Just why don't insurers ask about tyres?

[Clarkey]

Not sure it would work, only time I ever ran out of grip and had an accident I was on Neova AD08 which have extraordinary grip. Previously driven on such dross as Ceat and Sunew, never had any grip related incidents on those. Chinese ditchfinders = less risk? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Westyfield2]

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?

A child walks out in front of you when your doing 30MPH. Your car with budget tyres will take longer to stop than a car with expensive tyres. Longer distance to stop = More chance of hitting child/higher impact speed.

 

[lemonade]

A child walks out in front of you when your doing 30MPH. Your car with budget tyres will take longer to stop than a car with expensive tyres. Longer distance to stop = More chance of hitting child/higher impact speed.

That is one way of looking at it, but nothing is ever so simple, there are so many other factors to consider, what about reaction speeds of a driver? The driver in the car with expensive tyres could be slower to react, or they could have worn out brakes that don't respond as well or the tyres. What about a driver who has the best tyres but drives recklessly, should they get a lower premium purely cos they have better tyres and hence insurers making a false judgment that his less likely to have an accident. It is way too complicated and IMO pointless. To me it all comes down to driving sensibly and fate, the latter you can't do anything about.

 

[miniyazz]

That is one way of looking at it, but nothing is ever so simple, there are so many other factors to consider, what about reaction speeds of a driver? The driver in the car with expensive tyres could be slower to react, or they could have worn out brakes that don't respond as well or the tyres. What about a driver who has the best tyres but drives recklessly, should they get a lower premium purely cos they have better tyres and hence insurers making a false judgment that his less likely to have an accident. It is way too complicated and IMO pointless. To me it all comes down to driving sensibly and fate, the latter you can't do anything about.

Uh-oh. We've got someone who doesn't understand probabilities.
Let's do some maths with some imaginary figures, considering only two possible variables (massive oversimplification).

Rubbish tyres give a risk of 0.6, good tyres give a risk of 0.9. This is based entirely on tyre performance, stopping distance etc, and not on how rubbish the driver is.

Reckless driver gives a risk of 0.2, good driver gives a risk of 0.9.

So, reckless driver but good tyres gives a risk of 0.2*0.9 = 0.18.
Good driver but rubbish tyres gives a risk of 0.9*0.6 = 0.54.
But, good driver with good tyres gives a risk of 0.9*0.9 = 0.81.

Your argument seems to be that the reckless driver may have good tyres and the safe driver may have rubbish tyres and zomg not fair premiums.

But you're looking at one specific example whereas the insurance companies are looking at thousands, and, on average, those with good tyres are less likely to have accidents because they can avoid collisions better regardless of whether there's a few muppets with good tyres (as there will be with rubbish tyres).

And the good driver can reduce his premium further by getting better tyres, which reduce his chance of having a crash.

It's not rocket science that if you do something to reduce your risk, you should pay lower premiums - and there can simply be no denying that person x putting better tyres on his car will reduce his chance of a crash, all other variables staying the same.

Rubbish drivers tend to have crashes which would raise their risk profile far more than someone putting linglongs on a banger.

 

[lemonade]

Uh-oh. We've got someone who doesn't understand probabilities.
Let's do some maths with some imaginary figures, considering only two possible variables (massive oversimplification).

Rubbish tyres give a risk of 0.6, good tyres give a risk of 0.9. This is based entirely on tyre performance, stopping distance etc, and not on how rubbish the driver is.

Reckless driver gives a risk of 0.2, good driver gives a risk of 0.9.

So, reckless driver but good tyres gives a risk of 0.2*0.9 = 0.18.
Good driver but rubbish tyres gives a risk of 0.9*0.6 = 0.54.
But, good driver with good tyres gives a risk of 0.9*0.9 = 0.81.

Your argument seems to be that the reckless driver may have good tyres and the safe driver may have rubbish tyres and zomg not fair premiums.

But you're looking at one specific example whereas the insurance companies are looking at thousands, and, on average, those with good tyres are less likely to have accidents because they can avoid collisions better regardless of whether there's a few muppets with good tyres (as there will be with rubbish tyres).

And the good driver can reduce his premium further by getting better tyres, which reduce his chance of having a crash.

It's not rocket science that if you do something to reduce your risk, you should pay lower premiums - and there can simply be no denying that person x putting better tyres on his car will reduce his chance of a crash, all other variables staying the same.

Rubbish drivers tend to have crashes which would raise their risk profile far more than someone putting linglongs on a banger.

Don't worry I totally understand your meaningless probabilities, all of this as I mentioned is totally irrelevant in the real world. It's far too simplistic view of things. There are way too many factors that would make having expensive tyres totally pointless to insurance. Whether it's other numpty drivers on the road, poop car with poop brakes, reckless driving, poor reaction times, etc a good tyre won't save you from a crash just as a budget tyre won't, I couldn't give a two hoots if on paper a good tyre is supposed stop you quicker blah blah, in the real world none of this registers. As I said before this would never work as its 1) impractical 2) unfair.

But you're looking at one specific example whereas the insurance companies are looking at thousands, and, on average, those with good tyres are less likely to have accidents because they can avoid collisions better regardless of whether there's a few muppets with good tyres (as there will be with rubbish tyres).

Lol where did you get this wonderful fact from? I better grab some nice rubber, might make me an epic driver...

 

[therealnerd2]

But you're looking at one specific example whereas the insurance companies are looking at thousands, and, on average, those with good tyres are less likely to have accidents because they can avoid collisions better regardless of whether there's a few muppets with good tyres (as there will be with rubbish tyres).

Aside from the fact that the rest of your post seems to make very little sense, you are discounting the fact that tyre quality will likely corrolate with other factors, such as weight of vehicle, performance of vehicle and likely speed the driver is comfortable of driving at.

 

[Havana_UK]

I would say there's two reasons.

1. The insurance companies either don't have sufficient data to do statistical analysis on tyre make/spec and it's influence in accident probability or severity, or they do have it and it makes very little statistical difference
2. The single biggest risk factor is not what's ON your wheels, but what's BEHIND the wheel

 

[ubersonic]

If insurance companies ever start including tyres in policy calculations it will go like this:

Tyres better type than what the vehicle came with: Performance mod, increase premium.
Tyres worse type than vehicle came with: liability, increase premium.

 

[miniyazz]

Don't worry I totally understand your meaningless probabilities, all of this as I mentioned is totally irrelevant in the real world. It's far too simplistic view of things. There are way too many factors that would make having expensive tyres totally pointless to insurance. Whether it's other numpty drivers on the road, poop car with poop brakes, reckless driving, poor reaction times, etc a good tyre won't save you from a crash just as a budget tyre won't, I couldn't give a two hoots if on paper a good tyre is supposed stop you quicker blah blah, in the real world none of this registers. As I said before this would never work as its 1) impractical 2) unfair.


Lol where did you get this wonderful fact from? I better grab some nice rubber, might make me an epic driver...

Sorry, that last statement should have been qualified by "if all other variables remain the same". Look at it this way, there is no occasion when a rubbish tyre will avoid a crash compared to a good tyre, but through improved handling and stopping distances, a good tyre may occasionally prevent a crash compared to a good tyre.

I understand what you're saying about it only being one factor amongst possibly hundreds, but then the same can be said about all the other factors insurance companies use - 5 door vs 3 door differences of the same car spring to mind.

Aside from the fact that the rest of your post seems to make very little sense, you are discounting the fact that tyre quality will likely corrolate with other factors, such as weight of vehicle, performance of vehicle and likely speed the driver is comfortable of driving at.

Hence why accounting for these variables/confounding factors is also important. Are you honestly telling me that Person A driving his Mondeo on his daily commute is no more likely to have a collision with linglongs on than if his local garage had decided to put high quality tyres on instead, so all other factors staying the same?

 

[PMKeates]

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's not about the statistics - they prove correlations but not causations. If the statistics were to show that drivers with better tyres have more accidents, it therefore does not indicate that it is appropriate to encourage worse tyres by giving them lower premiums. The current state is 'no influence', so by moving to a situation where safer tyres result in lower premiums will influence behaviour, and increase the take up of safer tyres. More safer tyres across the board = better. The current correlations between tyres and accidents are irrelevant to this fact and can be ignored.

The situation with a garage and a driveway vs. on-street parking has a reason - you instantly know where the keys to the car are i.e. in the house. To steal a car today typically requires you to have the keys, and so anonymous parking makes that more difficult. The balance of car theft rate and cost of replacement vs. car damage rate because it's parked on a road and cost of repair is in favour of more but cheape rdings and dents being claimed for.

Remember that not everything in insurance is based on statistics - take 'Pass Plus', for example. That's a government-backed scheme that has offered insurance discounts in no way related to what affect the course has on risk. The idea is to encourage people to take the course, and hope it can influence behaviour for the better. It would not be impossible for the ABI to arrange something similar for tyres using the wet grip ratings they are all going to receive soon, where the agreement is to offer a discount of say 5% on premiums where the best tyre grade is fitted.

It would also require a black and white ranking of every tyre in production, which simply wouldn't happen.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32011R0228:EN:NOT

Is that EU regulation, developed by the United Nations, that will be law in November, not universal enough for you?

Every single tyre is going to be tested, graded and clearly labelled based on wet grip performance. It would be perfect as it will show up all the rubbish tyres that turn cars lethal when it rains.

 

[Simon]

Better brakes don't mean lower premiums. Infact the opposite.

The people I know who buy expensive tyres undersnd why they pay more and they tend to drive faster. The people who just want to get from A to B just put whatever is cheapest. I'd bet the former is a higher risk though due to driving attitude rather than the tyres on their car.

All accidents can be avoided by a driver who stays within the vehicles limits. Once you go past this it won't matter on any factors lie tyres, you have already exceeded the limit

 

[phil675]

Charging people more because they can't afford decent tyres in the first place would be ridiculous. Sounds like some sort of government economic recovery policy.

 

[PMKeates]

Better brakes don't mean lower premiums. Infact the opposite.

The people I know who buy expensive tyres undersnd why they pay more and they tend to drive faster. The people who just want to get from A to B just put whatever is cheapest. I'd bet the former is a higher risk though due to driving attitude rather than the tyres on their car.

All accidents can be avoided by a driver who stays within the vehicles limits. Once you go past this it won't matter on any factors lie tyres, you have already exceeded the limit

That is a reflection of current behaviour and influences. If brakes were to be graded in the same way tyres are, and there was an incentive to have better brakes, then more people would have better brakes and fewer accidents would result. I'm not quite recommending that as it doesn't have the same plausability as incentives for tyres.

Tyres with better wet grip performance raise the bar in terms of the vehicle's limits. Being able to stop faster and in a more controlled fashion is a good thing, and no matter what kind of driver you are you will have to brake hard from time to time.

Charging people more because they can't afford decent tyres in the first place would be ridiculous. Sounds like some sort of government economic recovery policy.

Charging one group more is different to offering discounts to another. The same could be applied to Pass Plus - if you can't afford the course, your insurance is more expensive..

It's a pretty basic incentive system.

 

[NathWraith]

All accidents can be avoided by a driver who stays within the vehicles limits. Once you go past this it won't matter on any factors lie tyres, you have already exceeded the limit

Very good point but not always because of exceeding the limit.

Rear ending someone by not reacting fast enough isn't exceeding limits though, just slow reactions.

 

[p1RATE]

tyres are consumables... do you want to insure brake pad wear and performance too??

to answer your question "Just why don't insurers ask about tyres?" because it is unmeasurable and unrealistic to put a premium on it.

maybe the government should start insisting on the use of winter tyres during the winter as they do in Germany?

 

[ubersonic]

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32011R0228:EN:NOT

Is that EU regulation, developed by the United Nations, that will be law in November, not universal enough for you?

Every single tyre is going to be tested, graded and clearly labelled based on wet grip performance. It would be perfect as it will show up all the rubbish tyres that turn cars lethal when it rains.

Wasn't the general consensus on this from the thread on it that it was a rubbish system that will see ditch finders given grades equal to some premium tyres?

The same could be applied to Pass Plus - if you can't afford the course, your insurance is more expensive.

We're lucky round here as the Police/Fire service do it for free

 

[kinobestew123]

The less things insurance companies ask about the better. They will never reduce premiums, they'll just keep them the same for people with normal tyres, increase them further for people with parp tyres or increase them further for people with performance tyres.

It's the same as when they made it so women had to pay the same as men. Men's policies didn't come down, they just put women's policies up to match....hitting men indirectly through joint accounts.

 

[Simon]

Very good point but not always because of exceeding the limit.

Rear ending someone by not reacting fast enough isn't exceeding limits though, just slow reactions.

Or driving too close for the stopping ability of the car, ie exceeding the safe stopping limit of the car the driver is in control of.