SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Would it be possible for the loading to go against you when you have not owned your own car as they see it as an unknown 'risk' at your location ?
About all I can imagine at the minute ! I fail to see why they cannot link up with your work and not see your record - why shouldn't your Company car records help you with your independent insurance records ?
I am able to give them details of my previous employers fleet managers and the insurers for the respective companies fleets. The insurers I have spoken to are not interested - why, I rather suspect that given the option:
a. they will have to do some work which will result in them having to charge a lesser premium or
b. ignoring my previous driving history and earning nearly double the premium that my level of risk would cost me.
They are going to go for b as it is the easy option and earns them more money, it's a legal rip off!
I've spoken to a few brokers who have told me that if I get a letter from my previous employer stating my driving record with them I will get a reduction for that but I still will not get the premium that an owner driver with my history would get.
Lum wrote:
Oh and the only insurance companies that offer a discount for pass plus or IAM are the ones that put a loading on your policy for not having pass plus or IAM, thus it means these companies were previously more expensive and are now the same price as the others.
Very true, amongst the most expensive quotes I've had have been those who 'give discounts' for IAM, ROADA etc and have been advertised through the IAM magazine.
Lum wrote:
As for employment. If you're unemployed, aren't in a great area for public transport, and happen to own a car, then a job interview comes up in the next town. You can't afford to insure or tax your car. There aren't any police on the roads these days, just cameras. You really want to ensure you turn up for the interview on time. It's easy to see how it would be tempting to just drive uninsured. If you can just get the job then you can insure and tax the car, maintain it properly etc. Oh wait you don't get paid for the first month, better just carry on driving and hope you don't get caught. Most will then "go legit" at this point, but some will think "why bother. I've not been caught and I haven't even seen a copper once this month. I'll be £200 a month better off this way."
This is exactly the argument I'm hearing from younger friends just left uni with no money struggling to get a job, most would love to use PT but simply cannot afford to either in the cost or reliability stakes.
And as for taking a taxi to the next town in Chelmsford it costs over £6-00 to get from one end of chelmsford to the other one way. The nearest towns with industrial ares for work are around the 10 - 12 miles away mark - one way cost by taxi £25-00 plus. Hell it would cost about £12-00 by bus !
The jobcentre (or whatever they are now calling themselves now) will not pay taxi fees if there is a PT link. So if you are unemployed it gets pretty hard and the temptation to drive uninsured is high.
The days of employment being within walking distance are gone for many, with out of town retail and business parks (especially wthose with poor PT, footpath and cycle path links) there is little option but to drive.
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
So is it adults morals that make suggestions to young people ?
Do young people 'think' of this themselves, or is it 'now' common knowledge it is lost into time as to how it 'started'.
How many years has this been going on and is the increase coinciding with speed camera use ?
From the friends of mine that I've spoken to there is the view that the proportion of risk to premium charged is disproportionate.
Insurers claims of poverty in the motor insurance sector doesn't seem to hold up when you look at the profits being shown in company finacial reports.
Insurance companies manner of dealing with claims either it be through deliberate de-valuing of cars (I've had five friends who have had cars written off - a mix of fault and no fault accidents who have all had cars de-valued by insurers in every case the insurance ombudsman at least doubled the insurers initial settlement) or shoddy repairs by 'insurance co approved' repairers.
The younger generation can in some cases be very savvy consumers and when they see things in adverts from insurers like 'we don't use price comparison websites' they have twigged that because 9 times out of 10 it's because they have dear premiums.
The overwhelming view (amongst friends) is that whilst insurance is a legal requirement it is also a legalised con, and a lot of my younger friends trust HMG even less than they trust the insurance companies.
One idea that was put to me as a solution is that it should be run on a non profit basis with a claims fund set a certain level, if the fund is close to being depleted then premiums go up to take account of this and take a little extra to boost the fund, if the fund is ok the premiums stay the same - likewise any attempt by drivers to improve thier skills should be GENUINLY and I mean genuinly rewarded with a x% reduction rather than an overinflated price to start with.
_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.
Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.
http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk