Guigsy Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 what i find irritating is that because i live in the centre of town (NN1) it is classed as a high risk area. However on my street ive never seen a car broken into. my supe sits parked on the street outside my house. people walking past it every day. at the bottom of my road is a street with a load of pubs on it. yet ive never had a drunk person touch my car. Yes it bumps the price of my premium up higely. Yes i understand why insurance companes do it. but its annoying as hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden1989 Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 That IS alot, may i ask is there alot of car crime in your area? I live in one of the nicest places in Hampshire (imo), there 5 houses within 2 miles OK if your mum is the main user of the car, not OK if you are. http://www.insurancedaily.co.uk/2007/11/01/illegal-fronting-in-car-insurance-a-growing-problem/ Im well aware what the rules and regs are with regards to insurance, we have 6 cars in the household so at frequent points we drive each others We didnt even get a chance to insure the supra's with skyinsurance, as they wont insure me under 21 which is a shame, so its back to adrian flux! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I know that quite a few try to buy newish cars with some tax/mot to help cover them up. Those people must surely be going about it in the wrong way. What they save on not paying for car insurance, they must spend on buying a newish car in the first place. I'm surprised at the number of students in full-time education who also own cars. Why would they need a car? Expensive insurance for youngsters is not a new thing. Ten years ago, I paid £1300 to insure an MG Metro worth £500. If they cannot afford the insurance, they shouldn't be driving. Too right. If you (or your parents etc if they're willing to cough up) can't afford the insurance, either get a cheaper car to insure or don't own a car at all. I bought my first car when I was about 22. A lot of young people now think having a car is some kind of right. Think again. It can be tricky to get around without a car. I grew up in a village a few miles from any town which had anything resembling a nightlife, but I still managed it. I think public transport has got better over the last 15 years (not necessarily cheaper, but more regular and more reliable). Compared to back then, today's buses and trains are a shining beacon of excellence. Is insurance discriminatory? Saying that because I'm a young, male driver, I need to pay more for insurance as I'm more likely to claim... Even though I never did. I always thought that, and amazed no-one has challenged it in the courts. I understand statistically they may cause more accidents but how they can issue a blanket policy and discriminate based on sex and age is surely unfair. You can't make stastical reference to performance to influence wages, criminal law and sports/athlete selection. So why are insurers allowed to do it? Interesting posts. If it were ever successfully challenged (and I doubt it ever will be), it would throw the whole insurance pricing model into turmoil. People could say, "you can't charge me a higher premium just because I drive a fast car/am 17 years old/have 2 glass eyes". The courts would view that as playing the Discrimination Card for the sake of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethr Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Yep very true, When I first started driving I looked at getting a pre 2000 reg 1.25 Fiesta, bog standard etc and on my own insurance it was £1900 and that was after i had passed my test. What 17yr old can realistically afford that? Especially when most are being pushed into further education. Thankfully I'm on my mum's insurance, and gained her 10yrs no claims too. Which is great as I can now afford to have a nicer, faster car without paying through the nose for it, just because idiotic losers that are in my age bracket like to smash their car up every week. OK if your mum is the main user of the car, not OK if you are. http://www.insurancedaily.co.uk/2007/11/01/illegal-fronting-in-car-insurance-a-growing-problem/ I'm well aware what the rules and regs are with regards to insurance, we have 6 cars in the household so at frequent points we drive each other's. Not everybody seems to know the rules. Apparently some insurance companies now base the premium on the highest risk even if that's a legitimate "named driver". They definitely seem to be trying to clamp down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 All 17 - 25 year olds should be only allowed to drive between the hours of 5am-6.30am and 7pm-8pm in cars of 1.2L or below. Problem solved. If you are offended - good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 However, instead of the excuses for not having insurance (Although I don't like the way the Ins companies are able to compete between themselves for prices using statistics that aren't open to scrutiny by the average Joe, like low risk places to live, or their stats on alarms, amount put on for endorsements etc - Because it's 'the law' you have to purchace one of their products), how about clamping down on the uninsured drivers, so then we can see the benefits of the 'You're also paying for uninsured' drivers claims... Like my idea, and in no way affiliated to the ID card b0||oc| Of course it would require a fair bit of ££ to set up, but the oil companies can't say they're too broke to implement the infrastructure, most likely face recognition software as the pump attendant may not be able to see clearly enough at night, but we're always being told what a massive cost uninsured drivers are, so it's a case of invest to save money... And I know there are still lots of loopholes in my idea, but surely less than the current situation?... (Oh, and foriegn drivers have to pick up a temporary card at their point of entry into the UK, valid for the period of their stay, after showing the necessary documents of course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guigsy Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 All 17 - 25 year olds should be only allowed to drive between the hours of 5am-6.30am and 7pm-8pm in cars of 1.2L or below. Problem solved. If you are offended - good. lol so useless for people who work 9 - 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guigsy Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 However, instead of the excuses for not having insurance (Although I don't like the way the Ins companies are able to compete between themselves for prices using statistics that aren't open to scrutiny by the average Joe, like low risk places to live, or their stats on alarms, amount put on for endorsements etc - Because it's 'the law' you have to purchace one of their products), how about clamping down on the uninsured drivers, so then we can see the benefits of the 'You're also paying for uninsured' drivers claims... Like my idea, and in no way affiliated to the ID card b0||oc| Of course it would require a fair bit of ££ to set up, but the oil companies can't say they're too broke to implement the infrastructure, most likely face recognition software as the pump attendant may not be able to see clearly enough at night, but we're always being told what a massive cost uninsured drivers are, so it's a case of invest to save money... And I know there are still lots of loopholes in my idea, but surely less than the current situation?... (Oh, and foriegn drivers have to pick up a temporary card at their point of entry into the UK, valid for the period of their stay, after showing the necessary documents of course) very good idea. all you would need is the drivers license to have a chip in it and when you get insurance you send off the card and it gets written with whatever data. same with the mot and tax. could even be done at the local post office. pop in with the paperwork, they take your drivers licence card. whip it in the machine . press some buttons and done in a few mins. it would be far superior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 lol so useless for people who work 9 - 5 Not if you're over 25. The youngsters need to get in to bed at a damn decent time, say 9.45pm - get up bright and early (4am) go to work and at least they'll arrive early and free up the roads for us proper drivers. It's clearly fool-proof. And by staying late, doing some over time, they can save sensibly for a nicer car. Also there would be less time for them (da yoof) turning in to drunken thugs in the pubs etc...It's fool-proof, it really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter richards Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 also i think the fines are so pathetic , you can see why someone would take the chance , ok if they get caught the points will add up ,if they have a license , but either way its cheaper for them to pay the fine , and the longer they go without getting pulled the more they save for when they eventually do . law is again to soft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 How about a chip in the car's ECU which keeps records of tax, M.O.T an insurance details, which are electronically updated. This would also work as a reminder, so everytime you use the car, you get a reminder of when anything is due for renewal (on a screen in the dash) If the car is lacking tax, insurance or m.o.t, then an imobiliser like device simply prevents the engine from starting and the car cannot be used. Not perfect as some systems would need to change or be updated, but in general, this seems like the most up-to-date technological advancement in keeping track of who should and shouldn't be on the road. Maybe they could start putting these in from the factory on new cars, and eventually integrate it into other cars (in order to pass an m.o.t they are a requirement). I dunno, I'm just toying with ideas here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erol_h Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Ive seen some guy in his early 20's he doesnt even have a license and is driving a brabus smart car that he brought brand new and what makes me laugh is he rented out a new ferrari california how the hell does he do that without a license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter richards Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 i know a few peeps who havnt got licenses , but each year they pay the insurance , which if an accident did occur would be void . so really the insurance companies should make you prove that you at least have one not just ask how long have you held a license for , Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 also i think the fines are so pathetic , you can see why someone would take the chance , ok if they get caught the points will add up ,if they have a license , but either way its cheaper for them to pay the fine , and the longer they go without getting pulled the more they save for when they eventually do . law is again to soft. I think with the increase in the ANPR cameras (The numberplate reading ones) (And it's an assumption they're on the increase, I'm going off the usual TV programs), they'll soon be the norm, and with 6 points a time, it won't be long to ban someone if they're a regular offender... TBH - I'll admit I've driven without insurance in the past (Twice), once was about 9 years ago when I was roadtesting a car, thought it was OK to take the gamble as we were on country lanes in the middle of nowhere, I was pulled over, 1 Month Ban, and a £250 fine. (I won't go into the details of the other one as that involved a lenghty argument as I'd recieved dodgy info from the police) - So I'm in no way an angel, but I think the way some people regularly ignore that law is pure ignorance and selfishness... And I don't want ANPR to become the standard for enforcing this, I'm not anti-surveillance, but I'd be concerned about what other details they decide to record (ie. A network of static ANPR cameras on our road network that can store each cars movements, no thanks) Which is why I think verification at the point of fuelling is the way forward, it would also mean that stolen cars would only have a limited lifespan as they wouldn't be able to refill them (I think I'll have to introduce a 'If someone breaks into your house, do what you want to them' bill - To combat them trying to get your license, but I'm sure people will support that too?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 (I think I'll have to introduce a 'If someone breaks into your house, do what you want to them' bill - To combat them trying to get your license, but I'm sure people will support that too?) In the eyes of the law, you should give them your licence, be polite and make sure you don't do anything the criminal will be able to sue you for! God forbid you try and defend yourself or your property! Stright to prison with you bloody vigilantes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 The latest from the BBC suggests "close to" 2,000,000 people are uninsured: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8272054.stm I wonder why? The MIB is launching a campaign to warn drivers not to let their cover lapse. The group warned that people driving without insurance could have their vehicle seized and would be given a minimum of six penalty points on their licence and incur a £200 fine. Mmm... so I buy a £200 car, I don't tax, insure or MOT it, I don't have a license anyway because I'm that type of person... I get caught, I'm about £500 worse off and have some points on a license I don't have. Much cheaper than paying £200 tax, £1000 insurance, £60 for an MOT and the cost of driving lessons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 The latest from the BBC suggests "close to" 2,000,000 people are uninsured: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8272054.stm I wonder why? Mmm... so I buy a £200 car, I don't tax, insure or MOT it, I don't have a license anyway because I'm that type of person... I get caught, I'm about £500 worse off and have some points on a license I don't have. Much cheaper than paying £200 tax, £1000 insurance, £60 for an MOT and the cost of driving lessons. Problem is that even if they increased the fine to £10,000 if they caught someone could they afford to pay it in any event? I suspect not. I also thought they did things like crush the car etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 They should give out the £200 fine & points for those who have not renewed their insurance within a fortnight, after that, they should just impound & crush the car, no arguments. Same goes for MOT's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Problem is that even if they increased the fine to £10,000 if they caught someone could they afford to pay it in any event? I suspect not. I also thought they did things like crush the car etc. I dont think the fine needs to be anything like that. Probably nearer, or a tad more than if they'd gone out and got all the things to make them legal road users in the first place. So, if it would cost £2000 to get them on the road legally, then maybe the fine should be 110% of that to make them realise that it's cheaper to be legal, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JS2004 Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I have read things on other forums about instances where people have had to claim on insurance because their perfectly legally parked car was reversed into etc - and this has meant their insurance and renewal goes up because they are seen as more at risk (even though its not the drivers fault at all). So im thinking about uninsured drivers (bit angry that the figure is that high especially when my insurance equates to a full 2 months wages). If an *insured* driver did damage, such as taking out your wing mirror, and you settled this without getting insurance involved it wont make your insurance go up - right? Same situation as above, settling cost to repair without going through insurance, but now add in an *uninsured driver*. If you report that uninsured driver, im assuming your insurance gets wind of it - and then will increase because of this right (seen more at risk)? somehow that doesnt seem fair at all.. Maybe some uninsured drivers are still on the roads because normal insured drivers are too afraid of the financial impact on their premiums for admitting through no fault of their own an uninsured driver went into them? (Correct me if im wrong on the above please.. im just throwing random thoughts out there!) I only thought of that type of situation because im roaming around the boards trying to gather information on what to do if your hit by another driver - such as taking pictures there and then, what details to get from them, what details to get from witnesses etc.. Apologies if my typing sucks but its late Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinboy Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I have read things on other forums about instances where people have had to claim on insurance because their perfectly legally parked car was reversed into etc - and this has meant their insurance and renewal goes up because they are seen as more at risk (even though its not the drivers fault at all). So im thinking about uninsured drivers (bit angry that the figure is that high especially when my insurance equates to a full 2 months wages). If an *insured* driver did damage, such as taking out your wing mirror, and you settled this without getting insurance involved it wont make your insurance go up - right? Same situation as above, settling cost to repair without going through insurance, but now add in an *uninsured driver*. If you report that uninsured driver, im assuming your insurance gets wind of it - and then will increase because of this right (seen more at risk)? somehow that doesnt seem fair at all.. Maybe some uninsured drivers are still on the roads because normal insured drivers are too afraid of the financial impact on their premiums for admitting through no fault of their own an uninsured driver went into them? (Correct me if im wrong on the above please.. im just throwing random thoughts out there!) I only thought of that type of situation because im roaming around the boards trying to gather information on what to do if your hit by another driver - such as taking pictures there and then, what details to get from them, what details to get from witnesses etc.. Apologies if my typing sucks but its late Probably no comfort to you but insurance companies are unlikely to change the business model that has worked so well for them for hundreds of years. It's a legal requirement - your buyer power is limited. They (as in the entire insurance industry) dictate EVERYTHING. Price, terms etc. I hate it but what can we do? I have finally received reimbursement from my insurers for £2000 i paid out of my own pocket. 18 months after the event. It's probably cost me the same in wasted time chasing and chasing and chasing them. Letters, phone calls yada yada Something has to change. Surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I live in one of the nicest places in Hampshire (imo), there 5 houses within 2 miles I don't believe anywhere in Hampshire isn't within 2 miles of more than 5 houses. i know a few peeps who havnt got licenses , but each year they pay the insurance , which if an accident did occur would be void. No, it wouldn't be void. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I suspect most people would avoid the area anyway but if you are tempted to have a trip out to the BD3 area of Bradford make sure you are well insured because hardly anyone else will be... http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/district/district_bradford/4647199.Half_of_vehicles_in_BD3_uninsured/ And the same story from the Mail: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1215828/Revealed-The-uninsured-captital-Britain-half-motorists-cover.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.