The problem with insurance is...

[Mongoose]

I think the car insurance system needs to be change, because it's just a profit making system for the insurance companies. insurance should be there to cover accidents when they happen, not take money from many people that don't even have accidents.

Why don't insurance policies cost nothing and then when we crash we have to pay them back? I don't see the point of paying them month after month without even having to make a claim, because that's money wasted. If we don't claim on our insurance during the year, they should give us back the money we spent on it?

I reckon we should only have to pay AFTER crashing, kind of like a loan. when you crash you take the loan from the insurance company to cover the costs, and then pay them back with a slight interest rate. This means they won't have to make generalisations about age groups and which mods a car has, and it will only take money from those who do crash.

I for example, had to pay just over a grand for my non-modified car to insure it for a year. How much money did i take back in claims? none! i haven't had any incidents and i surely don't plan on making a claim in the future either.
so that's just 1 grand down the drain for me.

 

[turbonutter69]

Re: Car Insurance for modified cars - tips and a guide

But if you did have an accident would you want to pay the repair costs of the Ferrari that you may have an accident with? 200 grand or 1 grand. I know which i'd choose.

 

[pgarner]

Re: Car Insurance for modified cars - tips and a guide

most insurance policies cover you for a couple of million. do you really want to pay that much back plus intrest ?
yes it is a money making scheme but what buisness isnt ? its like walking into tescos and bulk buying stuff then as it gets close to the use by date taing it back and saying you want your money back

youve got to remember your young and to put it nicly look at the crash stats for those who claim within a year of passing their test not just under 21s but the whole lot.

last year i had to put in a non fault claim. got some quotes for the work frist incase the other party didnt want to go through thier insurance.
to knock out reshape fill and paint wing, plastic weld bumper and sand respray £480.
ended up going through the insurance and required new wing (£120), new bumber ( £169), new valance(£49) , rub strips(£46), vents (£20 for the 3) and full paint for new parts plus dusting to match adjoining.( unkown) prices that i have supplied are taken from ETKA parts cataloge. total price by their insurance i have no idea and never asked but its a dam side less than the £450 i paid that year for my insurance.
now say i had been at fault id have to pay that and damages to the other party(ies) and any compansasion claims that they made. whiplash only needs a trip to A&E and a doc to see bruising of any sort and theres around £5k for each person

 

[emery1990]

i payed 2k for a pug 306.!!!

 

[HDi fun]

I think the car insurance system needs to be change, because it's just a profit making system for the insurance companies. insurance should be there to cover accidents when they happen, not take money from many people that don't even have accidents.

Why don't insurance policies cost nothing and then when we crash we have to pay them back? I don't see the point of paying them month after month without even having to make a claim, because that's money wasted. If we don't claim on our insurance during the year, they should give us back the money we spent on it?

I reckon we should only have to pay AFTER crashing, kind of like a loan. when you crash you take the loan from the insurance company to cover the costs, and then pay them back with a slight interest rate. This means they won't have to make generalisations about age groups and which mods a car has, and it will only take money from those who do crash.

I for example, had to pay just over a grand for my non-modified car to insure it for a year. How much money did i take back in claims? none! i haven't had any incidents and i surely don't plan on making a claim in the future either.
so that's just 1 grand down the drain for me.

What a mindless and stupid suggestion!

Given the massive financial risks that car insurance involves there's no way any underwriter could do it your way. A single claim can run into tens of thousands of pounds and that's before we look at compensating personal injury.

When you consider the potential financial liability involved you'll understand exactly why underwriters HATE offering car insurance. They all lose money on car insurance, it's a necessary evil for the underwriters. I think that it's pretty good value given the sum for which I'm insured should a claim be made against me.

If you can PROVE significant personal wealth then you can drive legally, without insurance, but we're talking about having liquid assets in excess of £10,000,000.

 

[MasterAuron]

Mongoose has a very good point in theory imo, HDi. It's just not practicle. Put it this way, how many of use would choose to opt out of insurance were it not illegal? There are plenty of people out there driving cars worth less than they're paying for insurance. If you hit a car and they're not covered fully comp, then that's the risk they take, the same risk you are taking by not having insurance.

Perhaps a rebate system would be the best idea. No accidents in a year = a percentage of your money back, set by the government as a form of regulation. Either way something needs to be done about it because they are rob-dogs imo, taking advantage of insurance being a legal requirement.

 

[pgarner]

why should you have to pay out because someone has hit you, air enough knock or knock yes but if theyre being a twat ... makes sense when your paying a £1k for £300 car again this comes down to you doing alot more damage

suppose the rebate comes in the next year with the % off your premuim for having your NCB.

yes there is alot of companies that will screw you over plenty, i still get quotes over £3k for the bora and yet get the insurance for under £500 by others

 

[HDi fun]

No, they're not robbing anyone. The rebate system is called no claims bonus.

Plenty do opt out of insurance for exactly the reasons you state.

Perhaps 3rd party liability should be mandatorily supplied and applied as a tax on road fuel.

If you then choose to insure your own car against damage you cause to it, or against injury to yourself then that's a separate policy, taken out privately.

Or, how about this?

First year, new driver gets charged say £1000 to insure a modest Astra (1.6 - 1.8 kind fo thing).

If that first year is claim free then second year's insurance is free (ie. £500, per year for first two years). If you incur a claim the you need to be requoted and pay whatever the second year price is.

It would be a good incentive to keep a clean record in the early years.

You cannot possibly expect any underwriter to offer a policy where the premium is paid in the event of an accident.

 

[emery1990]

No, they're not robbing anyone. The rebate system is called no claims bonus.

Plenty do opt out of insurance for exactly the reasons you state.

Perhaps 3rd party liability should be mandatorily supplied and applied as a tax on road fuel.

If you then choose to insure your own car against damage you cause to it, or against injury to yourself then that's a separate policy, taken out privately.

Or, how about this?

First year, new driver gets charged say £1000 to insure a modest Astra (1.6 - 1.8 kind fo thing).

If that first year is claim free then second year's insurance is free (ie. £500, per year for first two years). If you incur a claim the you need to be requoted and pay whatever the second year price is.

It would be a good incentive to keep a clean record in the early years.

You cannot possibly expect any underwriter to offer a policy where the premium is paid in the event of an accident.

more like a 1.2, if they have a bigger engine there going to go faster and show off.

 

[HDi fun]

I only plucked that from thin air as an example.

Engine swept volume today has less than it ever did to do with performance.

That's why cars are placed in insurance groups. The grouping system doesn't so much quantify the risk; it qualifies it.

The grouping system is only a guide as to the likely price of the annual premium. All insurers will quote according to the information you supply.

They have no other mechanism to use, historical data (statistics) is all they have available.

As you gain experience, and hopefully remain claim (or at least, blame) free your premiums will go down.

So if you have a major claim that's your fault after ten years of driving then you won't find your insurance cost rocketing on the strength of that alone.

 

[MasterAuron]

No, they're not robbing anyone. The rebate system is called no claims bonus.

Plenty do opt out of insurance for exactly the reasons you state.

Perhaps 3rd party liability should be mandatorily supplied and applied as a tax on road fuel.

If you then choose to insure your own car against damage you cause to it, or against injury to yourself then that's a separate policy, taken out privately.

No they should get a rebate AND a NCB, the two are unrelated really in my eyes. The NCB is because you haven't claimed for a year so are less of a risk to them, whilst the rebate is the get back something of all that money you essentially payed for nothing and won't see again (assuming you didn't have an accident).

I did consider your idea, but I think that'd push premiums up even higher for those that choose to have insurance.

 

[HDi fun]

I think we're all close to nearly the same thoughts.

There is a part of all our premiums which is put there to cover any losses any of us might incur on account of damage caused by an uninsured 3rd party.

That's the bit with which I struggle. I pay up each year, as does every other honest car user.

It's not practical to have a rebate system as that money is required to be pooled so that any of us who incur a loss as a result of an uninsured 3rd party are still compensated.

I'd make the penalty for driving without adequte 3rd party cover much harsher.

If the fine was £10k then very few would take the risk. £130 fine and ten points is not enough to deter someone who has been driving for years without cover from continuing to do so.

 

[turbonutter69]

I think we're all close to nearly the same thoughts.

There is a part of all our premiums which is put there to cover any losses any of us might incur on account of damage caused by an uninsured 3rd party.

That's the bit with which I struggle. I pay up each year, as does every other honest car user.

It's not practical to have a rebate system as that money is required to be pooled so that any of us who incur a loss as a result of an uninsured 3rd party are still compensated.

I'd make the penalty for driving without adequte 3rd party cover much harsher.

If the fine was £10k then very few would take the risk. £130 fine and ten points is not enough to deter someone who has been driving for years without cover from continuing to do so.

It also can carry a ban.

 

[obi_waynne]

If you can PROVE significant personal wealth then you can drive legally, without insurance, but we're talking about having liquid assets in excess of £10,000,000.

The road traffic act makes a provision for "self insurance" you need to stump up money for a bond which used to be around £10,000 (this is going back about 10 years or so and i'm not sure if it has changed at all).

You can still end up with a big bill if you mowed down a bus queue of solicitors wives.

 

[HDi fun]

How many solicitors wives' use buses? :=)

 

[obi_waynne]

Knowing my luck it would happen!

 

[pgarner]

It also can carry a ban.

and how many does this actually stop driving ?

 

[HDi fun]

and how many does this actually stop driving ?

Exactly. Perhaps if someone caught driving whilst a ban is in place was sentenced to a mandatory 12 months imprisonment then they might think twice.

 

[Twamgl3]

I think if there were stiffer penalties on driving with insurance, more people would pay to have it, the insurance companies would have more money and (theoretically mind) they wouldn't need to fleece the good guys so much and our premiums would come down!

I nearly had a heart attack when my insurance company told me going from my 1.1 Fiesta to a 1.5 Civic was going to be double in insurance costs to me. Thankfully I only had to pay for one month's cover as the premium runs out at the end of July at which point I'll have four years no claims which I'd lose if I change policies now.

Confused wouldn't show me any quotes that high, and my own broker said they'd do it for £500!

 

[turbonutter69]

Exactly. Perhaps if someone caught driving whilst a ban is in place was sentenced to a mandatory 12 months imprisonment then they might think twice.

That wouldn't work.