Thinking about not declaring your modifications?

[The Negotiator]

He made it up, of course. The FACT around statistics with the insurance industry is that the mathematicians HAVE TO have the correct information, without it, they would make false calculations (as they would with other types of insurance, pensions, etc. etc.) which would mean the insurers would get themselves into a right mess. Trust me on this one Trance.

Another issue is how the elderly and infirm pay higher costs for private medical insurance, since they are more likely to use it. Surely you can see why?!

 

[Jai]

insurance in all it's forms, be it life, motor, health, electrical items and even pet, is a bet. you are hoping that nothing will ever go wrong, that you will sail through life and not encounter a problem. but whereas a bet pays out when you win, insurance takes the opposite view, it pays when you lose. a limb, a life, a pet, a car, your home. it's importance is such that even winston churchill said :

March 2, 1943
"National compulsory insurance for all classes for all purposes from the cradle to the grave."

what he was telling us is that you have to prepare for an uncertain future, for actions that you make, or others do that affect both yours and others lives. it is one bet you hope never to collect, it means something has gone wrong. and where the similarity with betting comes back is that like any game, if there is a suspiscion of foul play, bets are off.

the insurance companies pay people (i think they are called actuaries) to calculate the risks, the odds if you will. to set the stakes. if someone skews the maths, step outside what the actuaries consider normal i.e modding a car from factory standard, like anything thats then a custom fit, you will pay more, and the risk associated with it will be more.

to not declare, is to gain a pecuniary advantage, essentially fraud under the theft act 1968. personally i resented the (relatively) high insurance premiums i paid for my cars in the late 80's early 90's, but i paid them.

 

[Hellcat]

Mathmaticians never get things wrong?

"5 kilometers.... 4..... 3.... 2..." BOOM! "...oh miles"

Elderly have higher medical insurance costs due to their unhealty obsession with extreme sports and hard drugs.

 

[The Negotiator]

They get it wrong, the insurer loses billions and the acturies (as Turbo points out, I forgot their names) are not heard of again. This happened in the 80s and 90s, hence now insurers are a little less generous. Of course they can get it wrong, after all, they can only use the numbers they have and NOBODY can predict the future, however, you can use past performance to have some idea.

 

[Jai]

in addition to which the insurers also cover other things, like city amenties, so when a hurricane destroys a city, like say new orleans, and the mayor cashes in the policy, the payout has to be covered. the other sections of the insurance business have to pick up the slack. i think something along similair lines happened to the lloyds "names", is that what you meant dave?

 

[Trancendental]

Where did you get this from?

Ironically the information was gathered by statistical analysis. I do Poduct Design at Uni and my Tutor, who is a very very very very smart man and has read nearly everything, told us so. Only difference is that he has NO reason to make up information like that.

He made it up, of course. The FACT around statistics with the insurance industry is that the mathematicians HAVE TO have the correct information

Trust me on this one Trance.

Paul, one thing in life is certain. Unless you done it yourself you will rarely ever know if someone has performed their job properly, accurately or anything else. Your "FACT" holds very little ground because you were not involved in the activitiy so you are just hearing what someone might want you to believe so that you don't ask any questions. However you should be asking questions and not just accepting potential lies.

I stated 50% of all statistics were made up or inaccurate, for all I know motor insurance may fall into the 50% which are accurate.

I have chosen not to trust you on this occasion

insurance in all it's forms, be it life, motor, health, electrical items and even pet, is a bet. you are hoping that nothing will ever go wrong, that you will sail through life and not encounter a problem. but whereas a bet pays out when you win, insurance takes the opposite view, it pays when you lose.

This made me laugh, if only it were True. I wouldnt mind if when something did go wrong they didn't praph aroung trying not to pay you, but check this.

1) Someone reversed into me, I was in the car and people saw it.
Did I get anything? NO!

2) Someone tried to overtake me while I was turning right with my right indicator on at speeds exceeding the limits for that road and went into me, I had pictures and there was some footage of it available on CCTV
Did I get anything? on the contrary I ENDED UP PAYING for it!

in addition to which the insurers also cover other things, like city amenties, so when a hurricane destroys a city, like say new orleans, and the mayor cashes in the policy, the payout has to be covered.

This unfortunalty does not apply to motor insurance. If your motor is destroyed in a natrual disaster you are not covered:
Feel sorry for the people in France who own cars because if their motor insurance is the same as ours those burned cars ALL have to be paid for out of the pocket of the owners, meaning they have been paying potentially thousands of pounds a year and are getting nowt.

 

[The Negotiator]

Trance, trust me, they know what they are doing, if they don't, they couldn't do their job. I know because my maths teacher worked as an actury for 2 years before going into education. He told us at length the detail of the statistics involved, he worked for both a pensions business and an insurer. If they simply plucked a figure from nowhere, they wouldn't last more than a week in business.

Your lecturer didn't mean that when he said it, he was being ironic and funny.

 

[chaos]

Ironically the information was gathered by statistical analysis. I do Poduct Design at Uni and my Tutor, who is a very very very very smart man and has read nearly everything, told us so. Only difference is that he has NO reason to make up information like that.

But you are essentially listening to a person's opinions, not studying statistics put in front of you. And if your tutor had read 'nearly everything' then I doubt he would be your tutor. He would be the Principal

 

[Trancendental]

But you are essentially listening to a person's opinions, not studying statistics put in front of you. And if your tutor had read 'nearly everything' then I doubt he would be your tutor. He would be the Principal

AH ha Right you are but, he gave us an example. (And he is the head of course)

*With regards to product manufacturing: (this is my example)

"We need to make a mk2 of our product, Go out and find out why the people who use it like it and if there is anything else they would like"

people go out and do some interivews and find out what people like, essentially its what you already have.

"ok then that was useless, go out and find out why people who aren't using it are not and what would make them use it"

people are sent out and are told by none users what they would like to see on it

"ok so how much would it cost to do this and is it worth it?? yes if we can get all our non buyers involved"

So the idea is put in BUT did anyone re survey the people who already use it and ask them what they think? nooooooo.

What this means is that the statistics gathered on what the current users like are inaccurate and if someone needs results on paper this is the stage where they are made up.


*The statistical data is not real but could be related to any number of statisical data gathering purposes.

The above hypothetical company are at least trying to "earn" their profit.

 

[The Negotiator]

AH so the above means insurers just pluck figures out of the sky

Insurance companies earn their money....as do investment banks, pension companies etc. Without which, this country would be in an awful position since we don't have much of a secondary industry these days and rely on things like finance.

 

[Trancendental]

AH so the above means insurers just pluck figures out of the sky

It was an example of what could happen, not what happens everywhere and "Trust me" it does happen.


The way insurance companies probably gather their data is simply by looking at their excel graph of the age groups of who phones in to report an accident then the other graph of who's fault the accident was. Many factors could be taken into account as to why its always young drivers and why they are usually found at fault which are not represented on their statistcal analysis.

Ever thought that maybe young male drivers are found at fault because when they are involved in an accident and because they are young they don't know how to properly argue their case even if it wasn't their fault and are found guilty on that fact alone? then taken to the cleaners because someone wants to go on holiday or buy an 48inch telly and the accident cost is exaggerated?

Ever thought maybe female drivers get away with it because they are pretty and female so whoever they hit or hits them don't make such a big deal and does not get massive proformers from the garage which may make it appear as if females drivers accidents cost less?

Tell me Paul, how would you measure this statistically?

 

[custard]

just to throw a bit of oil on troubled waters.2.5% insurance tax on something you are required by law to have?

 

[The Negotiator]

Trance, how would I do it? I couldn't....

But it's a little more complicated than a little excel spreadsheet and lines drawn up from a line graph .

 

[Jai]

This unfortunalty does not apply to motor insurance. If your motor is destroyed in a natrual disaster you are not covered:
Feel sorry for the people in France who own cars because if their motor insurance is the same as ours those burned cars ALL have to be paid for out of the pocket of the owners, meaning they have been paying potentially thousands of pounds a year and are getting nowt.

perhaps i didnt make myself clear, what i meant is that although an insurance companies motor cover section may well be in profit, it's building cover section may well have taken a huge hit in claims, as a result, the board decide to "rob peter to pay paul", take money from one section and bolster another. and as these companies are quite huge and global, when lloyds, for instance takes a massive claim on some shipping that is damaged/destroyed, it has to spread the cost of it exposure, hence house/car/life/pet/etc premiums are affected by an event place nothing to do with us

 

[Trancendental]

Trance, how would I do it? I couldn't....

But it's a little more complicated than a little excel spreadsheet and lines drawn up from a line graph .

Yes I'm sure more goes into it then a couple of mouse clicks but you can very rarely ever draw up an accurate statistic which took every possibility into account as to why something may or may not be happening.

Statistics and Questionnaires are used to gather usable information. If some information is irrelevant to a goal then why gather it? The goal should be to make sure everyone is covered, not for the laws sake but their own sake, insurance is meant to protect the person who is paying for it. But if the goal is to blatently make profit and legally rob people then you can't blame those hundreds and thousands who don't feel motor insurance is something they require and will like many simply choose not to get any.

If I was given a flat rate premium of £500 per year, you would probably see me typing very good things about my insurer and comment on how great the value for money is.

for instance takes a massive claim on some shipping that is damaged/destroyed, it has to spread the cost of it exposure, hence house/car/life/pet/etc premiums are affected by an event place nothing to do with us

Which is blooming unfair don't you think? If I lost my Mobile I wouldn't consider stealing from the next vunerable person I saw because thats just wrong... but as they someones got to do it.

 

[Alex]

just to throw a bit of oil on troubled waters.2.5% insurance tax on something you are required by law to have?

you aren't required to have a car by law....

 

[S1MMA]

I've had a quick look at this thread, and to be honest I'm amazed by some of the comments of some of the people on here. To introduce myself, I'm a Technical Underwriter, involved in a fair amount of actuarial work (although not in motor insurance, I deal in commercial insurance for professional firms).

To the chap quoting that 50% of all statistics are made up on the spot (LOL, maybe in FHM), I don’t know what gives you any qualification for comment on how insurance prices are made up. The modern Econometrics/Actuarial techniques used to form rating models for any line of insurance are quite accurate these days. To say "I'd be happy paying £500 a year cos I don’t need insurance" is a little bit simplistic don’t you think? If you are the expert, then why don’t you tell us all how much we should be paying? Flat rate insurance may work for travel insurance, but believe me - if you look into some complex actuarial models for other complex lines, they have both the historical data and techniques to be able to predict losses down to a fine art. As said above, if you mess up as an actuary, you can get stuffed in a big way (hence why they are paid very large salaries). I think the huge amount of training and professional exams they have to undertake give then a good idea that a flat rate insurance scheme for cars wouldn’t work. Unless you know better?

Wanna know why you pay a lot for your insurance? Look at your history. If you drive with no accidents and have a "proven record" of being claims free, then you will not pay high insurance unless you drive a high risk/valuable car. You mention you've already had 2 accidents, and that both went against you. So why do you think you pay high premiums? I'm 25, with 4 years no claims, and my renewal on my Coupe 20VT (Group 19) should be around £500-£600 - If I had 2 accidents in the last 3 years, zero NCB, live in a high risk area, and 9 points on my license, I'd be paying over £2k. Sound fair to you? It does to me.

The reason the claims didn’t go your way could be because you were either at fault, or your insurance company claims department is ****e, or the third party claims company your insurance firm used is ****e. Insurance is a product you don't use till you need to make a claim, if you chose a crap firm to insure with, then don’t be surprised if you lose straight forward claim fights.

Your comments on the whole are ignorant, and you seem to be bitter because you pay high premiums as you've had a high amount of claims. Insurance isn't always a fair industry, although you've got to take the good with the bad. If someone develops cancer and their private medical insurance gets them the best care - which cures their illness, insurance doesn’t seem so bad after all. If a young driver gets screwed whilst making a claim its easy to start shouting the walls down about how insurance firms are money grabbing etc... etc... although we'll see if you gain employment for Greenpeace when you grow up eh? If you had no claims, and 3 years NCB, what would your premium be, try a hypothetical quote and find out - I'd like to see if its close to £500!

On average:
Young drivers make more claims - Fact
Young drivers make more expensive claims - Fact
Young drivers have less experience on the roads - Fact
Women claim less - Fact
Old people's claims cost less - Fact
Young male drivers drive more aggressively, takes more risks, and ultimately are responsible for more/higher payouts - so they are charged more - FACT

If you disagree with this, then you need to open your eyes and get your head out of the sand. Yes, it may not be fair that we are all tarred with the same brush, but then if you don’t claim, and don’t have any convictions/etc... then you will ultimately end up paying a whole lot less. Insurance is the spread of risk, so yeah - we all pay up incase the worst happens and we use our cover. There's no point moaning about it, have a good history - wait till you're old enough, and pay less like me, or buy a low risk car in a low group and save your pennies till you can afford to insure something, or when your accident history clears itself up. Or why not open up your own insurance company charging 17 year olds £500 each and see if you dont go bust within about 17 minutes. As that's exactly what will happen. There's been many mutual funds (if you don't know what that means look it up on google) that have gone bust due to incorrect pricing matrixes, if you are 1% out in some ratings that can be the difference between a profitable line and a line with unprofitable loss ratio's.

Its a cliche, but life isn’t fair. Women earn less than men in the same jobs, why? Because they are more likely to leave the firm due to maternal commitments, and so the amount of money a firm spends on training a woman gives them a smaller return (amongst other things). There's loads of examples like this, I'm sure you can think of a few yourself.

You can take the above or leave it, just don't come across like you have any idea what you're talking about because you don't. A product design Degree teaches you about Ergonomics, not Economics (or Econometrics), of which I know a little bit about.

Sorry if I come across a bit harsh, but that’s the way I am - don’t take it to heart. If there's any issues you don't understand about insurance, then put them here and I'll try to sort them for you. If I sat here going on about product control in a mis-informed manner then I'd expect to be corrected, so just take it on the chin.

Enjoy.

 

[S1MMA]

Ironically the information was gathered by statistical analysis. I do Poduct Design at Uni and my Tutor, who is a very very very very smart man and has read nearly everything, told us so. Only difference is that he has NO reason to make up information like that.

sorry, this is the biggest load of ****e I've ever seen in my whole life. I've tried in vain not to reply to it, but alas, I cant stop myself.

Your uni tutor teaching product design who has read nearly everything told you so? Are you for REAL? Amazing what young people these days come out with eh, and I'm only 25 saying that!!!!

So 50% of stats are made up, and that statement itself was deduced by statistical analysis so by that rational it has a 50% chance of being true? Saying that sentance is retarded is doing it a favour! If people ask about putting something in a pretty box, then please give them advice, if its about insurance, then leave it to someone else!!! Like me!

 

[custard]

you aren't required to have a car by law....

um and your point is?

 

[Alex]

Ok, thats it its closed.