I'm more amazed your age didn't make more difference. I learnt to drive late at 25yo and my first premium (in a very similar car) was under £600.
I'm more amazed your age didn't make more difference. I learnt to drive late at 25yo and my first premium (in a very similar car) was under £600.
I'd assume it was partly postcode lottery (residential outskirts of Birmingham at the time), partly the age of the car, partly the fact that it was a Rover...
Pass plus made no difference *because* of my age. If I'd been younger Pass Plus would've brought the premium down, apparently, but I was already getting "low" quote because of my age.
I guess it may have been the combination of a 30 year old in a Rover 400 - probably a pretty common combination. Interestingly 3rd party wasn't any cheaper than comprehensive either (although I've seen quotes before where 3rd party/fire/theft was more expensive that comprehensive, anyway...)
Yeah there are definitely some odd things out there, mine was in a Rover 200 so really pretty similar I would think?
I've also seen cases where 3rd party is more expensive, perhaps people who select comprehensive are more cautious?
Another one I found is that there is a sweet spot for expected mileage. If you set that too low your premium can go up! Perhaps people who drive infrequently get out of practice and make silly mistakes? I know my parking skills have deteriorated since I have stopped driving to work.
We were a lot closer in than that at the time. Calling Redditch the outskirts of Birmingham's a bit of a stretch That's like saying Macclesfield's on the outskirts of Manchester!
Hmmm, although to be fair I do know some people who'd say that....
More and more insurance companies are now dishing out Black boxes you install in your car which measures how well you drive. Kind of like big brother if you dont mind. It makes your premiums go down significantly especially if your a yound driver.
However ever since the gender equality ruling, the insurance companies are laughing their way to the bank and increasing Women's premiums on par with male drivers.
Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards
'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'
Well not how well you drive, but how fast and on what roads and at what times.
I believe some drivers have policies that only cover them during certain hours or on certain types of roads.
So no more teenagers racing each other at night unless they want to get busted by their insurance companies.
A friend in the RAF was recently (jokingly) talking about taking one of the boxes with him on a flight. I'd love to see the letter from that.
Dear Sir
We recently detected your car travelling above Mach 1. We have reported this matter to the police.
Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards
'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'
Not so much a fan of the black box's but I can understand the appeal, I much prefer dash cam's, at least then you can stand a chance of making some money back but uploading all the idiots you pass on the road to youtube
Given that it's THE LAW to have insurance if you are driving on public roads, I think the government should have a bit more control over the amounts insurance companies charge. At the very least there should be an independent investigation to see how accurate the statistics insurance companies use actually are.
Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards
'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'
Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards
'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'
I mean the point of the black boxes is to lower premiums for young drivers.
They can pay £2000 for normal insurance or they can take a black box, promise to drive only during the day and stick to speed limits and by doing say they get massively reduced premiums.
That's how it works isn't it?
Nigh on impossible, because they use all sorts of heuristics. It's not a straight "we're likely to pay out this much in claims, we have this many policies, so the premium is this". And besides, it's statistics, so it's inherently inaccurate - that's the whole point of statistics (they're a generalisation from the accurate, and therefore utterly inapplicable to real world situations). Insurance is pretty much a con once you look at the figures - if it wasn't companies couldn't make money out of it. Laws forcing you to buy services from private companies are pretty shocking, tbh. There should be some provision to buy minimal insurance from the government or a not for profit if you're going to force people to have it.
Whilst that makes sense, i definitely think there would still be room to make money and make people feel more comfortable about it with some transparency.
Exactly, the more i think about it the more it annoys me. It seems as if they go largely unregulated and can do whatever they want too
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)