Admiral now penalize drivers on speeding awareness courses.

[glasgowcyclist]

If you want cheap insurance drive a group A car on a clean license and put it in a garage at night instead of the freezer.

Blimey, who the hell has a drive-in freezer?!


GC

 

[Recycle]

Blimey, who the hell has a drive-in freezer?!


GC

Anyone with a driveway in winter.

 

[Recycle]

At some point the original aims of the Galileo GPS system will resurface and the real fun may begin.
"2 miles on the A630 sir? That'll be £1.35 peak rate.
Went down the A633 at 32mph? That'll be £1.50 peak rate, £200 fine, and 3 points. Your insurance provider has been informed."

Telematics is unlikely to work that way. Insurance companies don't have the resources to deal with risk in that sort of detail. It's all to do with statistics. Everyone makes mistakes and as long as your error rate falls within the range of a normal driving pattern you are unlikely to be nailed. You could however benefit or be penalised if you falling outside the norm depending on which side of the scale you are.

 

[Paul99]

me, construction. si i understand risk. and likelhoods. if something happens to opne person, the liklehood of that happening again changes as it is less likley to happen again.

so imagine my surprise when my premiums went up after a tree fell on my car , whilst i wasn't even in the same town as the car. apparently in insurance eyes once something happens to you its likely to happen again and again. this is the same insurance company being talked anout in this thread. who don't really seem to be doing much to claim back the loss from the Council who own the tree. much easier to get any money back from your customers than do any work. am so glad that i got rid of my car now.

The likelihood of it happening again remains exactly the same if you keep parking near trees.

If you win the lottery you have defied odds of 13,983,815/1. If you buy a ticket the following week the odds are exactly the same.

 

[GrasB]

The main problem with insurance these days is that everybody wants something for nothing.

If, like most of the insurance buying population, you use a price comparison site like Go Compare, MoneySupermarket etc then there will be a level of assumption built into any price that you see. So if you then go and pick the cheapest one and don't read the t&c's properly then you will more than likely find out when it comes time to make a claim that you are not covered adequately for your loss.

The problem I find is the T&C are often very complicated to follow & sometimes are unclear on what they mean. Even when you call & ask questions the answers don't match the T&C.

 

[addictfreak]

A police spokesperson on the news today said that research has shown that drivers who have attended these course are less likely to have accidents than people who have not so their premiums should not be increased.

If drivers are going to be penalised anyway, many will not bother doing the courses since the fines imposed are probably less than the cost of taking time off work to attend a course.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Paul99]

The problem I find is the T&C are often very complicated to follow & sometimes are unclear on what they mean. Even when you call & ask questions the answers don't match the T&C.

Yes, I agree that T&C can be difficult to follow for a lot of people. But do you just sign the contract or press the button anyway? It isn't the insurance company's fault.

You have a choice, and though it will cost you more, you can use an insurance broker who will explain what they mean and are also liable if they purchase insurance for you that is unsuitable. This is what used to happen before 'tinternet.

p.s. I'll always explain them for you if you ask...

 

[Recycle]

The problem I find is the T&C are often very complicated to follow & sometimes are unclear on what they mean. Even when you call & ask questions the answers don't match the T&C.

This is what I don't like about bicycle insurance. It is generally much cheaper to insure your bike on your household insurance than as an individual bike policy. The bike policy T&C conditions will generally be easier to follow that householder because it is specialist insurance and its easier to be specific about the condition. e.g., must have been secured with a specific grade bike lock etc.
I haven't seen the T&C for bike insurance on householder policies but the difference in the cost of insuring a bike is sometimes so big that I wonder where the catch is, and there must be one.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The likelihood of it happening again remains exactly the same if you keep parking near trees.

If the likelihood remains the same as it was before the event, why doesn't the premium?


GC

 

[Paul99]

This is what I don't like about bicycle insurance. It is generally much cheaper to insure your bike on your household insurance than as an individual bike policy. The bike policy T&C conditions will generally be easier to follow that householder because it is specialist insurance and its easier to be specific about the condition. e.g., must have been secured with a specific grade bike lock etc.
I haven't seen the T&C for bike insurance on householder policies but the difference in the cost of insuring a bike is sometimes so big that I wonder where the catch is, and there must be one.

It's all to do with the insurance pool.

For example most sensible people have contents insurance so the insurance premium "pool" or "pot" is huge. This means that the premium tends to be lower as there is not much liklihood of all the policies being claimed on in the same year.

For specific bike insurance, the pool is much, much smaller so the premium will be higher as a greater percentage of the premiums collected will be paid out.

Obviously with the t&c on a household contents, if they went into great detail about every single possible insured article it would make war & peace look like a pamphlet, whereas on a bike specific policy. it's just about the bike so is more comprehensive.

 

[Paul99]

If the likelihood remains the same as it was before the event, why doesn't the premium?


GC

Probably because prior to the "event" your premium was calculated on the basis that you were claim free, and now you are not. The no claims discount is used to retain customers, not because the risk is less.

 

[Recycle]

Obviously with the t&c on a household contents, if they went into great detail about every single possible insured article it would make war & peace look like a pamphlet, whereas on a bike specific policy. it's just about the bike so is more comprehensive.

Yes that's true but I get uncomfortable with the vagueness. I don't want to find out that I don't meet the T&C when I make a claim.

I haven't insured my bikes (other than with CTC 3rd party), but I have spent a lot of money on bike locks, pinhead bolts etc. It's also just a personal assessment of the risk. My avatar will show that my bikes are less susceptible to opportunistic theft. If the thief doesn't know how to ride them he's likely to make a spectacle of himself.

This has wandered completely OT. Sorry...

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Probably because prior to the "event" your premium was calculated on the basis that you were claim free, and now you are not. The no claims discount is used to retain customers, not because the risk is less.

I can see that it might result in a loss or diminution of the no claims discount; I wonder if that's what happened to sub aqua rather than a premium increase.

If it had happened in the first year of a person's cover (and therefore no no-claim discount accrued) is it the case that the premium would rise even though the event was no more likely than before?


GC

 

[Drago]

My sentiments exactly.

Of course, not speeding in the first place is even cheaper still.

 

[Paul99]

I can see that it might result in a loss or diminution of the no claims discount; I wonder if that's what happened to sub aqua rather than a premium increase.

If it had happened in the first year of a person's cover (and therefore no no-claim discount accrued) is it the case that the premium would rise even though the event was no more likely than before?


GC

Yes, if it happened in the first year the premium would probably rise, as the company would view the claimant as a bad risk. Otherwise you could just have a claim every year since the first and the premium would never rise. The insurance company could also decide not to offer renewal terms.