Surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet

[mrcinquecento]

Don't really fancy going into the whole arguments, what I stated is just a generally arguments that the insurance comapny can prove with the pastr data.

As for statistics bends the truth, I have stuided that stuff with 4 years mate. And it is more complicted just naming percentages.

Have you taken any sort of medicine in your life ?

Ming

if you've studied it for 4 years then, you'll be well aware how statistics can also be used to bend arguments in peoples favour by generalisation yes statistics CAN be useful when applied correctly but people can also be blinded by them when the arent applied in the correct way. the race related crime stats show this.

 

[mrcinquecento]

So could people suggest a better way of pricing insurance instead of basing it with what we have, data?

i haven't said i'm against data being used, it's how it's currently applied that's the problem.

 

[clock34]

just thought id like to say that there are more male drivers to women but the crash % will show the same. 4 out of 10 women is the same as 40 out of 100 men so thats a usless argument as this is what they base their data on.

% of male + female crashes not a base number,
the % of males + females within age groups
and the % of male + females within certain areas of the country.

on all occasion women have fewer % of crashes for every age group and MOST areas (although not all).

a % is a much better true way of measurement of stats as it averages the field so greater numbers dont bring up skewed results.



were all in the same bucket. 5 years driving not a scratch thats my fault and one non fault (50-50) accident. however i have alot of friends who have crashed 1-2 cars in their first few years and on the end of the phone..... im the same age, from the same area with a comparable wealth the only thing they can do is protect themselfs and tar everyone to the worst, if they dont the odds are not in their favor and the house doesnt have the advantage. it really is the ONLY way insurance can be done,

the no claims system is more personal, although still within age groups, area groups ect you have a specific figure towards your probability in a accident, the more years without the less likely and then on a individual bases they can drop the insurance.



as a foot note also remember (this site is proof) a higher % of men are interested in cars and can spot makes, models and rareties. they also modify their cars more % wise than women and theirfore also have on average more desirable cars that are at a higher risk. again pushing premiums up.

i dont stand up for the insurance companies i just think if you look at things logically not emotionally you can see it is the only way which a nationwide insurance scheme can work and not either be run by our government themselfs at a base rate or go bankrupt. remember id rather pay my ££££ a year to make sure if(when) we all make mistakes im not personally and financially tied to a massive lawsuit/health costs of victims. expensive as it is its nothing compared to costs that could be pushed against you.



(sorry for the rant but logically i think it all makes sence. please lemme know how you guys feel, agree? disagree? lets keep it all not personal guys



source - policing and criminology degree trust me the dats is their year on year.

 

[ycming]

... n/m ...

 

[mrcinquecento]

thats all fair enough steve, i've been told all this by a local insurance manager. She is the one who says the stats are wildly exaggerated and twisted to fit an argument. i personally think the are too and have read several articles agreeing with that fact, but hey ho

the real problem i have is the stats are too generalised for deciding the cost and in way are you really considered even when no claims are present.

for example if a car is insurance group 10, you live in a medium risk area, that's accounted for with repair costs + performance and crime rates. that's all fair enough IMO, but when it come to the person driving they look at age and sex, that's it. the discount of no claims when you are under 25 is ridiculous, im now 3 years no claims and i get £20 a year off for that? not really worth it tbh. the incentive isn't that great to remain a claim free driver. i know it shouldnt matter but i reckon your more likley to take extra car if you are saving £100 on a policy for a year driving well than £20 for 3 full years of no claims.

how it's calculated is all wrong though, when you've just passed your test the high rates are fair enough because you are an unknown quantity and lack experience.

what i'd like to see is an insurance probationary period for 2 years after you pass your test where you build up a portfolio. get through that you should get lower costs. as it is guys my age with even more no claims than me are getting put back in the highest risk catergorys so even insuring crap like a 1.0 nissan mirca is bordering on daft.

infact to extend it even further, a driving portfolio where your car record as well as claim record is considered, for example why would i be a high risk driving an 899cc daewoo matiz when i've managed to succesfully avoid totalling my old 175bhp bmw, my 130bhp calibra etc etc. when you have experience of much faster cars surely you'd be less of a risk stepping down to a matiz than stepping up to a skyline etc. that's not accounted for at present.

it's been a good debate on the subject so far imo lol

but im not going to look kindly on any personal "comments"

 

[mrcinquecento]

Del sol SIR imports - £430 fully comp with business use
Cappo UK - £366 fully comp with business use

Ming

who are you insured with? jeezo, i couldnt even get an 899 cinq insured for that

 

[clock34]

ill just pick up on a few things youve said and try and put my thoughts on to them see what you think...

first of all is age and sex being the only things they pick up on.

im 22 male. in liverpool i was paying 1k for a sei, in cumbria i was paying 420. im still 22, still male same car, different area with a lower crime rate made a MASSIVE difference in price so only on personal experience i have to obviously dis agree,

secondly is the current no claims bonus.
unfortunatly during the recession (dont know why) but insurance prices on average have raised 33% last year and 14% the year before. so in the last year its increased 47% overall.
when i took out the 1k insurance on the sei now would be 1470, but with the no claims it drops £50 from the original 1k. sounds a joke till you realise the base 1k has raised 47% so you are now getting a 33%ish discount for your no claims. unfortunatly due to the rate at which it is escalating its hard to see a reduction at all.

third, car history.
i sort of agree a history of past cars would be good..... and bad. in the last year ive drove a sei, 106 and a bravo. engine wise and power wise im upgrading but insurance has gone progressivly down. although there is more power my skill and maturity has also grown it shows small less risky jumps compared to say a sei to a rx7 (obviously more risky so higher premium. i like the idea). but it does also go of other things not just power, weight and price. there is desirability the use of the vehicle ect if you have been using a bmw (just a example) for a sunday 1k a year car compared to a sei 400k a year car then the sei is actually more risky to insure.
beleive me they DO look at alot of things when they quote you insurance, i may admit some parts. sex, age and location are the major players in the calculation other factors are at work and do affect the overall result. so a simple car history wouldnt be effective. you would need a history with milage covered, repairs (damage), use of the car, number of named drivers ect. and the public simpily wont allow storage of such information over time. just cant happen under current law. so the logical way they use atm is the only realistic way they can run it without changing laws or spending millions (increased premiums) on new comp systems and larger databases.



lastly id just like to ask the £20 a year you say you get knocked off is that compared to not saying you have any no claims or compared to when you first started the policy. as for me it makes slim difference from the original price as you mentioned but a massive difference compared to current prices within the market.

 

[mrcinquecento]

i'll skip opinions to move onto this

third, car history.
i sort of agree a history of past cars would be good..... and bad. in the last year ive drove a sei, 106 and a bravo. engine wise and power wise im upgrading but insurance has gone progressivly down. although there is more power my skill and maturity has also grown it shows small less risky jumps compared to say a sei to a rx7 (obviously more risky so higher premium. i like the idea). but it does also go of other things not just power, weight and price. there is desirability the use of the vehicle ect if you have been using a bmw (just a example) for a sunday 1k a year car compared to a sei 400k a year car then the sei is actually more risky to insure.

but the point is the idea tallies in with estimated mileage options on policies aswell as the recently updated insurance groupings. the mileage could be used as an adjuster for risk to balance out the cost. it would give a better and fairer reflection of the whole risk of driver + car + area.

beleive me they DO look at alot of things when they quote you insurance, i may admit some parts. sex, age and location are the major players in the calculation other factors are at work and do affect the overall result. so a simple car history wouldnt be effective. you would need a history with milage covered, repairs (damage), use of the car, number of named drivers ect. and the public simpily wont allow storage of such information over time. just cant happen under current law. so the logical way they use atm is the only realistic way they can run it without changing laws or spending millions (increased premiums) on new comp systems and larger databases.

the information is already technicaly stored indirectly/behind closed doors anyway via your policies and claim files for a set period of time, it's just not accesible. the only difference is it would be getting used to make policies more accurate. all it would need is relocated to one database similar to the NIDB. that would require a change in rules as you say, but given that it would save everybody money long term including the insurers, it can only be a helpful tool.

lastly id just like to ask the £20 a year you say you get knocked off is that compared to not saying you have any no claims or compared to when you first started the policy. as for me it makes slim difference from the original price as you mentioned but a massive difference compared to current prices within the market.

i ran quotes with no no claims bonus on my current insurers website, for me with zero no claims now, i'd only be £20 a year more than i am with 3 years no claims, thats pretty pathetic all things considered IMO

i think i need to find a new insurer lol

 

[clock34]

i think you need a new insurer :-s lol.

i agree with the point of the milage thats what i was trying to get across its not just power but the miles too.

the data is already stored but if you change insurere atm then after 12months all previous policy information with another company has to be destroyed so past data can only really a maximum of 12months if you keep changing, and if your not they know anyways. what you suggest of a solid database for all people to tap into would be good but would just result in alot of increases at the start to progressive drops in the future (as there predicting with the women/men thing atm). would be hard to implement atm i think.

i think what we have got to here is the insurerers are fair as they can be under the CURRENT system. and although a new system may be needed its not theoreticly applicable at this moment in time (economy, and law changes take 6month even if their rushed.) there is no short term answer and in these harsh times i dont think the tories will be pushing for a massive hike of the insurance when they have just rustled the nest with the gender thing.