Because it's the driver who is the risk, not the vehicle. Two identical cars, both on the same road, one driven by a hooligan who has many accidents and one driven by a guy who drives carefully and considerately. If the cars were insured then they'd both be paying the same insurance based on the car. How would that work? There'd be no incentive to drive carefully and limit the risk to save money, because next year the car insurance would still be the same as the careful driver

But that isn't how insurance of company vehicles work. We have a pool of vans and cars at work and a fairly simple set of criteria drivers are required to meet in order to satisfy the insurance company.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Like I said it may not suit everybody. Unfortuantly I wouldn't be worried about rear ending a supercar. I would however be worried about increasing my own premium on my a little over £2000 car that I would be insured on.

Nothing wrong with creating or at least thinking of alternative Ideas, but no doubt they would need a little more polish from people who like to deal with that type of thing.

But then we would all personally need to be insured, as passengers, pedestrians, property owners etc. both outside and inside our own homes.

If someone lost control and hit a pedestrian then totalled the front of a house, who would pay?

Also your premium would have to be calculated partially on the basis of the risk of someone hitting you and the likely cost.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

But that isn't how insurance of company vehicles work. We have a pool of vans and cars at work and a fairly simple set of criteria drivers are required to meet in order to satisfy the insurance company.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

You're simplifying it too much there. All the insurance company are doing is providing cover to the company for works vehicles. If a certain driver has an accident in a works van then he's still the risk, and come next year the insurers will increase the insurance premium as a result of the drivers accident, and in certain circumstances refuse to insure that particular driver because he's too big a risk. Just because the driver isn't paying for the insurance directly doesn't mean that his driving record has no reflection on the cost of the policy etc. The company paying for the insurance will be absorbing the increased costs instead of the driver.

None of the comparison sites can be fully independent - they only show prices from selected companies (who in turn fund the comparison site)..

 

You need to remember that few of the insurance companies are fully independent but are all off shoots or linked to a parent company somehow. Can't remember the details now but a few years ago it was said that all the companies showing up on one particular site where linked to RBS.

 

Comparison sites are a useful starting point but do your own footwork with individual companies of brokers after.

 

Personally I have been with NFU Mutual for over 25 years - they actually reward loyalty and in the few cases their price has come back more expensive a breakdown reveals greater cover or a phone call "price matches".  The headline figure is often a few pounds more that can be found elsewhere but they charge a very low APR for month payments (3% i think) whereas most others are charging 20-30%

Edited 1 March, 201511 yr by slider

I find comparison sites useful when the car details aren't straight forward

Sorting wifeys insurance out with 4 claims with me as a named driver with 1 (non fault ) claim

Imagine telling all that on the phone to 20 different companies

Also I think premiums should be linked to how much money you have cost your insurer

For example a non fault claim where you claimed from the third party wouldn't be disclosed

You premium then would reflect your better driving

Also I think premiums should be linked to how much money you have cost your insurer

 

 

Umm - Ever heard of No Claims Discount???  

Umm - Ever heard of No Claims Discount???

Yes I have

I've also heard of premiums being raised after having to disclose a non fault claim,even with the no claims being unaffected