Rupert_Baehr Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 In reply to Malkay - I have my own insurance - but when my girls got their own car insurance by adding my name to it as a named driver it greatly reduced their premium No doubt it would, but perhaps you might find that had one of your daughters had an accident (and statistically they are more likely than you to have an accident) then not only would their premium have been increased, but so would your own. It cuts both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 There is something that I've always found strange about young drivers/insurance etc. Cars have an engine management system. It is possible to get it rechipped to alter the performance. Mine has a chip that limits its top speed. It's just a thought but if a driver had a chip fitted and sealed which prevented the car from exceeding say 60 mph it might be a real incentive for an insurance company to offer greatly reduced premiums. Fit a chip and a green L plate after passing your test .... Isnt there schemes like that in place or at least talk of them? I would add to this engine size restrictions and mechanical restrictions as you suggested. My wife's car appears to have a chip which limits top speed ... but not to 60mph. My bikes have rpm limiters ... but they're to protect the engine. Younger motorcycle riders (those without a full licence) do have a power limitation (33BHp, AFAIR.) Bikes can be limited easily, but the limit applies to the horsepower, not to the top speed. (Some of them perform quite adequately with the 33BHp limit.) Engine size restrictions (cubic capacity and/or power output) may help, but on their own, they're not a clear indicator of performance; indeed they can be quite deceptive. One of my bikes has an 1100cc engine and (only) develops 89 BHp. The other has a 1200cc engine and develops 124 BHp. Many insurers want to charge more for the 1200cc machine 'becuse it is more powerful'. It is - but it also weighs 100kg more than the other. The power-to-weight ratio (the bit that is important) is almost exactly the same, the top speed is the same and the acceleration is the same. - I insure with a company which understands what it's doing and charges me the same premium for each. A car weighing 2½ tons powered by a long-stroke low-output 3.5 litre engine is going to look (and be) pretty sedate when compared with a lightweight 2-seater fitted with a short-stroke high-revving turbocharged 1500cc engine. A 60mph limiter wouldn't (shouldn't) have much effect on a car driven primarily on urban or suburban roads,, but I certainly wouldn't like to be in a car fitted with such a limiter on an A-road with the national limit, a national limit dual carriageway or a motorway. The car itself could cause an obstruction to other traffic and the limiters might well cause more problems than they solve. HGV's have speed limiters. How many times have you sat in a line of traffic on a motorway doing 50mph while 2 lorries, with a speed differential of 1½ mph, battle it out 500 yards ahead of you? The times and places where young drivers are most prone to having accidents are well-known. Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights between the hours of 8pm and 3am, with 2 or (usually more) occupants in the vehicle, none of whom is 25 or more yrs old is probably a very high-risk scenario. If drivers can avoid the risks, then perhaps the insurance companies can be persuaded to adjust the premiums accordingly? Perhaps insurance premiums could be charged by the mile, with a loading (or reduction) fror driving on less-congested or otherwise 'safer' roads at safer tines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 It cuts both ways. If you are a named driver on another policy you don’t lose any bonus if the main driver as a bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 If you are a named driver on another policy you don’t lose any bonus if the main driver as a bump. Indeed you do not. And if you have protected no-claims bonus and you make a claim, you don't lose any of your no-claims bonus, either. That doesn't mean that your premiums don't increase though. There's nothing to stop an insurance company from increasing your gross premium merely because they feel that you now pose an increased risk. - Not you personally, but you as a policyholder. The no-claims bonus remains the same, but as the gross premium has increased, you still end up paying more. I've been there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I've been there. So how would your insurer know how many policies you are a named driver on and what happened to those policies. In 30 years of driving I have never been asked “are you named on another policy” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Since my son and I lived at the same address, were insured with the same company and the premiums were paid from the same bank account (mine) it probably wasn't too difficult for them to find out. When I complained about a premium rise on my own policy (shortly before I moved my business elsewhere) their 'justification' for the premium increase was: "Well, our records show that a policy in which you have an interest has suffered a number of claims and we consider that you now pose an increased risk." I was more than a little p*ssed off, because: 1. My son had the accidents - not me. 2. The premium was in my son's name - with me as a named rider [it was a motorcycle premium in this particular case.] and 3. The policy on which they were increasing (or rather attempting to increase) the premium was a car policy. - Nothing to do with my son's bike policy. Motor Insurance isn't 'Fair'. - It's not required to be fair. The premiums are based on (sometimes illogical) actuarial statistics and company business policies. If you don't like a particular decision, there's nothing to prevent you from taking your business elsewhere. Unfortunately - for most of us, or at least those of us who are not able to self-insure - it's the only solution. Though it is quite possible for a group of people to get together and form their own mutual insurance company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 1. My son had the accidents - not me. 2. The premium was in my son's name - with me as a named rider [it was a motorcycle premium in this particular case.] and 3. The policy on which they were increasing (or rather attempting to increase) the premium was a car policy. - Nothing to do with my son's bike policy. All sounds very strange to me I don’t see how that would happen if you were with different companies unless the fault was while you were driving / riding obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 All sounds very strange to me I don’t see how that would happen if you were with different companies unless the fault was while you were driving / riding obviously. Well, I"m glad nobody's tried that trick on you yet, Malky. Same company. Different policies. Not even the same type of policy (NCB for cars is max 60% (poss75% - Early days of Endsleigh and for bikes it's 40%). That didn't stop them from using 'creative actuarial policies' in re-assessing my premium. As others have said, it pays to shop around. I insured with Endsleigh (owned at that time by the NUS) from when I first came to England until the mid 70's. They didn't load my premiums when I was a student (and they didn't consider what I was a student of ... which would've meant really impressive premiums ) and they were pretty reliable. Until the mid 70's, company loyalty paid off. After that, things got worse. loyalty began to equate with stupidity and I started to shop around. I still can't understand why insurance companies think thet the rules which apply to other industries should not apply to them. Most people accept that it is far cheaper to pay a few bob to retain an existing customer than to pay a small fortune atracting new customers. Perhaps there aren't sufficient competitors in the Insurance Industry? Perhaps the industry needs a larger number of more diverse smaller players (with liabilities limited to their assets or even a protection fund to shield those who might be hit overly hard)? Young Insurers pay high premiums, but then again, they are demonstrably high-risk customers. There probably are companies which are reasonable, but it's perhaps inevitable that young insurers are going to pay through the nose. (I remember paying £30 a year Third Party Only on an 848cc minivan in 1968 ) About £420 at today's rates, but then again, at today's rates the car was worth £2000. Furthermore, if I had an accident, the NHS would've picked up the bill - and wouldn't have passed it back to my insurers. There were tort lawyers, but there were no ambulance chasers. 'Compensation' (on those very rare occasions when it was awarded) would've been just that. Compensation. Enough money to put you back to where you were before the accident - not a lottery payout. If we could scrap the compensation culture, shift the responsibility for providing healthcare back to where it was supposed to belong - to the NHS - then, notwithstanding that there are far more vehicles on the roads today than there were 45 years ago - perhaps young insurers could expect to pay annual premiums comparable to 20% of the value of the vehicle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antsmg22 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 the insurance prices as high as they are is there any wounder people drive without insurance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I'd quite like to see the statistics involved. Young men are being shafted. Article in the star the other day, put accidents between men and women at ratio of 110 to 100. Yet men will pay 100% more rather than 10% more. Likewise for accidents between young and old to work out a FAIR difference in price. And also, all of these figures should be the rate of accidents of insured people. I should not be paying for car thieves premiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.