subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
unless you are called linf, then they are a must have accesory for wankpanzers that tow horses across muddy concrete
Admiral now penalize drivers on speeding awareness courses.
- Thread starter Headgardener
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
unless you are called linf, then they are a must have accesory for wankpanzers that tow horses across muddy concrete
Boris Bajic
Guest
Compo answered your query. It doesn't matter if you don't want a license.
I did, so my ban was served (whle I was still too young to drive) and then I applied for a provisional when I turned 17.
For the next five years, I paid (quite rightly) a staggering amount more for my car and motorcycle insurance than my peers.
It made me giggle in court that I was asked for my license and I said I didn't have one and that 's why I was there. Nobody else giggled, particularly my patient father who did not relish the experience....
400bhp
Guru
You could argue that yes, but the chaps at Admiral and possible others think not.
They know more about it than anyone on here.
400bhp
Guru
jdtate101
Ex-Fatman
- Location
- Boring Birmingham
Wow....bear's shoot in the woods shocker.
Insurance companies are there to make money, not be nice to you. They are beholden to their shareholders, so will make money ANY way they can. If this includes finding new dubious means of income...it's all fair game to them. With the rules becoming tighter on "profiling" expect them to go to new unheard of lengths to weasel out of paying up on claims.
Insurance companies are there to make money, not be nice to you. They are beholden to their shareholders, so will make money ANY way they can. If this includes finding new dubious means of income...it's all fair game to them. With the rules becoming tighter on "profiling" expect them to go to new unheard of lengths to weasel out of paying up on claims.
TwickenhamCyclist
Guest
Fair point... but they are also the only insurer to float the idea after many years of such courses being offered in lieu of points (and just before equal opps legislation and the Jack Straw parliamentry storm over motor insurance costs loom: two big potential losses to motor insurance companies income.) If people who attend a speed awareness course are statistically as likely to be involved in a claim as perpetual speeders, why has it taken so long for one insurer to discover it?
growingvegetables
Guru
- Location
- Leeds
Hmmm - kinda like Admiral's stance.
Were I ever to get another car, I would resent paying higher premiums just because some numpties think speed limits are only for other drivers.
Were I ever to get another car, I would resent paying higher premiums just because some numpties think speed limits are only for other drivers.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
You see I could go along with that if the Auto insurance industry in the UK wasn't a complete & utter scam, this is nothing to do with risk, this is another method of screwing money out of customers in this rip-off industry.
Two personal examples for you, sister is hit from behind whilst waiting at a junction, she'd driving a Astra estate worth £2k, all it does is put a 2" (50mm in new money) crack in the bumper, takes it to a local workshop, £400 (another rip-off) for the bumper, £200 to remove old, paint new, fit new, £600 total. But insurance company would not accept this, had to go through their 'Approved' bodyshop, so she takes the car there, assessor walks out to car, looks round it for 30 seconds, says "That's going to cost over £1.5K we'll write the car off" WTF write a car off for a 2" crack in the bumper. They argued & eventually they paid out & kept the car, 4 years later it still has the 2" crack & going strong.
I'm in a car park in a Berlingo van, starts to slowly reverse into a parking stop, next thing I know there is a car behind me, I get out & the guy to screaming & shouting at me, the nearside wing, front passenger door & rear passenger door of his car are all caved in. His nearside front wheel is turn hard to the left & is just touching my bumper, so I have not actually got as far as his car. But because I was reversing my insurance company wouldn't argue it, although the guy had been involved in the same accident 2 days earlier, he got paid out £5.5K the car was worth less that £500.
Auto insurance companies are SCUM, pure & simple, it's legalised shafting of the motoring public.
Alan...
For Admiral this is purely a business decision.
Insurance companies make their money by understanding risk. What they have done is their assessment of the risk. If they get it wrong and over price their premiums in a cut-throat market their customers will move. If their assessment of of the risk is correct and they don't adjust their premiums, their claims will exceed their premiums.
For an insurance company, that's all that matters. They aren't in the business of correcting driver behaviour, they just underwrite the prevailing risk.
Insurance companies make their money by understanding risk. What they have done is their assessment of the risk. If they get it wrong and over price their premiums in a cut-throat market their customers will move. If their assessment of of the risk is correct and they don't adjust their premiums, their claims will exceed their premiums.
For an insurance company, that's all that matters. They aren't in the business of correcting driver behaviour, they just underwrite the prevailing risk.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
They use risk as an excuse, not as a real gauge.
I moved house, 1.5 miles, from one village to the next. My policy went up. I questioned how it can beca higher risk area when the crime system at work shows it actually has a lower rate for autocrime? My premium wax suddenly put back down again.
The big difference is that its a more affluent area, it has little do doc with genuine risk and everything to do with a) making money, and b) assessing your wealth level.
Sone years ago the Government in the guise of the TRL tried to prove the old saying that more powerful cars are more dangerous. The analysed a decade of accident statistics and discovered this us not true at all - there is in fact a small decreased likelyhood of you having a smack in a more powerful car, but you change from a 1.2 Corsa to an otherwise identical 1.4 Corsa and the Insurers will anally invade you.
The whole house of cards has gone on so long that its starting to crumble. Making profits by inflating hire car charges. Making a few quid in the short term by selling details of those involved in accidents to ambulance chasers. Before long it is foreseeable that premiums will be such that the average person won't be cable to afford them and the whole house of cards will collapse. From the ashes we'll see a new breed of insurers who vase premiums on genuine risk, not on a business formula.
I moved house, 1.5 miles, from one village to the next. My policy went up. I questioned how it can beca higher risk area when the crime system at work shows it actually has a lower rate for autocrime? My premium wax suddenly put back down again.
The big difference is that its a more affluent area, it has little do doc with genuine risk and everything to do with a) making money, and b) assessing your wealth level.
Sone years ago the Government in the guise of the TRL tried to prove the old saying that more powerful cars are more dangerous. The analysed a decade of accident statistics and discovered this us not true at all - there is in fact a small decreased likelyhood of you having a smack in a more powerful car, but you change from a 1.2 Corsa to an otherwise identical 1.4 Corsa and the Insurers will anally invade you.
The whole house of cards has gone on so long that its starting to crumble. Making profits by inflating hire car charges. Making a few quid in the short term by selling details of those involved in accidents to ambulance chasers. Before long it is foreseeable that premiums will be such that the average person won't be cable to afford them and the whole house of cards will collapse. From the ashes we'll see a new breed of insurers who vase premiums on genuine risk, not on a business formula.
I worked for many years in the IT department of a large reinsurer* so I don't have a direct handle on direct insurance underwriting, or the shenanigans they get up to. What I can say is a that it is a cut throat market. Reinsurers are struggling to get business, not because the business isn't there, but because the margins are too low for them to want to take a share and commit capital. This is always a symptom that claims and premiums in that risk area are the same or nearly the same.
* In simple terms a reinsurer is an insurance company that doesn't directly underwrite risk, they take a share in risk already underwritten by a direct insurer. This allows direct insurers to spread their risk more evenly for their available capital. Any insurance you have is probably partly underwritten by a reinsurer.
* In simple terms a reinsurer is an insurance company that doesn't directly underwrite risk, they take a share in risk already underwritten by a direct insurer. This allows direct insurers to spread their risk more evenly for their available capital. Any insurance you have is probably partly underwritten by a reinsurer.
400bhp
Guru
It is to do with risk and has nothing to do with wealth level (for the reason you have given).
Car crime is one risk factor, but there are other risk factors at play with postcodes (called geodemographics). Roads likely to be driven on more frequently for example. Also, insurers have to look at concentration of risk by area. It might be that the insurer had a relatively large number of insured vehicles in the new postcode than the old one.
No method of assessing rick is perfect, but the insurer has to use rating factors that are closely correlated to risk factors.
House of cards it is not.
Yes that's true and this is an area in which I had direct experience as an IT geek. One of the advantages that a reinsurer has is that it can act as central repository for claims and policy data from different insurers who would not usually share data. A reinsurer can use this for geodemographic risk assessment and advise direct insurers on premiums in return for a share of the business.
