Car insurance, what is the logic behind this

[Marty Dolomite]

Originally Posted by CassidyVolvoS960

were all victims of these insurance companies, so blame them, ,

Why am I a victim of insurance companies?

[daddypruds68]

My simple but probably inappropriate opinion........just tell them you are seeking asylum and need a house for your massive family and volvo! Within week you'll have a 6 bedroom mansion, garage, free everything and oh yes........cheap insurance.
Sorry do i sound bitter? Think this country is getting to me

[AcidicDavey]

Insurance is stupid! I put in 2 different reg numbers. They were both Rover 218 Coupes and both 98 R reg's. All details were the same but the price was £200 different, why? The one and only difference was the bloody colour!

[AcidicDavey]

Originally Posted by Marty Dolomite

Why am I a victim of insurance companies?

Because they probably rob you like everyone else!

[CassidyVolvoS960]

in germany the insurance is the same price for any age any car and have far less accidents than the UK,
my point was, that a driver without insurance is no more a dangerous driver or life threatening than a driver with insurance,
i'm insured today, but my insurance runs out tomorrow, now today i'm a safe driver, but tomorrow i'm a danger to the road, oh come on, the real reason is, that tomorrow if their was an accident, no money would be paid,
by the way i am insured for another 10 months so don't worry guys,
if a 17 year old has passed the DVLA approved driving test as a safe confident driver, then the insurance should be the same, if you keep telling young drivers they are the biggest risk on the road, then its mostly likely going to try and prove everybody wrong, and then bang, an accident, if you tell young drivers that they have passed, don't treat them like they cant drive, its mind playing games, they are adults, treat them like adults, DVLA did when they passed them, as a safe confident driver, and if the government changed the driving test to being a 2 year training, maybe 3 year training and have 3 tests to pass, and include the skid pad test, like the Swedish, then maybe our young drivers will be more experienced and safer drivers than older drivers, whats the point in charging people high priced insurance, when you can change the driving test for the better, safer driver, from the beginning, isn't that common sense?
make the cost at the beginning of the driving, if young people are serious about being a safe confident driver, then they will pay for the 2 year maybe 3 year driving tests, by the third year i think they will be safer drivers, and also include into the tests, educated video footage of police dealing with the aftermath of accidents, the clean up, etc etc....the repercussions of speeding, falling asleep at the wheel, mobile phones, eating drinking, loud music, not looking ahead or enough into the rear view mirrors, include it all into the driving tests, and then everybody will have a much fairer priced insurance, and less claims, although insurance companies can only make hugh amounts of money when they make a claim from another insurance company, its a catch 22 you see.
and not all young drivers are a bigger risk on the road, what would you say about formula one driver Lewis Hamilton, he was 17-18, umm, is he a bigger risk on the road? oh wait he had the appropriate driving lessons, so why not make it available on our current driving tests for other young drivers.
insurance companies are a profitable business, there for they are not only to sell insurance but to make as much money as possible, if the insurance companies were to be a non profitable company like the NHS then the prices would be based on a truer fairer price, even if they were to stay as they are today, but as long as its still a profitable business, then they are always robbing people,

[Marty Dolomite]

Originally Posted by AcidicDavey

Because they probably rob you like everyone else!

Really so everyone is being robbed, I think you will find its only the ones complaining that are the ones who think they are being 'robbed' by a product that they do not have to have, you only need insurance if you own a car and no one is forcing anyone to own a car.
And seeing as you think Im being robbed, the fact that there are only two insurers that would quote me (I'm high risk apparently) and I pay £400 for full comp which covers me to drive any vehicle under 7500kg (excecpt a small list of imported cars) the insurers could charge me a lot more and I would have no choice but to pay if I want to drive Im not moaning about being robbed.

[Marty Dolomite]

CassidyVolvoS960 said (with my comments in blue)
in germany the insurance is the same price for any age any car and have far less accidents than the UK,
Insurance is cheaper because there are less accidents, the germans have a different mentality towards driving then the brits.

my point was, that a driver without insurance is no more a dangerous driver or life threatening than a driver with insurance,
i'm insured today, but my insurance runs out tomorrow, now today i'm a safe driver, but tomorrow i'm a danger to the road, oh come on, the real reason is, that tomorrow if their was an accident, no money would be paid,
No one has said uninsured drivers are more dangerous

if a 17 year old has passed the DVLA approved driving test as a safe confident driver,
No passing your test menas you have met the MINIMUM standars for driving

then the insurance should be the same, if you keep telling young drivers they are the biggest risk on the road, then its mostly likely going to try and prove everybody wrong, and then bang, an accident, if you tell young drivers that they have passed, don't treat them like they cant drive, its mind playing games, they are adults, treat them like adults
The insurers calculate premiums based on past claims for set age group v car group

if the government changed the driving test to being a 2 year training, maybe 3 year training and have 3 tests to pass, and include the skid pad test, like the Swedish, then maybe our young drivers will be more experienced and safer drivers than older drivers
This could cause more unlicenced drivers to be on the road due to the time it takes and the costs,

whats the point in charging people high priced insurance, when you can change the driving test for the better, safer driver, from the beginning, isn't that common sense?
Yes it makes sense to extend the test, make it harder to pass and throw in more experiance skills but this costs money and time so you would be charging £££££ to pass a test so the new drivers would be no better off and everyone would change the rant to 'DVLA are ripping us off by making us pay to learn to drive

[AcidicDavey]

Originally Posted by Marty Dolomite

Really so everyone is being robbed, I think you will find its only the ones complaining that are the ones who think they are being 'robbed' by a product that they do not have to have, you only need insurance if you own a car and no one is forcing anyone to own a car.
And seeing as you think Im being robbed, the fact that there are only two insurers that would quote me (I'm high risk apparently) and I pay £400 for full comp which covers me to drive any vehicle under 7500kg (excecpt a small list of imported cars) the insurers could charge me a lot more and I would have no choice but to pay if I want to drive Im not moaning about being robbed.

Hey, I'm just assuming from what the prior post was. I wouldn't know if you were being robbed or not would I? Hence I said probably!
But yeah it would seem most people are overcharged as there always seems to be a better deal out there.

When it comes to occupation, why is it cheaper for someone to set it as 'Household Duties' rather than 'Unemployed'? It can be really daft sometimes this insurance game!

[CassidyVolvoS960]

Originally Posted by marty dolomite

cassidyvolvos960 said (with my comments in blue)
in germany the insurance is the same price for any age any car and have far less accidents than the uk,
insurance is cheaper because there are less accidents, the germans have a different mentality towards driving then the brits. If the brits had a more positive attitude towards young drivers and learn from other countries attitudes of driving, than we too would have the same mentality as the drivers of germany and other european drivers.

My point was, that a driver without insurance is no more a dangerous driver or life threatening than a driver with insurance,
i'm insured today, but my insurance runs out tomorrow, now today i'm a safe driver, but tomorrow i'm a danger to the road, oh come on, the real reason is, that tomorrow if their was an accident, no money would be paid,
no one has said uninsured drivers are more dangerous the police are always the first to say that an uninsured driver is a danger on the roads,

if a 17 year old has passed the dvla approved driving test as a safe confident driver,
no passing your test menas you have met the minimum standars for driving then our driving dvla standards are the problem, they should have the same standard of driving as the swedish and german driving tests,

then the insurance should be the same, if you keep telling young drivers they are the biggest risk on the road, then its mostly likely going to try and prove everybody wrong, and then bang, an accident, if you tell young drivers that they have passed, don't treat them like they cant drive, its mind playing games, they are adults, treat them like adults
the insurers calculate premiums based on past claims for set age group v car group again they charge drivers for other drivers accidents, why should i or anyone else pay for someone else's shunt at the roundabout...the buck should stop at the drivers involved, not carry it on to other insured drivers,

if the government changed the driving test to being a 2 year training, maybe 3 year training and have 3 tests to pass, and include the skid pad test, like the swedish, then maybe our young drivers will be more experienced and safer drivers than older drivers
this could cause more unlicenced drivers to be on the road due to the time it takes and the costs, anybody that drives without a licence should have the vehicle crushed, immediately. If they have no licence they wont have mot insurance or tax, so crush the car, of those who have not passed the approved dvla driving test. People will learn very quickly. At the moment people seem to cope with fines and court judgements, for no licence, crush the car straight away for non licensed drivers.

Whats the point in charging people high priced insurance, when you can change the driving test for the better, safer driver, from the beginning, isn't that common sense?
yes it makes sense to extend the test, make it harder to pass and throw in more experiance skills but this costs money and time so you would be charging £££££ to pass a test so the new drivers would be no better off and everyone would change the rant to 'dvla are ripping us off by making us pay to learn to drive

students spend years at university and are charged hugh amounts of money to attended their courses, but they still do it, they take out the loans, and most students do very well and graduate, getting a degree is taken seriously by students, the driving test would be taken just as seriously, if you change the old attitudes of driving, and we have ourselves safe confident drivers, just like we have doctors and ambulance drivers, etc etc.....make insurance companies a non profitable company like the nhs, it would be a better justified prices for all drivers..

[CassidyVolvoS960]

Originally Posted by marty dolomite

cassidyvolvos960 said (with my comments in blue)
in germany the insurance is the same price for any age any car and have far less accidents than the uk,
insurance is cheaper because there are less accidents, the germans have a different mentality towards driving then the brits. If the brits had a more positive attitude towards young drivers and learn from other countries attitudes of driving, than we too would have the same mentality as the drivers of germany and other european drivers.

My point was, that a driver without insurance is no more a dangerous driver or life threatening than a driver with insurance,
i'm insured today, but my insurance runs out tomorrow, now today i'm a safe driver, but tomorrow i'm a danger to the road, oh come on, the real reason is, that tomorrow if their was an accident, no money would be paid,
no one has said uninsured drivers are more dangerous the police are always the first to say that an uninsured driver is a danger on the roads,

if a 17 year old has passed the dvla approved driving test as a safe confident driver,
no passing your test menas you have met the minimum standars for driving then our driving dvla standards are the problem, they should have the same standard of driving as the swedish and german driving tests,

then the insurance should be the same, if you keep telling young drivers they are the biggest risk on the road, then its mostly likely going to try and prove everybody wrong, and then bang, an accident, if you tell young drivers that they have passed, don't treat them like they cant drive, its mind playing games, they are adults, treat them like adults
the insurers calculate premiums based on past claims for set age group v car group again they charge drivers for other drivers accidents, why should i or anyone else pay for someone else's shunt at the roundabout...the buck should stop at the drivers involved, not carry it on to other insured drivers,

if the government changed the driving test to being a 2 year training, maybe 3 year training and have 3 tests to pass, and include the skid pad test, like the swedish, then maybe our young drivers will be more experienced and safer drivers than older drivers
this could cause more unlicenced drivers to be on the road due to the time it takes and the costs, anybody that drives without a licence should have the vehicle crushed, immediately. If they have no licence they wont have mot insurance or tax, so crush the car, of those who have not passed the approved dvla driving test. People will learn very quickly. At the moment people seem to cope with fines and court judgements, for no licence, crush the car straight away for non licensed drivers.

Whats the point in charging people high priced insurance, when you can change the driving test for the better, safer driver, from the beginning, isn't that common sense?
yes it makes sense to extend the test, make it harder to pass and throw in more experiance skills but this costs money and time so you would be charging £££££ to pass a test so the new drivers would be no better off and everyone would change the rant to 'dvla are ripping us off by making us pay to learn to drive

students spend years at university and are charged hugh amonts of money to attended their courses, but they still do it, they take out the loans, and most students do very well and graduate, getting a degree is taken seriously by students, the driving test would be taken just as seriously, if you change the old attitudes of driving, and we have ourselves safe confident drivers, just like we have doctors and ambulance drivers, etc etc.....make insurance companies a non profitable company like the nhs, it would be a better justified prices for all drivers..