Massive Car insurance costs?

Resident said:
These rises are just a bigger version of what happened when they changed the rules around male/female policies. Everyone thought men would end up with better premiums but the InsCo just hiked women's insurance.
Click to expand...
Anyone with a brain knew that would happen :rolleyes:. Would be funny if they stopped charging youngsters more:cry::)eek: as everyone would be 4 figures).
 
Last edited:
I was visiting friends in Norway for New Year, they were shocked how our car insurance works.

They just insure the car, anyone with a valid licence can drive it, the only variables are the car itself and the mileage. Even most modifications need no declaration, only things that effect their equivalent of the MOT and increased power affect it.

Would be much simpler if we could just do that too.
 
Last edited:
alexp999 said:
I was visiting friends in Norway for New Year, they were shocked how our car insurance works.

They just insure the car, anyone with a valid licence can drive it, the only variables are the car itself and the mileage. Even most modifications need no declaration, only things that effect their equivalent of the MOT and increased power affect it.

Would be much simpler if we could just do that too.
Click to expand...
Its the same in Poland, anyone with a valid drivers license can drive the car and is fully legal/insured.
 
Note i am not defending insurance companies here........ but i am not sure that system is fair either. Some drivers ARE higher risk than others , on one hand why should an insurance company not be able to charge more if high risk drivers are spending more time in the car , either due to lack of experience, or with a checkered driving history?.

OTOH why should careful drivers with a long clean history be expected to carry the load by paying a far higher premium to cover higher risk drivers.

In principle i dont think it is a bad system for new drivers have to cut their teeth and prove they can drive safely by driving cheaper low performance cars , and only once they have proven themselves do higher tier cars become more affordable.
(that said unless it has changed..... any driver car insurance is available if the car owner wants it)

car thefts is imo slightly different. IF a cars security system has been exploited to the point that it is no longer fit for purpose then that should always fall to the car manufacturer to have to update the security in that car. i believe JLR are doing that now with their cars..... once that has been done then the insurance on those cars should drop, vs cars which have not had it done.

(that isnt easy either and will have difficulties but end of the day, if a company has a digital security system it is on them to make sure it cant be easily exploited.

it doesnt help however that people caught doing car theft crimes seem to be treated with kid gloves (and the chances of them getting caught also appears to be pretty low). I know when my car was really badly vandalised, the police didnt even come out to see it despite me having prints all over the car and me being 90% certain i knew who did it.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
it doesnt help however that people caught doing car theft crimes seem to be treated with kid gloves (and the chances of them getting caught also appears to be pretty low). I know when my car was really badly vandalised, the police didnt even come out to see it despite me having prints all over the car and me being 90% certain i knew who did it.
Click to expand...
I had video evidence and confession on video with visible face and they said that they can't do anything... I've 0 respect for them, their primary job is to make money for the gov. :)
 
adolf hamster said:
They just discriminate based on profession now, which for gender biased professions is just gender discrimination with extra steps
Click to expand...

Don't I know this. I'm looking at a promotion at the end of this year which would see me come off the road and into an office. I'd still drive occasionally but primarily I'd go from Bus Driver to Office Worker. Asked my insurer how this would affect my insurance and they ran a quote and it was about 30% less.

What I don't get is that by driving I'm gaining and maintaining my higher level experience and I have proven that I am a better qualified driver by passing a higher licence class that requires much more safe driving skills. You'd think that would qualify for a reduction in insurance but apparently we're a greater risk?? Same goes for HGV drivers.

bigmike20vt said:
Note i am not defending insurance companies here........ but i am not sure that system is fair either. Some drivers ARE higher risk than others , on one hand why should an insurance company not be able to charge more if high risk drivers are spending more time in the car , either due to lack of experience, or with a checkered driving history?.

OTOH why should careful drivers with a long clean history be expected to carry the load by paying a far higher premium to cover higher risk drivers.

In principle i dont think it is a bad system for new drivers have to cut their teeth and prove they can drive safely by driving cheaper low performance cars , and only once they have proven themselves do higher tier cars become more affordable.
(that said unless it has changed..... any driver car insurance is available if the car owner wants it)

car thefts is imo slightly different. IF a cars security system has been exploited to the point that it is no longer fit for purpose then that should always fall to the car manufacturer to have to update the security in that car. i believe JLR are doing that now with their cars..... once that has been done then the insurance on those cars should drop, vs cars which have not had it done.

(that isnt easy either and will have difficulties but end of the day, if a company has a digital security system it is on them to make sure it cant be easily exploited.

it doesnt help however that people caught doing car theft crimes seem to be treated with kid gloves (and the chances of them getting caught also appears to be pretty low). I know when my car was really badly vandalised, the police didnt even come out to see it despite me having prints all over the car and me being 90% certain i knew who did it.
Click to expand...

But that's kinda not how it works

When I passed my test, the common cars were small small engined hatchbacks and in 2000 I paid £900 as a new driver for a 1.4 Rover Metro. For **** & giggles I asked for a quote on a 1999 Dodge Viper RT/10 (a car I adored at the time). £560 was the answer.

This was at a time when £1000 premiums weren't really heard of and your granddad was paying about £7.50 for his 10 year old Escort.


Still to this day I can get cheaper quotes on supercars than I can something that affordable and common on the roads.
 
Last edited:
The biggest part that people miss is trying to work logic versus numbers.
using the above example, the way it use to be is when you pass your test, you would buy a little run around for a few years before upgrading to something newer or bigger. so insurers would have a mass amount of 17 - 20 years olds (this is more for showing the point and not actual figures) buying 1 litre - 1.4 litre cars. so loads on cover, loads of accidents and therefore a higher risk. Whereas if you were 17 - 20 years old with a 1999 Viper RT, the numbers would be a lot lower, less on cover, potentially less accidents, whether this is due to value of the vehicle, rarity, might be your parents vehicle.
The problem i see a lot more these days is that leasing is available to most people at most ages, so whereas when i passed my test the chance of seeing a 18 year old in a brand new Merc AMG was very low, these days the amount of ST's/Golf R/GTI/A45's on cover for young drivers is crazy.
 
SGWills said:
The biggest part that people miss is trying to work logic versus numbers.
using the above example, the way it use to be is when you pass your test, you would buy a little run around for a few years before upgrading to something newer or bigger. so insurers would have a mass amount of 17 - 20 years olds (this is more for showing the point and not actual figures) buying 1 litre - 1.4 litre cars. so loads on cover, loads of accidents and therefore a higher risk. Whereas if you were 17 - 20 years old with a 1999 Viper RT, the numbers would be a lot lower, less on cover, potentially less accidents, whether this is due to value of the vehicle, rarity, might be your parents vehicle.
The problem i see a lot more these days is that leasing is available to most people at most ages, so whereas when i passed my test the chance of seeing a 18 year old in a brand new Merc AMG was very low, these days the amount of ST's/Golf R/GTI/A45's on cover for young drivers is crazy.
Click to expand...
Don't really understand what you're trying to say TBH.
 
Just renewed mine a few days ago. Last year it was £422, this year renewal came in at £680 but renewed with the RAC for £527!

Another thing I’ve noticed is the base excesses have all shot up, with the RAC compulsory is something like £350 or £400!
 
SGWills said:
The biggest part that people miss is trying to work logic versus numbers.
using the above example, the way it use to be is when you pass your test, you would buy a little run around for a few years before upgrading to something newer or bigger. so insurers would have a mass amount of 17 - 20 years olds (this is more for showing the point and not actual figures) buying 1 litre - 1.4 litre cars. so loads on cover, loads of accidents and therefore a higher risk. Whereas if you were 17 - 20 years old with a 1999 Viper RT, the numbers would be a lot lower, less on cover, potentially less accidents, whether this is due to value of the vehicle, rarity, might be your parents vehicle.
The problem i see a lot more these days is that leasing is available to most people at most ages, so whereas when i passed my test the chance of seeing a 18 year old in a brand new Merc AMG was very low, these days the amount of ST's/Golf R/GTI/A45's on cover for young drivers is crazy.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking in my younger years. I'd get older, accrue more experience without incident and then I could drive something a bit more tasty.

Actually my 2004 1.9 tdi golf that I had 11 years ago was relatively cheaper compared to what I now have to pay even though I have amassed all those years of NCB.
 
the general cost of fixing anything even remotely new is considerably higher, more difficult, time consuming (rental cars, parts order backlogs etc).

I mean I get why we’re paying more to an extent, but the rises are pretty insane. The UK is in the top 5 most expensive countries on average to insure a car.

Just another cost of living increase to add to the list.
 
Qitarah said:
the general cost of fixing anything even remotely new is considerably higher, more difficult, time consuming (rental cars, parts order backlogs etc).

I mean I get why we’re paying more to an extent, but the rises are pretty insane. The UK is in the top 5 most expensive countries on average to insure a car.

Just another cost of living increase to add to the list.
Click to expand...
It's OK everyone gets higher than inflation payrises :cry: (feel like I need to put a double /s/s:p). I'm not sure insurance has gone up that much for young drivers. I've been driving about 20 years, and my first car was a corsa 1.4 Sri and I don't think that was too bad after 3 years (had it on a lease so was paying 500 a year between 18 and 21), when I looked into buying one outright I think the insurance at 18 was only something like 1000 or 1500. My cars have got quicker, but my premiums bottomed out around 500 a year, that's what my old 911 turbo, M3 and (roughly) what my model 3 cost last year (obviously it is a bit more this year, and I've been clocking up no claims too).
 
GravyMonster said:
C300. No accidents, no points. 9NCB.

Last year: £412 with Admiral. This year's renewal: £698 :cry:

Best I can find on comparison sites in £520, so still £100+ hike.
Click to expand...
Just to follow up on this, I rang Admiral to discuss the renewal. After fighting with the AI I got through to a human who applied a 'customer loyalty discount' as I've been with them since 2021 and brought the price down to £491. A £207 reduction.

Pretty disgusted at this practice, but I know it's par for the course with insurance these days.
 
GravyMonster said:
Just to follow up on this, I rang Admiral to discuss the renewal. After fighting with the AI I got through to a human who applied a 'customer loyalty discount' as I've been with them since 2021 and brought the price down to £491. A £207 reduction.

Pretty disgusted at this practice, but I know it's par for the course with insurance these days.
Click to expand...
Its like everything at the moment, any excuse to make more money and profit. Theres room for price reductions on certain risk / areas but having to be done manually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom