PeteMorris Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 but the statistics prove that a young male driver is more likely to have a costly accident-thats the point. If they build up lots of no claims whilst a bad female driver has lots of accidents then that individual will pay more. Isn't that the point of the OP of the thread. Female drivers will be in the same boat as the males!....Paying shed loads of money!...Despite the statistics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Ok have it your way, it's completely fair and equitable! That's a cop out Pete.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 That's a cop out Pete.... Not really Truman. It's just a measure of a bit of frustration. You seem intent on disagreeing with me at every turn. We've all been shafted for years by insurance companies. I've had car insurance for donkeys years and never made a claim, I've had house insurance for years and never made a claim. The cost of insurance when I was a teenager was ridiculous. You never seem to answer my questions, like would you think it reasonable being 17 and having to pay thousands of pounds? It's ok to be smug now and say, well I only pay £180. Good for you! Mine is about the same. But I'm not 17. Why do you think a lot of young drivers just don't bother? It's not cos they 'want' to drive illegally (although some do I'm sure), it's because they're priced out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Not really Truman. It's just a measure of a bit of frustration. You seem intent on disagreeing with me at every turn. We've all been shafted for years by insurance companies. I've had car insurance for donkeys years and never made a claim, I've had house insurance for years and never made a claim. The cost of insurance when I was a teenager was ridiculous. You never seem to answer my questions, like would you think it reasonable being 17 and having to pay thousands of pounds? It's ok to be smug now and say, well I only pay £180. Good for you! Mine is about the same. But I'm not 17. Why do you think a lot of young drivers just don't bother? It's not cos they deliberately want to drive illegally (although some do I'm sure), it's because they're priced out of it. Seems you like to throw the odd insult about yourself I wasn't being smug at all..just asking (someone else not you but you decided to get involved) how he could say that motor insurance was legalised theft.. ....I've asked you several times what would you charge a 17/18 year old for motor insurance given the statistics and had no reply so you need to think before you knock someone for not answering...I'm not saying I would think it reasonable but neither am I saying it's unwarranted given the stats it seems that it may be what the young drivers are costing the industry.... if you don't buy insurance and you subsequently drive how is this not deliberate..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 Seems you like to throw the odd insult about yourself I wasn't being smug at all..just asking (someone else not you but you decided to get involved) how he could say that motor insurance was legalised theft.. ....I've asked you several times what would you charge a 17/18 year old for motor insurance given the statistics and had no reply so you need to think before you knock someone for not answering...I'm not saying I would think it reasonable but neither am I saying it's unwarranted given the stats it seems that it may be what the young drivers are costing the industry.... if you don't buy insurance and you subsequently drive how is this not deliberate..? Firstly, it's a general formum, which I assume means that anyone can put their two'penneth in. Unless I'm mistaken. I have no idea what I would charge a 17 year old! But thousands of pounds in my eyes is excessive. As I illustrated in the previous post, it prices them off the road, and lets not forget, the new ruling will do the same for female drivers now! (which is the point of the thread). I've edited my previous post to remove the word 'deliberate'. Can't have you nitpicking terminology again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Firstly, it's a general formum, which I assume means that anyone can put their two'penneth in. Unless I'm mistaken. I have no idea what I would charge a 17 year old! But thousands of pounds in my eyes is excessive. As I illustrated in the previous post, it prices them off the road, and lets not forget, the new ruling will do the same for female drivers now! (which is the point of the thread). I've edited my previous post to remove the word 'deliberate'. Can't have you nitpicking terminology again! Yep it's a general forum..no problem with you joining in but you need to get the context right.. So you don't know what you'd charge but thousands is excessive? How do you work that out..? If young drivers are costing insurance companies thousands then what option do they have but to charge it? It's not nit picking if I'm answering the question or point you put...if you meant something else then say it at the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 Yep it's a general forum..no problem with you joining in but you need to get the context right.. So you don't know what you'd charge but thousands is excessive? How do you work that out..? If young drivers are costing insurance companies thousands then what option do they have but to charge it? It's not nit picking if I'm answering the question or point you put...if you meant something else then say it at the time... Please don't lecture me about getting context right. You and Cyclone seem to be the only ones that take every word at it's most literal meaning. Everyone else seems to understand. It wouldn't matter what figure I came up with you would have an issue with it. It's one of your little traps by stealth. Lure me into posting some figure or another and then take it to pieces bit by bit. Does every young driver cost the insurance companies thousands? I think not. My insurance for both my car and house are 'loaded' because of where I live, yet where I used to live the cost was much less, yet my car was (not seriously) vandalised at my old address! Never had any problems where I live now!...it's all completely fair and equitable though You presumably think insurance companies never overcharge, never get things wrong and never make a fast buck where they see an opportunity. They're squeaky clean institutions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Please don't lecture me about getting context right. You and Cyclone seem to be the only ones that take every word at it's most literal meaning. Everyone else seems to understand. It wouldn't matter what figure I came up with you would have an issue with it. It's one of your little traps by stealth. Lure me into posting some figure or another and then take it to pieces bit by bit. Does every young driver cost the insurance companies thousands? I think not. My insurance for both my car and house are 'loaded' because of where I live, yet where I used to live the cost was much less, yet my car was (not seriously) vandalised at my old address! Never had any problems where I live now!...it's all completely fair and equitable though You presumably think insurance companies never overcharge, never get things wrong and never make a fast buck where they see an opportunity. They're squeaky clean institutions? You got the context wrong in your first reply to me on this thread...you say the figures given by insurance companies are out of whack with the costs yet you won't give a figure yourself..obviously not every young driver costs the insurance companies thousands..my two kids didn't..and they benefit from lower premiums in the following years..your use of the loopy smiley is a bit childish..as for your last paragraph where have I said any of that...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 If any man is rubbing their hands with glee that their insurance premiums might come down a bit, then just wait. Using the logic that was followed in this case, then we can expect the same for pensions. Any man with a pension (except a defined benefits one) will find that their annuity will give them less than would have been expected prior to this ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 You got the context wrong in your first reply to me on this thread...you say the figures given by insurance companies are out of whack with the costs yet you won't give a figure yourself..obviously not every young driver costs the insurance companies thousands..my two kids didn't..and they benefit from lower premiums in the following years..your use of the loopy smiley is a bit childish..as for your last paragraph where have I said any of that...? You havn't specifically said 'that'. But the implication is, is that you think it's perfectly reasonable to charge young male drivers thousands of pounds in premiums....So what other conclusion could one come to? ....Ooooops...being childish again!...Sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.