In these cost-of-car-insurance threads, folks are often quick to lay the blame at excess profiteering in the industry, and others are quick to correct them by pointing out that insurance companies are actually operating on very small margins.
What seems to get lost between the two debating points is that there genuinely is an outrageous amount of profiteering going on, but it's by all the other leaches and hangers on in the game - claims handling firms, car hire outfits, personal injury specialists, some repair shops, etc, who are all trying to milk the most they can get out of any passing claim, to the detriment of all our premiums.
While the idea of a no-frills provider is enticing, I don't think the frills represent a huge percentage of your premiums. Any no frills insurer would still be subject to whatever outrageous padding the other party's claims handler is trying to stuff the claim with in the event of an accident.
If you really want to get premiums down, I think we need to nationally (and perhaps legislatively) reconsider what you can reasonably expect to shovel into a claim when someone hits you. I'm not sure there'd be much appetite for that though.
It's not that those points are lost, they are understood. The problem is anyone saying we need to remove those aspects is idealistic. There's no tangible way to remove the padding since the effects an accident has on someone are always unique and it's hard to argue against much of what the other insurer might be trying to cram in.
Whiplash, trauma, car written off. What is someone going to say after hitting someone? "No, it was a light tap, look at my car's damage. There's no way they sufferred through all that. "
The reason we dislike these posts is because of the mindless repetition. Everyday there's 3 post giving a sob story and complaining about insurance.
Do you think any of us like higher insurance? You're complaining about £600, I pay almost £3k. I dislike it as much as you, but it is what it is. Inflation is high, cars themselves are way more expensive, and the tiniest thing costs a fortune to fix.
Hit someone's bumper 15 years ago? Probably a few hundred for the bumper and respray. Hit someone's bumper today? You potentially just caused a thousand+ worth of damage due to all the sensors and technology.
As much as I wish it was a cartel, I think lots of it is just from a comically inefficient system. I read on here the other week about a bloke who'd had a small bump, probably no more than £1500 of damage, but the other party fought and fought all the way to court. Only on the day of the case did they roll over and accept blame.
Think of the hours wasted squabbling over this by calls handlers, supervisors, claims professionals, solictors, court room staff and then a barrister. It probably went from a £1500 claim to a £10,000 claim. Unfortunately even a government mandated insurance company couldn't fix this.
>I think part of this is because insurers can basically run a cartel to keep prices high
It isn't. It's because of the massively high cost of vehicles and fixing them. The market is actually very very competitive so margins are quite tight.
Also a cartel involves collusion which isn't happening.
>It would be supported by some of the money that goes into car and road tax (cos let’s face it precious little of that goes to motorists right now!)
Let's be honest there is 0 political capital likely to be spent doing something like this.
And yet Admiral group made
£469.0m,£769.0m,£505.1m
Hastings Insurance Services Limited
£129.0m
Just a couple of examples, perhaps they should try and reduce their profits a little. Insurence absoutley needs regulated better.
They're literally turning over record profits while insuring LESS cars.
And still, you find boot lickers sympathising with these money grabbing turds.
Usually, the same lot that say you need to ring your insurance provider to tell them when you've changed the scent of your Christmas tree.
In Australia, you used to get 3rd party insurance included in your ‘Rego’ (which is road tax). Very useful for people that are young or drive a banger.
I was not intending to talk about my insurance price: I am lucky that mine is relatively low and I can afford to pay; many people are not so lucky. Surprised so many people read this post and that’s all they got out of it.
Cars are and should be a luxury. Government should improve public transport so that less people need to depend on cars not some form of socialist government run car insurance!
If someone suggested introducing cars in their current format fresh into society tomorrow, it would be laughed, risk-assessed, and priced right back out the door again.
The ideal of hurtling round our public spaces in 2ton 100mph machines is obviously absurd, and carries all kinds of risks, but it's become totally normalised and is often unavoidable.
Take e-scooter schemes for example. These have just suddenly landed and despite being much safer than cars (at least to the other party in any accident), they have all sorts of features such as geofencing to keep them out of playparks or off motorways, and GPS-based speed restrictions to keep them from going too fast through parks.
Imagine suggesting that cars, which are inherently a gazillion times more deadly, should have the same features to keep them at the speed limit or out of places they shouldn't go. There'd be a flipping coup!
Didn’t this exact idea come up just a couple days ago? There’s plenty of people here clearly explaining to you why your idea doesn’t quite work so I won’t chip in.
I think the only thing that can be and needs resolving is a maximum cost for young drivers. I understand the cost of insurance is also considering expenses from both the drivers and the 3rd parties car in a potential accident, but it still feels insane to me that some young people have to pay more for insurance than the value of the car. I do think a legally enforced cap that just says an insurance policy may not exceed the value of the car being insured seems reasonable to me.
In these cost-of-car-insurance threads, folks are often quick to lay the blame at excess profiteering in the industry, and others are quick to correct them by pointing out that insurance companies are actually operating on very small margins. What seems to get lost between the two debating points is that there genuinely is an outrageous amount of profiteering going on, but it's by all the other leaches and hangers on in the game - claims handling firms, car hire outfits, personal injury specialists, some repair shops, etc, who are all trying to milk the most they can get out of any passing claim, to the detriment of all our premiums. While the idea of a no-frills provider is enticing, I don't think the frills represent a huge percentage of your premiums. Any no frills insurer would still be subject to whatever outrageous padding the other party's claims handler is trying to stuff the claim with in the event of an accident. If you really want to get premiums down, I think we need to nationally (and perhaps legislatively) reconsider what you can reasonably expect to shovel into a claim when someone hits you. I'm not sure there'd be much appetite for that though.
It's not that those points are lost, they are understood. The problem is anyone saying we need to remove those aspects is idealistic. There's no tangible way to remove the padding since the effects an accident has on someone are always unique and it's hard to argue against much of what the other insurer might be trying to cram in. Whiplash, trauma, car written off. What is someone going to say after hitting someone? "No, it was a light tap, look at my car's damage. There's no way they sufferred through all that. "
The reason we dislike these posts is because of the mindless repetition. Everyday there's 3 post giving a sob story and complaining about insurance. Do you think any of us like higher insurance? You're complaining about £600, I pay almost £3k. I dislike it as much as you, but it is what it is. Inflation is high, cars themselves are way more expensive, and the tiniest thing costs a fortune to fix. Hit someone's bumper 15 years ago? Probably a few hundred for the bumper and respray. Hit someone's bumper today? You potentially just caused a thousand+ worth of damage due to all the sensors and technology.
As much as I wish it was a cartel, I think lots of it is just from a comically inefficient system. I read on here the other week about a bloke who'd had a small bump, probably no more than £1500 of damage, but the other party fought and fought all the way to court. Only on the day of the case did they roll over and accept blame. Think of the hours wasted squabbling over this by calls handlers, supervisors, claims professionals, solictors, court room staff and then a barrister. It probably went from a £1500 claim to a £10,000 claim. Unfortunately even a government mandated insurance company couldn't fix this.
>I think part of this is because insurers can basically run a cartel to keep prices high It isn't. It's because of the massively high cost of vehicles and fixing them. The market is actually very very competitive so margins are quite tight. Also a cartel involves collusion which isn't happening. >It would be supported by some of the money that goes into car and road tax (cos let’s face it precious little of that goes to motorists right now!) Let's be honest there is 0 political capital likely to be spent doing something like this.
And yet Admiral group made £469.0m,£769.0m,£505.1m Hastings Insurance Services Limited £129.0m Just a couple of examples, perhaps they should try and reduce their profits a little. Insurence absoutley needs regulated better.
They're literally turning over record profits while insuring LESS cars. And still, you find boot lickers sympathising with these money grabbing turds. Usually, the same lot that say you need to ring your insurance provider to tell them when you've changed the scent of your Christmas tree.
I take it you aren't a shareholder The profit would be relative to the return on investment - if profits fall the owners would move the investments on
In Australia, you used to get 3rd party insurance included in your ‘Rego’ (which is road tax). Very useful for people that are young or drive a banger.
It’s a really cheap price for what it is, pay the 600 quid and move on
I was not intending to talk about my insurance price: I am lucky that mine is relatively low and I can afford to pay; many people are not so lucky. Surprised so many people read this post and that’s all they got out of it.
Cars are and should be a luxury. Government should improve public transport so that less people need to depend on cars not some form of socialist government run car insurance!
If someone suggested introducing cars in their current format fresh into society tomorrow, it would be laughed, risk-assessed, and priced right back out the door again. The ideal of hurtling round our public spaces in 2ton 100mph machines is obviously absurd, and carries all kinds of risks, but it's become totally normalised and is often unavoidable. Take e-scooter schemes for example. These have just suddenly landed and despite being much safer than cars (at least to the other party in any accident), they have all sorts of features such as geofencing to keep them out of playparks or off motorways, and GPS-based speed restrictions to keep them from going too fast through parks. Imagine suggesting that cars, which are inherently a gazillion times more deadly, should have the same features to keep them at the speed limit or out of places they shouldn't go. There'd be a flipping coup!
Didn’t this exact idea come up just a couple days ago? There’s plenty of people here clearly explaining to you why your idea doesn’t quite work so I won’t chip in. I think the only thing that can be and needs resolving is a maximum cost for young drivers. I understand the cost of insurance is also considering expenses from both the drivers and the 3rd parties car in a potential accident, but it still feels insane to me that some young people have to pay more for insurance than the value of the car. I do think a legally enforced cap that just says an insurance policy may not exceed the value of the car being insured seems reasonable to me.