# Watch your insurance premium rocket now.



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

I saw on the News 2 nights ago that car accidents and insurance claims are up over 30% over normal bad weather conditions at this time of year.  Now I have not had an accident, have you had one? Most of you will answer "No" we drive carefully in the snow and ice while some arses (not all granted) don't and smash their cars (some on purpose no doubt). However the result is always the same and we end up paying for them. :x Why should our premiums go up due to others having accident? We haven't claimed but we will pay for them no matter. IMO protected insurance is another rip off as your insurance will go up anyway if you have an accident if not on your next renewal then the one after that. The only way to win is to have an accident now and again it seems. :? I haven't had a claim in god knows how many years yet I am a bad risk because of my mods and a few speeding offences, wonderful. [smiley=argue.gif] All in all I have paid out thousands of pounds for no return other than what some would describe as peace of mind. :roll:


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

I a just thinking the samething bu Iahve to admit her in doors has helped push the insurance up :wink:


----------



## TT Ade (Aug 20, 2007)

My daughter had an accident this morning. She was in the inside lane on the M6 one exit short of Haydock (work) when a wagon pulled in from the centre lane and caught the front of her car spinning her out of her lane and across the motorway where she ended up in the outside lane. How nothing else hit her I will never know! Thankfully apart from a painful back, neck and arm she is fine, she has been very, very lucky and for that I am eternally thankful. A near tragedy caused by a driver just not paying attention.

We all need to be more aware in these conditions and not only aware of what we are doing but also the lunatics driving around us. You all be safe, good drving.


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

TT Ade said:


> My daughter had an accident this morning. She was in the inside lane on the M6 one exit short of Haydock (work) when a wagon pulled in from the centre lane and caught the front of her car spinning her out of her lane and across the motorway where she ended up in the outside lane. How nothing else hit her I will never know! Thankfully apart from a painful back, neck and arm she is fine, she has been very, very lucky and for that I am eternally thankful. A near tragedy caused by a driver just not paying attention.
> 
> We all need to be more aware in these conditions and not only aware of what we are doing but also the lunatics driving around us. You all be safe, good drving.


Glad its nothing more than aches and pains, lucky.
Ive just got my no claims protected so if i feel there is an accident coming on at least i will only pay the excess and protect my premiums, hopefully. I hate my neighbours wall.
Steve


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

Come on Les you have been around long enough to know that it is all a big rip off, hence the phrase "Rip Off Britain" that we see bandied about in the press ;-) Insurance is just another aspect of this.

Ade glad your daughter is ok mate, not a parent yet but I imagine the concern and relief you have experienced today.

I have had a few near misses in the snow, all walking speed but nonetheless damage could easily have been caused - I think finally my Police driver training is paying off ;-)

I have sold out of body panels in the last few weeks due to all the accidents people have been having.

Charlie


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I don't blame the insurance companies.. They're doing exactly what a business should do in this situation. Their costs have gone up more than predicted, so they will increase the the money coming in to cover it. It's just business.

The people I blame are the morons who are driving into other cars, ditches, walls, etc. purely because they refuse to adjust their driving to take the conditions into account. I know we can all get caught out by this kind of weather, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that there are things you can do to reduce the risk of hitting something.

It's the same thing with modifications. People with mods are more likely to crash their car. They're not necessarily crashing because of the mods, it's just the type of person who likes doing mods is statistically more likely to crash. Complaining about that is the same as complaining that your premium is higher just because you live in a high-risk area, or because you're 17, or because you have points on your license. It's just statistics.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Spandex said:


> I don't blame the insurance companies.. I do, they are increasing MY insurance due to the results of others not me. They're doing exactly what a business should do in this situation. Yeah right ,put up the premiums of the innocent careful drivers exactly what we all think they should do. Their costs have gone up more than predicted, so they will increase the the money coming in to cover it. It's just business. Just business, is that what they call it, well many of us have another term or two for it.
> The people I blame are the morons who are driving into other cars, ditches, walls, etc. purely because they refuse to adjust their driving to take the conditions into account. Now that I agree with but hitting the careful to pay the idiots I don't but you disagree.  I know we can all get caught out by this kind of weather, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that there are things you can do to reduce the risk of hitting something. Very true.
> 
> It's the same thing with modifications. People with mods are more likely to crash their car. They're not necessarily crashing because of the mods, it's just the type of person who likes doing mods is statistically more likely to crash. Complaining about that is the same as complaining that your premium is higher just because you live in a high-risk area, or because you're 17, or because you have points on your license. It's just statistics.


 Just like there are lies and damned lies. If I am more of a risk then fine but MY history speaks for itself. No accidents in over 25 years but then i'm not paying my insurance for me I am paying a large slice of it for those you have mentioned above and I think that's grossly unfair even if it is business as you call it.  :x


----------



## SAJ77 (Nov 16, 2008)

And don't forget you are paying extra to cover the 'uninsured' :twisted:

Saj


----------



## shell (Feb 1, 2008)

TT Ade thats awful wat has happened to ur daughter  so glad she is fine but she will be majory shook up 

the recnet weather is a joke and insurance is a joke if u ask me 

My insurance is due on the 11th feb and a month later i am 25 and i have spoke to an insurance company who said it is a myth about your insurance going down when ur 25 but thing is i tried it and changed my date of birth and discovered being 25 my insurance went down near enough £300 making it below 1k instead of more than 1k. I cant even find an insurance company who will insure me below 1k at the min  very depressing and annoying to say the least, i have 4 years no claims too but 1 accident 2 and a half years ago

So i am most probably taking my car off the road for a month while i wait till i am 25 and then re insuraning it..............ball ache if you ask me 

but i am hoping to get a 306 up and running so i can have my TT as a weekend car

Shell


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

SAJ77 said:


> And don't forget you are paying extra to cover the 'uninsured' :twisted:
> 
> Saj


 To bloody true mate :x But that's business after all :roll:


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Ade the main thing is she is hardly hurt but will be very shook up no doubt. The cars just a car and I am so glad your daughter escaped major injury.


----------



## tony_rigby_uk (Nov 27, 2008)

TT Ade said:


> My daughter had an accident this morning. She was in the inside lane on the M6 one exit short of Haydock (work) when a wagon pulled in from the centre lane and caught the front of her car spinning her out of her lane and across the motorway where she ended up in the outside lane.


just curious here ade, you say inside lane, assuming that means the lane nearest the hardshoulder... so what your saying is a wagon overtook your daughter (or attempted to) and pulled in..... My first question is what the hell is a wagon trying to overtake anyone... they can't do much over 70... if on the other hand the wagon was in the center lane and your daughter was trying undertake thats a differen't story... or even if the lorry overtook and then your daughter speeded up (it's still classed as a undertake or a attempted undertake)

Actually isn't there roadworks about there and it's 50 with average speed cameras?? probably the lorry jumping lanes so the average camera's can't pic up he's speeding... i'm not sure it's a myth but i've seen cars imediatly change lanes after they pass one, then change lanes again when they pass another....was told that the reason is it can't average you if your in differen't lanes... perhaps he was just being a cock...

glad she's ok.... it's a bad junction that anyway.... i lost half my tyre tread there when someone cut me up... scary moments...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

les said:


> Just like there are lies and damned lies. If I am more of a risk then fine but MY history speaks for itself. No accidents in over 25 years but then i'm not paying my insurance for me I am paying a large slice of it for those you have mentioned above and I think that's grossly unfair even if it is business as you call it.  :x


Hmmm... I think you're misunderstanding how risk and statistics work. If they insured people based on their history, they'd be insuring half their customers for free. Insurance is (quite obviously) based on risk, not history. All of the things I mentioned above, like your location and the weather, increase risk. The driving history of a customer is used as a 'modifier' (i.e. NCBs or premium increases when you have an accident) but it cannot be the main variable in calculating premiums otherwise insurance companies would not be able to function and you would be liable for *all* damages in the event of a crash.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

My fully comprehensive, all singing and dancing, everything declared, was £495 last year to the 31st December 2009. This year to 31 December 2010 it is £441. Ive been with Noel Dazely for a couple of years.

Joe


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

TTCool said:


> My fully comprehensive, all singing and dancing, everything declared, was £495 last year to the 31st December 2009. This year to 31 December 2010 it is £441. Ive been with Noel Dazely for a couple of years.
> 
> Joe


Mine's £270 :roll:


----------



## gbjules (Nov 30, 2009)

I'm currently insuring an A4 DTM, 225 tt and Cooper S with Admiral all fully comp
and protected for £640 per year in total, £120 less than the AA quoted me last
year for my old A4 Tdi alone, a few hours on the phone is a pain but can
really pay dividends in the end, and even with minor mods on the tt(proposed)
it only jumps up about thirty quid. However the tints on my old R32 added £60
to my quote! Your have to do the phone work.


----------



## TT Ade (Aug 20, 2007)

tony_rigby_uk said:


> Actually isn't there roadworks about there and it's 50 with average speed cameras?? probably the lorry jumping lanes so the average camera's can't pic up he's speeding... i'm not sure it's a myth but i've seen cars imediatly change lanes after they pass one, then change lanes again when they pass another....was told that the reason is it can't average you if your in differen't lanes... perhaps he was just being a cock...
> 
> glad she's ok.... it's a bad junction that anyway.... i lost half my tyre tread there when someone cut me up... scary moments...


That's it Tony, right in the middle of the average speed cameras section. My daughter was doing 50 and the wagon came past her so had to be speeding though not massively so. It then just cut in to the lane nearest the hard shoulder and took my daughters car out in the process. This had the affect of spinning the car out of the lane and across the motorway. The motorway was shut down for a period of time while the car was recovered. Fortunately one guy stayed with her as a witness and gave a statement, the lorry driver admitted responsibility for the accident.

Thanks for the kind words everyone.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

wallsendmag said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > My fully comprehensive, all singing and dancing, everything declared, was £495 last year to the 31st December 2009. This year to 31 December 2010 it is £441. Ive been with Noel Dazely for a couple of years.
> ...


Hi Andrew

That's because it's not a serious motor. You should get your insurance free :lol:

How are you doing, Andrew? Any drives in the pipeline? Fancy the Malton meet this year? We're looking forward to some serious driving after this forced layoff.

Joe


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Spandex said:


> Hmmm... I think you're misunderstanding how risk and statistics work. If they insured people based on their history, they'd be insuring half their customers for free.


And at the other end of the scale, the riskiest people (including those with the worst history, because a record of claims surely does get added to someone's risk rating) would be paying huge premiums, or wouldn't be able to find insurance at all. 
Maybe that's what people are saying should happen? 
I'd probably gain if a bigger % of an insurers revenues came from riskier and more accident-prone drivers (and assuming they charged me less to balance :roll. So on the one hand, sounds good to me.
But then I'd also be more likely to be crashed into by someone who thought "f**k it, I'm not paying that" (or couldn't get insured at all) and drove round anyway, uninsured.
Maybe the balance is currently wrong, but there's no getting round the fact that the low risk / careful (or plain lucky) always end up subsidising the ones making claims. Same with any insurance - house, travel, health service etc.


----------



## dzTT (Mar 11, 2009)

insurance prices are too high. it would be cheaper for me to run around uninsured and if anythin happened use that money i saved form insurance into gettin whatever happened fixed...although im not that stupid i am insured.
i know a few people who have no insurance one drives a old ford escort worth £500...insurance companies wanted £2000 to insure him, it ws only a 1.3l. he didnt bother he crashed it then went and bought another one and paid to fix the garden he crashed into. i know it would be completely different if it was a person or another vehicle he hit. but what im sayin is more people would have insurance if it was more affordable.
and mods that have nothin to do with performace why do they result in higher insurance. and items for safety i.e. bigger and better brakes surely they make you stop quicker therefore safer? no?


----------



## tony_rigby_uk (Nov 27, 2008)

TT Ade said:


> That's it Tony, right in the middle of the average speed cameras section. My daughter was doing 50 and the wagon came past her so had to be speeding though not massively so. It then just cut in to the lane nearest the hard shoulder and took my daughters car out in the process. This had the affect of spinning the car out of the lane and across the motorway. The motorway was shut down for a period of time while the car was recovered. Fortunately one guy stayed with her as a witness and gave a statement, the lorry driver admitted responsibility for the accident.
> 
> Thanks for the kind words everyone.


we all know how thats happened then... he's seen the next camera and darted across as to not get caught.... i really do hate wagons though.... drive behind one for 2mins and your car is filthy... if there doing that to my car what are they doing to the roads !!!!!!!! think they should have a compulsery cleaning regime.... the other ones is when the trailor licence plate doesn't match the cabin's licence plate.... just a pain....


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Hmmm... I think you're misunderstanding how risk and statistics work. [/quote]

Me thinks you assume too much I understand perfectly and I never said I expected to pay nothing for my insurance. Think of one aspect of insurance like this and I will give you a scenario. A guy has a crash in his car the damage comes to £2500 he pays full comp so claims on his insurance. What happens in effect is the insurance company give him a loan to pay for it. The guy then pays for that crash many times over in increased insurance premiums. A nice little way of getting round interest rates and god knows what the APR would work out to.I have had no accidents for over 25 years and yet I am still a high risk, really? :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

les said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm... I think you're misunderstanding how risk and statistics work.
> ...


You still seem to be missing the point. The fact that most people will pay more money overall to the insurance company than they will ultimately pay back out to them is the reason they are still in business. So, yes it is effectively a loan, but it's a necessary one because without it, you would be relying on individuals to pay up (by getting other loans or having 'crash savings'). Getting annoyed by the fact that a business is trying to make money out of its customers seems a little pointless to me.



les said:


> I have had no accidents for over 25 years and yet I am still a high risk, really? :roll:


Yes. Yes you are. Because, as I said before, your history is only a small part of your 'riskiness'. It's just statistics and sometimes it's hard to see statistics when you're one of them. If I flipped a coin 10 times and the first 9 times it came up heads, the chances of it coming up heads on the last flip are still 50%. Now, I'm not trying to say it's pure chance whether or not you're in an accident - I'm highlighting the fact that statistics go well beyond your experiences of something. Insurance companies draw on data from hundreds of thousands of crashes and thefts, across many many years... The fact that you personally seem to be 'bucking' the odds at the moment is insignificant. You could have 2 unlucky crashes next year and you'd be back to the national average (I read somewhere that everyone will be involved in 1 serious crash every 14 years, on average).


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Spandex said:


> les said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


 National average is 2 crashes in over 25 years is it? Not what I have been led to believe because that's what it would mean in reality not some fiction law possibility.


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

TTCool said:


> My fully comprehensive, all singing and dancing, everything declared, was £495 last year to the 31st December 2009. This year to 31 December 2010 it is £441. Ive been with Noel Dazely for a couple of years.
> 
> Joe


now come on, i bet you didn't declare that accelerator pedal mod now did you?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

TTCool said:


> My fully comprehensive, all singing and dancing, everything declared, was £495 last year to the 31st December 2009. This year to 31 December 2010 it is £441. Ive been with Noel Dazely for a couple of years.
> 
> Joe


Mine is £450 on thr roadster all mods declared all singing and dancing with a garanteed pay out of £16k 
The qS is also £450 all singing alldancing al mods declared 
I think you need to give Saga a try Joe :wink: :lol:


----------



## EnfieldTT (Jun 7, 2008)

So much of insurance is about the area you live in. Fortunately my parents live in a very exclusive part of North London, and when I put their address down as my residence, it drop the quote by between 40-50%


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

EnfieldTT said:


> So much of insurance is about the area you live in. Fortunately my parents live in a very exclusive part of North London, and when I put their address down as my residence, it drop the quote by between 40-50%


where do they live?


----------



## TT Ade (Aug 20, 2007)

JNmercury00 said:


> EnfieldTT said:
> 
> 
> > So much of insurance is about the area you live in. Fortunately my parents live in a very exclusive part of North London, and when I put their address down as my residence, it drop the quote by between 40-50%
> ...


Buckingham palace :lol:


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

JNmercury00 said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > My fully comprehensive, all singing and dancing, everything declared, was £495 last year to the 31st December 2009. This year to 31 December 2010 it is £441. Ive been with Noel Dazely for a couple of years.
> ...


or his coat hanger mod :wink:


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

JNmercury00 said:


> EnfieldTT said:
> 
> 
> > So much of insurance is about the area you live in. Fortunately my parents live in a very exclusive part of North London, and when I put their address down as my residence, it drop the quote by between 40-50%
> ...


 don't live there his parents do ..... Buckingham palace


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

TT Ade said:


> JNmercury00 said:
> 
> 
> > EnfieldTT said:
> ...


Snap, Just seen this :lol:


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

TT Ade said:


> JNmercury00 said:
> 
> 
> > EnfieldTT said:
> ...


i was thinking more like walthamstow or something, highly desirable! :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

les said:


> You miss my point :wink: I'm not getting annoyed because a business is making money out of me i'm get annoyed because a business is making money out of me for other peoples negligence and that's a big difference.


But that, as I've been trying to say, is what they are doing ALL THE TIME, not just because more people have crashed in the snow. The whole premium is based on thousands of other drivers. Always has been, always will be. This is exactly what any sane person (or insurance company) would do if they were asked to calculate the risks of people crashing. They would be mad to look at individual histories and take them as a sign of future safety. They would get the statistics of lots of crashes and look for patterns and influencing variables. Relying on data from one individual would be like working out the odds of the 10th coin tosses based purely on the observational data from the previous 9. The observer would, understandably, believe there was a higher chance of it being heads.



les said:


> National average is 2 crashes in over 25 years is it? Not what I have been led to believe because that's what it would mean in reality not some fiction law possibility.


I closed the page and don't know where I read it now, but that statistic was for what they called 'serious accidents'. This was defined as an accident involving injury to someone, or damage to property that was serious enough to involve the police. It didn't cover scrapes and dents.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Oh, and Les, if we followed your logic regarding personal history to its conclusion, then you'd also be claiming that living in an area notorious for car crime shouldn't put your premium up as long as your car hasn't been nicked from there in the last 25 years.


----------



## EnfieldTT (Jun 7, 2008)

JNmercury00 said:


> EnfieldTT said:
> 
> 
> > So much of insurance is about the area you live in. Fortunately my parents live in a very exclusive part of North London, and when I put their address down as my residence, it drop the quote by between 40-50%
> ...


hadley wood


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

TT Ade said:


> JNmercury00 said:
> 
> 
> > EnfieldTT said:
> ...


LOL is a much bandied about acronym but on this occasion I actually did.

Charlie


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Spandex said:


> Oh, and Les, if we followed your logic regarding personal history to its conclusion, then you'd also be claiming that living in an area notorious for car crime shouldn't put your premium up as long as your car hasn't been nicked from there in the last 25 years.


 At the end of the day you appear to be happy with paying for all the idiots who crash or can't drive, fair enough you accept that and how its all calculated. Well no surprise I'm not and I think I am probably in the majority thinking those of us who are careful drivers have to fork out for those who are not. Insurance companies are falling over themselves for me to take my insurance out with them simply because I am a low risk IMO. Now if I was unfortunate to have a few accidents as you say then it might be a different story. They know a good thing (as in low risk)when they see it I know that. :wink:


----------



## EnfieldTT (Jun 7, 2008)

JNmercury00 said:


> TT Ade said:
> 
> 
> > JNmercury00 said:
> ...


buck house is in central london, walthamstow is east london.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

les said:


> At the end of the day you appear to be happy with paying for all the idiots who crash or can't drive, fair enough you accept that and how its all calculated. Well no surprise I'm not and I think I am probably in the majority thinking those of us who are careful drivers have to fork out for those who are not. Insurance companies are falling over themselves for me to take my insurance out with them simply because I am a low risk IMO. Now if I was unfortunate to have a few accidents as you say then it might be a different story. They know a good thing (as in low risk)when they see it I know that. :wink:


As I said in my first post in this thread, I'm not happy about paying for those idiots, but I place the blame firmly on the idiots. They caused this. The insurance companies just did what any company would do in this situation.

Personally, I accept that companies are there to make money, not to be nice or fair to me. I expect nothing from them and I'm not disappointed when they act like a company, not a person. I am more annoyed by individuals who cause me grief through their own selfishness or stupidity.


----------



## gbjules (Nov 30, 2009)

sorry Les but a driver who hasn't had a crash in 25 years is statistically more likely to have an accident
than someone accident free for 10 years. A few years ago one of the countries highest qualified drivers
was killed when it appears he had adjusted the radio! Add in proffesion/position and stress levels of a
40 something, marital status, type of car, mileage travelled(25k plus a year 500% increase alone)and that
older drivers tend to be over confident whilst reactions are slower then think again.


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

huh? you said north east.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

gbjules said:


> sorry Les but a driver who hasn't had a crash in 25 years is statistically more likely to have an accident
> than someone accident free for 10 years. A few years ago one of the countries highest qualified drivers
> was killed when it appears he had adjusted the radio! Add in proffesion/position and stress levels of a
> 40 something, marital status, type of car, mileage travelled(25k plus a year 500% increase alone)and that
> older drivers tend to be over confident whilst reactions are slower then think again.


 No need to be sorry you not making any money out of me as far as I know. BTW i'm not a statistic nor can I be compared with any other driver as I am an individual with my own driving skills. I'm not a statistic based on others but I accept that's what the insurance companies do to make money out of me. That's why they are falling over themselves to sign me up as I have said and it's about time the law was changed to prevent them from over charging me for others but that won't happen either.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

dzTT said:


> insurance prices are too high.


Whenever I get my annual quote I swear and say the same thing. 
But then take a deep breath and ask yourself how would you decide what level isn't too high, and is "fair"? (other than through competition between insurers). And why is it as high as it is?

Are insurance companies making much higher profit margins than other businesses, or than in the past? Are they operating a cartel? (Not that I'm aware of - I suspect the competition authorities would have noticed by now if it was true)
Are there too many uninsured drivers? (Yes. Any is too many in my book. Is it really that hard to track them down?)
Are prices higher because repair costs are higher? (No idea, but my gut feeling is yes, a lot of this is down to rip-off garages, windscreen repairers and so on who see pound signs when they know it's an insurance job).
Are there more crashes than there used to be? (Again, no idea, but the standard of some driving is frightening).
etc.

So if you think they are too high, how would you lower them?


----------



## gbjules (Nov 30, 2009)

A simple solution would be to GPS track all cars.All cars not emitting a signal could then be assumed to be illegal
as the tracker could be fitted at point of M.O.T. Cars registered would then tell the system how to calculate usage, location etc creating a permanant history that could follow the car through all future owners. How many people lie about where they park, when they drive and all the other untruths when applying for insurance. It would sort out any speeding
disputes at the same time.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

gbjules said:


> A simple solution would be to GPS track all cars.All cars not emitting a signal could then be assumed to be illegal
> as the tracker could be fitted at point of M.O.T. Cars registered would then tell the system how to calculate usage, location etc creating a permanant history that could follow the car through all future owners. How many people lie about where they park, when they drive and all the other untruths when applying for insurance. It would sort out any speeding
> disputes at the same time.


GPS doesn't emit a signal (the satellites do, but not the receivers). 
But yes, you could link GPS to a mobile phone network signal to track cars. Already proposed I think.
However I think I'd rather pay more in insurance if that's the price to avoid having my every movement on some database somewhere or being unable to ever break any speed limit. /cough/, not that I ever do, /cough/


----------



## gbjules (Nov 30, 2009)

sorry, I'm a bit of a technical imbecile, I just remembered on my previous 996 the tracker company
were always on the phone asking me if I knew its location had changed when trailered between dealership/
bodyshop/tuners and was amazed all cars were not required to have a tracker when it could save so much hassle 
for insurers.


----------



## EnfieldTT (Jun 7, 2008)

JNmercury00 said:


> huh? you said north east.


no i didn't fella


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

EnfieldTT said:


> JNmercury00 said:
> 
> 
> > huh? you said north east.
> ...


you did say north though!! haha!


----------



## Marco34 (Apr 5, 2009)

TT Ade said:


> My daughter had an accident this morning. She was in the inside lane on the M6 one exit short of Haydock (work) when a wagon pulled in from the centre lane and caught the front of her car spinning her out of her lane and across the motorway where she ended up in the outside lane. How nothing else hit her I will never know! Thankfully apart from a painful back, neck and arm she is fine, she has been very, very lucky and for that I am eternally thankful. A near tragedy caused by a driver just not paying attention.
> 
> We all need to be more aware in these conditions and not only aware of what we are doing but also the lunatics driving around us. You all be safe, good drving.


That is lucky and good to hear she is alright. I have to use that stretch of motorway alot and it is always very congested and everyone is in a rush. I often leave for Manchester at 6:20am just to avoid as much traffic as possible. It's a nightmare. There seems to be an ever increasing amount of lorrys on the road these days!


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

gbjules said:


> sorry, I'm a bit of a technical imbecile, I just remembered on my previous 996 the tracker company
> were always on the phone asking me if I knew its location had changed when trailered between dealership/
> bodyshop/tuners and was amazed all cars were not required to have a tracker when it could save so much hassle
> for insurers.


Yes, plenty of tracking companies out there, and many now do use a combination of GPS (to determine location) and a mobile phone network connection (to send the info back to the tracking company). 
[& having reread my last post, sorry, when I said "already proposed", that wasn't very clear - the tracking technology obviously does already exist, and is used, but you have to choose to subscribe. The proposed bit is that it would become compulsory].


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

SAJ77 said:


> And don't forget you are paying extra to cover the 'uninsured' :twisted:


You won't complain when an uninsured driver rams your lovely car though. Of course, you could claim on your own policy, but that would blow away your excess and no-claims bonus. Otherwise, you claim against the pot.



shell said:


> I cant even find an insurance company who will insure me below 1k at the min


I take it you've tried Noel Dazely and Chris Knott? They both offer good deals, I'm over 25 now and pay a lot less with through these guys.



dzTT said:


> it would be cheaper for me to run around uninsured and if anythin happened use that money i saved form insurance into gettin whatever happened fixed...


It's not just about fixing your car. The minimum insurance is "Third Party", which covers the third party in an accident, not your own car. If you are uninsured in a banger which you're quite happy to replace, and then drive into a classic Ferrari or something (I say classic, as they are worth a lot, and will bend and break easily so lots of damage) - which results in permanently disabling the driver, and also takes out the front of somebody's house or such. How are you going to pay for that? You're insurance company, for the small sum of £xyz will pay out for the repairs or replacement of everything that has been damaged, and compensate the permanently injured driver for their loss of ability.

Driving without insurance is incredibly inconsiderate and should be viewed by society as the same as any other anti-social inconsiderate crime. The impact an uninsured driver can, and often has is massive.



Spandex said:


> I'm not happy about paying for those idiots, but I place the blame firmly on the idiots.


I agree entirely with that sentiment.



les said:


> BTW i'm not a statistic nor can I be compared with any other driver as I am an individual with my own driving skills. I'm not a statistic based on others


Yeah you are, yes you can, and to think otherwise is naive.

Statistics are king in the world of business, it's the only cost effective way of doing things. Until we get a grading system for our driving skills there is no way an insurance company is going to assess your individual abilities. They also don't care about your skillz. On average a person with your style of car, of your age, with your experience and track history of accidents in your location will mean they'll have to pay out X annually for you, so you should pay Y (plus a bit for profit) to cover _risk_ of paying out X.



gbjules said:


> A simple solution would be to GPS track all cars.
> It would sort out any speedingdisputes at the same time.


I can't find the article on it now, but here is one similar:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7323407.stm

The reason why we pay a lot more for insurance these days are:
* There are more accidents these days (as there is more traffic on the road)
* We are Americanising our culture and feel it's acceptable to claim for personal injury (driving is dangerous and risky we used to accept this), which costs the industry massively - and I'm not talking about the times when serious injury has been caused, it's all the "ooo my neck, it stopped me working comfortably for a day".
* More people driving about who think it's acceptable to drive without insurance

And in my unfounded view that the general abilities of drivers have been deteriorating and tests becoming less useful.


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

gbjules said:


> sorry Les but a driver who hasn't had a crash in 25 years is statistically more likely to have an accident
> than someone accident free for 10 years. A few years ago one of the countries highest qualified drivers
> was killed when it appears he had adjusted the radio! Add in proffesion/position and stress levels of a
> 40 something, marital status, type of car, mileage travelled(25k plus a year 500% increase alone)and that
> older drivers tend to be over confident whilst reactions are slower then think again.


Well incurance companies give you big discounts for being married and have kids. Try it, nearly reduced mine in half (Tho only 22)


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Dash said:


> les said:
> 
> 
> > BTW i'm not a statistic nor can I be compared with any other driver as I am an individual with my own driving skills. I'm not a statistic based on others
> ...


Shame you only clipped that bit to justify and distort what I said why didn't you quote the bit after. " I'm not a statistic based on others but *I accept that's what the insurance companies do to make money out of me*." BTW your wrong wrong wrong i'm not a statistic i'm whats called a human being, flesh and blood so don't try to tell me otherwise. Nor am I a computer or a spread sheet or whatever. You can be one if you like it's a free country .... sometimes.

To Quote you "The reason why we pay a lot more for insurance these days are:
* There are more accidents these days (as there is more traffic on the road)"

Well there are a lot more people paying insurance to offset the number on the road and as far as I am aware accidents per number of cars on the road have actually gone down not up.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

les said:


> BTW your wrong wrong wrong i'm not a statistic i'm whats called a human being, flesh and blood so don't try to tell me otherwise.


That's my point, you may think you are, and insist that you are, but not to them. And no matter how much you protest that you are an individual - when you are quoted for an insurance, you are just a statistic. I don't any insurance company that would quote you based on you as an individual - maybe a more tailored statistic, but still a statistic. Brokers will give you the illusion of individuals, but they don't provide the insurance.



les said:


> as far as I am aware accidents per number of cars on the road have actually gone down not up.


Ok, forget that point then


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Dash said:


> les said:
> 
> 
> > BTW your wrong wrong wrong i'm not a statistic i'm whats called a human being, flesh and blood so don't try to tell me otherwise.
> ...


" I'm not a statistic based on others but I accept that's what the insurance companies do to make money out of me."


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

les said:


> " I'm not a statistic based on others but I accept that's what the insurance companies do to make money out of me."


The insurance company is not looking at you as an individual and saying to themselves (whilst cackling evilly), "He's obviously a safe driver, but if we use the magic statistics we can make more money out of him"... They use statistics because it is the most reliable way of predicting risk. To make predictions, you have to have models and a model based on one person (even if that model is only ever applied to that one person) isn't a reliable one. Maybe your 25 years of no accidents is because you never drove anywhere until now... Maybe you're a terrible driver, but you've just been damn lucky... How are they to know??

Although, thinking about what you said has made me realise you're right about one thing... One man *can't* be a reliable statistic. You're actually a very tiny number _contributing_ to a statistic. :wink:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

JNmercury00 said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > My fully comprehensive, all singing and dancing, everything declared, was £495 last year to the 31st December 2009. This year to 31 December 2010 it is £441. Ive been with Noel Dazely for a couple of years.
> ...


Thanks for the reminder :lol: :lol:

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

YELLOW_TT said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > My fully comprehensive, all singing and dancing, everything declared, was £495 last year to the 31st December 2009. This year to 31 December 2010 it is £441. Ive been with Noel Dazely for a couple of years.
> ...


Andy, Saga only caters for amusingly eccentric men up to age 69 years  Noel caters for all ages :lol:

Joe


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

TTCool said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > TTCool said:
> ...


So you are a couple of years to old for Saga Joe is that what you are saying :wink:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

les said:


> JNmercury00 said:
> 
> 
> > TTCool said:
> ...


Now come on Les, I'd put my shirt on you having overlooked one of your mods, you know, the one you dare not talk about. :lol:

I can't remember doing a coat hanger mod. Do you mean the seat belt holder and repair, which doubles up as a hook to hang a takeaway on? :roll:

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

"So you are a couple of years to old for Saga Joe is that what you are saying" :wink:

Shush Andy, I didn't declare that to the TTOC. I might lose my membership now. Careless talk and all that :roll:

Joe


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

TTCool said:


> "So you are a couple of years to old for Saga Joe is that what you are saying" :wink:
> 
> Shush Andy, I didn't declare that to the TTOC. I might lose my membership now. Careless talk and all that :roll:
> 
> Joe


I heard that :wink:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

wallsendmag said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > "So you are a couple of years to old for Saga Joe is that what you are saying" :wink:
> ...


You wouldn't though, would you? 

Joe


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

TTCool said:


> wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > TTCool said:
> ...


Course not Joe


----------



## SAJ77 (Nov 16, 2008)

Dash said:


> SAJ77 said:
> 
> 
> > And don't forget you are paying extra to cover the 'uninsured' :twisted:
> ...


I'm not complaining, well not about the insurance companies.....my issue is with the uninsured :twisted:

Saj


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Just so predictable even before the latest freeze and resulting insurance claims. :? The problem is we don't have a choice we have to have insurance like it or not but as the article hints at there is likely to be a growing trend in uninsured motorists on our roads. :x

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100124/tuk ... dbed5.html


----------

