![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
No, it definately sounds like a high risk postcode.
Warning - Contains Insurance Rant
- Thread starter Makhaira
- Start date
No, it definately sounds like a high risk postcode.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
I'd never even considered playing around with where the car's parked, just always ticked driveway as that's where I park it!
Might give that a fiddle sometime...
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,701
- Location
- Cheshire
Presumeably there's less chance of a car parked on the street being stolen due to the lack of a direct connection to a house.
If a car is parked on a drive and you break into the house the drive belongs to, chances are you can steal it with the keys. If its parked on the road, not only is it more open, but the thief wouldnt know which house it 'belongs' to (without hanging around to monitor the situation) and would have to rely on conventional methods which are somewhat less effective on more modern and desireable cars.
If a car is parked on a drive and you break into the house the drive belongs to, chances are you can steal it with the keys. If its parked on the road, not only is it more open, but the thief wouldnt know which house it 'belongs' to (without hanging around to monitor the situation) and would have to rely on conventional methods which are somewhat less effective on more modern and desireable cars.
[TW]Fox;18945758 said:
But if he is attempting to get a quote based on keeping the car in a locked garage the postcode is virtually irrelevant to the risk factor, if the insurance company charge the same for sitting in the street as they do locked in a garage then their greedy and attempting to rip him off, simple as.
The risk isn't to do with the car being stolen but the fact that most accidents happen within a couple of miles of the home address and crappy area's have a higher rate of compo claims. Stealing a modern car is also very difficult without either the keys or a low loader so it hardly matters if it's kept in a garage or the street in terms of theft.
Because Slough is a DUMP, but some of the villages around it are REALLY nice
Completely wrong.
You are making the assumption that theft risk is the only thing a postcode is used for. It absolutely isn't!
Yes, but the area he lives in should not affect the risk of him being at fault in an accident though, his driving history (which the insurer already knows) affects that.
Just moving from ZZ2 to XX2 does not suddenly make one more likely to be at fault in an accident
It does though - the statistics demonstrate that people living in, say, inner city Bradford or Preston are more likely to make a fault claim than people living in the leafy suburbs of Chipping Sodbury.
Of course it can, for a start driving around inner city Bradford will present far more situations where you could possibly make a mistake and end up causing an accident, or being involved in one, 50/50 etc., compared to driving around a quiet village on the outskirts. That's just one example of how location can alter your risk factor.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
Now they can't rip men off it seems the poscode is the next easiest thing to discriminate against (you would like to think after NCB and age).
It isn't fair but the fact that you live near a load of people that make lots of claims messes you up.
It is not much better than say giving black people higher insurance.
It should be based on stuff you can more easily control such as NCB and the value of the car. Not the fact that some guy in the same town keeps crashing. ffs.
thankfully mine is still at my mum and dads house as I have only recently moved. But I will be renewing next month so we will see what happens.
It isn't fair but the fact that you live near a load of people that make lots of claims messes you up.
It is not much better than say giving black people higher insurance.
It should be based on stuff you can more easily control such as NCB and the value of the car. Not the fact that some guy in the same town keeps crashing. ffs.
thankfully mine is still at my mum and dads house as I have only recently moved. But I will be renewing next month so we will see what happens.
Last edited:
Except someone can live in a village but spend everyday driving in London
Post codes are an utterly useless tool for basing risk of at fault crashing, as they have no direct relationship with whether a person will be at fault.
Post codes are a good tool for theft/vandalism risk though
They can't predict that - if they could, they'd build that into the quote as well.
I've avoided mentioning this until now, because its a can of worms and it always offends people, but you can use postcodes to judge risk based on geodemographics.
It may well be that the statistics demonstrate that 'the sort of person' who usually resides in 'Area type B' has one set of behaviour characteristics, whereas 'the sort of person' who usually resides in 'Area type A' has another.
This is also why they ask what you do for a living...
Because career drug dealers who live in deprived inner city areas might be more likely to cause fault accidents than a chartered accountant who lives in a small housing estate in Berkshire.
Made-up job title given to avoid the 'OMG' arguments..
[TW]Fox;18948195 said:
That may be true, but the use of postcodes as a judge of likelihood of "at fault" fails in cases such as the OP where he moves form one area to another.
The risk of him crashing and being at fault has not gone up (for all you know he drove inner city everyday beforehand despite living in a village) suddenly when he moves house.
You cannot develop a system which covers everything. In the majority of cases, the postcode data is an accurate reflection of the risk the policyholder poses to the insurer.
There are exceptions to every set of criteria - and these people either dip out or dip in, sadly. Thats just how it is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Spot on [TW]Fox
It's all statistics. If on average people of one skin colour have accidents more frequently/more expensive accidents than people of another skin colour then fair enough charge them more, it's statistics.
Exactly.
It's all statistics. If on average people of one skin colour have accidents more frequently/more expensive accidents than people of another skin colour then fair enough charge them more, it's statistics.
[TW]Fox;18948195 said:
Exactly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
Indeed.
It is "correct" statistically to give higher premiums to certain areas because certain areas generate more claims but that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do ethically.
If I worked for an insurance company and we worked out that ginger people are more or less likely to claim then we could add that to the list of questions to ask and vary the price of premiums accordingly.
Obviously business don't care about ethics and simply want to increase their profits. and that's what happens.
Some bright spark decides if they go for old people or women and charge them just a bit more than the stats say or go for young men and charge them a bit more than the stats say they will make more pofit until we have the poo situation we are in now. Fair enough, thats business.
But by making these types of grouping people together illegal it would not put up premims, prices would be much similar accross the board. there would still be adequate competition so the only change in price would be due to lack of ability to estimate claim amounts and numbers but it wouldn't make much diff other than perhaps but a few insurance workers out of jobs.
Statistically men are more likely to claim but that was made illegal to discriminate against, so unless the government decides this form of discrimination is becoming a problem (because no one in the ghetto can afford to run a car (and it is impacting the economy (cynical view))).
Although you can argue many "choose" to live in bad areas I suppose or atleast it is their fault. which is why it is less likely to be made illegal by the government as they will say if you want a fancy car then move house. Fair enough perhaps until no one can get to work even in the crappiest ecobanger.
So yes, it is statistically true but that doesn't mean it should be legal to discrimiate based on that fact as it is imho a bit unfair, even if only for a minority of "low claimants" in those areas.
And when I say statistically true, as explained so very well above it isn't perfect as without taking into account where you live they don't know how likely your car is to be stolen or vandalised etc but it also doesn't take into account people that don't drive much in that area but perhaps only commute. so yeah, nothing is perfect but I feel they have enough to judge us on already, they don't need this stuff to make profit or provide a decent service assuming the ban is for all insurers. It simply means less variation in permiums.
So a young male in the hood doesn't pay 10x the amount as a female pensioner in the countryside. I have no problems counting NCB, experience, security, power of car, cost of car, desirability of car, expense to repair car, age is slightly dodgy but experience should suffice really.
OK, abit of a random rant but I am right.
It is "correct" statistically to give higher premiums to certain areas because certain areas generate more claims but that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do ethically.
If I worked for an insurance company and we worked out that ginger people are more or less likely to claim then we could add that to the list of questions to ask and vary the price of premiums accordingly.
Obviously business don't care about ethics and simply want to increase their profits. and that's what happens.
Some bright spark decides if they go for old people or women and charge them just a bit more than the stats say or go for young men and charge them a bit more than the stats say they will make more pofit until we have the poo situation we are in now. Fair enough, thats business.
But by making these types of grouping people together illegal it would not put up premims, prices would be much similar accross the board. there would still be adequate competition so the only change in price would be due to lack of ability to estimate claim amounts and numbers but it wouldn't make much diff other than perhaps but a few insurance workers out of jobs.
Statistically men are more likely to claim but that was made illegal to discriminate against, so unless the government decides this form of discrimination is becoming a problem (because no one in the ghetto can afford to run a car (and it is impacting the economy (cynical view))).
Although you can argue many "choose" to live in bad areas I suppose or atleast it is their fault. which is why it is less likely to be made illegal by the government as they will say if you want a fancy car then move house. Fair enough perhaps until no one can get to work even in the crappiest ecobanger.
So yes, it is statistically true but that doesn't mean it should be legal to discrimiate based on that fact as it is imho a bit unfair, even if only for a minority of "low claimants" in those areas.
And when I say statistically true, as explained so very well above it isn't perfect as without taking into account where you live they don't know how likely your car is to be stolen or vandalised etc but it also doesn't take into account people that don't drive much in that area but perhaps only commute. so yeah, nothing is perfect but I feel they have enough to judge us on already, they don't need this stuff to make profit or provide a decent service assuming the ban is for all insurers. It simply means less variation in permiums.
So a young male in the hood doesn't pay 10x the amount as a female pensioner in the countryside. I have no problems counting NCB, experience, security, power of car, cost of car, desirability of car, expense to repair car, age is slightly dodgy but experience should suffice really.
OK, abit of a random rant but I am right.
Last edited: