Admiral now penalize drivers on speeding awareness courses.

[Paul99]

This has wandered completely OT. Sorry...

Agreed. Sorry OP.

 

[Recycle]

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.

I have no reason to disbelieve the police spokesman's statement but there could be political motives for saying that. I would want to see the supporting research data before I made a judgement.

 

[400bhp]

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.

I would have thought it's as much to do with moral hazard & selection than with the size of the market?

If it's bolted on to your household policy there's less chance of fraudulent claims (insure solely to receive a payout for example) and less chance of claiming too (affects the whole of the house insurance cover).

I guess you do what I do, just in a different field.

 

[400bhp]

I have no reason to disbelieve the police spokesman's statement but there could be political motives for saying that. I would want to see the supporting research data before I made a judgement.

Yup

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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.

If premiums are calculated on risk and the risk doesn't change, the premium shouldn't either.
It's no wonder people feel frustrated by insurers.


GC

 

[Leaway2]

If only Churchill apply this, people will vote with their feet. I wouldn't dream of renewing without going through a comparison site.

 

[addictfreak]

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

True, but I doubt there are many motorists who stick to speed limits 100% of the time. I got 3 points early this year, second time in 32 years of driving. Not a bad average, only being caught twice!

 

[srw]

Munich Re

Which would really rather like to escape from the maelstrom that is the UK motor market.

 

[srw]

where's @srw?

In Naples - where the driving is ...special.

I suppose if you live your life in the knowledge that a volcano may well take you out tomorrow you care less about the fact that your roads are like dodgem tracks.

I know little about the detail of the substance of the thread. But what I do know is that insurance premiums are based on the best possible view of the risk that insurers can form within the constraints of the law (sex as a rating factor disappears imminently) - and that motor insurance hasn't made money for about 10 years.

 

[srw]

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.

Ah. Of course - Munich Re has 25% of Admiral's risk, doesn't it? But outside special deals like that, most reinsurers only see a tiny proportion of the biggest claims.

 

[srw]

If premiums are calculated on risk and the risk doesn't change, the premium shouldn't either.

Ho ho ho.

Court awards go up each year - one estimate I've seen is 8% for small awards and 12% for big awards. Court awards make up about 50% of the cost of motor claims.

Garages charge more each year. Cars are more expensive to repair each year. Fraudsters get more ingenious each year.

A standard estimate of motor insurance inflation is 6% per year. At the moment rates are going down on average by 10% a year. You do the sums.

 

[srw]

Telematics are the future, and the imminent future on mainland Europe iirc, which more or less guarantees the British public will fight them on the beaches. At least one of the systems to be used in Europe has a web portal interface allowing the driver to inspect their own data and adapt their driving accordingly.

At least one of the systems already live* in the UK has a mobile interface which sends you and your parent a text message when you go round a corner too quickly and which enables you to look at where you went wrong on a map, to avoid a hefty charge.

*It's only available to young drivers, and currently isn't selling very much. All of this is public information.

 

[Buddfox]

Ho ho ho.

Court awards go up each year - one estimate I've seen is 8% for small awards and 12% for big awards. Court awards make up about 50% of the cost of motor claims.

Garages charge more each year. Cars are more expensive to repair each year. Fraudsters get more ingenious each year.

A standard estimate of motor insurance inflation is 6% per year. At the moment rates are going down on average by 10% a year. You do the sums.

But the statement you quote was made in response to an earlier post (all originated in the laughable post #60 that seems to paint insurance companies as some kind of community service) that claimed the premium went up because the person had claimed (and was therefore more likely to claim in the future), not because the risk of an incident had changed.

This is patently nonsense - as GC points out, if the risk is unchanged, why should the premium change (inflation notwithstanding)? The fact that someone makes a claim for a third party accident tells you nothing about the likelihood of a future claim. Which tells us all what we already know - and which I think you are implying - which is that insurance companies are firstly in the business of making money (or at least to be fair, not losing money), and secondly in actually providing some kind of service.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Ho ho ho.

Court awards go up each year - one estimate I've seen is 8% for small awards and 12% for big awards. Court awards make up about 50% of the cost of motor claims.

Garages charge more each year. Cars are more expensive to repair each year. Fraudsters get more ingenious each year.

A standard estimate of motor insurance inflation is 6% per year. At the moment rates are going down on average by 10% a year. You do the sums.

My remarks in this matter have all related to a specific event and the unchanged risk thereof.
If you've any light to shed on my post in that context, please go ahead.

You do the reading.


GC

 

[400bhp]

If premiums are calculated on risk and the risk doesn't change, the premium shouldn't either.
It's no wonder people feel frustrated by insurers.


GC

Sorry GC, I'm struggling to see the particular point that you were discussing (lost somewhere in the thread I guess). Can you show me the post/point?