Since the recent thread concerning the confusion of LV insurances attitude to modifications I have been thinking. The whole concept of insurance companies agreeing to insure modifications is extremely dodgy. Lets take LV as an example to show you what I mean.

LV will not insure any driver with a Northern Irish address and when I asked (today) stated that it was because the risk is to great, ie when a claim in N.Ireland is made it is more likely to result in a large payout for injuries (court system works differently here and tend to award more money for whip lash etc. That is fair enough, insurance companies are basically gambling. This however does not sit well with a company that supposely is happy to insure people with souped up cars. People with such cars are much more likely to end up claiming or being claimed against as:

1. The car is now faster, indeed faster than the manufactuere designed it to safely do.

2. The owner is going to drive the car faster or there would be no point in doing the modifications.

3. These drivers are not (in most cases) trained to handle high power cars or high speed driving, therefore will be dangerous when using the potential of their souped up car (ie see Jason).

In short the company will not insure a middle aged N. Irish woman driving a 1.2 L supermini because of the risk but will insure a 25 year old Devon driver in a 180bhp modified car, who drives dangerously on narrow country roads! This is the height of contradiction.

I feel that it is highly likely that LV have been decieving the under writers concerning modifications but obviusly could not hide the address of even the lowest risk N. Irish driver.

They also obvioulsy have been caught on.

You have been warned.

I on the other hand, do have a "modified" car and am insured by them. I am late 30s and am an average driver and generally drive like I've got Miss Daisy in the car. Haven't had a road accident for best part of 20 years.

Does that make me a bad risk?

I on the other hand' date=' do have a "modified" car and am insured by them. I am late 30s and am an average driver and generally drive like I've got Miss Daisy in the car. Haven't had a road accident for best part of 20 years.

Does that make me a bad risk?[/quote']

Obviously not every driver of a modified car will have accidents, just as the fast majority of insurance policies sold to N.Irish drivers will not end up having to pay out massive injury claims.

I would say that it is likley that a high percentage of people wanting to modify cars will be less mature?, and will want the modifications for driving on the road rather than on the track, as I gather is the case with yourself.

And I have been driving for 42 years, have never had an accident, nor speeding or parking ticket even, and would guess that LV view me as a good risk - even with my car's remap. When I was based at RAF Ballykelly in NI I too used to pay higher premiums compared with the UK - but there again I was mixing it on the roads with drivers who hadn't had to pass a test to drive. Could that be relevant?

As for LV deceiving their underwriters, William, that is tosh. Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited (LVIC) underwrites all of LiverpoolVictoria's general insurances. So it's a case of one department (eg car insurance sales) talking to another department (ie underwriters).

but there again I was mixing it on the roads with drivers who hadn't had to pass a test to drive. Could that be relevant?

????????? I can assure you that there is a driving test in N.Ireland just as there is in UK, also a more stringent MOT to make sure cars are road worthy etc.

Also remember I am not commenting on individuals or evn judging those who mod cars, I am judging insurance company double standards.

1. The car is now faster' date=' indeed faster than the manufactuere designed it to safely do.

2. The owner is going to drive the car faster or there would be no point in doing the modifications.

3. These drivers are not (in most cases) trained to handle high power cars or high speed driving, therefore will be dangerous when using the potential of their souped up car (ie see Jason).[/quote']

My reply:

1. Please provide evidence to back up this claim. Do you think the safety margins are that tight? I think not.

2. Rubbish - I will still drive my car at 100mph on the motorway whether it's been modified or not. The fact is the car will get to that speed quicker I'll grant you that.

3. I don't think it's fair to bring Jason into the argument. What happened to Jason could've happened to anyone and in any car regardless of performance. I would agree that experience is key.

My reply:

1. Please provide evidence to back up this claim. Do you think the safety margins are that tight? I think not.

2. Rubbish - I will still drive my car at 100mph on the motorway whether it's been modified or not. The fact is the car will get to that speed quicker I'll grant you that.

3. I don't think it's fair to bring Jason into the argument. What happened to Jason could've happened to anyone and in any car regardless of performance. I would agree that experience is key.

1. the highest powerd Fabia built for use by ordinary drivers on the road is the vRS. Power - 130 bhp. This car has altered suspension bigger brakes tec. Jason for example had had a standard Furby Tdi (100 ish bhp) boasted to a figure higher than that in the vRS. Had he also had properly tested stronger brakes fitted (by this I mean tested by real engineers using the sort of technology available to a car manufacturer, not some grease monkey in a tuning shop), his suspension suitably altered (in a tested manner) to allow the car to handle greater speeds and acceleration/decclertaion forces? - Probably not.

2. Rubbish, many people speed in unaltered cars, but lets be honest the more powerful the car the faster they drive (see BMW M series drivers).

3. yes unfair but I don't mix much with moders so Jason was the example I had. Would he have rolled his car if he had been driving at 40 mph (about the max I think is safe on the type of road he was on)?

Personally I think this discussion is pointless unless we see some facts.

I'll be very surprised if "modded" cars cause more accidents than uninsured or reckless drivers.

re: 3. yes unfair but I don't mix much with moders so Jason was the example I had. Would he have rolled his car if he had been driving at 40 mph (about the max I think is safe on the type of road he was on)?

Yes...cold cheap tyres, wet/greasy road, possible deflation/flat and tired. I've had more bumps in my first unmodified cars than I have in modified cars. Perhaps that is they key but tiredness and road grime is a MAJOR factor.

I had a slide the other day on a straight bit of dual carriage way...accellerated past a junction to be met with the ESP light going mental and a drift...bloody diesel and damp air.

Cheap tyres is a mod I think should be declared. Had nast experience on such tyres in my first Felicia. Never again I must say. But just think how dangerous they would have been on a 180 bhp Furby!

Personally I think this discussion is pointless unless we see some facts.

I'll be very surprised if "modded" cars cause more accidents than uninsured or reckless drivers.

I am sure modded cars driven by good drivers don't. My point is a very significant proportion of drivers who mod their cars will be reckless, and if the worry about LV pans out also uninsured.

I can see a point in the remaps if you want to race on track, but in all honesty the 180 bhp in my vRS is way more than enough for driving on ordinary public roads.

What about most people who modify cars and bother to tell the insurance company almost always have an interest in cars and modify because they really like their car, therefor they drive with care so as not to damage their pride and joy.

Its the people who don't declare it to the insurance company who cause the accidents as they mostly drive like idiots

Its the people who don't declare it to the insurance company who cause the accidents as they mostly drive like idiots

And therefore uninsured as their policy would be void.

aaaaarggggghhhhh, I was not trying to judge car modifyers!!!!! I was simply pointing out that it is rediculous for LV to not insure safe N.Irish drivers because of risk but to happily let people boost the power of their car, fit fancy wheels etc, all thinks that greatly increase the risk. Personally I do not think any insurance company should blanket refuse to insure any driver, just offer premiums in accordance.

I would agree with you William that performance enhancing modifications to a bog standard car is somewhat more risky. At least a vRS already has uprated suspension and bigger brakes etc.

I would agree with you William that performance enhancing modifications to a bog standard car is somewhat more risky. At least a vRS already has uprated suspension and bigger brakes etc.

At last someone who takes the time to read what I say and understand it rather than just going off in a rage. Thanks Jimmy

i should say my car only "just" has more power than the book figures of a standard vRS, and I have modified the suspension and brakes in line - eibach pro-dampers (german quality) and DS2500 pads (not chav pads) on my brakes with uprated brake fluid with a higher boiling point. Also have good tyres. I will admit to having suspect quality tyres on the back when I crashed though.

As for the circumstances of my accident, all the modifications in the world, or even a lack of any mods, wouldn't have prevented it. Me driving a lot slower given the greasy roads would have. Oh, and if I was on standard setup, I'd have gone over the cliff at that speed, 14" tyres would never have got around that bend. And for the record, I don't mind (at all) being used as an example, but proper knowledge of my car beforehand would be cool

i should say my car only "just" has more power than the book figures of a standard vRS' date=' and I have modified the suspension and brakes in line - eibach pro-dampers (german quality) and DS2500 pads (not chav pads) on my brakes with uprated brake fluid with a higher boiling point. Also have good tyres. I will admit to having suspect quality tyres on the back when I crashed though.

As for the circumstances of my accident, all the modifications in the world, or even a lack of any mods, wouldn't have prevented it. Me driving a lot slower given the greasy roads would have. Oh, and if I was on standard setup, I'd have gone over the cliff at that speed, 14" tyres would never have got around that bend. And for the record, I don't mind (at all) being used as an example, but proper knowledge of my car beforehand would be cool [/quote']

Thanks Jason, but cahnces are if you had been in a 1.2 Fabia Classic you would have been driving a lot slower. power tempts

Thanks Jason, but cahnces are if you had been in a 1.2 Fabia Classic you would have been driving a lot slower. power tempts

I can't fault that statement really - power is nothing without control, as the advert says, and since my crash I've looked at my driving in a totally new light.

And when I had the accident I was three weeks into Jabba - perhaps I should spent a little more time getting used to it before going out like I did, in a blaze of glory, I mean... *ahem. something like that.

I say furby MkII is now better setup than furby MkI ever was.

aaaaarggggghhhhh, I was not trying to judge car modifyers!!!!! I was simply pointing out that it is rediculous for LV to not insure safe N.Irish drivers because of risk but to happily let people boost the power of their car, fit fancy wheels etc, all thinks that greatly increase the risk. Personally I do not think any insurance company should blanket refuse to insure any driver, just offer premiums in accordance.

Not ridiculous at all William. Insurers are there to make money over the full cycle of business - if they didn't run on this basis who would buy their shares and provide their capital? If they can't rely on their historical data on claims to assess the appropriate (and competitive) premium to charge then why should they have to quote? Northern Ireland has caused Motor insurers substantial losses over the years due to the highly litigious nature of the society out there and the substantial claims costs. In the same way as in the USA has ridiculous awards of damages which lead to insurers suffering substantial damages in excess of what they understood to be their liability, the Northern Irish courts also do.

Its a free world and if society in any certain place decides to pursue a certain course of action then it should expect commercial operations to react to it.

With regard to mods, there are plenty of insurers out there that will insure them - most with a more expensive premium to reflect perceived (or historically evidenced) additional risk of the modified car and driver. Again, if LV did not perceive that drivers with modded cars cost them any more in claims then why charge more? Each Motor insurer will have their own target audience and that is their choice and strategy - hence why we sometimes get weird quotes compared to others. Just because one insurers policy doesn't suit you it doesn't mean that it is wrong - it probably just means that you should look elsewheer for the one that is targeting your type of driver.

Mods are but a small factor when it comes to an insurer giving you a quote for cover though, William. Other factors (postcode, cost of spare parts if you have a scrape) play a big part, not to mention the biggest factor - your no claim's bonus; a gross indicator of how "safe" (or lucky) you've been in recent years.

Declaring my mods (brakes, springs, wheels) made very little difference to my policy apart from bumping up my excess. After all, I had increased the cost of replacement parts...

What has N. Ireland got to do with insurance and modifications btw? Everyone's postcode plays some part in the cost of their cover, doesn't it?

Oh, and :-

cahnces are if you had been in a 1.2 Fabia Classic you would have been driving a lot slower

The 1.2 takes a bit longer to get there, but will do 100+ very easily...

Would he have rolled his car if he had been driving at 40 mph

Probably not, but that isn't down to modifications, that is down to youth and inexperience rather than the car. I am not having a pop at Jason.

(about the max I think is safe on the type of road he was on)

Well, seeing as I was actually there or thereabouts, I can comment on that point. In a word, bolleaux It is a normal A road (A542). In theory 90% of the A roads on the mainland can be driven at 60mph, with no need to brake. I won't mention the speed that I was going down that particular bit of road, suffice it to say that I was doing in excess of 40 mph. Was that dangerous? IMHO, based on my experience, no.

IMHO, using Jason as an example was not a particularly valid arguement / example.

What has N. Ireland got to do with insurance and modifications btw? Everyone's postcode plays some part in the cost of their cover' date=' doesn't it?

[/quote']

I was using N.Ireland as one example of higher insurance risk and comparing it with another. I think insurance companies should base wether they insure you etc on you and your history not on blanket assumptions. LV will not insure me beacuse I live in N.Ireland. I live in a good area with low car crime. I work in a place with very very secure parking and my car is totally uinmoddified and I am 34. They would however insure Jason who was 24, had a souped up car and was bursting to blast it around narrow country roads!

However, William, if you drive into someone, they will sue your ar5e causing a massive payout from the insurance company. Jason totals his car by driving like a knob and the payout is limited to the value of his car. Simple really.

HTH

Probably not' date=' but that isn't down to modifications, that is down to youth and inexperience rather than the car. [i']I am not having a pop at Jason[/i].

Well, seeing as I was actually there or thereabouts, I can comment on that point. In a word, bolleaux It is a normal A road (A542). In theory 90% of the A roads on the mainland can be driven at 60mph, with no need to brake. I won't mention the speed that I was going down that particular bit of road, suffice it to say that I was doing in excess of 40 mph. Was that dangerous? IMHO, based on my experience, no.

IMHO, using Jason as an example was not a particularly valid arguement / example.

TaviaRs are you an average or even inexperienced driver (such as Jason)? Not if what I have read on this forum is true. There are loads of roads which in theory it is legal to drive at 60 on, that you would be a fool to do so. I was not there but I am familiar with quiote a few A-roads in Wales that I would not drive at 6o or what ever speed Jason was doing on. In any case he has admitted he was going to fast. But again you are off the subject of my thread in any case.