Caporegime
Insurance policy clause retrospectively added
- Thread starter TNGL
- Start date
Of course one doesn't need an Audi. Money isn't the problem here, it's just I'm quite frugal. Hence the Tesco policy was like a dream come true but it wasn't meant to be!
There isn't necessarily anything special about owning an Audi, I just like the A5 and always have.
Soldato
Owning the Audi isn't a problem here, but man, why the need to speed? The only time I sit above the limit is on an empty motorway, when I sit at 76 ish. The Tesco policy is very good value, and having a policy clause to . say they can cancel your insurance for breaking the law isn't harsh IMO, especially if you've been emailed warnings etc.
Simple answer was don't speed - no need to change the policy
Simple answer was don't speed - no need to change the policy
Owning the Audi isn't a problem here, but man, why the need to speed? The only time I sit above the limit is on an empty motorway, when I sit at 76 ish. The Tesco policy is very good value, and having a policy clause to . say they can cancel your insurance for breaking the law isn't harsh IMO, especially if you've been emailed warnings etc.
Simple answer was don't speed - no need to change the policy
I have mentioned a few times now, the box is very harsh at penalising speeding. I think most drivers who claim they don't speed would still be caught out by this box and have the threat of cancellation put to them in an email too.
Man of Honour
At the end of the day it's not harsh, you're breaking the law as soon as you go over the limit. It seems entirely sensible that they don't want to cover you if you continuously break the law.
You want the savings then you have to be whiter than white, that's the joy of having big brother watching you.
It's funny how a lot of people have normalised speeding.
Since i made an effort to not speed at all driving has become much less stressful.
Main reason i don't have a black box policy is being monitored doesn't warrant the tiny saving for me, some it's actually more expensive.
Does seem to fit the Audi stereotype though. I wonder if it shows that his car spends the majority of its time in the Audi lane on the motorways.
Also when did things change that your first car is something like this anyway. My first car was a £300 Ford Fiesta.
They should limit new drivers to certain cars.
Since i made an effort to not speed at all driving has become much less stressful.
Main reason i don't have a black box policy is being monitored doesn't warrant the tiny saving for me, some it's actually more expensive.
Does seem to fit the Audi stereotype though. I wonder if it shows that his car spends the majority of its time in the Audi lane on the motorways.
Also when did things change that your first car is something like this anyway. My first car was a £300 Ford Fiesta.
They should limit new drivers to certain cars.
Soldato
- Some parents feel the need to ensure their kids aren't hard done by like they were as a kid
- People are, on the whole, more well off, and can afford more expensive things
- Better cars are cheaper
Doesn't make someone a bad person for buying a nice car
Deffo still no need to speed though.
This seems grossly OTT to me. There are already barriers such as insurance costs for new drivers, which reflect their risk.
Soldato
Does anyone need to have an A5? Regardless of age?
If he can afford the car and the higher insurance what's the issue?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
Just drive without insurance in your name but someone else's. Like your dad.
I can't quite work out why it being an Audi is such a talking point. The insurance cost will still be high no matter whatever the car.
A bulk of the premium is made up of the liability coverage and not so much damage to the car itself. The underlying rhetoric is no matter what car you drive, you still pose a danger to others. This danger is elevated for young drivers.
Hence I don't quite get the Audi bashing. Is that what a life of mediocrity results in, a bit of saltiness?
A bulk of the premium is made up of the liability coverage and not so much damage to the car itself. The underlying rhetoric is no matter what car you drive, you still pose a danger to others. This danger is elevated for young drivers.
Hence I don't quite get the Audi bashing. Is that what a life of mediocrity results in, a bit of saltiness?
Soldato
Soldato
I raised this because many people see Audi as being a 'premium' car and so want to have the badge on the drive/keychain and will spend over the odds to insure such a vehicle. Insurance companies tend to view them as being higher risk which also doesn't help with policy pricing.
Saying that all cars will have high insurance is factually incorrect. You may not have £200 quotes on other vehicles, but chances are you'd be able to insure something else (still decent, I don't mean a tiny tin box with a 50hp engine) for around the £500-£700 mark...if insurance prices are of issue. Your initial posts about this all showed you're concerned about insurance prices, hence suggesting not driving a vehicle that's likely to carry a higher premium (especially for a younger driver).
I was/am not bashing Audi or any other brands, just pointing out it's going to have a higher insurance premium than other just as suitable vehicles.
Last edited:
Pretty sure Volvos used to be cheapish to insure, didn't they look at them on Top Gear and they could have a V70 T5 for less than something like a Corsa.
You have to understand statistics and why certain cars are expensive, the fact young new drivers keep buying Audis only increases the premiums.
For a cheap insurance you need to look at what cars statisticly safe drivers buy.
You have to understand statistics and why certain cars are expensive, the fact young new drivers keep buying Audis only increases the premiums.
For a cheap insurance you need to look at what cars statisticly safe drivers buy.
Working as an actuary and with friends working in motor too, the concept of using statistics to price insurance is not an unfamiliar one.
What you're missing is the fact it's a 'premium' car has an immaterial impact on the premium. I didn't say it has no impact at all.
Last edited:
Soldato
Sorry to be that guy but this is for south of Ireland, or just Ireland as most people call it.
N.Ireland uses R plates for Restricted with similar limitations as N plates. I thought the rest of the UK used R plates too?
Man of Honour
Nope, some people put P plates on which are supposed to be a warning to other drivers that they may be a bit rubbish but they're totally optional.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 1,206
I believe in Australia P plates are required for all new drivers for a min 6 months after their test (in some cases up to 3 years). While under P plates they're also limited with their cars (no forced induction, etc), zero blood alcohol limit, no phone use (even hands free or bluetooth), reduced points before ban and I think some regions also have a limit to only 1 passenger under 21 between 11pm and 5am (to prevent groups of kids egging each other on).
Tbh, makes a lot of sense when you think about it.