Another Scott212 Insurance Rant?

scott212 said:
Well of course they are, as a whole, and I fully appreciate that is how insurance companies work, but if we did consider drivers who were 21.1, 21.2, 21.3 etc then the risk of an accident surely decreases with age. Is this true or not?
Click to expand...

No. How would you even police it? Why would you break it down into months like that? Where does it end? Days? Hours? All for the sake of a few months? Have you thought about the cost effectiveness of running such a scheme? Remember, every time the insurers incur a cost trying to insure you, they're going to charge you for it.


It's a shame that sensible drivers are punished but I'll accept it and pay up. Personally however I still think that car insurance can never be fair purely because it is not cost effective to tailor car insurance to specific individuals. Thus in all cases of car insurance through all age ranges, it is still unfair to drivers who are more sensible.

I really really hope you can understand where I'm coming from on that last point instead of resorting to insults. I honestly cannot understand how anyone can disagree with that logic :)
Click to expand...

You're not being punished and the sooner you accept that, the sooner your life will be a happier place to be when behind the wheel. Sensible drivers are not punished. It's not about being sensible or good. It's about, statistically, what age group costs the most money in claims. Thats why i can argue against your logic, because your logic is irrelevant. You have no idea of the amount of data and statistics that are used to formulate the costs of inuring the nation. When you have 10, 12, 15 million people on your books, and you have detailed statistics on each and every one of them, you are in a position to judge which age group are most likely to offend.

If you dont claim at 21, then dont worry, you'll be rewarded with a year's NCB. Oh wait, that's a waste of time too right? ;)

You're right, not every single person can be rewarded properly. But you know what? You're not the only person. Every single other 21 year old in the country is in the same position. It's not a personal vendetta against you or them. Hell i'm 24, about to hit 25 for a nice shiny big discount, then some guy pulls out in front of me and is contesting fault. So much for my discount! I'll be stuck at £700 for another 2 years! is that fair? I think so. Not the insurance company's fault i hit a git.
 
iaind said:
Everyone understands the frustration, but what you are talking about would amount to practically doing individual personal assesments of everyone who purchases insurance. Of course thats not cost effective - if they did it, your insurance premiums would be a damn sight higher than they are now anyway.

I think insurance is a lot more complicated than you seem to think
Click to expand...

It's hugely complicated and although I am certainly not a qualified statiscian or insurance expert, I don't understand how it's not possible to gradually lower the premium as the driver gets older in age measurements other than years.

The only explanation I can understand is the psychology. Customers would be royally P'd off if they took out an insurance policy realising that the quote was going down every day/week etc.

Edit: DampCat has answered some of my questions!
 
DampCat said:
You're not being punished and the sooner you accept that, the sooner your life will be a happier place to be when behind the wheel. Sensible drivers are not punished. It's not about being sensible or good. It's about, statistically, what age group costs the most money in claims. Thats why i can argue against your logic, because your logic is irrelevant. You have no idea of the amount of data and statistics that are used to formulate the costs of inuring the nation. When you have 10, 12, 15 million people on your books, and you have detailed statistics on each and every one of them, you are in a position to judge which age group are most likely to offend.

If you dont claim at 21, then dont worry, you'll be rewarded with a year's NCB. Oh wait, that's a waste of time too right? ;)

You're right, not every single person can be rewarded properly. But you know what? You're not the only person. Every single other 21 year old in the country is in the same position. It's not a personal vendetta against you or them. Hell i'm 24, about to hit 25 for a nice shiny big discount, then some guy pulls out in front of me and is contesting fault. So much for my discount! I'll be stuck at £700 for another 2 years! is that fair? I think so. Not the insurance company's fault i hit a git.
Click to expand...

So you do agree with me that, strictly speaking, car insurance isn't fair?

With all due respect I'm not sure I understand your claim that (putting car insurance completely aside and looking at it pure and simply) a sensible teenage driver is just as likely to crash as a boy-racer. The chance that somebody else causes the accident might remain the same, but the chance that the driver causes the accident is much higher in the latter case. I thought this was the very basis as to why women pay less and as to why younger drivers generally pay more? :)

That is all I'm tyring to argue and as above I fully accept it is not cost effective for car insurance companies to tailor their insurance, thus they'd never know the difference as to whether the driver is sensible or a boy racer, thus the sensible driver loses out. Unfair but life. That's my point.
 
Last edited:
No, i said not everyone can be rewarded properly. It is absoultely fair. Everyone is in the same boat. It's already broken down into dozens and dozens of variables to accurately judge an indivdual based on their driving ability. Break years into Months is unecessary and inherently pointless. The differences would be so miniscule that the cost of doing so would far outwiegh them.

How do you differentiate between a sensible 21 year old, and a boy racer? the clothes they wear? the music they listen to? the girls they screw? Or perhaps, the age they are and the area they live in?

Think carefully. One is discrimination waiting to happen. The other is a statistical probablity.
 
DampCat said:
No, i said not everyone can be rewarded properly. It is absoultely fair. Everyone is in the same boat. It's already broken down into dozens and dozens of variables to accurately judge an indivdual based on their driving ability. Break years into Months is unecessary and inherently pointless. The differences would be so miniscule that the cost of doing so would far outwiegh them.
Click to expand...

It is fair only on the basis that everyone is in the same boat.

However the fact remains that, variables to accurately judge drivers aide, sensible drivers are still charged more as a result of the actions of careless drivers. Thinking outside the box, can that really be defined as fair?

How do you differentiate between a sensible 21 year old, and a boy racer? the clothes they wear? the music they listen to? the girls they screw? Or perhaps, the age they are and the area they live in?
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point though, it's impossible. Even if you had two 21 year olds with identical driving records, one is still much more likely to crash than the other due to variables which cannot be measured cost effectively. We finaly agree on something lol
 
scott212 said:
It is fair only on the basis that everyone is in the same boat.

However the fact remains that, variables to accurately judge drivers aide, sensible drivers are still charged more as a result of the actions of careless drivers. Thinking outside the box, can that really be defined as fair?
Click to expand...

You are charged on a prediction of how likely you will be to make a claim. As a young driver, you are highly likely to make a claim, for a number of reasons. It would be unfair to treat you differently to the rest of the young drivers, thus, it is fair to treat you the same. You're still only thinking about you, and not anyone else. Even then, you might well make a claim regardless of how sensible you think you are.

That's exactly my point though, it's impossible. Even if you had two 21 year olds with identical driving records, one is still much more likely to crash than the other due to variables which cannot be measured cost effectively. We finaly agree on something lol
Click to expand...

Um, well there you go then ;) Why do you expect insurance companies to charge you less and the other guy more based on things that cant be calculated? :)
 
The only remotely "fair" way to establish risk would be individual assesment of each person annually, like another driving test. Can you imagine the cost of doing this?

Even then, the real menaces on the roads (chav boy racers) are probably capable of acting sensibly temporarily, so even that is "unfair"

So you could continuously monitor the standards of peoples driving with GPS - but then you'd be complaining about big brother...
 
iaind said:
The only remotely "fair" way to establish risk would be individual assesment of each person annually, like another driving test. Can you imagine the cost of doing this?

Even then, the real menaces on the roads (chav boy racers) are probably capable of acting sensibly temporarily, so even that is "unfair"

So you could continuously monitor the standards of peoples driving with GPS - but then you'd be complaining about big brother...
Click to expand...

An annual driving test is of course impractical, but how about driving courses on driving high performance cars which are universally recognised and offer considerable insurance discounts? Personally I think people should have to take advanced driving tests or even some sort of course to drive high performance (IG17/18+) cars, especially if they don't have much driving experience.

I also find it amusing how so many of my friends driving tin cans have written them off, but those who saved up and bought fast/expensive cars (Fiesta ST, 1.8T Golfs/Leons etc) haven't been involved in any accidents whatsoever. Funny but perhaps there's some psychology behind it :rolleyes:

As for the GPS idea that's ridiculous because even 45 year old men in BMW M3s occasionally drive dangerously. I wouldn't believe anyone in the motors section driving a high performance car who claims they've never accelerated hard and slowed down in a 30mph zone for the sake of it.
 
DampCat said:
GPS based "pay as you drive" schemes are being tested ;)
Click to expand...

Might as well link insurance to petrol consumption in that case. A cost-effective solution of doing the same thing. I've always thought they should scrap road tax and base it purely on how much petrol you use; the more you drive, the more petrol you use, the more you should pay for road tax. Covers both environmental damage and physical road use. Two birds in one stone.
 
Also it's almost funny that they'll insure me on an 08 reg Audi S3 Quattro 261BHP for £2111. Now that is an absolutely incredible insurance deal given my age, but £1000 for a Mini Cooper is not.
 
scott212 said:
An annual driving test is of course impractical, but how about driving courses on driving high performance cars which are universally recognised and offer considerable insurance discounts? Personally I think people should have to take advanced driving tests or even some sort of course to drive high performance (IG17/18+) cars, especially if they don't have much driving experience.
Click to expand...

Erm, I hate to be the one to point it out, but there are plenty of advanced driving qualifications that are recognised by insurance companies and can give a very good discount.

http://www.driving.org/diamond.html

http://www.iam.org.uk/

http://www.roadar.org/drivers/index.htm
 
iaind said:
Care to explain the reasoning behind that?
Click to expand...

Put me in a Mini Cooper I probably won't crash it as it's very similar to the current car I drive.

Put me in an S3 and I honestly believe, ego aside, I will be involved in some sort of accident. It's an insanely powerful vehicle for someone my age.

Put the two in proportion and the S3 should be £5000 or the Mini should be £500. It doesn't really make a lot of sense.
 
scott212 said:
Put me in a Mini Cooper I probably won't crash it as it's very similar to the current car I drive.

Put me in an S3 and I honestly believe, ego aside, I will be involved in some sort of accident. It's an insanely powerful vehicle for someone my age.

Put the two in proportion and the S3 should be £5000 or the Mini should be £500. It doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

So they're supposed to also base it on what car's youve driven previously, as well as the day of the week you were born on?:confused:

An S3 is a quick car, but its not insane. They will also be driven by more competent drivers on the whole because of the cost (takes most people a while to be able to afford something like that, I'm well aware there are plenty of exceptions). The S3 might be harder to steal/stolen less often too.
 
Please stop trying to make sense of it, there's a lot more the premiums than bhp and age.

Count yourself lucky you can insure a mini for a grand. If I wanted to insure my Fez fully comp i'd be looking at £1100 and thats based on being 22 and having 2 years ncb. The whole reason i'm driving around in a crappy little tin box is because I begrudge saying through the more for insurance. Stop moaning because there's a lot of people a lot worse off than you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom