Gave them a call about my insurance dilema and spoke to a senior advisor on saturday (open on sundays - impressive!) and managed to get my quote down to £1050.99 which ain't too bad (see thread "Should I declare....") considering. Trinity - any idea why driving without insurance is such a high grade endorsement. It technically doesn't make me any more of a risk and i did a quote out of interest - if it had been a drink driving ban it would be the same price as what i got now!!! :headvswal

Gave them a call about my insurance dilema and spoke to a senior advisor on saturday (open on sundays - impressive!) and managed to get my quote down to £1050.99 which ain't too bad (see thread "Should I declare....") considering. Trinity - any idea why driving without insurance is such a high grade endorsement. It technically doesn't make me any more of a risk and i did a quote out of interest - if it had been a drink driving ban it would be the same price as what i got now!!! :headvswal

 

 

because if you drive without insurance and have a claim it gets taken out of a big pot of money insurance company's pay into, so you have to pay back more, its also illegal, and doing anything which is illegal will get your insurance put up because you may not be a responsible driver/owner

It's all based on stats and averages, so is usually unfair.

Gotcha

It's all based on stats and averages, so is usually unfair.

That should read "so is usually fair".

 

Gio - the man with a "Maths with Statistics" A-level ;)

No - it's fair and unfair (depending on person), but what happens is some people benefit, most don't and insurance companies always win.

I'm with Gio

 

Guys with no insurance deserve all they've got coming.

 

Chris

PS There are people in the insurance industry paid to work out who the little sh1ts will be, so that the honest ones can get a better deal. The ONLY way to beat there system is to join it. Be careful, safe, condiderate and OLD....like me

Technically i did have insurance it was just for the wrong car because my father bought the premium as a present and i never bothered to check the doc's, based on the assumption that my father who is a pilot for British Airways was intelligent enough to not make a mistake on the engine and model of my car. What annoys me is i have been driving nearly 2 years and not had so much as a scratch (was lookin forward to renewing my premium for a little over £680 next month and now they have added around £1000 for one mistake (not to mention the fine i got and the money i have to spend storing my car through my ban, then paying £50 for my provisional licence and then more money for my lessons and test and the added stress to my life trying to get to work on time (busses are crap and its a long walk and i aint paying a taxi driver cos then thats the first 2 hours of work every day down the pan just to get TO work! I think i have paid enough for the simple shi*ty mistake i made and how can they justify it.

 

A friend of mine was hit by a speeding drunk driver not so long ago and lost both of his legs. The driver got fined £350 and banned for 12 months. The law is unclear, unfair and inconsitant. So are insurance companies and their policies.

I agree you need to be insured, and should be. All I'm saying is risk is based on stats and for many people the risk factor attributed to them is far from the real risk they pose, hence they are penalised with high policies - becasue risk factoring misses out on a lot of information not readily available - like speed cameras.

I wasn't getting at astrassuck or individual specific cases. But a something which is based (only) on stats and averages cannot be "usually unfair". It will in most cases ("usually") be "fair" as this is in the nature of averages. To state anything else displays a complete non-comprehension of maths/statistics or a desire to pick a fight with a mathemetician!

This is my 3rd car.... I have insured myself ever since i owned a car and paid through the nose for premiums as a young driver. I had the insurance documents for all of the cars I have owned and showed them to the courts and they accepted it was an accident. I know you should be insured and I despise people who drive w/o insurance (i didnt realise i was uninsured) as it is sending all of our premiums upwards. I wish the system was more fair. I do not speed, i drive as safely and as carefully as I can. The way i drive is very unusual for a 19 y/o lad. Now are you telling me that I am as much of a risk as a stupid chav driving his nova sri from the crummy council estate in brixton who just wants to show off to his mates how fast his nova is when he's high on cocaine or something???

But a something which is based (only) on stats and averages cannot be "usually unfair".

 

"its a well known fact 87.86% of stats are made up" - Vic Reeves

"its a well known fact 87.86% of stats are made up" - Vic Reeves

:rofl:

"its a well known fact 87.86% of stats are made up" - Vic Reeves

:rofl: :rofl:

Now are you telling me that I am as much of a risk as a stupid chav driving his nova sri from the crummy council estate in brixton who just wants to show off to his mates how fast his nova is when he's high on cocaine or something???

 

Certainly not. I believe what you say. It's a harsh way to learn always but always to check the paperwork.

 

But most people who drive without insurance are doing so deliberately. So to penalise people for driving without insurance is "usually" fair. Just in your individual case it's a bit of a bitch.

Yeah i appreciate that, however the courts have agreed that it was a mistake, the DVLA have agreed it was a genuine mistake so how come the insurance companies arn't interested. The just see IN10 on the convictions form and their eyes fill up with $$! But i agree, if you are driving w/o insurance and you know it then you shouldnt be driving. It is afterall the people who are driving w/o insurance in the first place that cause everyone's premiums to shoot thru the ceiling!

I wasn't getting at astrassuck or individual specific cases. But a something which is based (only) on stats and averages cannot be "usually unfair". It will in most cases ("usually") be "fair" as this is in the nature of averages. To state anything else displays a complete non-comprehension of maths/statistics or a desire to pick a fight with a mathemetician!

 

This is bizarre !! Why usually fair ???!! For a mathematician, your answers are somewhat lacking in logic/equations/numbers etc.

 

 

IF insurers didn't make a profit, logic follows that some people (ie. most) pay for policies without claiming (unfair on them) while others make claims for more than their policies (not without good cause - but "unfair" on those who don't claim). AS insurers do make a profit, those losing out (ie. those claiming less than they pay) must be worse off and more numerous than those claiming as most people don't claim in a given year. Hence, mostly unfair.

 

AS policy quotes use a sparse number of factors to "stereotype" a driver, ALWAYS to the advantage of the insurer, [this is because they will assume worst case in all instances - ignoring best case (ie. starter of topic) which will happen about as often as worst case assuming a statistical normal distribution]

 

This therefore further skews the "fairness" of the situation away from the majority of drivers. Hence it's mostly "unfair".

 

How can u argue with this ?

This is bizarre !! Why usually fair ???!! For a mathematician, your answers are somewhat lacking in logic/equations/numbers etc.

 

 

IF insurers didn't make a profit, logic follows that some people (ie. most) pay for policies without claiming (unfair on them) while others make claims for more than their policies (not without good cause - but "unfair" on those who don't claim). AS insurers do make a profit, those losing out (ie. those claiming less than they pay) must be worse off and more numerous than those claiming as most people don't claim in a given year. Hence, mostly unfair.

 

AS policy quotes use a sparse number of factors to "stereotype" a driver, ALWAYS to the advantage of the insurer, [this is because they will assume worst case in all instances - ignoring best case (ie. starter of topic) which will happen about as often as worst case assuming a statistical normal distribution]

 

This therefore further skews the "fairness" of the situation away from the majority of drivers. Hence it's mostly "unfair".

 

How can u argue with this ?

 

He's right you know :dance:

Gotta agree with Nelson - the maths / statistics we are talking about here are not about straight averages / probability but more akin to bookies odds, and we all know who the overall winner is between the bookies and the punter!!!! The odds are stacked in favour of the insurance company winning, otherwise why would they offer the business in the first place - this ain't about break even, this is about shareholder value.

 

The fact is that your legally required to have a valid insurance policy in force - legislated by government - but the risk factors and premiums charged by the insurance companies are not legislated for, therefore, apart from competition in the market place (i.e read Cartel) it's a licence to print money.

 

On another point I've been involved with issuing car tax for years now and I'd say that 5-10% of all insurance documents that are presented are incorrect - be that incorrect name on policy, incorrect registration etc - all mistakes by the insurance companies, but technically with a mistake on the policy it's invalid and will be refused when applying for car tax. All these people have never noticed the mistake until it's pointed out to them, and you can bet if they claimed it would be a valid reason for the insurance companies to wriggle out of paying as it's your responsibility to check your policy when you receive it.

How can u argue with this ?

 

By taking a contradictory position. :D

 

1) If insurance companies didn't make a profit, they would be paying out more money than they take in. Then they go bust and people who have a valid claim don't get the payout to which they are entitled. This is far less fair than your supposition hence my supposition is more fair.

 

2) The majority of drivers don't claim on their insurance - they are happy to pay for insurance against that horrible day (and may it never happen to you) they are involved in an accident with insured losses or, worse, compansation to be paid to some other person. So for most people, insurance is "fair".

 

3) Insurance can be unfair - eg astrassuck's case - but that's a) in the minority of cases and b) because astrassuck bunged himself (or got bunged) outside the normal sd. And therefore as a non-normal case got treated in a non-normal fashion.

 

I have no problem with astrassuck's case being seen as "unfair" but you cannot extrapolate from a single case that "all insurance is unfair".

 

 

I have no problem with astrassuck's case being seen as "unfair" but you cannot extrapolate from a single case that "all insurance is unfair".

 

I am not arguing that ALL insurance is unfair, just that is this particular case adding £1000+ to my insurance premium for something which doesn't necessarily make me any higher risk to the company is a little extreme!

 

Anyways enough of wasting work's time for one day i'm off home to relax, so i'll talk to y'all tomorrow! :hyper:

Of course it is fair that insurance companies make a profit, as they provide a valuable service. I see your point that even if you don't claim, you are benefitting from peace of mind and security, should you have an accident/claim. The problem most people have is that insurance companies probably make a lot more money than they should, given what they do for the money (ie, they don't repair the cars, tow them etc. etc.). For a purely financial business like banks, they make more profits than they should IMHO. Granted, insurance market has got more competitive as companies have got more efficient, but they still make relatively easy money.

 

I was simply making the point that most people are out of pocket wrt insurance, even allowing for a fair profit to the insurance supplier.

 

It is also true that when you do have a claim you can easily be using up several years premiums up in one go, but I believe if you all add up how much you have paid IN over the years and how much you have claimed, you will be well out of pocket.

 

My argument above was merely a response to your assertion that insurance is mostly fair and not mostly unfair (with a reference to mathematical ability). If you believe insurance companies deserve hundreds of punds each year off most people for doing practically nothing [one phone call for 10 minutes and a policy mailed to you], then it IS mostly fair; but I cannot come to that conclusion.

My argument above was merely a response to your assertion that insurance is mostly fair and not mostly unfair (with a reference to mathematical ability). If you believe insurance companies deserve hundreds of punds each year off most people for doing practically nothing [one phone call for 10 minutes and a policy mailed to you], then it IS mostly fair; but I cannot come to that conclusion.

 

:x: ooooh misquote me why don't you :rtfp: :rofl: my assertion was simply that a thing based solely on stats and average cannot sui generis be "unfair". If you want to posit that insurance companies are unfair, that's a completely different argument which cannot be founded on my original assertion.

 

And that, my liege is how we know the earth to be banana shaped!

Technically i did have insurance it was just for the wrong car because my father bought the premium as a present

 

 

 

Your situation sounds very unfair mate, are you tellin us everything? Did you get a solicitor on to this?

So the insurance company didn't run the number plate through their data base? Did your dad give them the wrong registration number? What car were you actually insured to drive then? Did you have an insurance certificate for a Fiesta but with the wrong reg number? If yes, that's proof enough that it was a genuine error and a good solictor would sort you out I'm sure. And it would mean you were paying insurance on a car that belonged to someone else anywhere in the country, so claim the premium back for that!! If they say you weren't insured they cant argue your full refund.

 

Are you the registered keeper of the car you weren't insured for, if not I take it your policy doesn't allow you to drive "any car not belonging to you" as most do.

 

If it really was a genuine mistake you can sort it, did your dad do the insurance over the phone? If so, ask to hear the tape recording of that conversation , I wouldn't rest if it was me, give them some shit..

 

Cheers,

Just wondered if you saw my post above, it's worth trying to get a refund at the least.

:nana2: