# Car insurance - other ways to run it ?



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

In some countries there's a national car insurance scheme that gives a basic level of cover for a fixed price to all.
If its going to be obligatory to have insurance, then some sort of cover, available to all drivers of all ages/sexes/experience - paying the same price, should be available. People should not be left to the mercy of private insurers alone.

Perhaps there could be something like that here, and people could choose to optionally "top up" their cover with (heavily regulated) private companies. Top up premiums would be based on things like the value of the car, with extras like fire & theft/driving abroad/breakdown/etc etc ..
Insurance companies wouldn't be allowed to base their premiums on "risk". It wouldn't matter how many claims a person has or hasn't made, where they live, how long they've been driving or what mods a car has.
Perhaps the "national car insurance" (NCI) could be for the person - and the optional top up be for the vehicle.

Insurance would be simplified, like the way they've changed gas & electricity tariffs.
A simple sliding scale of cover, easy to compare offers - easy to get "like for like" quotes and most of all - fair to all.

Got an expensive car ? Want full cover if it gets smashed up/written off ? Find the best insurance offer from private companies in competition.

Got a cheap old banger ? But still need to have all your liabilities covered ? Pay only your "national car insurance" (NCI) and get 3rd party cover.

If the guy in the expensive car - was hit by the guy in the old banger - it wouldn't matter who was at fault. Whether you have NIC or topped up insurance - you get your pay out at the level YOUVE paid for.
No-one is punished with increased premiums for making a claim.
No-one would be completely without insurance.

Of course I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I do know that what we've got now is seriously f¥<|<€d up.


----------



## oldguy (Jun 25, 2009)

Though I agree some premiums are ridiculous, and feel for new young drivers, similar to first time mortgages......

However, there has to be some way of stopping a new driver jumping in a clapped out scubby and killing themselves and someone else.
We all think we are great drivers, both young and old, when we really are just trying to justify the times we drive a bit to fast....
The older we get, the experience isn't just about driving ability and technique it's also about learning not to do 60 through a village just because the roads are nice...

My view, and I still pay 400 squids at 43 years old, no points and full NCB ..... :evil:


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Seems a good idea.

Problem is too many uninsured idiots on the road and lots of 'injuries R us' operations out there inflating claims as well as iffy insurers taking the mick...


----------



## Pugwash69 (Jun 12, 2012)

I don't want to subsidise teenagers frankly. You are not at the complete mercy of an insurance company, you're suffering because of your age group and statistics.

I get eyes rolled at me when I point to our kids at that until the age of 25, I was cycling to work. I bought a motorbike just before I was 25 and on my 25th birthday the premium lowered. I managed than way entirely until last November when I got a car licence just for recreational use (I work from home now). My bike insurance cost me around £120 this year on a 13 year old CBR1100XX.

If you cannot afford car insurance, you're looking at the wrong vehicle.


----------



## zltm089 (Jul 27, 2009)

The car insurance industry is properly fucked up in the UK.

Bunch of fucking thieving scumbag thieves! Fuck them and there so called "statistics". All their "logic" with no claims discount and area codes bollocks.

And their call centre staff with "computer says no" attitude. About time someone does something about all this shit.

Just like those "credit/ history reference agencies" which "dictate" wether you get a credit card/ loan/ mortgage or even open a bank account....bunch of fucking retarded donkeys...no wonder there has been an economic crisis...so many fcuktards putting in place "systems" which is no better than dog shit.


----------



## Pugwash69 (Jun 12, 2012)

Heh, don't hold back now, say what you feel.


----------



## kazinak (Mar 23, 2010)

personally i can't complain ,never paid more than 500 for the cars i've owned.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Now that I'm into my 3rd year of car insurance (bike only before that) I'm now getting "better than before" quotes. This year £450.

Our expectations of what insurance should cost is based on how much we've been charged in the past. Sure - it's difficult to completely re-imagine the whole thing. It's currently so unfair in so many ways that naturally, few people could get their heads around something designed for drivers rather than insurers.

What I'm suggesting as an alternative would be a system which wouldn't be based on risk. Nor where you live, not your job, sex, age ...
For example, if you get points, you get points - and a fine. No impact on your insurance.

Of course, it's complicated. But just allowing insurance companies to make up their own rules as they go along is only ever going to mean a better system for them.

Rip it up and start again.


----------



## D4n91 (Apr 9, 2013)

I agree but like what's been said above you'd have a whole array of 17 year olds jumping in something that's lethal to both them and others.......being only 22 I'm still getting stung with insurance premiums


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Old thread buy yea, insurance company's basing insurance on statistics is disgusting, I mean why is it cheaper to insure when married than it is when single. I was engaged to my wife for 11 years and we lived together for 12 years before we got married, why does this make me more of a risk than the guy next door that got hitched after 6 months together? Apparently the guy that rushes into a marriage is more responsible then me.

And I had an accident a few years back, was sitting in a queue of traffic at lights and was rear ended by a dozy pensioner in a golf, he hit me at about 30-40 mph apparently he fell asleep at the wheel. My insurance company at the time said my insurance would go up as even though I was not at fault the fact that I'd been in an accident ment I was statistically more likely to have another than someone that's never had one before. How can they use this as an excuse to get more cash is criminal.

:x


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Simplistically, there are three factors - money paid out to claims, money generated from premiums and profit. You can't change the money paid out (ignoring the debate about insurance fraud, 'me too' injury claims, outrageous courtesy car hire prices, etc), so all you can do is mess with the other two.

Assuming the insurers won't let anyone change their profit figures, all you can really do is play around with how the premiums are calculated - but the total amount can't change (because that changes their profit). So, you can make it more 'fair' according to whichever definition of fair you want to apply, but for every person who pays less, there has to be other people paying more.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Best way to get it down is to shop around and NEVER let it renew, even if you have to get a fresh quote from the same company it will almost always be cheaper then the renewal price.

When my old company renewal come through it went up from £360 to £580, redoing the quote online the same company Tesco insure came uo £420, I renewed with privilege for £280 which was the cheapest similar cover on the compair website, and later took them up on the offer of free courtesy car windscreen cover and protected ncd for £318 pa.


----------



## Stev443 (Oct 6, 2013)

Same old story shop around just saved £300 on my two cars after my renewal came in way too much. Seems to go up every year then when you call them oh we can do it a bit cheaper but couldn't touch it this year so thanks for trying to rip me off but no thanks changed companies


----------



## Pugwash69 (Jun 12, 2012)

My stepson is currently taking lessons and the instructor is hoping to get him passed before any new laws on driving licences comes into effect. 
Here's what they have proposed. I'm not sure it will have much effect on how much the insurers rob from us though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24485792


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Pugwash69 said:


> My stepson is currently taking lessons and the instructor is hoping to get him passed before any new laws on driving licences comes into effect.
> Here's what they have proposed. I'm not sure it will have much effect on how much the insurers rob from us though.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24485792


Under 30 is far to old for these. Under 21 would have been acceptable for some of these proposals.

Ant wtf with a reduced alcohol limit, I'm my experience people who crash due to alcohol consumption tend to be drunk, not near the limit. I heard a woman on the radio last week calling for a zero limit, which is ludicrous. But her reasons was because her daughter was killed by a man 4 times the legal limit, i.e. paralytic drunk. It's not like he thought, "ok that's me had 13 pints I better not have that vodka incase it pushes me over the limit"

Lowering limits will not help avoid an RTA due to drink, drunk drivers do it regardless of limits.

Harsher punishments would one way. I'd jail people who are over twice the limit and ban 10 years those 50% over


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Any amount of alcohol will impair your ability to drive. I'm sure people who are completely pissed are _more likely_ to have a crash or hit someone (and therefore it may be the most common scenario), but just because the people slightly over the limit make it home safely most of the time doesn't mean they were safe to drive. It's simple statistics.

I don't think having a 0 limit would be workable, but if they lowered it so that the only way you could be certain you were below the limit was by not having a drink, I'd have no problem with that.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Any amount of alcohol will impair your ability to drive. I'm sure people who are completely pissed are _more likely_ to have a crash or hit someone (and therefore it may be the most common scenario), .


So are you saying eating a chocolate liquor, using mouthwash and swallowing a drop or eating a slightly rotting fruit will make me a RTA liability?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Any amount of alcohol will impair your ability to drive. I'm sure people who are completely pissed are _more likely_ to have a crash or hit someone (and therefore it may be the most common scenario), .
> ...


I think that's known as a straw man argument.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


No you said ANY amount will impair your ability to drive, I say it's not the case. Halving the current limit for new drivers won't make one bit of difference, except making criminals out of innocent new drivers who perhaps had a drink the night before and drove. When according to current law they are safe to do so.

All I'm saying is reducing the drink drive limit will not prevent accidents due to being intoxicated at the wheel. Idiots will still drive home pissed and kill some poor bastard. It's these idiots you need to worry about not some new driver that has a tiny amount of residual alcohol still in his system from 14 hours ago.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> No you said ANY amount will impair your ability to drive, I say it's not the case. Halving the current limit for new drivers won't make one bit of difference, except making criminals out of innocent new drivers who perhaps had a drink the night before and drove. When according to current law they are safe to do so.
> 
> All I'm saying is reducing the drink drive limit will not prevent accidents due to being intoxicated at the wheel. Idiots will still drive home pissed and kill some poor bastard. It's these idiots you need to worry about not some new driver that has a tiny amount of residual alcohol still in his system from 14 hours ago.


Well, technically any amount will have an effect on you. There isn't a cutoff point before which alcohol has no effect. It's just a chemical reaction, after all.

I disagree that reducing the limit won't reduce accidents though. Lots of people drink up to what they believe is their 'safe' limit (and by safe, I mean safe from prosecution). The trouble is, they're basically guessing what that is based on received wisdom ("two pints is ok", "have one drink an hour", etc) so they could easily be over the limit. Lowering the limit would force most of these 'good intention' drink drivers to cut down. And lets be honest here, most drink drivers aren't off their face, barely able to turn the key... They're not even what we'd call 'drunk'. They're driving along quite competantly most of the time.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > No you said ANY amount will impair your ability to drive, I say it's not the case. Halving the current limit for new drivers won't make one bit of difference, except making criminals out of innocent new drivers who perhaps had a drink the night before and drove. When according to current law they are safe to do so.
> ...


This is my exact point spandy, most of the people it affects will be driving safely, it will also catch out a lot of people driving after a few pints the night before, who are also perfectly safe to drive. You have to ask are they doing this to take cars off the road, or the age old "raise revenue from fines". Or is it genuinely in the interests of public safety?

Bring the limit down enough and you basically have a choice, drink or drive literally.

The government here in Scotland I believe is going to 1/2 the limit anyway, Nicola sturgeon seems to be on a one woman crusade against social drinkers. Now her argument is this will be the same as a lot of European laws. Yes they to have a lower limit but it only becomes a banable offence at the higher tier which is equivalent to what we have atm. I have a feeling this idiot will push for 1 year bans at the lower limit making us have some of harshest driving restrictions in the world. Go Nicola!

Do you think this approach of fines for lower limits would have the same effect without devastating the lives of people who only have a miniscule amount of alcohol in the system?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> This is my exact point spandy, most of the people it affects will be driving safely, it will also catch out a lot of people driving after a few pints the night before, who are also perfectly safe to drive. You have to ask are they doing this to take cars off the road, or the age old "raise revenue from fines". Or is it genuinely in the interests of public safety?


I think you missed my point. When I say that these people who are just over the limit (or even just under) are driving around quite competently most of the time, I'm not saying they're 'safe'. I'm saying the opposite in fact.. being unsafe due to alcohol doesn't mean you have to be steaming drunk, swerving all over the road. It just means you have to have enough in your system to affect your reactions and your decision making abilities.

After two pints, my reactions have slowed slightly from their normal level. I'm probably not over the limit, I'm not drunk (by most peoples definition), I feel fine, and I could probably drive like that hundreds of times without incident, but there just has to be that one time when someone steps out in front of me and I react too slowly to avoid them. Remember, we're talking about *risk *here. Being unsafe doesn't mean I'm going to have a crash, it means the risk of me having a crash has increased (to an unacceptable level). I may go through life *never *having a crash after 2 pints, but that doesn't mean I was safe.

The legal limit for a commercial pilot is something like a quarter of the UK driving limit. Would you be happy to get on a plane where the pilot was above this limit, but below the driving limit? If not, why not? I wouldn't, because I believe alcohol has an effect on the way the human brain works even in low doses and I don't like gambling.



brian1978 said:


> Do you think this approach of fines for lower limits would have the same effect without devastating the lives of people who only have a miniscule amount of alcohol in the system?


I don't have a problem with a tiered approach to punishment, as long as the fines/points at the lower end are significant enough to stop people taking a similarly tiered approach to drinking, where they deliberately carry on drinking past the lower level because the reward is greater than the risk.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Why tiered approach? Surely if you are over the limit then it is your fault. If you don't want to get done for the offence, then don't commit the offence.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Gazzer said:


> Why tiered approach? Surely if you are over the limit then it is your fault. If you don't want to get done for the offence, then don't commit the offence.


I wouldn't have a problem with that either to be honest because, as you say, it's a completely avoidable situation. When you think about how much people are willing to risk for something as petty as one more beer, it's hard to feel sympathy for them.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> > Why tiered approach? Surely if you are over the limit then it is your fault. If you don't want to get done for the offence, then don't commit the offence.
> ...


I agree it's pointless having 1 or 2 pints than driving, I never do it. I just have a non alcoholic beer or a cola. But it's morning after I'm talking about. Say you come in after a long days work and have 4 cans on lager, is it ok to drive the next morning if you haven't had any and a good 8 hrs sleep. I'd say yes. As after 9 hours you would be sober. If you half the limit you will probably be over with this amount, but perfectly safe to drive. Hence safe responsible drivers might needlessly lose their licence. This can have a devastating effect on a whole family. And I think this is too harsh.

You might say then just don't drink, that's fine but why should responsible drinkers and responsible drivers suffer when idiots still knowingly get drunk and drive and receive the same punishment i.e. a years ban and a £3-500 fine?

I also think that that cutting the current limit would not significantly reduce serious accidents. I still think in accidents where alcohol is the main reason for it the people involved tend to be drunk and well over the limit, not taking a chance on that extra half pint.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Well, I disagree with your statement that you'd be "perfectly safe to drive". The point I've made a few times is that alcohol affects your reactions and decision making abilities, and that effect isn't an 'on-off' switch. As the alcohol level of a driver increases, so does risk. The question is, at what level so we say "the risk increase is small enough not to worry about"?

Like I said before, the limit for commercial pilots is a quarter of the UK driving limit. This is because above that level they believe a pilots ability to fly the plane is compromised to an unacceptable level. Now, I don't think driving is as mentally taxing as flying a commercial jet (although I know one pilot who always said flying was easier because there was less to crash into) but the fact is, a quarter of the UK driving limit is enough to measurably affect a humans ability to control a machine. This means someone *under* the UK driving limit is not as good at making decisions under pressure and has worse reactions as someone with no alcohol in their system. They are statistically less safe.

Remember, this is a discussion about risk and probability. If two identical twins leave the pub to drive the same route home at the same time, but one has had a couple of pints, and both of them arrive home without incident, do you think they're both as safe as each other just because they both made it? Of course not.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

I use to work for a Swiss company and one year they made it zero limit for drink driving and doubled the cost of booze. No more people were convicted than before, if anything it made them more aware of the penalty!! U will always have the odd confirmed drinker that chances it.....same as smokers.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Gazzer said:


> I use to work for a Swiss company and one year they made it zero limit for drink driving and doubled the cost of booze. No more people were convicted than before, if anything it made them more aware of the penalty!! U will always have the odd confirmed drinker that chances it.....same as smokers.


Smokers?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> Smokers?


Yep, it gets in your eyes while you're driving...


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > Smokers?
> ...


I'm not a smoker myself, and I don't allow people to smoke in my car.

But I have to say you don't half talk some bollocks sometimes :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't agree to smoking while driving, but that's due to how distracting it could become if the end of a lit cigarette dropped on the floor or between their legs. Not due to being blinded by a rouge wiff of smoke lol


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, it gets in your eyes while you're driving...
> ...


Yeah, anyone would think I was joking or something... :roll:


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


Well with you, you just never know. :lol:


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > brian1978 said:
> ...


Talking of bollocks, 95% of ya posts are exactly that..my point of smokers numpty is the risk of is this the one ciggie that could be the big ( c ) same as drink driving is this the beer or spirit that could be the one to seal your fate.
Are you that dumb you cannot ses reality smacking you on the forehead mr I would like drink driving lowered for the responsible niss head lol


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Sorry spandy had to up the anti with this burk


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Gazzer said:


> brian1978[quote="Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > brian1978 said:
> ...


Talking of bollocks, 95% of ya posts are exactly that..my point of smokers numpty is the risk of is this the one ciggie that could be the big ( c ) same as drink driving is this the beer or spirit that could be the one to seal your fate.
Are you that dumb you cannot ses reality smacking you on the forehead mr I would like drink driving lowered for the responsible niss head lol[/quote]

----------------------------------------

How bloody rude, I have a sensible debate and you call me a "burk", a "numpty", say 95% of my posts are bollocks. I beg to differ, most of my posts I'm trying to be helpful, the vast minority are in threads like this.

You say "am I that dumb", then type a post like a dyslexic halfwit chimp, are you serious?

Trying to even read that keyboard diarrhea that you just typed would give anyone a headache. Translate it into even something resembling English and I'll listen to you. :lol:

Seriously :roll:


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Can I just quickly post to demonstrate that it is absolutely possible to leave two, or three people alone to have their disagreement without chipping in unnecessarily or taking sides.
I f'kin hate it when people do that ! Morons.
I'm not referring to anyone taking part in this thread by the way !

Cheers, please carry on ...


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Apologies mullum


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Gazzer said:


> Apologies mullum


No mate seriously, it wasn't directed to you at all I promise 

Just saying because people do it on here and it does my nut in


----------

