Just had my renewal through for insurance.

It's gone up from £130 last year to £235 !

No claims or convictions, ridiculous!

Any one else had there premiums go crazy recently?

Maybe it's partly a Felicia thing? Age and repair costs and suchlike. I was certainly a little surprised a few months ago when my new premium was almost exactly the same as for the bigger, newer Mondeo it replaced.

However, looking at old comparison website quotes from a year or so ago there's definitely been a general increase across the board. I suspect it's down to the economic situation - a few more folks decide they'd rather not pay the cost of insurance and it pushes the price up for the rest of us.

Try another broker, my sons Felly Insurance didnt go down very much (just got his first years NCB, and turned 18), so we looked around again; Asda may have been the cheapest by far when he needed his first years insurance as a 17 y/o, but now he is 18 and has a years driving under his belt we managed to get a quote that was nearly £1,000 lower!!!

I know your situation is different, but even I managed to cut my insurance quote by shopping around this year; and I am 45!!

Try another broker, my sons Felly Insurance didnt go down very much (just got his first years NCB, and turned 18), so we looked around again; Asda may have been the cheapest by far when he needed his first years insurance as a 17 y/o, but now he is 18 and has a years driving under his belt we managed to get a quote that was nearly £1,000 lower!!!

I know your situation is different, but even I managed to cut my insurance quote by shopping around this year; and I am 45!!

It's madness as I am paying £260 for my 16k Merc. on renewal

Best I can get so far is direct line @ £170 still far too dear in my opinion.

Look at the sites - you'll find that most of the comparison sites are done by BISL - ( HSBC brokers -) so hardly non competitive . Now ,if your over 50 - try places like RIAS/ 50PLUSINSURANCE.CO.UK.

It's madness as I am paying £260 for my 16k Merc. on renewal

Best I can get so far is direct line @ £170 still far too dear in my opinion.

Madness??

Madness is £2500 TPF&T on a P plate 1.3 LXi Felly estate we bought for £150 !!!!! (only £1300 this year FC !!)

No wonder there is such a big problem with uninsured drivers!!!

Edited 30 September, 201015 yr by GentleGiant

You say that's madness, but think of the cost of even a small accident these days. Just a price for all the extra BS that we have in society, and everyone takes a cut when there's an accident, hence us paying more, combined with the global economic situation.

So deal with the ambulance chasers, investigate any claim with a PI element fully and anyone found cheating is in jail.

Put third party insurance into the cost of fuel, then let the insurance companies sell, top up cover, which would mean they don't have you over the legal barrel.

I have to say when people are asking £2.5k per year for a sub £250 car, something is broken.

All the prices do is push up wage inflation and so increase the claim cost when somebody is injured and has time off work.

Edited 30 September, 201015 yr by cheezemonkhai

Insurance is not just about the value of the car, or it's performance, there's also the damage to other parties that has to be considered. Now that we live in America (i.e. we're prepared to sue everyone at the drop of a hat) insurance companies have to take this into account too. The insurance on my parents' Honda Shuttle isn't cheap because it's a 7-seater, therefore in an accident the other 6 people could be sueing you for injuries, on top of whoever/whatever you've hit.

The insurance companies have got wise to the dodges that used to be in place to keep premiums down (kids on parent's insurance, but on the kids car, and driving other cars on your own insurance (insure yourself on a Citroen AX 1.0 Fully Comp and drive a Scooby Third Party etcetc)), so I've found a lot of "younger drivers" are now going without insurance and hoping they don't get caught. It's when it comes to pay-out time that there is huge cost, and we go beyong the damage to the car(s) and we end up in "I broke a nail, I can claim £2,500 for that." The insurance companies need to get their act together instead of just passing the cost (and a huge levvy) on to us. Recently fraudsters where caught after staff in an office block noticed that the same person kept having accidents in the same place several times in a day. The insurance companies hadn't cottoned on to this and were merrily paying out, even to the point of the claim being for people who weren't even in the car.

We're stuck footing the bill, because we are required by law to have insurance.

My premium is £450 on Thunderbird 4. As it's a truck I have to have commercial / business insurance, even if it's not used for such. :S

I have to say when people are asking £2.5k per year for a sub £250 car, something is broken.

I don't see the link. You can do many thousands of pounds of damage with a £250 car. If I drive into the back of someone's £100k car, it doesn't matter if I'm in a new car or a 15 year old Felicia, the damage will still be expensive. In addition, the way everything works is corrupt - if it's an insurance job, the price doubles. This needs to be attended to, but no matter what happens, the value of the car is only a tiny part of the cost of the insurance calulation.

insuance is a massive con, my premuium went up by £250 this year, but i phoned the company and asked for a new quote from them and it was cheaper. it's total madness

I don't see the link. You can do many thousands of pounds of damage with a £250 car. If I drive into the back of someone's £100k car, it doesn't matter if I'm in a new car or a 15 year old Felicia, the damage will still be expensive. In addition, the way everything works is corrupt - if it's an insurance job, the price doubles. This needs to be attended to, but no matter what happens, the value of the car is only a tiny part of the cost of the insurance calulation.

The point is that when you drive a £40,000 range rover you can do far more damage in that (size and weight) to third parties and then add to that the £40'000 vehicle which would have to be replaced.

That would result in a far larger claim than a person in a £200 old metro of something.

In your above example, the 40k RR (or any new car for that matter) will demolish the back of the new expensive car, where as your felly / a metro will fall to pieces on impact due to much less rigid structure and do much less damage to the car.

Also lets face it, a person in a £200 car needs basic insurance and so the person in the large, expensive luxury car is going to have to subsidise the system a little. Otherwise there is no way an insurance company could create a policy that is even reasonably affordable for a person in said car.

If you want to fix the system, then start by stopping the super cheap policy for people just because they are old or female, because they can cause just as much damage as anyone else.

I'm waiting to see an age discrimination and sex discrimination case against an insurance company soon.

Edited 30 September, 201015 yr by cheezemonkhai

I'm waiting to see an age discrimination and sex discrimination case against an insurance company soon.

i reckon foreigners should be banned from driving here too, they seem to think that every single street/road/carpark is just an extension of istanbul where you can drive however the **** you like and nobody cares

i reckon foreigners should be banned from driving here too, they seem to think that every single street/road/carpark is just an extension of istanbul where you can drive however the **** you like and nobody cares

Oh deely me, that is implying that I should be giving a monkeys gonad about the rules that you have for drivink in your countryness.

Foreigners, especially those driving lorries shouldn't be allowed in this country. If you have an accident with a vehicle on non-uk plates, you might as well kiss your excess and NCB goodbye. What really annoys me about Johnny Foreigner is that the vehicles don't have to comply with UK standards (have seen lorries where you can see the road through the floor of the cab!!), the drivers are not subject to rules about time spent driving, nor do they need to adjust headlights for night running, so they can blind everyone else on the road! Plus if you have a car you're supposed to get it re-registered if it's here longer than 6 months, oddly enough there's no record-keeping though, so no-one knows how long it's been here. (not uk registered also means you avoid uk road-tax, and probably insurance and MOT too)

Thank you Tommy English for giving yourself lots of lovely rules for Johnny Foreigner to laugh at.

Even if that 6 month limit was better enforced, it is easy to get around; I used to date a Czech girl who had lived here for years and was still driving her Czech registered car; she just drove to France on the night ferry every 6 months and then started a new "6 months of driving in the UK" when she got back.

Foreigners, especially those driving lorries shouldn't be allowed in this country. If you have an accident with a vehicle on non-uk plates, you might as well kiss your excess and NCB goodbye. What really annoys me about Johnny Foreigner is that the vehicles don't have to comply with UK standards (have seen lorries where you can see the road through the floor of the cab!!), the drivers are not subject to rules about time spent driving, nor do they need to adjust headlights for night running, so they can blind everyone else on the road!

Go on then i'll bite..... you really haven't got a clue have you?

The vehicles have to be to a safe standard, if they are stopped and found to be un-roadworthy then they will get PG9 prohibition notice (used to be called a GV9) and will need to get the vehicle fixed before they can go on their way.

They have to follow the same driving reg's as a UK driver.

The headlight thing I agree does get overlooked/ignored, but they should have the beam deflectors like we need to when we drive abroad.

In your above example, the 40k RR (or any new car for that matter) will demolish the back of the new expensive car, where as your felly / a metro will fall to pieces on impact due to much less rigid structure and do much less damage to the car.

That's complete rubbish. Have you seen the mess that an older car can make to a new one? My rally car (felicia) got hit in the back by a fairly new swift; my nav was driving and got stuck hitting a chicane, and the swift drove into us. The back of the Fel was almost unmarked - a small tear in the rear bumper at one of the mounts, and behind it one of the panels was a little bent. The entire front of the Swift was destroyed. New cars are designed to disperse energy by parts crumpling and taking energy as they do so.

But even without that, you're still miles off. If you are in a Felicia and drive into the back of a new car (any car, let's say £25k's worth), even at low speed, you'll do £2k+ of damage. Bumper, tailgate, floor damage, lights, various other parts and then spraying. And if it's statistically likely that you'll do that, then you'll pay accordingly. Only when you have experience and a track record to show that you won't do it will you pay less for your insurance.

Also lets face it, a person in a £200 car needs basic insurance and so the person in the large, expensive luxury car is going to have to subsidise the system a little. Otherwise there is no way an insurance company could create a policy that is even reasonably affordable for a person in said car.

That won't work; communism doesn't work, and someone who has an expensive car isn't going to subsidise others. Particularly if they have an unblemished driving record of 30 years or so. And it wouldn't be "a little", such drivers are in the minority, so they'd have to subsidise it a massive amount, there are probably 10 'normal' drivers for every rich one. In addition, it's a free market - no insurance company could do this as these drivers would leave them for another (cheaper) company.

If you want to fix the system, then start by stopping the super cheap policy for people just because they are old or female, because they can cause just as much damage as anyone else.

Yes, they can, of course. But the point is that they don't. If they did, they would be paying more; insurance companies work on statistical averages; that's why changing your job changes your premium, despite your material risk being little or no different. Old people and females tend to have less expensive accidents, which is why they pay less.

I'm waiting to see an age discrimination and sex discrimination case against an insurance company soon.

It wouldn't stand up, because of the reasons above; it's not discrimination, it's backed up by facts.

That's complete rubbish. Have you seen the mess that an older car can make to a new one? My rally car (felicia) got hit in the back by a fairly new swift; my nav was driving and got stuck hitting a chicane, and the swift drove into us. The back of the Fel was almost unmarked - a small tear in the rear bumper at one of the mounts, and behind it one of the panels was a little bent. The entire front of the Swift was destroyed. New cars are designed to disperse energy by parts crumpling and taking energy as they do so.

You got hit, if the front of your felly goes into a modern car you will crumple. See the modis vs the old volvo video 5th gear did.

But even without that, you're still miles off. If you are in a Felicia and drive into the back of a new car (any car, let's say £25k's worth), even at low speed, you'll do £2k+ of damage. Bumper, tailgate, floor damage, lights, various other parts and then spraying. And if it's statistically likely that you'll do that, then you'll pay accordingly. Only when you have experience and a track record to show that you won't do it will you pay less for your insurance.

That won't work; communism doesn't work, and someone who has an expensive car isn't going to subsidise others. Particularly if they have an unblemished driving record of 30 years or so. And it wouldn't be "a little", such drivers are in the minority, so they'd have to subsidise it a massive amount, there are probably 10 'normal' drivers for every rich one. In addition, it's a free market - no insurance company could do this as these drivers would leave them for another (cheaper) company.

An insurance policy isn't about covering all the damage you cause. It's a bet that when they take all of the money their customers pay, they will take more in premiums than they pay out.

Loading a new driver for many thousands of pounds, while letting an old person with slower reaction times, but more experience have a sub £200 premium on a £30'000+ car is quite frankly broken.

Saying that the system is subsidised slightly by those with the expensive cars vs those on cheap cars, isn't trying for communism.

It's a business decision which allows them to make affordable policies.

If a person can't afford a 1k car, they can't afford a >£1k insurance premium. Therefore they will go without.

Better to have a very limited policy that covers them for a price they can afford, while minimising the risk of losing out.

Yes, they can, of course. But the point is that they don't. If they did, they would be paying more; insurance companies work on statistical averages; that's why changing your job changes your premium, despite your material risk being little or no different. Old people and females tend to have less expensive accidents, which is why they pay less.

I'd love to see these statistics as they are often stated, but rarely published.

IIRC i seem to remember that women have less expensive accidents, but more of them.

IMHO the fact that men have more expensive accidents is skewed by the fact that it's usually the man that is driving on long journeys, motorways etc and the woman tends to just go to the shops etc. 30mph vs 70mph it's obvious which will cost more. This might be less the case now, but it was not so long ago.

This doesn't prove women are better drives and I can bet many of the girl racers are far worse than the boy racers. I've seen some pretty bad accidents with women driving as well as men driving.

As for old people, I don't believe that. It's been proven that past a certain age (IIRC in 50's) your insurance should start to go up not down, because you are becoming a bigger risk due to slowing reaction times, poorer eye sight and hearing.

Discrimination based on age or sex is illegal in the UK, so I don't see how applying a general rule based on sex should be legal. 18yr old boy and 18yr old girl at the same address with the same car should cost the same initially, until they have a history. I'd love to see it go to court, but it never will unless it's something where men seem to benefit.

I suppose it follows that you can't be sexist to men, just like you can't be racist to white people

It wouldn't stand up, because of the reasons above; it's not discrimination, it's backed up by facts.

And you have proof of this, please show me the statute and case law that supports your statement.

I have to say, I am almost tempted to get quotes for me as a man and a woman and if they differ take it to court just to make a point.

These are statistics as such are approximations.

Surely on the same vane you could say that women are more likely to drive with a child in the car than a man and so should have a higher premium to reflect to potential injury to the child or the replacement of the car seat in any accident.

Also while you're at it, since women are more likely to have one or more children and take paid time off work than a man (Maternity and in the years when they are ill as kids), then if your theory of facts holds, these facts mean it should be legal to pay a woman less because it is statistically likely that business will get less work out of her and have to pay her when she is not there.

A couple I know do similar jobs, with the same job titles, live together and drive the same car. He has been driving for 15 years with no claims at all, she has been driving for 4 years with 2 accidents (one non-fault and one fault).

How on earth is it reasonable that the quote for her on the car is less than the quote for him and that adding her to the car brings the premium down?

The answer is that it isn't.

Edited 30 September, 201015 yr by cheezemonkhai

Go on then i'll bite..... you really haven't got a clue have you?

The vehicles have to be to a safe standard, if they are stopped and found to be un-roadworthy then they will get PG9 prohibition notice (used to be called a GV9) and will need to get the vehicle fixed before they can go on their way.

They have to follow the same driving reg's as a UK driver.

The headlight thing I agree does get overlooked/ignored, but they should have the beam deflectors like we need to when we drive abroad.

In the UK it is the law to have all vehicles over a certain age (usually 3 years) to have a complete roadworthyness test at least once every 12 months. This information is kept on a computerised database that is used by enforcement agencies that use automatic number plate recognition systems (ANPR) to instantly check and then flag any anomilous information.

Given that foreign lorries have different number plates on the back of the unit and the back of the trailer (unlike UK ones which are required by law to be consistant, so just one example of where the foreigners don't have to abide by UK laws), no such information is available to enforcement agencies. Hence it is unknown if foreign vehicles entering this country have a current MOT (or equivilant) cerificiate. Enforcement agencies have to have reasonable grounds to stop vehicles in this country, so it is rare for a foreign lorry to actually be stopped.

So essentially, like most other areas of enforcement, foreigners don't actually have to play by the rules as the chances of being caught are minimal.

Not all PG9 are prohibitive (only PG9(I) is), many are non-prohibitive (PG9(D))and allow a certain amount of time to have the defect rectified. Again, as usual, this is not enforcable with Johnny Foreigner as he'll have left the country in the meantime.

If you re read my reply I clearly stated that "if they are stopped and found to be un-roadworthy then they will get PG9 prohibition notice" of course there are PG9's that don't result in the prohibition notice, but these would be for relatively minor faults that do not make the vehicle UN-ROADWORTHY.

Only some countries do not have the unit numberplate on the trailer, some will have the unit and trailer numberplate displayed, others just the unit numberplate (as in the UK).

Reasonable grounds? well that one is easy - drivers hours, speeding, overweight vehicle etc the list is almost endless, if they genuinely thought there was something 'not quite right' then any of these can reasons can and will be used to stop you.

If you re read my reply I clearly stated that "if they are stopped and found to be un-roadworthy then they will get PG9 prohibition notice" of course there are PG9's that don't result in the prohibition notice, but these would be for relatively minor faults that do not make the vehicle UN-ROADWORTHY.

Only some countries do not have the unit numberplate on the trailer, some will have the unit and trailer numberplate displayed, others just the unit numberplate (as in the UK).

Reasonable grounds? well that one is easy - drivers hours, speeding, overweight vehicle etc the list is almost endless, if they genuinely thought there was something 'not quite right' then any of these can reasons can and will be used to stop you.

Throwing in "if" into your statement doesn't give it's flimsiness any qualificiation. Writing in capitals doesn't give your words any moreweight.

In general a vehicle is classed as un-roadworthy if it would not pass a UK MOT check and the chances are a PG9(D) would be issued. If the vehicle is found to be dangerous a PG9(I) should be issued. Your original statement makes no differentiation between PG9(I) and PG9(D). (nor PG9(AC) nor the exemption that may be issued under a PG9(I))

My point about non-consistant plates there was a counter to your statement about forgeign lorries having to comply with UK law. As you admit, clearly they don't, as we allow those vehicles to operate on the UK road network.

Hmmm, speeding would require the use of a roadside device, as by the time any automatically captured information is processed, it'll be too late, plus again, different plates on the back, so the information would be unreliable. You don't stop someone on suspicion of speeding, you stop them for actually speeding. "Something not quite right" would still require qualificiation, however dangerous driving would be a far easier "excuse" to use. If you want to use the driving hours or being overweight, you can easily do that at Dover and prevent dangerous vehicles actually getting on to the UK road network.

If there are no reasonable grounds, then the vehcle is not stopped. A cent to a euro that less than 1% of those that actually are dangerous are ever stopped.

If the UK enforcement agencies spent more time doing their job instead of racing each other around the Kent road network, they could spend more time actually doing their jobs.

I look forward to seeing you on the M20 later, with that foreign lorry you'll have pulled over..........

There are numerous differences in Europe regarding what a vehicle needs to be fitted with, this is no different to UK vehicles traveling abroad which do not have to apply fully to local law.

With regards to speeding, this would be easy to prove, just look at the tacho - the proof will all be there.

To the best of my knowledge (and I'm happy to be proved wrong) there is no longer a weighbridge in Dover to weigh incoming vehicles - that went shortly after the truckstop went from the western docks, as for checking the drivers hours at the port, great idea, just one small problem where do you park them up if they are found to be over their hours?

There are numerous differences in Europe regarding what a vehicle needs to be fitted with, this is no different to UK vehicles traveling abroad which do not have to apply fully to local law.

With regards to speeding, this would be easy to prove, just look at the tacho - the proof will all be there.

To the best of my knowledge (and I'm happy to be proved wrong) there is no longer a weighbridge in Dover to weigh incoming vehicles - that went shortly after the truckstop went from the western docks, as for checking the drivers hours at the port, great idea, just one small problem where do you park them up if they are found to be over their hours?

UK vehicles in europe was not the issue. You stated that foreign vehicles in this country have to comply with UK law, the non-conformity with UK law over number plates clearly shows that total conformity with UK law is not required. Your statement was "They have to follow the same driving reg's as a UK driver."

If I recall correctly, you have to stop a vehicle to read a tachograph, something you cannot do unless you have those all important "reasonable grounds", unless you now have a way of getting on to a moving lorry and reading the tachograph, but then you'd still need reasonable grounds to board the lorry.

Where would I park them? In the same place you want to put those you claim are issued with a PG9(I).

However, I seem to recall that it was you who stated "Reasonable grounds? well that one is easy - drivers hours, speeding, overweight vehicle etc the list is almost endless, if they genuinely thought there was something 'not quite right' then any of these can reasons can and will be used to stop you." Why shouId I help you in finding a solution to your suggestion? Obviously your suggestion of being overweight has a problem, as you have said that there is no weighbridge at Dover, so you've defeated your own argument there. Speeding was dealt with, as you would need proof to stop the vehicle, which you can really only get by using a portable device. You can't stop a vehicle to provide evidence, you stop a vehicle to backup the "reasonable grounds" for which you stopped it in the first place.

I was actually referring to driving regs not the vehicles specific regs (which will differ from country to country)

The whole different numberplate on the trailer is obviously one of those laws that is country of registration specific, if say a French unit pulls a UK trailer then he must have a numberplate on the trailer this would then be the same number as the unit, if a UK unit pulls a French trailer in France then the trailer numberplate is sufficient, as the trailer has it's own.

Another example of this is a German truck need to carry a first aid kit, whereas a UK truck in Germany does not (this comes back down to the country of registration).

Te speeding is simple, how do you know a vehicle is speeding? you follow it - the tacho is then the proof that is required.

Dover is no longer a suitable place to stop lorries to do checks due to the lack of parking there is however a suitable place off the A2 that the police / VOSA regularly use and has some space to park vehicles up, VOSA however do not need a reason to stop you, a simple roadside check is good enough for you to be stopped (IIRC they need the Police to actually stop your vehicle).

I have nothing more to add and see it pointless to keep going over the same ground each time, suffice to say that each country has slightly different laws when it comes to what is legal and what isn't, but all vehicles need to be of roadworthy condition and obey the road traffic laws in which they are driving in.

Te speeding is simple, how do you know a vehicle is speeding? you follow it - the tacho is then the proof that is required.

Dover is no longer a suitable place to stop lorries to do checks due to the lack of parking there is however a suitable place off the A2 that the police / VOSA regularly use and has some space to park vehicles up, VOSA however do not need a reason to stop you, a simple roadside check is good enough for you to be stopped (IIRC they need the Police to actually stop your vehicle).

I have nothing more to add and see it pointless to keep going over the same ground each time, suffice to say that each country has slightly different laws when it comes to what is legal and what isn't, but all vehicles need to be of roadworthy condition and obey the road traffic laws in which they are driving in.

Again all I see is your shabby circular agruments, which is why I assume you feel you have nothing to add to the conversation. Maybe from your circular arguments, it is you that doesn't "have a clue"?

The tachograph may provide you with additional proof that the vehicle was speeding.....why did you stop it in the first place? You would have used a portable system (e.g. VASCAR) to have clocked the target vehicle's speed. All the tachograph does is provide backup to the evidence as to why you stopped it in the first place, which isn't required as you have the evidence from the portable device which is sufficient in a UK court of law anyway.

VOSA would need the vehicle to be stationary to do a roadside check, unless you know of a why to check a moving vehicle. No? Then how did you get the vehicle to stop in the first place to carry out a roadside check? VOSA do appear to have the power to stop a vehicle and escort to a local testing / enforcement station. (We have one such station in Hempstead, quite often VOSA are escorting vehicles there without assistance from the police.)

Again you demontrated that your grasp of the facts that you attempt to bring to the agrument is flimsy at best. One moment you're wholly bound by the rules of the country you're in, and next you're wholly bound by the rules of the country of registration. You can't be wholly bound by two sets of conflicting rules.

But you are right, it is rather pointless discussing any of these issues with you, as your arguments are about as straight as George Michael's driving.