Discussion:
ANPR, SORN & insurance premiums.
(too old to reply)
Ian Field
2011-10-29 17:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.

However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!

Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
Mark Skid
2011-10-29 17:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
just charge more for petrol.....
Ian Field
2011-10-29 17:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
just charge more for petrol.....


And damage the economy even more?!

Its the insco's fault - bring them to heel.
CheeseySock
2011-10-29 18:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Skid
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts
people off the road and damages the economy.
just charge more for petrol.....
And damage the economy even more?!
Its the insco's fault - bring them to heel.
insurance is a crucial link in the rip-off chain... money go round...

two separate attacks twin towers... (one wasnt it? 9/11?)

and other assorted piss-takers... apparently a regular foreigners scam...
well they just taking revenge on whitey eh... the rigged accident game,
plus blairoh's and politico co.'s ambulance chasers and other referrals
profiteers....

I got stiffed big time on last car insurance, wish I knew what factor
precisely put the premium up... old car? employment status? area? perhaps
some claimant in some minor scrape taking the piss?
Ian Field
2011-10-29 21:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by Mark Skid
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts
people off the road and damages the economy.
just charge more for petrol.....
And damage the economy even more?!
Its the insco's fault - bring them to heel.
insurance is a crucial link in the rip-off chain... money go round...
two separate attacks twin towers... (one wasnt it? 9/11?)
and other assorted piss-takers... apparently a regular foreigners scam...
well they just taking revenge on whitey eh... the rigged accident game,
plus blairoh's and politico co.'s ambulance chasers and other referrals
profiteers....
With the insco's themselves passing potential claimants details to the
ambulance chasers, its sort of like the insco's shooting themselves in the
foot - except its us that feel the pain!
AlanG
2011-10-30 09:26:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:23:13 GMT, CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by Mark Skid
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts
people off the road and damages the economy.
just charge more for petrol.....
And damage the economy even more?!
Its the insco's fault - bring them to heel.
insurance is a crucial link in the rip-off chain... money go round...
two separate attacks twin towers... (one wasnt it? 9/11?)
and other assorted piss-takers... apparently a regular foreigners scam...
well they just taking revenge on whitey eh... the rigged accident game,
plus blairoh's and politico co.'s ambulance chasers and other referrals
profiteers....
I got stiffed big time on last car insurance, wish I knew what factor
precisely put the premium up... old car? employment status? area? perhaps
some claimant in some minor scrape taking the piss?
Greed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/columnists/mike-rutherford/8848603/Mr-Money-Car-insurance-mayhem.html
Zapp Brannigan
2011-10-29 18:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the
piss. There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people
off the road and damages the economy.
Ordinary competition will do that - they constantly compare and undercut
each other, and unless you're alleging a very well-organised cartel there is
no way that they can inflate their prices.
Ian Field
2011-10-29 21:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zapp Brannigan
Post by Ian Field
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the
piss. There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts
people off the road and damages the economy.
Ordinary competition will do that - they constantly compare and undercut
each other, and unless you're alleging a very well-organised cartel there
is no way that they can inflate their prices.
They've got us by tha balls even more than before and they're milking it for
ever last penny.

They no longer need to compete/undercut each other now there's no escape.
Zapp Brannigan
2011-10-29 22:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
They've got us by tha balls even more than before and they're milking it
for ever last penny.
Why? Motor insurance has always been compulsory for most drivers.
Post by Ian Field
They no longer need to compete/undercut each other now there's no escape.
That's nonsense. You might as well say that supermarkets don't compete
because we all need groceries.
JNugent
2011-10-29 19:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
I don't follow your argument.

We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully comp, etc,
etc).

Are we in fact being ripped off?
Ian Field
2011-10-29 21:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
I don't follow your argument.
We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully comp,
etc, etc).
Are we in fact being ripped off?
You seem to be one of a very small minority not complaining about soaring
premiums.
JNugent
2011-10-29 22:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
I don't follow your argument.
We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully comp,
etc, etc).
Are we in fact being ripped off?
You seem to be one of a very small minority not complaining about soaring
premiums.
How much are they asking from you, then?
Ian Field
2011-10-29 22:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
I don't follow your argument.
We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully comp,
etc, etc).
Are we in fact being ripped off?
You seem to be one of a very small minority not complaining about soaring
premiums.
How much are they asking from you, then?
Year before last it was £130 for 572cc motorcycle, last year I had to haggle
like crazy to get it under £140 - since Insurance SORN backed up by ANPR its
estimated all motor insurance is up by average 40%.
JNugent
2011-10-29 22:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
I don't follow your argument.
We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully comp,
etc, etc).
Are we in fact being ripped off?
You seem to be one of a very small minority not complaining about soaring
premiums.
How much are they asking from you, then?
Year before last it was £130 for 572cc motorcycle, last year I had to haggle
like crazy to get it under £140 - since Insurance SORN backed up by ANPR its
estimated all motor insurance is up by average 40%.
And?
Zapp Brannigan
2011-10-30 00:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Year before last it was £130 for 572cc motorcycle, last year I had to
haggle like crazy to get it under £140 - since Insurance SORN backed up by
ANPR its estimated all motor insurance is up by average 40%.
Estimated by whom?
Alex Heney
2011-10-30 20:57:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:31:47 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
I don't follow your argument.
We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully comp,
etc, etc).
Are we in fact being ripped off?
You seem to be one of a very small minority not complaining about soaring
premiums.
How much are they asking from you, then?
Year before last it was £130 for 572cc motorcycle, last year I had to haggle
like crazy to get it under £140 - since Insurance SORN backed up by ANPR its
estimated all motor insurance is up by average 40%.
Given SORN for insurance has only been in place a few months, whoever
"estimated" that had no basis on which to make an estimate, so it was
actually a pure guess.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Not many people realize just how well known I am.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Ian Field
2011-10-30 21:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:31:47 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take
the
piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people
off
the
road and damages the economy.
I don't follow your argument.
We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully comp,
etc, etc).
Are we in fact being ripped off?
You seem to be one of a very small minority not complaining about soaring
premiums.
How much are they asking from you, then?
Year before last it was £130 for 572cc motorcycle, last year I had to haggle
like crazy to get it under £140 - since Insurance SORN backed up by ANPR its
estimated all motor insurance is up by average 40%.
Given SORN for insurance has only been in place a few months, whoever
"estimated" that had no basis on which to make an estimate, so it was
actually a pure guess.
Of course the public information adverts that started a long while back
meant no one had a clue it was coming.

Not to mention the few years no one noticed that the insco's share a
database of insured vehicles that allow plod to sieze any that ANPR flags up
as not having any.
Alex Heney
2011-10-31 21:25:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:09:13 -0000, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:31:47 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take
the
piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people
off
the
road and damages the economy.
I don't follow your argument.
We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully comp,
etc, etc).
Are we in fact being ripped off?
You seem to be one of a very small minority not complaining about soaring
premiums.
How much are they asking from you, then?
Year before last it was £130 for 572cc motorcycle, last year I had to haggle
like crazy to get it under £140 - since Insurance SORN backed up by ANPR its
estimated all motor insurance is up by average 40%.
Given SORN for insurance has only been in place a few months, whoever
"estimated" that had no basis on which to make an estimate, so it was
actually a pure guess.
Of course the public information adverts that started a long while back
meant no one had a clue it was coming.
They seem to have passed most people by.

It surprised me just how many intelligent and well-read people I know
who were completely unaware of this. :(

But what relevance do you think that might have?
Post by Ian Field
Not to mention the few years no one noticed that the insco's share a
database of insured vehicles that allow plod to sieze any that ANPR flags up
as not having any.
Again, what relevance do you think that might have.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
DEFINE: De ting you get for breaking de law.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Ret.
2011-10-30 09:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
I don't follow your argument.
We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully comp,
etc, etc).
Are we in fact being ripped off?
My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many years
now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal expenses and
protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd November. I haven't
had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in preparation.

I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who have
been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already, however, I
have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly extortionate...
--
Kev

Justice? You get justice in the next world,
in this world you have the law...
William Gaddis
Rob
2011-10-30 10:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Ret. wrote:
|| On 29/10/2011 20:48, JNugent wrote:
||| On 29/10/2011 18:24, Ian Field wrote:
|||
|||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
|||| drivers is
|||| a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
|||| protection
|||| from such idiots.
|||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
|||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take
|||| the piss.
|||| There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
|||| prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it
|||| puts people off the
|||| road and damages the economy.
|||
||| I don't follow your argument.
|||
||| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully
||| comp, etc, etc).
|||
||| Are we in fact being ripped off?
|||
||
|| My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many years
|| now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal expenses and
|| protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd November. I
|| haven't
|| had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in
|| preparation.
||
|| I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who
|| have been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already,
|| however, I have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly
|| extortionate...


Hardly representative...

How would you feel if despite an impeccable driving record of 30+ years
without a single claim, accident or endorsement you were asked to pay c£600
for TPF&T on a car worth £400 driven c3000 miles per year?
Make no mistake, millions of people are being royally screwed thanks to
compulsory insurance and the sooner it gets sorted/scrapped the better - fat
chance!
--
Rob
tim....
2011-10-30 11:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
|||
|||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
|||| drivers is
|||| a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
|||| protection
|||| from such idiots.
|||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
|||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take
|||| the piss.
|||| There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
|||| prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it
|||| puts people off the
|||| road and damages the economy.
|||
||| I don't follow your argument.
|||
||| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully
||| comp, etc, etc).
|||
||| Are we in fact being ripped off?
|||
||
|| My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many years
|| now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal expenses and
|| protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd November. I
|| haven't
|| had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in
|| preparation.
||
|| I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who
|| have been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already,
|| however, I have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly
|| extortionate...
Hardly representative...
How would you feel if despite an impeccable driving record of 30+ years
without a single claim, accident or endorsement you were asked to pay
c£600 for TPF&T on a car worth £400 driven c3000 miles per year?
Make no mistake, millions of people are being royally screwed thanks to
compulsory insurance and the sooner it gets sorted/scrapped the better -
fat chance!
I'm not disputing your point about it being expensive, but what system of
"non-compulsory" insurance would work when people are allowed to drive
around in a weapon that can kill and maim people if they make a simple
mistake

tim
Rob
2011-10-30 11:50:41 UTC
Permalink
tim.... wrote:
|| "Rob" <rsvptorob-***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
|| news:***@bt.com...
||| Ret. wrote:
||||| On 29/10/2011 20:48, JNugent wrote:
|||||| On 29/10/2011 18:24, Ian Field wrote:
||||||
||||||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous
||||||| hooligan drivers is
||||||| a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
||||||| protection
||||||| from such idiots.
||||||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
||||||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY*
||||||| take the piss.
||||||| There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection
||||||| to prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high
||||||| it puts people off the
||||||| road and damages the economy.
||||||
|||||| I don't follow your argument.
||||||
|||||| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars
|||||| (fully comp, etc, etc).
||||||
|||||| Are we in fact being ripped off?
||||||
|||||
||||| My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many
||||| years now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal
||||| expenses and protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd
||||| November. I haven't
||||| had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in
||||| preparation.
|||||
||||| I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who
||||| have been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already,
||||| however, I have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly
||||| extortionate...
|||
|||
||| Hardly representative...
|||
||| How would you feel if despite an impeccable driving record of 30+
||| years without a single claim, accident or endorsement you were
||| asked to pay c£600 for TPF&T on a car worth £400 driven c3000 miles
||| per year?
||| Make no mistake, millions of people are being royally screwed
||| thanks to compulsory insurance and the sooner it gets
||| sorted/scrapped the better - fat chance!
||
|| I'm not disputing your point about it being expensive, but what
|| system of "non-compulsory" insurance would work when people are
|| allowed to drive around in a weapon that can kill and maim people if
|| they make a simple mistake

They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal minimum,
then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more to reflect the true
cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How the hell can it be right that one
person can get fully comp on a car worth thousands for a third of the price
that someone else gets for TPFT on a relatively worthless vehicle?
--
Rob
AlanG
2011-10-30 13:53:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:50:41 -0000, "Rob"
Post by Rob
||||||
||||||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous
||||||| hooligan drivers is
||||||| a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
||||||| protection
||||||| from such idiots.
||||||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
||||||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY*
||||||| take the piss.
||||||| There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection
||||||| to prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high
||||||| it puts people off the
||||||| road and damages the economy.
||||||
|||||| I don't follow your argument.
||||||
|||||| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars
|||||| (fully comp, etc, etc).
||||||
|||||| Are we in fact being ripped off?
||||||
|||||
||||| My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many
||||| years now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal
||||| expenses and protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd
||||| November. I haven't
||||| had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in
||||| preparation.
|||||
||||| I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who
||||| have been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already,
||||| however, I have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly
||||| extortionate...
|||
|||
||| Hardly representative...
|||
||| How would you feel if despite an impeccable driving record of 30+
||| years without a single claim, accident or endorsement you were
||| asked to pay c£600 for TPF&T on a car worth £400 driven c3000 miles
||| per year?
||| Make no mistake, millions of people are being royally screwed
||| thanks to compulsory insurance and the sooner it gets
||| sorted/scrapped the better - fat chance!
||
|| I'm not disputing your point about it being expensive, but what
|| system of "non-compulsory" insurance would work when people are
|| allowed to drive around in a weapon that can kill and maim people if
|| they make a simple mistake
They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal minimum,
then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more to reflect the true
cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How the hell can it be right that one
person can get fully comp on a car worth thousands for a third of the price
that someone else gets for TPFT on a relatively worthless vehicle?
How many pounds of damage could you do in a £500 ford that crashed
onto an express train?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
Rob
2011-10-30 20:11:51 UTC
Permalink
AlanG wrote:
|||
||| They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal
||| minimum, then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more to
||| reflect the true cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How the
||| hell can it be right that one person can get fully comp on a car
||| worth thousands for a third of the price that someone else gets for
||| TPFT on a relatively worthless vehicle?
||
|| How many pounds of damage could you do in a £500 ford that crashed
|| onto an express train?
||
|| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash

The same amount as someone paying a fraction of my premium. The question is
though why am I considered more likely to drive onto a railway line
depending on my postcode?
--
Rob
Ian Field
2011-10-30 20:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
|||
||| They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal
||| minimum, then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more to
||| reflect the true cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How the
||| hell can it be right that one person can get fully comp on a car
||| worth thousands for a third of the price that someone else gets for
||| TPFT on a relatively worthless vehicle?
||
|| How many pounds of damage could you do in a £500 ford that crashed
|| onto an express train?
||
|| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
The same amount as someone paying a fraction of my premium. The question
is though why am I considered more likely to drive onto a railway line
depending on my postcode?
--
Rob
They can look up on google maps whether there's a level crossing up the road
from your house.
AlanG
2011-10-31 09:30:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:11:51 -0000, "Rob"
Post by Rob
|||
||| They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal
||| minimum, then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more to
||| reflect the true cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How the
||| hell can it be right that one person can get fully comp on a car
||| worth thousands for a third of the price that someone else gets for
||| TPFT on a relatively worthless vehicle?
||
|| How many pounds of damage could you do in a £500 ford that crashed
|| onto an express train?
||
|| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
The same amount as someone paying a fraction of my premium. The question is
though why am I considered more likely to drive onto a railway line
depending on my postcode?
Your postcode probably flags up a greater risk of theft.
Rob
2011-10-31 10:49:06 UTC
Permalink
AlanG wrote:
|| On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:11:51 -0000, "Rob"
|| <rsvptorob-***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
||
||| AlanG wrote:
||||||
|||||| They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal
|||||| minimum, then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more
|||||| to reflect the true cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How
|||||| the hell can it be right that one person can get fully comp on a
|||||| car worth thousands for a third of the price that someone else
|||||| gets for TPFT on a relatively worthless vehicle?
|||||
||||| How many pounds of damage could you do in a £500 ford that crashed
||||| onto an express train?
|||||
||||| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
|||
||| The same amount as someone paying a fraction of my premium. The
||| question is though why am I considered more likely to drive onto a
||| railway line depending on my postcode?
||
|| Your postcode probably flags up a greater risk of theft.

You might have a point if I was driving something expensive but my excess is
more than the value of the car, so the insco's risk wrt losses for theft are
zero.
--
Rob
AlanG
2011-10-31 12:40:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:49:06 -0000, "Rob"
Post by Rob
|| On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:11:51 -0000, "Rob"
||
||||||
|||||| They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal
|||||| minimum, then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more
|||||| to reflect the true cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How
|||||| the hell can it be right that one person can get fully comp on a
|||||| car worth thousands for a third of the price that someone else
|||||| gets for TPFT on a relatively worthless vehicle?
|||||
||||| How many pounds of damage could you do in a £500 ford that crashed
||||| onto an express train?
|||||
||||| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
|||
||| The same amount as someone paying a fraction of my premium. The
||| question is though why am I considered more likely to drive onto a
||| railway line depending on my postcode?
||
|| Your postcode probably flags up a greater risk of theft.
You might have a point if I was driving something expensive but my excess is
more than the value of the car,
You either have a high excess or you drive a car that is potentially
dangerous
Post by Rob
so the insco's risk wrt losses for theft are
zero.
I've seen my quoted insurance rise from 120 in 2008 to 360 in 2011
Rob
2011-10-31 16:36:14 UTC
Permalink
AlanG wrote:
|| On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:49:06 -0000, "Rob"
|| <rsvptorob-***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
||
||| AlanG wrote:
||||| On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:11:51 -0000, "Rob"
||||| <rsvptorob-***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
|||||
|||||| AlanG wrote:
|||||||||
||||||||| They could for instance make only personal injury cover the
||||||||| legal minimum, then owners of expensive cars could choose to
||||||||| pay more to reflect the true cost of fixing any damage they
||||||||| suffer. How the hell can it be right that one person can get
||||||||| fully comp on a car worth thousands for a third of the price
||||||||| that someone else gets for TPFT on a relatively worthless
||||||||| vehicle?
||||||||
|||||||| How many pounds of damage could you do in a £500 ford that
|||||||| crashed onto an express train?
||||||||
|||||||| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
||||||
|||||| The same amount as someone paying a fraction of my premium. The
|||||| question is though why am I considered more likely to drive onto
|||||| a railway line depending on my postcode?
|||||
||||| Your postcode probably flags up a greater risk of theft.
|||
||| You might have a point if I was driving something expensive but my
||| excess is more than the value of the car,
||
|| You either have a high excess or you drive a car that is potentially
|| dangerous

I chose £400 excess to keep the premiums down, and 2 litre Xantia is hardly
formula 1.

||| so the insco's risk wrt losses for theft are
||| zero.
||
|| I've seen my quoted insurance rise from 120 in 2008 to 360 in 2011

£189 in 2008, this year's renewal lowest quote is £608. The only thing
different between now and then is that I've gained 3 more years driving
experience. Go figure.
--
Rob
AlanG
2011-10-31 17:45:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:36:14 -0000, "Rob"
Post by Rob
|| On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:49:06 -0000, "Rob"
||
||||| On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:11:51 -0000, "Rob"
|||||
|||||||||
||||||||| They could for instance make only personal injury cover the
||||||||| legal minimum, then owners of expensive cars could choose to
||||||||| pay more to reflect the true cost of fixing any damage they
||||||||| suffer. How the hell can it be right that one person can get
||||||||| fully comp on a car worth thousands for a third of the price
||||||||| that someone else gets for TPFT on a relatively worthless
||||||||| vehicle?
||||||||
|||||||| How many pounds of damage could you do in a £500 ford that
|||||||| crashed onto an express train?
||||||||
|||||||| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
||||||
|||||| The same amount as someone paying a fraction of my premium. The
|||||| question is though why am I considered more likely to drive onto
|||||| a railway line depending on my postcode?
|||||
||||| Your postcode probably flags up a greater risk of theft.
|||
||| You might have a point if I was driving something expensive but my
||| excess is more than the value of the car,
||
|| You either have a high excess or you drive a car that is potentially
|| dangerous
I chose £400 excess to keep the premiums down, and 2 litre Xantia is hardly
formula 1.
If the car is worth less than 400 then it's possible the ICs flag it
up as potentially dangerous. Owners of cheap cars often skimp on
servicing.
Post by Rob
||| so the insco's risk wrt losses for theft are
||| zero.
||
|| I've seen my quoted insurance rise from 120 in 2008 to 360 in 2011
£189 in 2008, this year's renewal lowest quote is £608. The only thing
different between now and then is that I've gained 3 more years driving
experience. Go figure.
Roughly treble which fits my own experience.
Except I shopped around and managed to keep it down to under 250
Ian Field
2011-10-31 17:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:49:06 -0000, "Rob"
Post by Rob
|| On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:11:51 -0000, "Rob"
||
||||||
|||||| They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal
|||||| minimum, then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more
|||||| to reflect the true cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How
|||||| the hell can it be right that one person can get fully comp on a
|||||| car worth thousands for a third of the price that someone else
|||||| gets for TPFT on a relatively worthless vehicle?
|||||
||||| How many pounds of damage could you do in a £500 ford that crashed
||||| onto an express train?
|||||
||||| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
|||
||| The same amount as someone paying a fraction of my premium. The
||| question is though why am I considered more likely to drive onto a
||| railway line depending on my postcode?
||
|| Your postcode probably flags up a greater risk of theft.
You might have a point if I was driving something expensive but my excess is
more than the value of the car,
You either have a high excess or you drive a car that is potentially
dangerous
Post by Rob
so the insco's risk wrt losses for theft are
zero.
I've seen my quoted insurance rise from 120 in 2008 to 360 in 2011
They're doing it by degrees.
JNugent
2011-10-31 17:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Post by AlanG
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:49:06 -0000, "Rob"
Post by Rob
|| On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:11:51 -0000, "Rob"
||
||||||
|||||| They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal
|||||| minimum, then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more
|||||| to reflect the true cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How
|||||| the hell can it be right that one person can get fully comp on a
|||||| car worth thousands for a third of the price that someone else
|||||| gets for TPFT on a relatively worthless vehicle?
|||||
||||| How many pounds of damage could you do in a £500 ford that crashed
||||| onto an express train?
|||||
||||| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
|||
||| The same amount as someone paying a fraction of my premium. The
||| question is though why am I considered more likely to drive onto a
||| railway line depending on my postcode?
||
|| Your postcode probably flags up a greater risk of theft.
You might have a point if I was driving something expensive but my excess is
more than the value of the car,
You either have a high excess or you drive a car that is potentially
dangerous
Post by Rob
so the insco's risk wrt losses for theft are
zero.
I've seen my quoted insurance rise from 120 in 2008 to 360 in 2011
They're doing it by degrees.
:-)
Ian Field
2011-10-30 15:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
||||||
||||||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous
||||||| hooligan drivers is
||||||| a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
||||||| protection
||||||| from such idiots.
||||||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
||||||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY*
||||||| take the piss.
||||||| There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection
||||||| to prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high
||||||| it puts people off the
||||||| road and damages the economy.
||||||
|||||| I don't follow your argument.
||||||
|||||| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars
|||||| (fully comp, etc, etc).
||||||
|||||| Are we in fact being ripped off?
||||||
|||||
||||| My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many
||||| years now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal
||||| expenses and protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd
||||| November. I haven't
||||| had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in
||||| preparation.
|||||
||||| I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who
||||| have been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already,
||||| however, I have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly
||||| extortionate...
|||
|||
||| Hardly representative...
|||
||| How would you feel if despite an impeccable driving record of 30+
||| years without a single claim, accident or endorsement you were
||| asked to pay c£600 for TPF&T on a car worth £400 driven c3000 miles
||| per year?
||| Make no mistake, millions of people are being royally screwed
||| thanks to compulsory insurance and the sooner it gets
||| sorted/scrapped the better - fat chance!
||
|| I'm not disputing your point about it being expensive, but what
|| system of "non-compulsory" insurance would work when people are
|| allowed to drive around in a weapon that can kill and maim people if
|| they make a simple mistake
They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal minimum,
then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more to reflect the true
cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How the hell can it be right that
one person can get fully comp on a car worth thousands for a third of the
price that someone else gets for TPFT on a relatively worthless vehicle?
According to BBC Watchdog; some inscos take the view that on average,
drivers who go for FC take more care of their vehicle (and other peoples)
and people who go for TPFT or TPO tend to be less particular.
Ian
2011-10-30 15:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Post by Rob
||||||
||||||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous
||||||| hooligan drivers is
||||||| a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
||||||| protection
||||||| from such idiots.
||||||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
||||||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY*
||||||| take the piss.
||||||| There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection
||||||| to prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high
||||||| it puts people off the
||||||| road and damages the economy.
||||||
|||||| I don't follow your argument.
||||||
|||||| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars
|||||| (fully comp, etc, etc).
||||||
|||||| Are we in fact being ripped off?
||||||
|||||
||||| My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many
||||| years now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal
||||| expenses and protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd
||||| November. I haven't
||||| had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in
||||| preparation.
|||||
||||| I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who
||||| have been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already,
||||| however, I have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly
||||| extortionate...
|||
|||
||| Hardly representative...
|||
||| How would you feel if despite an impeccable driving record of 30+
||| years without a single claim, accident or endorsement you were
||| asked to pay c£600 for TPF&T on a car worth £400 driven c3000 miles
||| per year?
||| Make no mistake, millions of people are being royally screwed
||| thanks to compulsory insurance and the sooner it gets
||| sorted/scrapped the better - fat chance!
||
|| I'm not disputing your point about it being expensive, but what
|| system of "non-compulsory" insurance would work when people are
|| allowed to drive around in a weapon that can kill and maim people if
|| they make a simple mistake
They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal
minimum, then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more to
reflect the true cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How the hell can
it be right that one person can get fully comp on a car worth thousands
for a third of the price that someone else gets for TPFT on a relatively
worthless vehicle?
According to BBC Watchdog; some inscos take the view that on average,
drivers who go for FC take more care of their vehicle (and other peoples)
and people who go for TPFT or TPO tend to be less particular.
A few years back I aquired a Citroen GSA,

Insco wanted a helluva lot more than for my previous vauxhall of similar
size, and this was for TPFT.

When I asked why, I was told "It's a French car, and body panels are more
expensive to replace".

But they were not insuring, on 3rd party insurance, MY body panels; merely
the body panels on anything I might hit (from a moggie minor to a
Rolls.....).

So why do inscos load premiums like this - totally unfairly, and without a
common-sense reason?

Inscos are money-grubbing bastards, second only to politicians.
Ian Field
2011-10-30 15:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian
Post by Ian Field
Post by Rob
||||||
||||||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous
||||||| hooligan drivers is
||||||| a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
||||||| protection
||||||| from such idiots.
||||||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
||||||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY*
||||||| take the piss.
||||||| There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection
||||||| to prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high
||||||| it puts people off the
||||||| road and damages the economy.
||||||
|||||| I don't follow your argument.
||||||
|||||| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars
|||||| (fully comp, etc, etc).
||||||
|||||| Are we in fact being ripped off?
||||||
|||||
||||| My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many
||||| years now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal
||||| expenses and protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd
||||| November. I haven't
||||| had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in
||||| preparation.
|||||
||||| I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who
||||| have been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already,
||||| however, I have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly
||||| extortionate...
|||
|||
||| Hardly representative...
|||
||| How would you feel if despite an impeccable driving record of 30+
||| years without a single claim, accident or endorsement you were
||| asked to pay c£600 for TPF&T on a car worth £400 driven c3000 miles
||| per year?
||| Make no mistake, millions of people are being royally screwed
||| thanks to compulsory insurance and the sooner it gets
||| sorted/scrapped the better - fat chance!
||
|| I'm not disputing your point about it being expensive, but what
|| system of "non-compulsory" insurance would work when people are
|| allowed to drive around in a weapon that can kill and maim people if
|| they make a simple mistake
They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal
minimum, then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more to
reflect the true cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How the hell can
it be right that one person can get fully comp on a car worth thousands
for a third of the price that someone else gets for TPFT on a relatively
worthless vehicle?
According to BBC Watchdog; some inscos take the view that on average,
drivers who go for FC take more care of their vehicle (and other peoples)
and people who go for TPFT or TPO tend to be less particular.
A few years back I aquired a Citroen GSA,
Insco wanted a helluva lot more than for my previous vauxhall of similar
size, and this was for TPFT.
When I asked why, I was told "It's a French car, and body panels are more
expensive to replace".
But they were not insuring, on 3rd party insurance, MY body panels; merely
the body panels on anything I might hit (from a moggie minor to a
Rolls.....).
So why do inscos load premiums like this - totally unfairly, and without a
common-sense reason?
Inscos are money-grubbing bastards, second only to politicians.
Don't you mean rail companies - who are also cashing in on people being
forced off the road?!
JNugent
2011-10-30 17:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
||||||
||||||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous
||||||| hooligan drivers is
||||||| a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
||||||| protection
||||||| from such idiots.
||||||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
||||||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY*
||||||| take the piss.
||||||| There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection
||||||| to prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high
||||||| it puts people off the
||||||| road and damages the economy.
||||||
|||||| I don't follow your argument.
||||||
|||||| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars
|||||| (fully comp, etc, etc).
||||||
|||||| Are we in fact being ripped off?
||||||
|||||
||||| My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many
||||| years now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal
||||| expenses and protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd
||||| November. I haven't
||||| had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in
||||| preparation.
|||||
||||| I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who
||||| have been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already,
||||| however, I have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly
||||| extortionate...
|||
|||
||| Hardly representative...
|||
||| How would you feel if despite an impeccable driving record of 30+
||| years without a single claim, accident or endorsement you were
||| asked to pay c£600 for TPF&T on a car worth £400 driven c3000 miles
||| per year?
||| Make no mistake, millions of people are being royally screwed
||| thanks to compulsory insurance and the sooner it gets
||| sorted/scrapped the better - fat chance!
||
|| I'm not disputing your point about it being expensive, but what
|| system of "non-compulsory" insurance would work when people are
|| allowed to drive around in a weapon that can kill and maim people if
|| they make a simple mistake
They could for instance make only personal injury cover the legal minimum,
then owners of expensive cars could choose to pay more to reflect the true
cost of fixing any damage they suffer. How the hell can it be right that one
person can get fully comp on a car worth thousands for a third of the price
that someone else gets for TPFT on a relatively worthless vehicle?
Disparity of risk?
Ret.
2011-10-30 12:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
|||
|||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
|||| drivers is
|||| a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
|||| protection
|||| from such idiots.
|||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
|||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take
|||| the piss.
|||| There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
|||| prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it
|||| puts people off the
|||| road and damages the economy.
|||
||| I don't follow your argument.
|||
||| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully
||| comp, etc, etc).
|||
||| Are we in fact being ripped off?
|||
||
|| My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many years
|| now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal expenses and
|| protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd November. I
|| haven't
|| had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in
|| preparation.
||
|| I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who
|| have been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already,
|| however, I have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly
|| extortionate...
Hardly representative...
How would you feel if despite an impeccable driving record of 30+ years
without a single claim, accident or endorsement you were asked to pay c£600
for TPF&T on a car worth £400 driven c3000 miles per year?
Make no mistake, millions of people are being royally screwed thanks to
compulsory insurance and the sooner it gets sorted/scrapped the better - fat
chance!
It's mainly to do with risk assessment.

For a start, I'm retired - and so only require Social, Domestic and
Pleasure cover (no commuting). I only drive around 10k - 12k miles per
year now. I'm in a low risk age bracket and I don't drive a sporty car.
I also keep my car overnight in a locked garage, etc.

All these issues come together to make me a low risk driver - and hence
my premiums are low.
--
Kev

Justice? You get justice in the next world,
in this world you have the law...
William Gaddis
Ian Field
2011-10-30 15:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
|||
|||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
|||| drivers is
|||| a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
|||| protection
|||| from such idiots.
|||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
|||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take
|||| the piss.
|||| There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
|||| prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it
|||| puts people off the
|||| road and damages the economy.
|||
||| I don't follow your argument.
|||
||| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully
||| comp, etc, etc).
|||
||| Are we in fact being ripped off?
|||
||
|| My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many years
|| now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal expenses and
|| protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd November. I
|| haven't
|| had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in
|| preparation.
||
|| I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who
|| have been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already,
|| however, I have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly
|| extortionate...
Hardly representative...
How would you feel if despite an impeccable driving record of 30+ years
without a single claim, accident or endorsement you were asked to pay
c£600 for TPF&T on a car worth £400
The BBC Watchdog program suggested that some inscos are actually charging
less for FC than TPFT, last year I asked my online broker about this since
the Aviva TPFT quote had soared, the broker got me a FC deal from Equity red
star for only a few quid more than the Aviva TPFT.

Although I did lose the 3 bikes on one policy I was allowed with Aviva.
JNugent
2011-10-30 17:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Post by Rob
|||
|||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
|||| drivers is
|||| a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
|||| protection
|||| from such idiots.
|||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
|||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take
|||| the piss.
|||| There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
|||| prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it
|||| puts people off the
|||| road and damages the economy.
|||
||| I don't follow your argument.
|||
||| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully
||| comp, etc, etc).
|||
||| Are we in fact being ripped off?
|||
||
|| My motor insurance premiums have barely risen at all over many years
|| now. Last year I paid £179 for fully comp inc legal expenses and
|| protected NCD. My cover is due for renewal on 23rd November. I
|| haven't
|| had my renewal notice yet - but I'm already shopping around in
|| preparation.
||
|| I doubt if anyone will be able to beat my existing insurers - who
|| have been remarkably competitive for several years now. Already,
|| however, I have had several quotes of around £220. Hardly
|| extortionate...
Hardly representative...
How would you feel if despite an impeccable driving record of 30+ years
without a single claim, accident or endorsement you were asked to pay
c£600 for TPF&T on a car worth £400
The BBC Watchdog program suggested that some inscos are actually charging
less for FC than TPFT,
"Suggested"?

Is there any doubt of it?

My FC cover definitely costs less than the TPFT cover a certain relative pays
for. Of course, he's much younger.
Big Les Wade
2011-10-31 14:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
The BBC Watchdog program suggested that some inscos are actually charging
less for FC than TPFT,
"Suggested"?
Is there any doubt of it?
My FC cover definitely costs less than the TPFT cover a certain
relative pays for. Of course, he's much younger.
I've just been through the process of buying motor inurance via
Gocompare, and I can verify that the *same* insurance company will often
offer FC cover at a cheaper price than TPFT for the same driver, same
car, same everything.

I can only imagine that the mere act of trying to buy TPFT insurance
makes you appear a bad risk.
--
Les
Rob
2011-10-30 10:08:47 UTC
Permalink
JNugent wrote:
|| On 29/10/2011 18:24, Ian Field wrote:
||
||| Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
||| drivers is a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user
||| who enjoys protection from such idiots.
||| However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
||| Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take
||| the piss. There desperately needs to be some form of consumer
||| protection to prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums
||| so high it puts people off the road and damages the economy.
||
|| I don't follow your argument.
||
|| We're paying a smidgeon over £450 a year to insure two cars (fully
|| comp, etc, etc).
||
|| Are we in fact being ripped off?

No, not everyone is, but there will be enough people being ripped off to
keep YOUR premiums down. It's simple maths - to have a pot with the required
amount of cash in it, if some pay less then others will have to pay more.
--
Rob
Alex Heney
2011-10-29 20:34:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.

There is no less "escape" now than there was before, in reality.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Jealousy is all the fun you think they have.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Ian Field
2011-10-29 21:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
There is no less "escape" now than there was before, in reality.
Has the planet you're on even got a sky?!
JNugent
2011-10-29 22:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
There is no less "escape" now than there was before, in reality.
Has the planet you're on even got a sky?!
You must be aware that the premium is related (admittedly variably) to the
risk perceived by the insurer, yes?
Ian Field
2011-10-29 22:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
There is no less "escape" now than there was before, in reality.
Has the planet you're on even got a sky?!
You must be aware that the premium is related (admittedly variably) to the
risk perceived by the insurer, yes?
My NCB is well into double figures, this is not reflected by the average
price hikes being reported by consumer groups this year.
JNugent
2011-10-29 22:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
There is no less "escape" now than there was before, in reality.
Has the planet you're on even got a sky?!
You must be aware that the premium is related (admittedly variably) to the
risk perceived by the insurer, yes?
My NCB is well into double figures, this is not reflected by the average
price hikes being reported by consumer groups this year.
You must already be aware that the level of no claim discount and the overall
undiscounted price of a policy are two separate issues. With a good record,
it is possible to enjoy reduced net premiums even when insurance premium
rates are rising.
Alex Heney
2011-10-30 21:22:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:34:45 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
There is no less "escape" now than there was before, in reality.
Has the planet you're on even got a sky?!
You must be aware that the premium is related (admittedly variably) to the
risk perceived by the insurer, yes?
My NCB is well into double figures, this is not reflected by the average
price hikes being reported by consumer groups this year.
Of course it isn't.

NCB has nothing to do with any price hikes. It cannot possibly be
reflected in them.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"How to Catch Worms" by Earl E. Bird
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
2011-10-30 21:21:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:53:52 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
There is no less "escape" now than there was before, in reality.
Has the planet you're on even got a sky?!
So no form of reasoning for your ridiculous claim. Just a pointless
ad-hom.

I seriously cannot understand why you might believe that requiring
SORN will allow or cause insurance companies to increase premiums by
one iota.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Read the dictionary backwards and look for secret messages.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Ian Field
2011-10-30 21:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:53:52 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
There is no less "escape" now than there was before, in reality.
Has the planet you're on even got a sky?!
So no form of reasoning for your ridiculous claim. Just a pointless
ad-hom.
I seriously cannot understand why you might believe that requiring
SORN will allow or cause insurance companies to increase premiums by
one iota.
Its not my fault you're so thick you don't get it!
Alex Heney
2011-10-31 21:28:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:56:44 -0000, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:53:52 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
There is no less "escape" now than there was before, in reality.
Has the planet you're on even got a sky?!
So no form of reasoning for your ridiculous claim. Just a pointless
ad-hom.
I seriously cannot understand why you might believe that requiring
SORN will allow or cause insurance companies to increase premiums by
one iota.
Its not my fault you're so thick you don't get it!
Wrong.

If you make a claim that is utterly ridiculous, then it is entirely
your fault if others "don't get it" due to the fact you cannot justify
your claims.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If winning isn't important then why keep score?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Ste
2011-10-30 00:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
Clearly it does, because groups that would previously have driven
uninsured due to oppressive premiums (and have been more likely to get
away with it, and with any collision costs loaded onto other people's
premiums, and therefore onto the insurers in turn), are now under more
pressure to pay instead of breaking the law.

I would probably agree that it doesn't affect the overall amount that
the market can charge, but it certainly affects the amount charged to
different groups.
Ian Field
2011-10-30 15:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
Clearly it does, because groups that would previously have driven
uninsured due to oppressive premiums (and have been more likely to get
away with it, and with any collision costs loaded onto other people's
premiums, and therefore onto the insurers in turn), are now under more
pressure to pay instead of breaking the law.

I would probably agree that it doesn't affect the overall amount that
the market can charge, but it certainly affects the amount charged to
different groups.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Commuters who cross at least 1 county boundary will probably be one of the
groups hardest hit.

With ANPR backed insurance SORN, getting away with defaulting will be
practically impossible, so many employee's will be informing their boss they
can no longer afford to get to work (Public transport operators are also
well aware of the opportunities for profiteering!) some of these employees
will be told; "bye then" (and add to the unemployed burden) while the valued
employees will get their travel expenses made good at the cost of
inflationary price increases to the customer.

Those profiteering from this need to be sorted out pronto!!!
Alex Heney
2011-10-30 21:31:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:19:16 -0000, "Ian Field"
Post by Ste
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
Clearly it does, because groups that would previously have driven
uninsured due to oppressive premiums (and have been more likely to get
away with it, and with any collision costs loaded onto other people's
premiums, and therefore onto the insurers in turn), are now under more
pressure to pay instead of breaking the law.
I would probably agree that it doesn't affect the overall amount that
the market can charge, but it certainly affects the amount charged to
different groups.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Commuters who cross at least 1 county boundary will probably be one of the
groups hardest hit.
What on earth do you mean by that utter rubbish?
Post by Ste
With ANPR backed insurance SORN, getting away with defaulting will be
practically impossible, so many employee's will be informing their boss they
can no longer afford to get to work
So a few (not "many" ) lawbreakers will lose their jobs because they
can't afford to comply with the law.

So a few less lawbreakers on the road.

And this is bad how, exactly?
Post by Ste
(Public transport operators are also
well aware of the opportunities for profiteering!) some of these employees
will be told; "bye then" (and add to the unemployed burden) while the valued
employees will get their travel expenses made good at the cost of
inflationary price increases to the customer.
I would be utterly amazed if as many as one hundredth of one percent
of all employees get any additional payment as a result of insurance
SORN.

I cannot seriously imagine any rational employer saying to an employee
"Oh, you have been breaking the law up until now, but because you
won't be able to any more, you want paying for the cost of complying
with the law".
Post by Ste
Those profiteering from this need to be sorted out pronto!!!
In the extremely unlikely event that you ever manage to find the
slightest shred of evidence of any "profiteering" related to SORN and
insurance, please do let us know.

Any effect SORN has on premiums will be to *reduce* them because there
will no longer be so many uninsured losses covered by a fund paid into
out of the premiums the rest of us pay.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Ian Field
2011-10-30 21:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:19:16 -0000, "Ian Field"
Post by Ste
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
Clearly it does, because groups that would previously have driven
uninsured due to oppressive premiums (and have been more likely to get
away with it, and with any collision costs loaded onto other people's
premiums, and therefore onto the insurers in turn), are now under more
pressure to pay instead of breaking the law.
I would probably agree that it doesn't affect the overall amount that
the market can charge, but it certainly affects the amount charged to
different groups.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Commuters who cross at least 1 county boundary will probably be one of the
groups hardest hit.
What on earth do you mean by that utter rubbish?
Post by Ste
With ANPR backed insurance SORN, getting away with defaulting will be
practically impossible, so many employee's will be informing their boss they
can no longer afford to get to work
So a few (not "many" ) lawbreakers will lose their jobs because they
can't afford to comply with the law.
So a few less lawbreakers on the road.
And this is bad how, exactly?
Post by Ste
(Public transport operators are also
well aware of the opportunities for profiteering!) some of these employees
will be told; "bye then" (and add to the unemployed burden) while the valued
employees will get their travel expenses made good at the cost of
inflationary price increases to the customer.
I would be utterly amazed if as many as one hundredth of one percent
of all employees get any additional payment as a result of insurance
SORN.
I cannot seriously imagine any rational employer saying to an employee
"Oh, you have been breaking the law up until now, but because you
won't be able to any more, you want paying for the cost of complying
with the law".
Post by Ste
Those profiteering from this need to be sorted out pronto!!!
In the extremely unlikely event that you ever manage to find the
slightest shred of evidence of any "profiteering" related to SORN and
insurance, please do let us know.
Any effect SORN has on premiums will be to *reduce* them because there
will no longer be so many uninsured losses covered by a fund paid into
out of the premiums the rest of us pay.
Maybe you're not so thick you don't get it - maybe you just go out of your
way to not get it!!!
Alex Heney
2011-10-31 21:30:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:59:35 -0000, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:19:16 -0000, "Ian Field"
Post by Ste
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
Clearly it does, because groups that would previously have driven
uninsured due to oppressive premiums (and have been more likely to get
away with it, and with any collision costs loaded onto other people's
premiums, and therefore onto the insurers in turn), are now under more
pressure to pay instead of breaking the law.
I would probably agree that it doesn't affect the overall amount that
the market can charge, but it certainly affects the amount charged to
different groups.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Commuters who cross at least 1 county boundary will probably be one of the
groups hardest hit.
What on earth do you mean by that utter rubbish?
Post by Ste
With ANPR backed insurance SORN, getting away with defaulting will be
practically impossible, so many employee's will be informing their boss they
can no longer afford to get to work
So a few (not "many" ) lawbreakers will lose their jobs because they
can't afford to comply with the law.
So a few less lawbreakers on the road.
And this is bad how, exactly?
Post by Ste
(Public transport operators are also
well aware of the opportunities for profiteering!) some of these employees
will be told; "bye then" (and add to the unemployed burden) while the valued
employees will get their travel expenses made good at the cost of
inflationary price increases to the customer.
I would be utterly amazed if as many as one hundredth of one percent
of all employees get any additional payment as a result of insurance
SORN.
I cannot seriously imagine any rational employer saying to an employee
"Oh, you have been breaking the law up until now, but because you
won't be able to any more, you want paying for the cost of complying
with the law".
Post by Ste
Those profiteering from this need to be sorted out pronto!!!
In the extremely unlikely event that you ever manage to find the
slightest shred of evidence of any "profiteering" related to SORN and
insurance, please do let us know.
Any effect SORN has on premiums will be to *reduce* them because there
will no longer be so many uninsured losses covered by a fund paid into
out of the premiums the rest of us pay.
Maybe you're not so thick you don't get it - maybe you just go out of your
way to not get it!!!
I don't need to go out of my way at all, since what I say is obvious.

Anybody who "gets" your assertion is the thick one.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Is "tired old cliche" one?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Ian Field
2011-10-31 22:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:59:35 -0000, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:19:16 -0000, "Ian Field"
Post by Ste
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take
the
piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people
off
the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
Clearly it does, because groups that would previously have driven
uninsured due to oppressive premiums (and have been more likely to get
away with it, and with any collision costs loaded onto other people's
premiums, and therefore onto the insurers in turn), are now under more
pressure to pay instead of breaking the law.
I would probably agree that it doesn't affect the overall amount that
the market can charge, but it certainly affects the amount charged to
different groups.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Commuters who cross at least 1 county boundary will probably be one of the
groups hardest hit.
What on earth do you mean by that utter rubbish?
Post by Ste
With ANPR backed insurance SORN, getting away with defaulting will be
practically impossible, so many employee's will be informing their boss they
can no longer afford to get to work
So a few (not "many" ) lawbreakers will lose their jobs because they
can't afford to comply with the law.
So a few less lawbreakers on the road.
And this is bad how, exactly?
Post by Ste
(Public transport operators are also
well aware of the opportunities for profiteering!) some of these employees
will be told; "bye then" (and add to the unemployed burden) while the valued
employees will get their travel expenses made good at the cost of
inflationary price increases to the customer.
I would be utterly amazed if as many as one hundredth of one percent
of all employees get any additional payment as a result of insurance
SORN.
I cannot seriously imagine any rational employer saying to an employee
"Oh, you have been breaking the law up until now, but because you
won't be able to any more, you want paying for the cost of complying
with the law".
Post by Ste
Those profiteering from this need to be sorted out pronto!!!
In the extremely unlikely event that you ever manage to find the
slightest shred of evidence of any "profiteering" related to SORN and
insurance, please do let us know.
Any effect SORN has on premiums will be to *reduce* them because there
will no longer be so many uninsured losses covered by a fund paid into
out of the premiums the rest of us pay.
Maybe you're not so thick you don't get it - maybe you just go out of your
way to not get it!!!
I don't need to go out of my way at all, since what I say is obvious.
Anybody who "gets" your assertion is the thick one.
Now *EVERYONE* can see at a glance that you're a troll.
Alex Heney
2011-11-01 20:53:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:08:30 -0000, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:59:35 -0000, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Post by Alex Heney
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:19:16 -0000, "Ian Field"
Post by Ste
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan
drivers
is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take
the
piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people
off
the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
Clearly it does, because groups that would previously have driven
uninsured due to oppressive premiums (and have been more likely to get
away with it, and with any collision costs loaded onto other people's
premiums, and therefore onto the insurers in turn), are now under more
pressure to pay instead of breaking the law.
I would probably agree that it doesn't affect the overall amount that
the market can charge, but it certainly affects the amount charged to
different groups.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Commuters who cross at least 1 county boundary will probably be one of the
groups hardest hit.
What on earth do you mean by that utter rubbish?
Post by Ste
With ANPR backed insurance SORN, getting away with defaulting will be
practically impossible, so many employee's will be informing their boss they
can no longer afford to get to work
So a few (not "many" ) lawbreakers will lose their jobs because they
can't afford to comply with the law.
So a few less lawbreakers on the road.
And this is bad how, exactly?
Post by Ste
(Public transport operators are also
well aware of the opportunities for profiteering!) some of these employees
will be told; "bye then" (and add to the unemployed burden) while the valued
employees will get their travel expenses made good at the cost of
inflationary price increases to the customer.
I would be utterly amazed if as many as one hundredth of one percent
of all employees get any additional payment as a result of insurance
SORN.
I cannot seriously imagine any rational employer saying to an employee
"Oh, you have been breaking the law up until now, but because you
won't be able to any more, you want paying for the cost of complying
with the law".
Post by Ste
Those profiteering from this need to be sorted out pronto!!!
In the extremely unlikely event that you ever manage to find the
slightest shred of evidence of any "profiteering" related to SORN and
insurance, please do let us know.
Any effect SORN has on premiums will be to *reduce* them because there
will no longer be so many uninsured losses covered by a fund paid into
out of the premiums the rest of us pay.
Maybe you're not so thick you don't get it - maybe you just go out of your
way to not get it!!!
I don't need to go out of my way at all, since what I say is obvious.
Anybody who "gets" your assertion is the thick one.
Now *EVERYONE* can see at a glance that you're a troll.
Only those without brains.

Anybody *with* brains can see that you are either stupid or a troll,
since you make an assertion which flies in the face of logic, offer no
arguments to back it up, and when somebody argues the opposite, with a
logical argument, you just describe them as "too thick to get it".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Never deprive someone of hope; it may be all they have.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
2011-10-30 21:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ste
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
Clearly it does, because groups that would previously have driven
uninsured due to oppressive premiums (and have been more likely to get
away with it, and with any collision costs loaded onto other people's
premiums, and therefore onto the insurers in turn), are now under more
pressure to pay instead of breaking the law.
I would probably agree that it doesn't affect the overall amount that
the market can charge, but it certainly affects the amount charged to
different groups.
If there is actually any such effect, it will be to *reduce* premiums,
not to raise them, because it would be reducing the amount that would
have to be paid out for uninsured losses.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
STATUS QUO is Latin for "the mess we're in."
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Ste
2011-10-30 22:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Ste
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
Clearly it does, because groups that would previously have driven
uninsured due to oppressive premiums (and have been more likely to get
away with it, and with any collision costs loaded onto other people's
premiums, and therefore onto the insurers in turn), are now under more
pressure to pay instead of breaking the law.
I would probably agree that it doesn't affect the overall amount that
the market can charge, but it certainly affects the amount charged to
different groups.
If there is actually any such effect, it will be to *reduce* premiums,
not to raise them, because it would be reducing the amount that would
have to be paid out for uninsured losses.
But it does not reduce the amount that would be paid out for *insured*
losses, since those who were previously uninsured, are now insured.
Nor does it reduce premiums personally for those who *would have* been
uninsured due to excessively high premiums, but who are now forced to
pay.

As I say, the situation before was broadly that the insurance industry
met all losses in one way or another, but they had to offer affordable
premiums to drivers, or else those drivers would simply pay no premium
(but the industry would still bear any losses these drivers caused).
Because drivers now have a reduced ability to drive uninsured,
insurers have greater freedom to consider individual risk as opposed
to individual affordability - and generally speaking, it represents a
transfer of insurance costs from rich to poor.
JNugent
2011-10-30 23:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ste
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Ste
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
Clearly it does, because groups that would previously have driven
uninsured due to oppressive premiums (and have been more likely to get
away with it, and with any collision costs loaded onto other people's
premiums, and therefore onto the insurers in turn), are now under more
pressure to pay instead of breaking the law.
I would probably agree that it doesn't affect the overall amount that
the market can charge, but it certainly affects the amount charged to
different groups.
If there is actually any such effect, it will be to *reduce* premiums,
not to raise them, because it would be reducing the amount that would
have to be paid out for uninsured losses.
But it does not reduce the amount that would be paid out for *insured*
losses, since those who were previously uninsured, are now insured.
Nor does it reduce premiums personally for those who *would have* been
uninsured due to excessively high premiums, but who are now forced to
pay.
As I say, the situation before was broadly that the insurance industry
met all losses in one way or another, but they had to offer affordable
premiums to drivers, or else those drivers would simply pay no premium
(but the industry would still bear any losses these drivers caused).
Because drivers now have a reduced ability to drive uninsured,
insurers have greater freedom to consider individual risk as opposed
to individual affordability - and generally speaking, it represents a
transfer of insurance costs from rich to poor.
But is there a downside?
Alex Heney
2011-10-31 21:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ste
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Ste
Post by Alex Heney
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:24:33 +0100, "Ian Field"
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amounts insurance
companies can charge.
Clearly it does, because groups that would previously have driven
uninsured due to oppressive premiums (and have been more likely to get
away with it, and with any collision costs loaded onto other people's
premiums, and therefore onto the insurers in turn), are now under more
pressure to pay instead of breaking the law.
I would probably agree that it doesn't affect the overall amount that
the market can charge, but it certainly affects the amount charged to
different groups.
If there is actually any such effect, it will be to *reduce* premiums,
not to raise them, because it would be reducing the amount that would
have to be paid out for uninsured losses.
But it does not reduce the amount that would be paid out for *insured*
losses, since those who were previously uninsured, are now insured.
Nor does it reduce premiums personally for those who *would have* been
uninsured due to excessively high premiums, but who are now forced to
pay.
Well obviously those who were previously lawbreakers but who now
comply with the law will have to pay more - although not nearly as
much as they might have ended up paying if involved in an accident
where they could be identified and were at fault.
Post by Ste
As I say, the situation before was broadly that the insurance industry
met all losses in one way or another, but they had to offer affordable
premiums to drivers, or else those drivers would simply pay no premium
(but the industry would still bear any losses these drivers caused).
Because drivers now have a reduced ability to drive uninsured,
insurers have greater freedom to consider individual risk as opposed
to individual affordability - and generally speaking, it represents a
transfer of insurance costs from rich to poor.
Sorry, but that is just rubbish.

"Affordability" has never been the slightest part of the insurance
companies calculations.

Which is why many people struggle to pay premiums.

Insurance companies set premiums at a level which actuarial data says
will cover their payouts and give them a profit.

If they set them any lower than that, then they will go bust.

Competition (in theory) keeps the premiums to the lowest amount that
will do that.

They will now be getting more premiums, but will still have pretty
well the same losses. Therefore premiums can fall.

There will, of course, still be other pressures pushing premiums up -
particularly the ambulance chasers, who should be illegal.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Never deprive someone of hope; it may be all they have.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Ian
2011-10-30 08:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers
is a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
protection from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the
piss. There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people
off the road and damages the economy.
If a vehicle is SORNed - say a classic car used only 6 months of the year -
but the insurance runs for the whole tear (to cover fire , theft, someone
running a car off the road onto your private land and colliding with your
car, etc, but NOT most road-going risks whilst SORNed) then surely the
insurance premium should be significantly lower than for a whole year? (they
may let you off 5% or so for low milage, but that is derisory).

If you have two cars, both owner-only driving, why do you have to pay two
premiums? you can't drive both at once. The risks associated with the one
parked up - whether on or off the road - are much lower than the one being
driven. Again, apart from a derisory few % off the total premium, the inscos
take their customers for a(very expensive) ride.

Insurance premiums have little to do with risk, and a lot to to with making
money.
Ian Field
2011-10-30 15:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers
is a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys
protection from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the
piss. There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to
prevent the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts
people off the road and damages the economy.
<snip>
Post by Ian
Insurance premiums have little to do with risk, and a lot to to with
making money.
Now try telling us something we didn't know!!!
Ret.
2011-10-31 16:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Field
Insurance SORN and ANPR to catch the uninsured dangerous hooligan drivers is
a great idea in principle - after all I'm a road user who enjoys protection
from such idiots.
However there is a (possibly) unintended consequence!
Now there is no escape - the insurance companies can *REALLY* take the piss.
There desperately needs to be some form of consumer protection to prevent
the insurance companies hiking the premiums so high it puts people off the
road and damages the economy.
Well, just had my renewal premium today. It's more than last year but,
at £236, not too bad.

I have had a cheaper identical cover quote from Liverpool Victoria,
however - at £221 (that's with £150 excess - if I go for £200 excess the
premium will be £213).

I'll try negotiating the price down with my existing insurers - but
switch if they are not prepared to price match.
--
Kev

Justice? You get justice in the next world,
in this world you have the law...
William Gaddis
Loading...