really care why the statistics say what they do, but they dont lie. I really don't know why some people struggle so much with it.

If you keep your car I'm the garage, statistics say you're more likely to make a claim. Does it matter why?

Honestly, it's like trying to explain something to a brick wall

While I understand that insurance companies base their quotes upon statistics, it would be useful to understand why and how certain variables change your policy cost. So yes it does matter why. If it's cheaper to park a car on the street rather than in a garage by around £200 a year (which it is for me) then I'll park on the street.

Also for something that the insurance company has pretty much no way of proving. How can they justify charging such a difference? It could be due to the fact that people assume that parking in a garage is cheaper than parking on the street so the insurance companies set up the premiums the opposite way around just to pry on people who don't mess with the options.

 

[SGWills]

While I understand that insurance companies base their quotes upon statistics, it would be useful to understand why and how certain variables change your policy cost. So yes it does matter why. If it's cheaper to park a car on the street rather than in a garage by around £200 a year (which it is for me) then I'll park on the street.

Also for something that the insurance company has pretty much no way of proving. How can they justify charging such a difference? It could be due to the fact that people assume that parking in a garage is cheaper than parking on the street so the insurance companies set up the premiums the opposite way around just to pry on people who don't mess with the options.

everything that they rate upon has to be able to prove statistacally (sp?) that its worse off for last term, after all they are regulated or if someone trys to sue for discrimination they can turn around and go, with your details the figures show your more likely to crash this year from last because more people with details that match yours, on an average, are making more claims

 

[[TW]Fox]

Going back to the original story.
Put aside the mods, the fronting and everything wrong with the insurance policy.

The important thing here is that the story implies that the insurance company have successfully voided the policy.
It also implies that they won't be paying out to the third party involved.

It has always been the case that even if a policy is found to be void that the third party would still be paid.
That an insurance company cannot "pass-over" their third party obligations.
This story implies that is exactly what they have done.

Surely this sets out an extremely dangerous precedence?
That if somebody is involved in an accident and the insurance wasn't "fully legit" then the insurance company need only go to court to dismiss their third party obligations?

There was no third party was there? It was a single vehicle accident and the claim is from the family of the passenger of the car is it not? Which is not quite the same.

 

[Building Candy]

In the insurance companies eyes (and indeed everyone elses)

young driver + cosmetic mods = driving like a tit

Passenger in the car, Charlie Morris, 26, from Lewisham, south London, was killed when he was flung from the car’s window on to the Victoria House Corner roundabout.

also if you are getting in said car put your seatbelt on.