RIDICULOUS INSURANCE PRICES???

[mrmoggy]

iv decided that im going to buy a moggy (wanted one for ages ) iv saved cash up and just thought ile get a quote my insurance is the same as a modern car?? for a 68 5 door minor it would be £1,200 im 20 year old on provisional licence but my point is why is it the same as a modern car ... do you peeps no of a better insurance company?

[ben_minor_63]

iv decided that im going to buy a moggy (wanted one for ages ) iv saved cash up and just thought ile get a quote my insurance is the same as a modern car?? for a 68 5 door minor it would be £1,200 im 20 year old on provisional licence but my point is why is it the same as a modern car ... do you peeps no of a better insurance company?

Join MMOC Young Members. We will help you on insurance stuff. https://www.facebook.com/groups/MMOCYM/

[kingzdjc]

Wow, insurance prices for new drivers are really ridiculous.

I'm 22, passed my test when I was 17, and my insurance for my 1955 minor cost just £190!

I'll bet that the price youve been quoted for the minor, is still cheaper than a modern car equivilent. Someone I know recently went to insure a right banger, think an old corsa, and quoted well over 3000 grand!

I passed my test just at the right time. In 5 years insurance prices have truly become ridiculous. I feel sorry for those who have just passed or are going to pass nowadays, and for those learning, I dont think they have any hope at all, unless they have deep pockets!

Personally, I would like the government to step in to cap insurance prices or something, as people need cars to get to work etc. With no car, then people cannot travel to work, considering that jobs nowadays are hard to find, and most of the time not in the area where you live.

A car is essential, and NOT a luxury, which I think insurance companies and the government believes.

Rant over

[Dominic]

How's this for a ridiculous insurance quote?
A friend of mine wanted to buy my old Peugeot 205 Roland Garros convertible for her 19 yr old son. Liverpool address.
Eighteen THOUSAND pounds!

[kingzdjc]

How's this for a ridiculous insurance quote?
A friend of mine wanted to buy my old Peugeot 205 Roland Garros convertible for her 19 yr old son. Liverpool address.
Eighteen THOUSAND pounds!

Thats absurd! They obviously really dont want him to drive! Prices like this, the government should really step in, because I whilst I understand that some areas command higher prices than others, prices like that cannot be justified.

Depsite the roads being public, I think its totally wrong for insurance companies to decide who can and cant use the roads, by pricing people out. Its utterly ridiculous, and really unfair.

[MColes]

I'm 22, passed my test when I was 17, and my insurance for my 1955 minor cost just £190!

And how did you possibly manage that?! With the best will in the world Footman James could not offer any young driver that, not under their own policy anyway!

[C6Dave]

Let us clarify a few things everyone.

'Insurance' is whereby a group of people get together, to spread the risks of a claim amongst the whole group and saying that a quote is ridiculous, unfair, or the government should 'cap' insurance is out of touch with reality.

Insurance quotes are based on a number of factors to determine the 'Risk' involved with any policy that is to be underwritten and issued.

There are lots of things that are included in the individual insurance companies decision as to what rate to charge, to many to go into here and they vary from company to company.

If a company doesn't really want to take on a risk they will have high rates for it, as they have to 'balance' the book of policies they hold to ensure that other policy holders can also be paid if something should happen to them. They may also decide not to quote at all for certain age groups, post code areas, health conditions etc. where they perceive the risks are simply to high.

Just because your quoted £1,200, £5,000 or whatever it may be for a car worth say £500 or £1,000, it's based on the potential liability to settle the cost of a claim NOT the value of the car being insured.

Worst case scenario, your involved in an accident whereby someone is seriously injured. Compensation claims for damages could run into many millions of pounds, not just the £3,000 whiplash scams.

Even a minor shunt whereby say a wall or crash barrier is damaged can run into thousands of pounds.

Insuring a car cheaply is not a right. It's a commercial transaction between two parties. An individual has the right to approach as many companies as they wish to determine who will offer them the best terms, then decide if the cost is affordable.

If it's not, then unfortunately they are not legally entitled to drive a car as Insurance is required to protect every other road user in the event of an accident.

[moggiethouable]

iv decided that im going to buy a moggy (wanted one for ages ) iv saved cash up and just thought ile get a quote my insurance is the same as a modern car?? for a 68 5 door minor it would be £1,200 im 20 year old on provisional licence but my point is why is it the same as a modern car ... do you peeps no of a better insurance company?

Try Footman James of course (if not already) and Adrian Flux.

[autolycus]

Let us clarify a few things everyone.
<snip>
Insuring a car cheaply is not a right. It's a commercial transaction between two parties. An individual has the right to approach as many companies as they wish to determine who will offer them the best terms, then decide if the cost is affordable.

Thanks to C6Dave for bringing some sanity to this discussion.

Car usage is not a right, and there are alternative methods of getting from home to school, college, or work. Too many young men drive like complete prats, and so many have accidents: someone has to pay for them. If an insurer can identify high-risk groups, whether by age, gender, or type of car driven, why should anyone else subsidise those groups?

Kevin

[kingzdjc]

I'm 22, passed my test when I was 17, and my insurance for my 1955 minor cost just £190!

And how did you possibly manage that?! With the best will in the world Footman James could not offer any young driver that, not under their own policy anyway!

I'm with Lancaster insurance. Lancaster was set up specifically for classic cars, I think a group of MG owners set it up. Footman james quoted me about £350.

It goes on area as well, and as I live in a low crime etc area, insurance here is quite cheap. Liverpool about 20 minutes drive away is another story. They have one of the highest insurance quotes in the country.

[kingzdjc]

Try LANCASTER insurance. Set up by MG owners I think, my insurance comprehensive and I'm only 22 is £190!

Please note though that it only covers limited miles per year. No problem for me though as my Audrey on takes me around town etc, and only on nice days. She doesn't like the rain!

[moggiethouable]

Let us clarify a few things everyone.
<snip>
Insuring a car cheaply is not a right. It's a commercial transaction between two parties. An individual has the right to approach as many companies as they wish to determine who will offer them the best terms, then decide if the cost is affordable.

Thanks to C6Dave for bringing some sanity to this discussion.

Car usage is not a right, and there are alternative methods of getting from home to school, college, or work. Too many young men drive like complete prats, and so many have accidents: someone has to pay for them. If an insurer can identify high-risk groups, whether by age, gender, or type of car driven, why should anyone else subsidise those groups?

Kevin

Too right, Im sick of subsidising old folks with the reflexes of a sloth.Im 55 is that young old or in between.? That depends on your age I guess.
If anyone is going to drive a bog standard moggie it is highly unlikely they are in a high risk group.
As for Gender, in my experience females are far more careful drivers than we males, perhaps they are subsidising you and I.
AlsoI have seen in my working life all kinds of businesses go bust, I have yet to be informed of any specialist car insurers hit the wall.
In the main they are charging way too high, Insurance is about ascertaining risk, what these companies want is no risk at all but all the profits they can muster,as long as we continue in a free market to ask the questions they will remain competitive, if we allow them a cartel unquestioned we will all suffer.

[kingzdjc]

Insuring a car cheaply is not a right. It's a commercial transaction between two parties. An individual has the right to approach as many companies as they wish to determine who will offer them the best terms, then decide if the cost is affordable.






No, I believe you are wrong here, well sort of. What is a persons right is to use the roads, as they are public. Wether you use the roads using a horse and cart, bike or car, roads are our right of way.

It is not the insurance companies right to outprice people from PUBLIC roads, as insurance companies are private businesses. As insurance prices are sky high, PRIVATE companies are basically ruling who can and who cannot use PUBLIC roads.

This is completely wrong, and think if this was going on in any other area of society, for example if a private business was deciding who can and can receive medical treatment, it would an absolute no no, and ethically wrong.

Cheap car insurance is unfortunatley not a right, but reasonable, affordable insurance should be a right. Otherwise, as I stated above, private businesses are deciding who can and cannot use public roads. In reality, I would like to road insurance scrapped, and repalced by some sort of national fund.
That way, it would also prevent people from driving uninsured as I believe well over a million people are not currently insured. The national fund should be paid with either taxes from fuel or some sort of road tax that covers every user of the road, involved in an accident etc. Younger drivers, and very old drivers may be at more risk that say a married woman in her 40s, but that unfortunatley is one risk in society that we must face, and is never going to go away, regardless of how much insurance is for these people.
Unfortunatley, those that cannot afford insurance simply drive without.

[C6Dave]

Unfortunatley, those that cannot afford insurance simply drive without.

Everyone has a choice, pay the premiums or not, but they only do that until they are stopped and have their cars confiscated and crushed.

So if 'insurance' is not affordable, where do they find the money to replace the car, pay fines, pay for your loss of earnings if your injured by them, or repair your car?

If you think a Government 'insurance' scheme would be cheaper than that provided by the private sector, your living in cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid. Look at the mess the country is in now with that massive debt burden.

This discussion could run and run and yes, I agree that everyone has the right to use a 'public highway', but not in an uninsured motorised vehicle as that is prohibited by the Law of the Land, which is created by Members of Parliament, who are duly elected by the people who live in them, to make such decisions on their behalf.

[Dave@FJ]

[quote="kingzdjc"] In reality, I would like to road insurance scrapped, and repalced by some sort of national fund.
That way, it would also prevent people from driving uninsured as I believe well over a million people are not currently insured. The national fund should be paid with either taxes from fuel or some sort of road tax that covers every user of the road, involved in an accident etc. Younger drivers, and very old drivers may be at more risk that say a married woman in her 40s, but that unfortunatley is one risk in society that we must face, and is never going to go away, regardless of how much insurance is for these people.




Here's a bit of maths to work out what adding insurance costs onto fuel prices would mean to the private individual.

There were 31million cars in the UK in April 2010 according to government stats. The average insurance premium is around £835. So this means that c£260bn is generated in insurance premiums.

However, the industry as whole pays out £1.23 for every £1 generated in premium income. In the "Era of Austerity" the government won't want to be throwing money away, so that makes the total needed rise to £318billion, or £1027 per car. Petrol is subject to VAT so that means it increases to £1232.46 on average.

As it's an average we have to deal with the varying mileage aspects, so the norm is 12,000 miles per year, so that's an average extra cost of 10p per mile for everyone. Or in miles per litre terms at an average 30mpg (a guess admittedly) that means an extra £0.68 per litre (or £3.09 per gallon) for all of us, as you can't have differential pricing, unless you want to push costs up even more due to the frictional administrative costs incurred in policing this. Anyone fancy that?

Who would administer the claims? The Civil Service? At a time when there is an absolute commitment to reduce the number of Public sector employees? What do we do with the unemployed insurance sales employees and brokers? They'll all be able to claim benefits, so that increases the burden on the Welfare State. I guess we'll just add a bit more to that new petrol levy to offset that.

We've just killed the aggregators dead too, so there's some more IT people on the dole.

What about those companies who need to transport goods, or need to travel to do business. You've just put their costs up a ridiculous amount, so they'll charge more, so that's a nice bit of inflation at a time when we're struggling to keep it under control.

Other companies will find themselves facing mega demands for payrises to cover the cost of this and the Public Sector will all go on strike demanding more, so our Council Tax will rise as will our general tax rates, so we'll need more money from the Private Sector, who bored with these demands will start to move to other countries with more favourable tax regimes, pushing unemployment up and more and more demands for payrises to offset the ever increasing tax rates.

Then there's the door you've just opened to every 17 year old going out and getting a 600bhp Scooby. He'll probably wrap that so there's a new crash that wouldn't have happened before, so more on the new petrol / insurance levy for next year. Even better, he just gets another one and does the same ad infinitum, as there's no financial reward or penalty for sensible driving.

Of course, the voters aren't going to be happy at all this extra cost on their motoring pleasure, so they'll vote the government out as soon as possible, as the other party will pledge to abolish this new approach.

There'll be uproar in the Daily Wail and The Sun will do a ticker counter to log all the young drivers killed since the introduction of the new petrol levy. Pistonheads will go mental as driving becomes the preserve of the rich and we all go back to buses for our commutes.


So on that basis, is it really worth it to save a couple of quid on private insurance?


*some of the above may be over sensationalied and / or oversimplified, but the issues raised are real and valid.

[LouiseM]

I dont want this to get into a political debate

No, lets avoid that please.

The choice to many, not all, but to most is no car = no job. Its that simple.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but isn't the choice no job = no car as how would you afford to buy a car and pay for petrol, tax etc in the first place without a source of income?

[Dean]

Simply up the minimum age of driving to 21 and reduce the maximum age to renew your licence to 60.

That'll reduce the wobbers on the roads and reduce the risk.

Then have the death penalty introduced to anyone who has a prang.

Risk now eliminated... cheap insurance all round.

[kingzdjc]

See below.

[kingzdjc]

Simply up the minimum age of driving to 21 and reduce the maximum age to renew your licence to 60.

That'll reduce the wobbers on the roads and reduce the risk.

Then have the death penalty introduced to anyone who has a prang.

Risk now eliminated... cheap insurance all round.

I'm sure when you reach 60, feel fit and and fine, then to be told you cant drive anymore, you wont be too happy about it.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but isn't the choice no job = no car as how would you afford to buy a car and pay for petrol, tax etc in the first place without a source of income?

Well when some people loose a job they may need to sell the car. Whilst out of work, they may have to dip into savings, and then when it comes to getting a car, they dont have enough money left to pay for insurance.

OR say an 18 year old finds a job and needs to travel to work and no public transport is available, they will need to buy a car.
They may well have some savings, to buy the car, maybe borrowing from parents, and a some left for insurance. However, what they dont have is the THOUSANDS of pounds for insurance.
Therefore, the insurance companies have outpriced this person from having a job, as he or she does not have the transport to get there.

If the 18 year old for example, is from a wealthy family, then the THOUSANDS on insurance wont matter, and this person can find a job and travel to it.
The poorer person cannot.

Insuance companies are basically outpricing the poorer person, despite both 18 year olds from different backgrounds having the same risk to the insurance companies.

That is why insurance is grossly unfair. I do feel for those less fortunate who dont have Mummy or Daddy to pay for insurance.

If you think a Government 'insurance' scheme would be cheaper than that provided by the private sector, your living in cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid.
At least they'll be more strignent on people making false whiplash claims, as they'll do their best to save as much money and not paying out on false claimants, which is pushing up insuance prices.

Then there's the door you've just opened to every 17 year old going out and getting a 600bhp Scooby. He'll probably wrap that so there's a new crash that wouldn't have happened before, so more on the new petrol / insurance levy for next year. Even better, he just gets another one and does the same ad infinitum, as there's no financial reward or penalty for sensible driving.

I do agree to a certain extent, maybe capping newly qualified drivers to engine size, say nothing over a 1.4 litre.



I dont think we'll ever agree with each other on this topic over the question of insurance, but I think we should put differences aside, and maybe wrap this topic up, as its obviously not going anywhere

[Rasputin]

Simply up the minimum age of driving to 21 and reduce the maximum age to renew your licence to 60.

That'll reduce the wobbers on the roads and reduce the risk.

Then have the death penalty introduced to anyone who has a prang.

Risk now eliminated... cheap insurance all round.

Well I am over 60 and I had my second prang in fourty years last week , so that`s me finished