insurance companies

[nick nick]

Just been reading an article about insurance companies thinking of raising
the premiums of motorist (by about £200) who have been pulled for eating,listening to loud music and reading maps etc while driving
Now i agree these things are bang out of order (apart from the loud music) but why should an insurance
company be allowed to up the premiums of someone who the law has deemed
3 points and a fine is a suitable punishment.

[Rover418275]

Simples, we motorists are the cow that gets milked for as much taxation and surcharges by this countries administration as is posible without giving much back.

What about this, a mate of mine got done some years ago for the shameful offence of drink driving, however the details are held on his licence for 11 years well after the offence is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act....... DVLA exempt from this Act?????

About time we motorists demanded that our Human Rights are granted.

On a roll now, if the price of crude oil has come down by 50% over the last 12 months, why are we still paying over a £ per litre for diesel ?

Rant over !

[nick nick]

Originally Posted by Rover418275

Simples, we motorists are the cow that gets milked for as much taxation and surcharges by this countries administration as is possible without giving much back.

What about this, a mate of mine got done some years ago for the shameful offence of drink driving, however the details are held on his licence for 11 years well after the offence is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act....... DVLA exempt from this Act?????

About time we motorists demanded that our Human Rights are granted.

On a roll now, if the price of crude oil has come down by 50% over the last 12 months, why are we still paying over a £ per litre for diesel ?

Rant over !

How big is your soap box mick move over and let me on
This government claims to have signed up to the human rights act
yet they seem to only enforce the parts that suit them
the Rehabilitation of offenders act is a joke how many times have we herd
a persons past mistermeaners dragged up in the press even when they
were committed 30 or 40 years ago whats the point of saying they are
spent only for some agency to hold them against you years down the road

[StevenWilliams]

You have fallen fowl of scare tactics and inaccuracies in the press.

Insurance companies are thinking of increasing the premiums of anyone who has a conviction for Driving without due care and attention.

This had been covered by the same road traffic act since 1988 and Eating, Smoking and changing a CD have been considered part of the Careless driving offence wince 2007. Insurance companies have always added a cost for having a conviction for careless driving. (Driving without due care and attention is careless driving)

The chances of you getting a conviction for the Apple think is negligible but it is covered by the same laws. You could have to be considered a risk to others to be pulled for it. After all Police drivers using a radio are also covered by this law.


As the likelihood of Joe Bloggs being done for eating an apple unless they demonstrate that they have lost the ability to fully control the vehicle then I see no reason why anyone should have issue with this.

Nothing is changing apart from Insurance companies adding to the premium they already charge for drivers who have shown that they have failed to demonstrate a good ability to drive a car.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Rover418275

What about this, a mate of mine got done some years ago for the shameful offence of drink driving, however the details are held on his licence for 11 years well after the offence is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act....... DVLA exempt from this Act?????

About time we motorists demanded that our Human Rights are granted.



Rant over !

but if he killed someone when drink driving they lost there life, he only gets the details held on his licence for 11 years. luckly man.
drink driving should be a life ban.

[StevenWilliams]

Originally Posted by kevin

drink driving should be a life ban.

Driving is not a right but a privilege.
If you show such disregard for the life of others once you should NEVER be allowed to drive again. Nobody needs to drink and drive. It's a choice and a reckless one.

I'm a fan of lowering the Alcohol limit in this country. It's to high.

However that's not what this thread was about so I'll shut up now before the Forum Police tell me off.

[moonstoneboy]

Originally Posted by nick nick

Just been reading an article about insurance companies thinking of raising
the premiums of motorist (by about £200) who have been pulled for eating,listening to loud music and reading maps etc while driving
Now i agree these things are bang out of order (apart from the loud music) but why should an insurance
company be allowed to up the premiums of someone who the law has deemed
3 points and a fine is a suitable punishment.

The insurance companies are risk assessing. He has shown that he is a greater risk.

Insurance premiums and punishment are not the same thing.

Paul

[StevenWilliams]

Originally Posted by moonstoneboy

The insurance companies are risk assessing. He has shown that he is a greater risk.

Insurance premiums and punishment are not the same thing.

Paul

I work for a VERY large insurer and vehicles are only a minor part of what we do but the stats are sound. People with Careless Driving convictions do have a higher risk of being involved in an insurance claim regardless of fault. It's not much of an increased rick but it is present.

Now why should we all pay for that increased risk. The answer is we shouldn't only the people that present a higher risk should pay the increased premiums.

Traditionally the insurance companies would spread the load and increase everyones slightly while increasing the convicted people by a greater degree.

Now in this 'soft market' insurance companies like all financial organisations are struggling to get profits back. As industry slows down so does the insurance market. Everything relating to the slow down in shipping to building and construction hits the insurance industry. All they are trying to do is re-asses the risks and price accordingly.

I've been involved quite a lot in providing the Management information on the risk assessment at work and it's not an easy science. For marketability and profit reasons you may take a hit in one area to increase profits in another based on the market as a whole.

This is not a conspiracy and it's just a matter of changing a few simple figures to make the right people pay for the risks.


At the moment there is basically very little profit in motor insurance. The number of claims is going up and the value of those claims is also rising.

Over the next few years the industry is going to change somewhat. The larger insurance companies are reducing risks left right and centre due to the mortgage crisis. But we should see a reduction at some point as the requirement for all vehicles including those not on the road requiring some level of third party insurance as a minimum. This will mean less uninsured drivers and more money in the kitty to pay the claims.

The reality is there may not be a reduction as such but a relief from the inevitable rise that is coming.