Take it out now

[Dabz]

[quote author=Swanny link=1347550718/17#17 date=1347574563][quote author=Dabz link=1347550718/14#14 date=1347568389]Insurance is one of those things everyone hates paying until its time to make a claim

Bit hard to make a claim when you're dead ;D[/quote]

You're not insuring yourself for your own benefit with life insurance...its for those you leave behind [/quote]

Exactly - I want to make sure that those I leave behind don't have to worry about money for a funeral, to pay the bills and keep the house, etc. I also have key man insurance for work so the guys I employ aren't suddenly out of a job and there's money to employ someone to do my role

[redken1]

As it stands pre-legislation, in the first year, a female who drives recklessly and without thought for other road users would have paid approx half for her cover compared to a male who drives sensibly and with care. In my view that is sex discrimination and that is my understanding of the thinking behind the new ruling.

I know what you are all saying about the risk statistics and I accept that, but I still think it is wrong that a young male starting off, should be in effect punished for the actions of other young males. And that is why on this occasion I believe the European court has got it right.

Of course in subsequent years, irrespective of gender, both will be judged on their track record, and as you say Graeme, rewarded or otherwise via the no claims bonus system.

[Snowy]

As it stands pre-legislation, in the first year, a female who drives recklessly and without thought for other road users would have paid approx half for her cover compared to a male who drives sensibly and with care. In my view that is sex discrimination and that is my understanding of the thinking behind the new ruling.

I know what you are all saying about the risk statistics and I accept that, but I still think it is wrong that a young male starting off, should be in effect punished for the actions of other young males. And that is why on this occasion I believe the European court has got it right.

Of course in subsequent years, irrespective of gender, both will be judged on their track record, and as you say Graeme, rewarded or otherwise via the no claims bonus system.

This I guess is another subject we will just have to disagree on. All drivers get rewarded for good driving based on their actual history. The risk factors that the premiums are based on, not only in the first instance but also weight the risk throughout everyone's driving history are based on statistical evidence. I agree, everyone gets hit with these at day one but unless someone can actually tell the difference between a good and bad driver before they have actually started to drive I think its fairer than to make all equal until proved otherwise.

Another different example would involve postcode's and how they affect your insurance. My premiums are lower than someone in exactly the same position as myself except they live in central London. Statistically, there's more risk to theft of a vehicle there than where I live. Because of that my premiums are lower. That in my mind is fair. Of course, that does not guarantee that my bike doesn't and his does get stolen but statistically the risk is lower in my postcode. I think that's the fair way to look at it when there is no actual historical evidence available to make a decision.

Anyway, c'mon, there must be another subject we can mull around on a Friday night

[Ducatista]

All drivers get rewarded for good driving based on their actual history.

I think there is a subtlety here.
Drivers get rewarded for not claiming.
If you were unfortunate enough to have to make a claim even if your vehicle was stationary and you were not anywhere near it then you would be penalised for making a claim. It's actually called a "fault" claim even though in the case I described there is no blame on you, it's the fact that there is no-one else to foot the bill that counts.

The risk factors that the premiums are based on, not only in the first instance but also weight the risk throughout everyone's driving history are based on statistical evidence.

It's statistical evidence of claims, so not strictly the same as good/bad driving as claims can happen when you are in the supermarket.

It's not a fair system.

My insurance is unfeasibly cheap as I suspect yours is Snowy but there aren't that many advantages of being old so fill your boots

[redken1]

You are right Graeme, I think we may have exhausted this debate. And as Ducatista rightly points out i'ts not a fair system however you look at it.

May I suggest a couple of small points we could spend the evening mulling over - Kate's t*ts? :-* :-* :-*

I haven't really gone off topic as the heading on this thread reads, "Take it out now" ;D

[Snowy]

All drivers get rewarded for good driving based on their actual history.

I think there is a subtlety here.
Drivers get rewarded for not claiming.
If you were unfortunate enough to have to make a claim even if your vehicle was stationary and you were not anywhere near it then you would be penalised for making a claim. It's actually called a "fault" claim even though in the case I described there is no blame on you, it's the fact that there is no-one else to foot the bill that counts.

The risk factors that the premiums are based on, not only in the first instance but also weight the risk throughout everyone's driving history are based on statistical evidence.

It's statistical evidence of claims, so not strictly the same as good/bad driving as claims can happen when you are in the supermarket.

It's not a fair system.

My insurance is unfeasibly cheap as I suspect yours is Snowy but there aren't that many advantages of being old so fill your boots

Yes, as far as claims are concerned there is a subtle differentiation between claims and accidents. But there are many other factors such as where you live, speeding convictions, profession etc etc all of which are used to base your premium on. Not forgetting age either and yes, as an oldie I gain in that respect. You could say all that is unfair as well but don't forget I was once a 19 year old on a Honda CB900 so I have paid my dues in the past with regard to insurance premiums. Maybe there isn't a truly fair way, it could be that we just have different opinions on what is the least unfair way.

[Snowy]

Sorry Ken, I missed your post as I was busy on the keyboard! Actually I don't want to think about Kate & Will particularly as I'm a republican ;D ;D ;D

[redken1]

Sorry Ken, I missed your post as I was busy on the keyboard! Actually I don't want to think about Kate & Will particularly as I'm a republican ;D ;D ;D

Common ground [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] ;D

[Ducatista]

but don't forget I was once a 19 year old on a Honda CB900 so I have paid my dues in the past

I'm not quite as old as you Snowy but I don't believe you faced car insurance premiums of the equivalent of £4K when you were a youngster (probably 1 and 6)

The situation is NOT the same now as it was when we were young.
Actually I couldn't afford a car until I was 22, so another difference is that there are more young drivers now. In the 80s youngsters didn't have their own transport unless it was a moped.

I'm not sure how bike insurance compares. I don't think the issue is the same on bike insurance.
With bikes if you are an idiot you tend to kill yourself/other people (on the whole). The problem with cars is the costs of killing/injuring someone else which can run into millions of pounds.

[Swanny]

Simple fact is that the insurance companies are screwing us for as much as they can get.