Cheaper premium?

You might be right - I normally put my mum on even tho' she never drives, and for most insurers that knocks a good chunk off, but with AF it makes it go UP!

They do seem to target the young-middle aged car enthusiast crowd primarily.

15 hours ago, Cyker said:

You might be right - I normally put my mum on even tho’ she never drives, and for most insurers that knocks a good chunk off, but with AF it makes it go UP!

They do seem to target the young-middle aged car enthusiast crowd primarily.

 

Doesn’t your mum even hold a driving licence?  But this action alone indicates how car insurance has been messed up. When one considers the importance of keeping dangerous drivers from getting behind the wheel, it should be high on the agenda to endeavour to ensure, as far as possible, that only proven safe drivers area allowed on the roads. Any drivers who have not reached this stage should be regarded as probationary, and this is where the higher premiums should apply.  Then, their own record should determine a lower premium in later years.

17 hours ago, Cyker said:

You might be right - I normally put my mum on even tho' she never drives, and for most insurers that knocks a good chunk off, but with AF it makes it go UP!

They do seem to target the young-middle aged car enthusiast crowd primarily.

 

When I spoke to AF and asked for a quote it was over £100 more then the comparison sites, I did ask why and was told they are more of a specialist insurance company that deal with difficult and generally unusual car insurance. However for those that have used them they must have been able to quote an acceptable price.

Like most things one size doesn't fit all.

2 hours ago, Haliotis said:

it should be high on the agenda to endeavour to ensure, as far as possible, that only proven safe drivers area allowed on the roads

So how does one determine what a 'proven safe driver' is?

For example, some drivers who habitually speed may have an unblemished claims history, and no points on their licence, and the same applies to drivers who regularly drink and drive. Some drivers who have accidents in their cars, don't claim, etc.

I did say, “as far as possible”, because I accept that what I am suggesting is a difficult one, but anything should be at least considered rather than the stupid system (if there is a system) which we are currently subjected to.

Regarding habitual speedsters and drink drivers, yes, there may be one or two who are lucky enough to get by unscathed, but I think the majority sooner or later get caught.  It is then up to the police, the insurers and the courts to apply effective punishments to make these drivers see the errors of their ways, and ban the worst offenders for life.

7 hours ago, Haliotis said:

Doesn’t your mum even hold a driving licence?  But this action alone indicates how car insurance has been messed up. When one considers the importance of keeping dangerous drivers from getting behind the wheel, it should be high on the agenda to endeavour to ensure, as far as possible, that only proven safe drivers area allowed on the roads. Any drivers who have not reached this stage should be regarded as probationary, and this is where the higher premiums should apply.  Then, their own record should determine a lower premium in later years.

She does! It's exceptionally clean too since she hasn't driven in decades!  

It's a good tip I give to everyone - Load as many 40+ women with clean licenses on your insurance as possible (Well, I think the max is 2 or 3) and you can save up to £200! (Depending on the insurerer...)  

Alas my poor ol' mum is getting into the old enough to be seen as a risk category so I probably won't be able to use this for much longer. However nobody said they had to be related to you!  

5 hours ago, Bper said:

When I spoke to AF and asked for a quote it was over £100 more then the comparison sites, I did ask why and was told they are more of a specialist insurance company that deal with difficult and generally unusual car insurance. However for those that have used them they must have been able to quote an acceptable price.

Like most things one size doesn't fit all.

Indeed, although the specialist ones like Saga for older drivers and Sheila's Wheels and Diamond for women seem to be far less competitive on their supposed target audience than they used to be; My dad was with Saga for ages but now the quotes he gets from them are sometimes even worse than the general insurers!

4 hours ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

So how does one determine what a 'proven safe driver' is?

For example, some drivers who habitually speed may have an unblemished claims history, and no points on their licence, and the same applies to drivers who regularly drink and drive. Some drivers who have accidents in their cars, don't claim, etc.

It is tricky, and if we had better enforcement then we'd be in a better situation, but the police basically can't do anything and enforcement is now nothing but a revenue generating exercise.

But as a general baseline, I feel if someone does something so serious that the police have to pull them over, they should probably loose their license.

I'd be pretty lenient for speeding up to say 10mph over, as sometimes pushing the speed limit a bit to finishing an overtake faster is safer, but things like blatantly ignoring red lights (Which is now an increasingly common thing in the areas I drive, especially for road works, but increasingly even at normal traffic lights!  ) and taking the absolute smeg with speed (e.g. doing 50mph in a school zone or 100+ on the motorway) would be insta-bans.

The problem is accidents themselves are not a great indicator of whether a driver is 'good' or not, it's the behaviour that led up to that - I've seen so many near-misses and situations where a split-second was the difference between nothing happening and a horrific incident - I think a lot of accidents are avoided because we still have enough drivers with good awareness and skill, but everything's increasingly stacked against them. Smart Motorways are a good example of this - If drivers weren't so good generally, there'd be a lot more deaths caused by them, but because not enough people have died they think Ah, see? It's all fine, nothing to worry about! and just keep building them, ignoring the fact that they do increase the risk of accidents!

On the subject of road safety I have an hightened awareness when it comes to A roads. Whenever travelling at speed and I see a car looking to pull out of a side turning onto the main road I always have this anticipation that they will pull out regardless of the speed on any approaching traffic.

This is made worse when any large distance between myself and the car Infront happens. It's seems irrational but I have had on a few occasions when drivers have pulled out and forced me to break hard to avoid an accident.

I am not sure why the hell they do this but they do not seem to have any concept of the danger they create by being so reckless.

I once had a car when travelling on the M11 pull straight out from the middle lane just as I was overtaking in the outside lane and I still to this day do not know how I avoided a crash.🫣🥴

"Mirrors? What are mirrors? Wait, my head can... *turn*???!  "  

It boggles the mind how these people hold driving licences!

Even if you yourself are not directly involved, it is worrying how you daily witness drivers doing something that is totally alien to the code of safe driving.  Witnessing it is bad enough, but what is the mentality of drivers when they don’t seem to realise what they have done?  

One of the most stupid acts, and this is a regular case these days, is this:  There is a line of parked cars on your near side, and you have no option but to drive on the “wrong side” until you have passed them.  The way ahead may be clear as you start the manoeuvre, but an oncoming car appears after you are committed.  Does that driver slow or stop until you have passed these cars?  Oh no!  The idiot continues to come at you as if you aren’t there.  Usually, fortunately, you do get through before thick-head closes the gap - but what if he/she has misjudged the situation, and a collision becomes inevitable?  Your only option is to brake and stop, but have nowhere to go except wait, and hope that clown realises that they alone are the only party that can avoid a collision and react in time to achieve it.

I had an idiot turn in front of me today. I was stationary, in a line of traffic. The idiot was in the oncoming traffic, heading towards me. We both had to stop because of the traffic lights. At this point, he was about 100 metres in front of me, waiting for a break in the traffic so he could turn.

The traffic in front of me started to move, and as I pulled off, this idiot pulled in front of me to turn into a side road. Luckily I was only doing 15mph, but I still had to slam on brakes to avoid hitting him.

He totally misjudged everything. Luckily I had a Dashcam.

I sometimes wonder where some drivers thoughts are whilst they are behind the wheel, particularly when they are on a straight dual carriageway with no turnings.

Yesterday evening, at about 16:00 hrs, I was driving in the near side lane on a two-lane dual carriageway in a 50 mph limit. It was dark, and both lanes were busy.  The inside lane was moving slowly, and eventually the outer lane had stopped just in front of me.  There were two cars with their indicators flashing to pull left.  The car in front of me let the first car through, and i let the second one through.  Then I saw the cause.  There was a 4-car shunt in the outer lane, and one car had a “Rod Hull Emu” bonnet, which indicated a collision with some force. At least some of the cars must have been immobilised - imagine sorting that out on a dark, busy evening!

For anyone who would like to check it out - It was in Leicester, on the A563 Soar Valley Way, and on the lanes in the direction of the M1.

Hi.

I'm sorry we couldn't help out with a insurance. Unfortunately we can't be competitive on every risk. I only wish we could.

Regards,

Dan.

15 hours ago, DAN@ADRIAN FLUX said:

Hi.

I'm sorry we couldn't help out with a insurance. Unfortunately we can't be competitive on every risk. I only wish we could.

Regards,

Dan.

I think very few, if any, are truly competitive, because they all use the 5-year cut off concerning motor convictions and fault claims.  To improve their levels of competition, they could extend these cut off periods to benefit the really careful drivers.  Admittedly, there are elderly drivers (and some not so elderly) who should not be on the roads. But, where elderly drivers are concerned, the insurance companies operate a policy of age discrimination.

Generally, provided the bottom line pleases their accountants, they are too lazy to create a more sophisticated method of assessing trust, and don’t care that they may be forcing elderly, but capable, drivers off the roads.

On 11/21/2023 at 6:57 PM, Cyker said:

 

I'd be pretty lenient for speeding up to say 10mph over, as sometimes pushing the speed limit a bit to finishing an overtake faster is safer, but things like blatantly ignoring red lights (Which is now an increasingly common thing in the areas I drive, especially for road works, but increasingly even at normal traffic lights!  ) and taking the absolute smeg with speed (e.g. doing 50mph in a school zone

Well, we just did a community speed watch this morning.  25% were exceeding the limit with 36 to 50mph.  It would have been more as we missed some and others had obviously been warned. 

Perhaps the silliest was a nationally known footballer, whom I had never heard of though his wife was in the national press earlier this year.  He pulled out in the village some 200 yards before the check and accelerated to 40.  Top tip, don't speed in your own village or if you have personalised number plates. 

3 hours ago, Haliotis said:

I think very few, if any, are truly competitive, because they all use the 5-year cut off concerning motor convictions and fault claims.  To improve their levels of competition, they could extend these cut off periods to benefit the really careful drivers.  Admittedly, there are elderly drivers (and some not so elderly) who should not be on the roads. But, where elderly drivers are concerned, the insurance companies operate a policy of age discrimination.

Generally, provided the bottom line pleases their accountants, they are too lazy to create a more sophisticated method of assessing trust, and don’t care that they may be forcing elderly, but capable, drivers off the roads.

Albert, I believe that Adrian Flux is a broker rather than an insurer and as such doesn't set the underwriting criteria.

Understand what you say, David, but I was aiming my comments at the car insurance system in general.

2 hours ago, davidif said:

Albert, I believe that Adrian Flux is a broker rather than an insurer and as such doesn't set the underwriting criteria.

 

Hi David, If Adrian Flux are a broker then Surely they should have access to multiple insurance companies that should offer competitive quotes. Yet when I spoke to them I was informed that they are more of a specialist insurer. However if they were a broker maybe it was a mistake when the woman I spoke to said insurer.

I googled,”What type of insurer is Adrian Flux?”, and the website https://www.addrianflux.co.uk answered:-          Adrian Flux is the UK’s largest specialist insurance broker, covering an array of classic, vintage and heavily modified sports cars.

These types of vehicles would, I imagine, attract very high premiums, so perhaps Adrian Flux are not interested in, or not equipped to quote for, the ordinary mass produced production vehicles?  Maybe they prefer a small customer base who pay very high premiums, as opposed to a large customer base which would vastly increase their admin work with no improvement in profit.

Although, having said that, the comparison sites do not fare much better.

15 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

I googled,”What type of insurer is Adrian Flux?”, and the website https://www.addrianflux.co.uk answered:-          Adrian Flux is the UK’s largest specialist insurance broker, covering an array of classic, vintage and heavily modified sports cars.

These types of vehicles would, I imagine, attract very high premiums, so perhaps Adrian Flux are not interested in, or not equipped to quote for, the ordinary mass produced production vehicles?  Maybe they prefer a small customer base who pay very high premiums, as opposed to a large customer base which would vastly increase their admin work with no improvement in profit.

Although, having said that, the comparison sites do not fare much better.

It appears that a number of members have used them in the past so I assume they must of given a competitive quote. They should still have access to multiple insurance sources to get competitive prices.

Cyker, your comment about being lenient at up to 10 mph over the limit raises an interesting point.  Some time ago, a government ad showed a. Difference between 30 and 40 mph, where braking indicated that a pedestrian was safe at 30, but hit at 40.

Now, some years ago I read an article by Continental tyres, where a graph showed the braking distances of a tyre tread at 3mm, and how the braking distance rapidly deteriorated as the tread dropped to 1.6mm.

I know that a wheel with 1.6mm tread can aquaplane in heavy rain (so how did the government arrive at a 1.6mm minimum), and I always replace my tyres at 3mm tread depth.

Going back to the above mentioned ad, at 30mph with a 1.6mm tread, the pedestrian would be hit, but with a 3mm tread the pedestrian would be safe at 40mph.

Another point is that brake fluid is hygroscopic (absorbs moisture, which becomes compressible and makes brakes spongy), and should be drained and replaced every 2 years.

The results of all these variants, and the police being less than scientific where vehicle speed is concerned, means that there are circumstances (suppose a pedestrian suddenly jaywalks) where the driver of a poorly maintained vehicle can be cleared from blame if he/she was under the limit, yet a driver with an excellently maintained vehicle can be prosecuted simply because the limit was exceeded.

Article from Autocar 22/03/23:

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/consumer/electric-car-insurance-cost

On 11/27/2023 at 1:31 AM, FROSTYBALLS said:

Article from Autocar 22/03/23:

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/consumer/electric-car-insurance-cost

Interesting article, Mike.  So, if the government really want motorists to go down the EV route, they will have to stop pontificating from the sidelines and get involved in discussions with all branches of motor engineering (and insurers) to resolve the problems of insurance and repair costs affecting EVs.  They cannot criticise motorists for hanging on to their ICE cars if the “system” leaves drivers open to swinging charges.

The article says as more second-hand EVs enter the market at lower prices, so their insurance premiums will fall, increased EV numbers will also give repairers the confidence to invest in EV repairs.

Surely overhead, labour and parts costs will not go down and continue to rise so insurance premiums will likely remain high for the foreseeable future

The only way they'll go down is if we don't pay such high premiums, so the best thing we can do is continue to hunt for the best deals at renewal.

It's the first rule of capitalism (Probably) to charge as much as the market will bear.

If the government want us to switch to EVs then, until the problems with them in comparison to ICE cars is sorted out, as far as insurance is concerned the government should subsidise premiums for EVs.

Also, where an EV driver is not at fault in an accident, the offending third party’s insurance should foot the entire costs, AND insurers should only bump up premiums for drivers responsible for accidents.