Just why don't insurers ask about tyres?
- Thread starter shauncr91
- Start date
Better tyres just mean you are going A LOT faster when you do lose it, so insurance could go up as a result of having super grippy tyres compared to ditch-finders.
I heard that insurers in one country (Germany I think) charge more for 4x4 versions of 'normal' cars (Audi A4 quattro for example) because of this.
I heard that insurers in one country (Germany I think) charge more for 4x4 versions of 'normal' cars (Audi A4 quattro for example) because of this.
I'm not sure this makes sense, surely the majority of grip related accidents are people going up the back of someone else with shoddy tyres rather than someone pretending they are Roger Clark around a fast tarmac corner with decent rubber.
The demographic who will be fitting expensive rubber are (probably) generally the sort who like a back road hoon every now and again, the ones who might be pushing the limit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,569
- Location
- Cambridge,York,Bristol
You know insurers don't generally stick their finger in the air and guess if someone's a higher risk or not? They gather all the data and work it out, using any factors they can measure and put on a form with a reasonable belief it's right.
This, really. When I go to my local tyre fitter to pay £108 a corner on CS3s, the amount of people I see baulking at the thought of paying £25 a corner for some part worn dross is staggering (and terrifying).
Speed rating simply means the carcass won't overheat and self destruct at sustained high speeds - it does not infer any other level of performance.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 1,092
Tyre is consumable. You are not asked about tyres just like you are not asked what brand of brake liquid or coolant you have in your car. The only requirement is that your consumables match minimum standard specified by manufacturer. In most cases speed rating. All tyres, including the alleged 30p Ling Deechfaynder Sport tyres are required to ensure their product does meet minimum spec and don't self destruct when used within that spec.
how would it work on new tyres and part worn tyres?
you would then have to look at if you change your tyres mid term, to a different brand, would you pay an increase if there was one? would the insurance company use the fact you changed brands without telling them not to pay a claim?
too many things that can effect the price, plus liike mentioned above its a consumable
you would then have to look at if you change your tyres mid term, to a different brand, would you pay an increase if there was one? would the insurance company use the fact you changed brands without telling them not to pay a claim?
too many things that can effect the price, plus liike mentioned above its a consumable
The analogy of garage vs. street to good vs. bad tyres is close, but there is a significant difference; tyre quality is a factor that the insurance companies can influence. You are unlikely to convince someone to build a garage to save £50 on their car insurance, but you might convince someone to spend £100 more on better tyres in combination with the offered safety benefits. It would be a long-term play for the insurance companies to reward good tyres with lower premiums, as if everyone has better tyres the accident rates are reduced.
A simple-ish possible way to run the scheme would be for the ABI to officialise the new European tyre rating system coming in November: http://www.michelinonline.co.uk/trucktyrelabelling/
This system provides an EU-standard (I think based on a UN standard) method for measuring wet tyre performance, that all tyres will subsequently be tested against and then labelled.
You could be simply required to keep your insurance company apprised of which tyre wet grip rating you have, and clear discounts are given for better tyres.
Last edited:
Now I've no idea if this is right but surely if you don't fit tyres that are inline to the manufactures specification and you do have an accident wouldn't the insurance company just not pay out?
HEADRAT
The only specifications that have any real meaning are the speed rating and load rating, and it's easy to find rubbish tyres that meet those requirements, even for powerful cars.
Using data that is not available for analysis by an independent third party. Either the data is flawed, they aren't using it properly or they simply make the numbers up on the spot. For what other reason would an insurance premium suddenly triple from one year to the next, with no change in circumstances except an extra years NCB?
Why do premiums vary by as much as a 20:1 ratio when getting quotes from different companies? This in itself cast grave doubts on the veracity of these risk databases IMO.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 437
i personally think they should just outlaw china tyres.
About a year ago i had a Road legal pitbike ... or what you would call a chav bike lol. its standard tyres were typical chinky **** grippy as hell in the hot but terrible in the wet, anyways the point here is it was a very hot day and i had a 15 mile thrash to get to college and i managed to overheat these **** to a point they were going blue
In realistic driving conditions eg never breaking the speed limit .... never being a dick around corners .... just typical driving the cheaper line of Michelin would perform just as good as the high end stuff, complete different story when it comes down to pushing those tyres to the limits though
About a year ago i had a Road legal pitbike ... or what you would call a chav bike lol. its standard tyres were typical chinky **** grippy as hell in the hot but terrible in the wet, anyways the point here is it was a very hot day and i had a 15 mile thrash to get to college and i managed to overheat these **** to a point they were going blue
In realistic driving conditions eg never breaking the speed limit .... never being a dick around corners .... just typical driving the cheaper line of Michelin would perform just as good as the high end stuff, complete different story when it comes down to pushing those tyres to the limits though
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
To be honest given the real differences in stopping distances of good tyres vs cheapo rubbish, I'd be in favour of them just banning the cheap rubbish completely.
That's the point I was trying to get at. Most people would say that the stats should show that you are lower risk if you park your car in a garage over the street. The stats the Admiral use must show the opposite as the premium is always less parking on the street than in a garage.
If the stats for tyre quality vs accident rates and costs were to be measured you wouldn't know how it would affect premiums until the results were in. You could well find that cars with premium tyres are in more accidents or greater cost accidents. You could well find the opposite is true. In this thread people have argued for both sides and there is no way to prove anyone wrong without the statistics.
It would also require a black and white ranking of every tyre in production, which simply wouldn't happen.
But its a fair point. Having cheap tyres on your car is going to have more of an impact on your ability to avoid having an accident than wether you live alone, or are married...
But its a fair point. Having cheap tyres on your car is going to have more of an impact on your ability to avoid having an accident than wether you live alone, or are married...
I don't really get the idea behind it. I own a standard banger money car and put the 'best' budget tyres on it as its not worth having £500 worth of tyres on it, why should I get penalised for this? Also this doesn't change the fact that you can have a numpty in a fast car with expensive shoes who does 50 in a 30 or drives like a maniac who is more likely to cause an accident or a sensible driver on cheap tyres driving sensibly and less likely to cause an accident. It'll never work IMO.