Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Car insurance

Car insurers are cheating older drivers

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 08 October 2012  |  Comments 37 comments

Discrimination by insurers is unfairly denying many older motorists the right to drive.

Car insurers are cheating older drivers

Last month, I wrote Britain's most annoying drivers, covering research which revealed that more than two-fifths (41%) of British adults believe the over-60s to be the UK's most irritating motorists.

Personally, I was surprised and a little shocked at this lack of respect for our nation's older generation. What's more, this widely held prejudice simply isn't supported by statistical evidence. Indeed, Which? research recently revealed that older drivers -- notably 81 to 85 year olds -- are less likely to claim against their car insurance than younger motorists.

In an ideal world, all drivers would be judged purely on their driving abilities and not merely on their age. However, discrimination against older motorists is still widespread, particularly among car insurers.

Driving up premiums

As well as facing harsh criticism from the public, older Brits also routinely face discrimination when it comes to car insurance. In fact, insurance companies systematically over-charge older drivers for their policies, despite an industry-wide agreement not to discriminate on grounds of age.

Last month, Which? research revealed that older drivers frequently face quotes for car insurance 50% to 74% higher than those given to drivers aged 41 to 45. In addition, when older drivers do make claims, these cost just 2% more on average.

Insurers are excluded from obeying the Equality Act 2010 (which bans unjustifiable age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services). However, they must produce yearly data on claims frequency and size by age in order to justify charging higher premiums to senior motorists.

Since 6th April, members of the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the British Insurance Brokers' Association (BIBA) have agreed with the Government to improve access to motor and travel insurance for older customers.

Under this Age Agreement, all insurance providers who do not provide insurance because they apply age restrictions must 'signpost’ customers to an alternative appropriate provider which does not impose age restrictions. Sadly, Which? found that top insurer Direct Line was not properly signposting older motorists, forcing the firm to take corrective action.

Even so, almost half of major British insurers refuse to cover drivers aged 85 and over, depriving them of their right to be mobile and on the road.

Give older drivers a fair deal

It seems blatantly unfair that older drivers are habitually turned down or charged much more for car insurance, given the lack of concrete proof that they cause more accidents and generate far larger claims.

Then again, this age discrimination has created a profitable opportunity for companies that cater specifically to Britain's over-50s, such as Saga Group, Age UK and Staysure. For example, Age UK has 1,673 drivers aged 100 and over on its books -- 13.2% of the estimated 12,640 centenarians in the UK -- and is quite happy to take on this risk. Saga has around 6,000 drivers aged 91 and over.

Earlier this year, well-known insurer LV= went against the grain by scrapping its age limit for car insurance customers. Having previously refused to cover drivers beyond the age of 86, LV now has no upper age limit for car insurance (and travel cover, too).

Greying Britain

For me, it seems crazy to discriminate against our 'golden generation', as this is one of the richest and fastest-growing segments of British society. What's more, thanks to medical advances and lifestyle improvements, many Brits remain healthy, independent and mobile well into their eighties and beyond.

Right now, about a sixth (16%) of the UK population is over 65. However, thanks to the post-war 'baby boom', this proportion is set to rise to a quarter (25%) by 2023. Tthere are now a record 3.8 million over-70s with driving licences.

Included in this large group are some of this nation's most careful, capable and experienced drivers. Therefore, it is grossly unfair to stereotype all older motorists as slow, poorly sighted and unresponsive while on the road.

I sincerely hope that the Competition Commission's inquiry into the market for car insurance will also investigate age discrimination against older drivers. Otherwise, millions of perfectly competent older motorists will continue to be ripped off by greedy insurance companies!

Older drivers seeking specialist advice on car insurance can visit the BIBA website or call its Find a Broker line on 0870 950 1790 (alternative geographical number: 020 7397 0205).

More on motoring:

Get quality quotes for car insurance

OFT refers motor insurance industry to Competition Commission

Multi v single car insurance – what’s cheapest?

Essential car insurance features

How to pay for your car insurance

Pay As You Drive car insurance

25 ways to cut your car insurance

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (37)

  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 362
    CuNNaXXa said

    As with all arguments pro and con any attribute, whether it be age, colour, race, sex or wealth, these have no direct relation to someone's ability to do a job.

    I have known twenty somethings who are just as safe as those twice their age, and I know of people older than 80 who are still highly competent (I actually know a 98 year old lady who definitely still has her faculties, which she can demonstrate with her blatant wit).

    So, how comes insurers are not subject to equality rules, like the rest of us? Surely you cannot judge because someone is old, young, black or a minority? Surely you should be judging them based on provable experience, such as having NO accidents in the last five years or more?

    Simply put, I find it offensive that insurers are not required to be non prejudicial, allowing them to discriminate on whatever grounds they feel will give them the best profit.

    Also, if someone is highly experienced, are they more likely to have an accident in a car that has an extra 100 BHP under the bonnet? I doubt it. Total idiots are capable of having accidents in cars that have an asthmatic tortoise as its power plan, while some of the most powerful cars on our roads, BMWs, Mercs, Audis and White Vans, are driven without accident (I said White Van with tongue in cheek, because while they can accelerate faster than a Porsche on steroids, they also show the wounds when their drivers have had to shove other motorists out of their way).

    Mind you, even among the White Van Man community, there are actually courteous drivers, so even this stereotype is a fallacy.

    So, why doesn't the Office of Fair Trading do something about this inequality that we, the consumer, are being penalised for.

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Abigail Thornton
    Love rating 11
    Abigail Thornton said

    All stereotypes are unfair and person's chronological age is not an absolute predictor of driving ability or physical fitness to drive, but its impact should not be denied.

    Eyes particularly change with age. They lose the ability to focus quickly. Peripheral vision narrows and the retina becomes less sensitive to light. I have witnessed this first hand having been in a car with an "elderly" driver who I was otherwise very comfortable to be with; going in and out of tunnels through Switzerland I was twice forced to grab the wheel to avoid a head-on collision... only then did he admit that it took his eyes a while to adapt to the changing light, so for a few seconds he'd been driving blind...

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 600
    Mike10613 said

    Insurers could extend the no claims bonus, perhaps freezing premiums for clients that make no claims year in and year out; that would make for cheaper insurance for drivers who are older and safer. Someone would say this discriminates against the young and inexperienced; but they can have the silly gadgets in their cars to monitor their driving.

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Nikgee
    Love rating 22
    Nikgee said

    Sadly we have evolved into a non-trusting money grabbing society, with everyone out to get what they can, the insurance companies are no exception to the rule.

    I have had my run ins with the occasional elderly driver, who claims they have never had an accident, yet caused a trail of destruction behind them. I have witnessed another elderly driver ram his way into "his" parking space.

    But the comment I do have to agree with is the one about drivers who when getting older is that their eyes do not adjust to changing light brightness, after an observation by my elderly mother commented on it.

    On that theme I suspect a lot of drivers who have had laser correction on their eyes also have problems driving at night as I have been told the the trade off for laser correction is the reduction of night vision.

    I am also beginning to wonder if the "black box in the car" is going to be the only way forward for insurance, it would certainly reduce the number of fraudulent claims

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Aitken B
    Love rating 113
    Aitken B said

    That insurance companies take any opportunity to discriminate in order to get more money is about as newsworthy as "SUN RISES IN THE EAST".

    While being very keen to ensure we know that if we provide even the smallest bit of false or incomplete information our policies would be void, they are quite happy to, in my view, break the criminal law with the active support of the Insurance Ombudsman.

    So companies are supposed to publish their stats on older drivers or direct older drivers to a company that does. Who is supposed to check that the Ins. companies are following these rules as described in the article?

    Somebody - anybody - nobody.

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nosbort
    Love rating 126
    nosbort said

    Cliff, you state that:

    ' Which? research recently revealed that older drivers -- notably 81 to 85 year olds -- are less likely to claim against their car insurance than younger motorists.'

    Are the figures normalised? Much of the safety information is based upon the simple number of claims per annum for a particular group and are not normalised for any of the factors that should be taken into account, in the case of over 80s this would be either the number of drivers or, probably more importantly, the miles driven by the members of this age group. Unless this is done, and the number of miles driven by an applicant are taken into account the figures are meaningless.

    Others, discrimination is exactly what insurance SHOULD be doing, it should discriminate in favour of the safe and against the dangerous. In some cases (women drivers who are actuarially safer than men) the EU has legislated that this should not be done, it hasn't saved any men any money, however it HAS cost women money. It should be lawful to discriminate against (or for) ANY group as long as you can back up your discrimination with solid evidence. It happens in sport, the best are the ones who are selected to represent their team/county/country. Should that be stopped too?

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    Every case should be decided on merit, and a person's record should stand alone, irrespective of 'statistics'.

    Many of these elderly drivers are paying extortionate amounts of money just to drive once or twice a week to pick up their pensions and to get the shopping!

    I'd be interested in just how much one might expect to see them pay but insurers are amazingly coy about giving you a 'ball-park' figure! It would be very interesting to caculate how much they are paying per journey.

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • JOHN MAXWELL
    Love rating 56
    JOHN MAXWELL said

    by it's very nature insurance is a discriminatory business. claim statistics will show where are the greater risks of a claim and it follows the higher the risk the higher the premium.

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    Further to my previous comment, I found an example of a couple in Dorset coming up to 80 paying £480.

    Taking this as a guide, that means that the old chap who lives in my village and drives 2 miles to the post office and 2.5 miles to the co-op (2 journeys a week) is paying £4.61 per journey , or over £1 a mile. (9 miles a week)

    Taking the average driver's mileage, that means that if their insurance were calculated on the basis of £1 per mile, some drivers would be paying £12,000 per annum. Definitely a rip-off for the older driver, I think you'll agree.

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nosbort
    Love rating 126
    nosbort said

    @marram, your argument is fallacious. Insurance is entirely a statistical business (actuarial to be precise), for any individual it may appear unfair, however, the cost for any age group is based upon the statistical likelihood of a member of that group having an accident. In the case of your 80 year old exemplar the likelihood of an accident is increased by the lack of ongoing practise, rusty drivers are as much a problem as over confident youths.

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 266
    oldhenry said

    I cannot belive that car insurance in the UK is fair in any shape or form. Why can I get a premium quote from Saga for my car of £129 fully comp £100 excess for a year butfrom ther companies get double or nearlytreble that figure? Do they all have dofferent statistics? Why is it that Saga are notbroke?

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • PoohBah
    Love rating 18
    PoohBah said

    Oldhenry: Saga are not broke most likely because, like most insurers in my experience, they try to rip off some of their other customers on renewal. This year (I am 60, BTW) they tried to shove my premium up to well over £600. I went to Sainsbury's who gave me equivalent cover for £270, plus free breakdown cover, key protection, and double Nectar points.

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • malcolmsmill
    Love rating 0
    malcolmsmill said

    because older drivers do not claim, does not make them safe or guilty.

    my father is 98 and now suffers alzheimers (not apparently a reason to stop driving)... in order to stop him I took his licence and car.. using it to ferry him around in order to keep him happy.

    I was horrified that every panel on his car was dented, some severely..... must be a dangerous driver.

    on cancelling his insurance and £200+ a year AA (how on earth is AA membership this costly?) I had to go through his documents.

    what I found shocked and infuriated me... several letters from insurers ALL along the same lines "dear mr ###### we understand our client was in a collision with you... we accept this was in no part your fault and if you will fill in the attached form with details of your repairer, we will replace the 2 doors on your car and repair the bodywork including a full respray... this will not raise a cost to you and we will also cover your excess"

    this was the letter from one of the insurers and was duplicated in essence by 3 others (different damage to both sides, bonnet and boot)

    obviously none were my fathers fault but all were unrepaired.

    when pressed he told me that insurers didn't like claims and would have cancelled his policy?????????????????? anyway none had happened on a road so it didn't concern them what he did???????????????????

    98, no convictions (not even parking), no claims...... 75 years driving experience and the only damage was by other people in car parks (the worst was a lady who got the wrong pedal).... comprehensive insurance for 40yrs since retiring (company car before that) premium from a major bank/mortgage/insurance company £500 excess and £980 per annum in low crime rural england

    now THAT is a rip off!!!!!

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • meldrewreborn
    Love rating 45
    meldrewreborn said

    Cliff - you say :

    "Insurers are excluded from obeying the Equality Act 2010 (which bans unjustifiable age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services). However, they must produce yearly data on claims frequency and size by age in order to justify charging higher premiums to senior motorists."

    So where is the data - can we see it? One would expect the data to show conclusively who was being ripped off.

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    Some of these very older folk probably never took a driving test, although must be very few now.

    Only yesterday I renewed for 240 GBP with Churchill, I'm 62 and for fully comp with all the 'trimmings', including a 150 VE from me. This on a 3.3L, V6 Auto. Can't say that was overly expensive, so my experience is different to the article.

    Mind you, insurance is a con, we don't need it. Maybe you can volunteer to cover the car value, but you can now, and it's mainly to cover third party injury. But how many people get seriously hut, or cause this. Extremely few and could be covered by a government fund which would be peanuts in the grand scheme of things, instead of getting 35 million drivers to pay for it.

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mosicle
    Love rating 19
    mosicle said

    It's no wonder all these companies are ripping off the more senior of us. David Cameron has done nothing but bang on about the young people and how they should be given this chance and that chance.

    He seems to forget that WE have actualy earned our place in society, pay our own way and have saved a little.Why is he penalising us at every opporunity and encouraging other Ministers and companies to do the same??? After these last 2 governing parties I don't think I'll ever vote again. What a shower. They are all so rich they have NO idea whatsoever, of how the ordinary people are managing to live on the state pension.

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • muira
    Love rating 30
    muira said

    the solution to all this is simple..

    buy a motability scooter,pay no insurance,

    go where the hell you like,road,pavement,shopping malls,car boots.etc

    mow down innocent bystanders and collide with expensive other means of transport

    pay no excess,no loss of no claims bonus

    and pay no tax,no mot..just a tiny bit of electric,and the odd battery..

    you can even put your own personalised plate on it and make it spell correctly

    for someone to make out your name!!!..for peanuts..

    it's a win win win situation..

    Report on 09 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    @nosbert, I agree it is fallacious, it was not meant to be serious, even I can work out that no-one should have to pay £12,000 a year for car insurance! But, in all honesty, it's only just a LITTLE more silly than using statistics, which are notoriously easy to manipulate and really don;t tell the truth. Of course, it's not the fault of the insurer that someone chooses to keep a car just to drive 9 miles per week, when a taxi would work out cheaper.

    Perhaps there IS an argument for insurance based on mileage, but then you have all the objections such as rural drivers havind to drive further and thus being penalised when they might drive 10 miles without seeing another car, business drivers paying through the nose, etc.

    That's why I said it is much more sensible to charge on the individual's record whatever their age. All the so-called 'no claims discounts' are really just a front for putting up the underlying cost year on year. Lack of claims can be incorporated into the record anyway. Basically, it's far too expensive and, while older drivers are disproportionally penalised, so are careful young ones, thanks to statistics. There are lies, damn lies, and there are statistics!

    @muira, love it - you must live in a place like my village. I never go out of the house on a Monday morning - too many wrinkly boy and girl racers on the pavements. I just pray I never lose the use of my legs I'd hate to have to join THAT rat race!

    Report on 10 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • charles125
    Love rating 53
    charles125 said

    I've no problem with older drivers who can keep up with traffic, but when they drive at well below speed limits and hesitate to the point of causing major traffic holdups at roundabouts and junctions, and won't pull over to let other traffic pass, it is about time they gave up driving!

    I think that over the age of 80, all drivers should have an assessment every five years, starting at age 80, just 10 minutes observed driving would do, to ensure that they are actually safe and competent to drive. You wouldn't need specialist examiners, just employ people who can drive competently and well. Any doubts and drivers over 80 would need to sit a re-'test' (not a full driving test) before being allowed to continue driving. If this still raised doubts about their driving ability and consideration for other road users, then they would need to pass a full driving test in order to continue to be able to drive.

    Report on 10 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • time2go
    Love rating 66
    time2go said

    So....

    Insurers Charge high premiums to older drivers,

    the same applies to younger drivers,

    anyone in between these age groups pays high premiums for using the car for work,

    being unemployed increases your premium,

    the premium increases if you want a 3rd party only policy,

    your premium increases if a 3rd party crashes into you (and their insurer accepts liability)

    CONCLUSION, premiums increase, insurers make huge profits, insurers blame the public for the increase in premiums, we all complain, nothing changes.

    INSURERS ARE SCUM

    Report on 10 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • sludgeguts
    Love rating 55
    sludgeguts said

    time2go seems to have it in a nutshell. Insurers are scum.

    Decent people pay increased premiums to compensate the insurance industry for thei losses.

    We actually have no choice whatsoever as, to be legal, we must have insurance.

    According to my insurer, I live in a high risk area - yet according to the police website, there have been no recorded car crimes within a mile of my address. In fact, there have been no recorded crimes at all within half a mile & those crimes outside that range were at the local garage/shop.

    Here's a thought, how about the insurance industry stop penalising the good and honest & start penalising the uninsured & bad drivers?

    If you are in a prang & are uninsured then how about the fine covering ALL costs? YOU take out a loan to pay back all the coasts incurred because of YOUR stupidity?

    Unemployed? No problem, benefits automatically reduced by £20 per week to pay back.

    And how about sending in the bailiffs to recover goods to sell in order to offset the loan?

    Report on 10 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Kent
    Love rating 6
    Kent said

    Charles125

    I've read my Highway Code again. Perhaps I should be banned from driving, cos my brain just cannot interpret anything in there as saying that I have to drive AT the speed limit. Perhaps you could tell me which paragraph it is in.

    Another thing that intrigues me. When I am pottering along at 58mph in a 60mph limit, what do people who overtake me do with the few seconds they save - watch a few seconds more of Big Brother, Come Dancing, or whatever?

    And if I hesitate more than average at a roundabout, to be sure to be safe, I should be banned from driving?

    Funny old world.

    Report on 11 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • andy_j
    Love rating 1
    andy_j said

    Something I don't understand is why is third party not necessarily cheaper anymore?

    Last year I started asking questions when phoning insurers about why my premium was so expensive when I'm a statistically safe driver in a relatively low risk group (I'm 47). Even if I took comprehensive cover, I have a car that is worth £155 - none of which I would see in the event of a claim anyway because the excess would cover that. I got a range of answers, all of which were a lot less than convincing. One person even mentioned the state of the economy. How does that relate to my risk? Well, this illustrates how tenuous the notion that it is based on calculated risk. Much of it is related to how their investments, with our money, are doing. It's all quite murky.

    Did I not hear a little while ago that insurance company fair trading practices were going to be investigated? I don't seem to have heard anymore about that. Maybe they 'discouraged' the government from doing that.

    Report on 11 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Bernard Ric
    Love rating 0
    Bernard Ric said

    Very interesting - I dropped SAGA as their charges rose year on year and I cold get a better deal elsewhere. Tried them again a year or so back and got a far better deal with Liverpool and Victoria.

    LV do it for me so far.

    Bernard

    Report on 11 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • time2go
    Love rating 66
    time2go said

    Bernard Ric- I agree that LV do it for premiums but watch out when you need to claim!!

    Recent experience of two claims (wife's and father's, both with LV) did not leave a good taste in the mouth.

    All insurers crawl out of the same hole in the ground!

    Report on 12 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • The Bank Manager
    Love rating 72
    The Bank Manager said

    Hi Cliff,

    You state that insurers are excluded from obeying the Equality Act 2010 (which bans unjustifiable age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services), but will they be required to change this stance, when they have to treat women and men equally for their gender when calculating their premiums?

    I know too, that it's unlikely they will reduce men's premiums to the current level of ladies and instead raise ladies premiums towards men’s, but perhaps drop men’s premiums by a 'smidge'!

    Perhaps the Consumers Association can invoke their ability to make a Super Complaint against the industry, as they have had many other successes in the past?

    Report on 13 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • P G Tips
    Love rating 2
    P G Tips said

    I am over retirement age, and have had a clean driving record for over 40 years. It is because of this that I take more care as I get older, because I don't want to break that long standing record. One reason why younger drivers may think I am a problem on the road is that I insist on sticking to the speed limit. After all, it is there for a reason, namely everyones safety.

    Report on 14 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    I dont mind one bit drivers who stick to the limit or just below. At least you know they are awake and looking at the road signs!

    The drivers who really get MY goat are those who drive at 45mph. In a 60 limit, a 50 limit, a 40 limit, AND a 30 limit. In this part of Lincolnshire there are loads of them. I get the feeling they just put their foot on the pedal and go into autopilot. I can't help wondering what THEIR insurance costs are.

    Report on 15 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • eqcons
    Love rating 16
    eqcons said

    Couldn't agree more with marram! Round here we call them "45ers" - they sit at that speed on the whole of the A85 - a main trunk route - in 30 limits, 50 limits and 60 limits, apparently not noticing the queues of frustrated people trying to go about their daily business behind them.

    I'm nearly 61, and have a clean licence, and no claims for several decades. In 30, 40, or 50 limits, I obey them to the letter. However, where it's safe for me to do so, I'll exceed 60 and 70 limits - I'll never be accused of one of the old codgers holding people up!

    Report on 16 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jimfo
    Love rating 7
    jimfo said

    Insurance companies are part of the finance industry and as everyone knows this industry involves many greedy dishonest charlatans. Indeed it is quite apparent that a majority of the leading members. CEO's and directors and chairmen are the worst offenders.

    It should not come as any surprise therefore that we are being ripped off . However these people only get away with such rip-offs because they are under the protection of another even more powerful bunch of charlatans called MP's. This latter group along with their mandarin pals receive their rewards directly or indirectly, sooner or later as donations to party or non exec directorships. Thats the way it works in this land of plenty (for some).

    Report on 16 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Tog
    Love rating 6
    Tog said

    Am I safer than I was when I was "young"? Definitely, I've learned that listening to music and current affairs on the radio makes me drive badly so I don't do it. My mobile stays in the boot where I can't here it. Being in a hurry is bad so I leave early. Driving aggressively gives me less time to respond so I don't. Most importantly, I'm not as good a driver as my ego often thinks I am. Stuff like this you have to learn for yourself which is not to say that you can't learn it a darned site faster than me. As Brian said "You're all individuals", clumping us into age groups is stupid and insulting, insurers should be prevented from doing it.

    Report on 16 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nickthecrip2
    Love rating 17
    nickthecrip2 said

    It seems to me as though any company that has a financial basis actively look for & finds ANY excuse to overcharge as many of their customers as possible. As they all seem to operate some sort of cartel that so far has never been proven, there is little choice for any group being exploited in this way. If one lot doesn't get you, another one will!

    Report on 16 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • RMN05
    Love rating 11
    RMN05 said

    Not that I am a "45er", but what's wrong with doing 45 on a derestricted 60 mph road ?

    The limit does actually refer to the maximum permissable spend, so anything less than that is still complying with the law. Driving precisely at the 60 mph limit is not obligatory, no matter what petrolheads may think.

    Driving at 45-50 is, afterall, good for the planet and good for UK balance of payments, as you do get far more mpg cruising at 45 - 50, so less carbon footprint, and less imported oil. So oldies cruising at this speed are doing younger people a huge favour, by leaving the planet healthier and more oil in the gound for when they themselves get to the older age bracket.

    Report on 16 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • sludgeguts
    Love rating 55
    sludgeguts said

    Insurers discriminate against everybody - because it benefits them to do so. It gives them a pathetic excuse to charge you the earth.

    Apparently, my postcode is in a 'medium risk' area - yet according to the police website, there hasn't been a car crime within half a mile for best part of 20 years. The only other crimes are centred around 2 local mini-marts, about half a mile away.

    So where is the medium risk then?

    Why is 3rd party sometimes dearer than fully comp?

    Why, when I have over 10 yrs NCD, do my premiums continue to increase? I'm obviously a good driver so why am I paying for someone else's problem?

    Why is it sometimes cheaper to insure for parking on the road rather than on my drive or in a garage?

    I normally drive a minibus adapted to carry severely disabled or elderly people, it's more than my job's worth to chuck them around the place (like a normal bus driver would), I also had to undertake an additional driving test to prove my ability (plus regular re-takes) so why is this option a dearer one?? (and why can I not use the fact that I have never crunched my bus to gain additional discounts?).

    And why is it, when I ask why my premiums have gone up, am I told that it's to cover THEIR losses from all the uninsured drivers?

    I have fully comp insurance, if an uninsured driver hits me then it's the insurer's job to get the money off them. And I don't give a monkey's if these muppets are on benefits, they should have to stump up - somehow.

    In any case, seeing as how car insurance is a legal requirement then the law needs to make these morons pay. The law also needs to make changes to force every car on the road to be legal.

    Here's a suggestion, flood the country with ANPR. Every forecourt could have it fitted with auto contact to the nearest cop shop. Every set of traffic lights could have it fitted.

    And how much will all this cost? Well, probably a damned sight less than our increased insurance premiums.

    Report on 16 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    It may therefore surprise you to know, RMN05, that my diesel engined car is less economic at 45/50 than at 70. Not only that but because it is not operating at an optimum speed it will be kicking out more pollutants. And then when you allow for the extra fuel to quickly accelerate up to 60 to pass the slower driver, they are actually causing the planet a lot of problems. The same goes for the HGV fraternity who not only cause most of the holdups on the UK's roads, but are also extremely difficult to overtake because of their size.

    Report on 17 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    I was once hit from behind when I slowed down to avoid hitting an ambulance in the middle of the road. It was clearly the fault of the other driver, and in fact I got him to sign a statement, not admitting liability, but an agreement between us about what had happened, and we both had a copy.

    I submitted my claim form to my insurance company and at the same time sent a letter to the other insurers for repayment of my uninsured losses, enclosing the agreed statement of events. I asked for cost of taxis to work (it was an out-of-the way location) until my car was repaired, and the inconvenience, plus my insurance excess. Within a month I received a cheque from the other party's insurers. When my insurance was due for renewal 3 months later, I found I had lost my no claims bonus. I was told it was because the cost had not been recovered from the third party. I immediately sent a copy of the letter which had accompanied the cheque and asked why they had not recovered the money as I had, since it was such an open-and-shut case? My NCB was immediately restored and the difference refunded. I was completely disgusted, I suspect that they often do not bother to reclaim, why bother if you can get it back in increased premiums?

    Report on 03 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • barthvev444
    Love rating 0
    barthvev444 said

    Try this site where you can compare quotes from different companies: www.usainsurancequotes.net

    Report on 17 April 2013  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).

Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3