Insurance Costs

[Hobojim]

If it is just me on the insurance it is over 2k. I put my GF (27, 5yr NCD) and my parents ( pre-historic ) it brings it down to £760. Also moving from Manchester to Glasgow more than halves the quote!

Edit. Also when they introduced the no male/female difference to the quotes I noticed a big difference then on my current wheels. For friends who are over 25 it has made less of a difference. 25 still seems to be the magic number!

[Bill_the_Bear]

Also moving from Manchester to Glasgow more than halves the quote!

What?

How the hell is Manchester twice the risk of Glasgow?  Have you moved from the worst part of Manchester to the best part of Glasgow?  Even if you have this makes no sense.

I have the feeling I should stop being confused by the lack of logic in the world and from now on just assume it.

[mcmaddy]

I was looking at about £240 a few weeks ago, until I got an NIP for speeding 2 weeks ago (first one ever). I'll be paying about £50 extra for having 3 points. 

I really don't get why points are active for 3 years, but they stay on your licence for 4 years  and insurance companies take them into account for 5 years. 

Surely they should be on for 3 years and then after that they're non-declarable, as if they never happened?

If they are your first points then you dont need to declare them. Its only if you get 2nd penalty for points that you need to. Not sure if all companies are the same though.

[Hobojim]

Also moving from Manchester to Glasgow more than halves the quote!

What?

How the hell is Manchester twice the risk of Glasgow?  Have you moved from the worst part of Manchester to the best part of Glasgow?  Even if you have this makes no sense.

I have the feeling I should stop being confused by the lack of logic in the world and from now on just
assume it.

Manchester is on a blacklist for a lot of the specialist insurers as is Bradford. Uninsured drivers are the
biggest reason and then Personnel injury claims for putting up prices. A friend in the business say they refuse insurance claims a lot as it turns out the insured is driving on a foreign license and hasn't taken the UK test or changed their license to a UK one in time.

[monkeyhanger]

I was looking at about £240 a few weeks ago, until I got an NIP for speeding 2 weeks ago (first one ever). I'll be paying about £50 extra for having 3 points. 

I really don't get why points are active for 3 years, but they stay on your licence for 4 years  and insurance companies take them into account for 5 years. 

Surely they should be on for 3 years and then after that they're non-declarable, as if they never happened?

If they are your first points then you dont need to declare them. Its only if you get 2nd penalty for points that you need to. Not sure if all companies are the same though.

It asks for "any convictions" so i'll have to declare them or risk voiding my insurance should the worst happen. For some insurance companies, having 3 points for speeding has almost no effect (seems to be the case for the more expensive insurers, but not for the cheaper ones for me (esure/sheilas wheels is by far the cheapest for me). There is more than £50 between policies for dear ones and cheap ones anyway, so switching to avoid the £50 loading does not pay for me.

Not sure whether i've been unlucky to be caught or lucky not to have been caught all these years - those mobile units are the toughest to avoid - by the time you see them (if you see them, and they're not hiding in bushes), they've got you.

Considering a detector but there are so many conflicting reports on good and bad ones based on not only the hardware, but the quality of the databases you update also.

[Bill_the_Bear]

Manchester is on a blacklist for a lot of the specialist insurers as is Bradford. Uninsured drivers are the
biggest reason and then Personnel injury claims for putting up prices. A friend in the business say they refuse insurance claims a lot as it turns out the insured is driving on a foreign license and hasn't taken the UK test or changed their license to a UK one in time.

When uninsured drivers are fined, or insurance fraudsters are caught and their assets compensated who gets the cash?  Yet it is the law abiding lot of us who is paying high insurance because of these people (or because the insurers want to charge more and needed an excuse).  Surely there should be no extra cost due to these things... the insurer should recover their money when the criminals are busted rather than it going into the hands of the police (or some other government department) who will only waste it on Q7s and speed cameras.

Yes, I'm very bitter about the attitude towards motorists in this country.  Seems we have to pay for everything under the justification of the green lies propaganda that drivers are evil and are destroying the world because they hate nature.

[monkeyhanger]

I have the feeling I should stop being confused by the lack of logic in the world and from now on just assume it.

The logic seems to be on a similar vein to VW assigned build dates.

Most of the time location is the biggest variable after your age and NCD.

I live in a small town within the catchment of Newcastle upon Tyne, yet if I move 2 miles away to a village i'd save about 30% on my policy.

City>Town>village in terms of location risk, regardless of your commute and the big few cities of the UK: Cardiff/Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham/London seem much higher risk than anywhere else.

I lived in Middlesbrough for a while and because it is a town and not a city, it generates lower premiums than Newcastle upon Tyne even though it is the car crime capital of the north east and receiives a little less traffic. I suppose you have to split the location risk into both the likelihood of being a crime victim and the fact that you encounter more cars in the city, increasing your likelihood of being in an accident.

[monkeyhanger]

Manchester is on a blacklist for a lot of the specialist insurers as is Bradford. Uninsured drivers are the
biggest reason and then Personnel injury claims for putting up prices. A friend in the business say they refuse insurance claims a lot as it turns out the insured is driving on a foreign license and hasn't taken the UK test or changed their license to a UK one in time.

When uninsured drivers are fined, or insurance fraudsters are caught and their assets compensated who gets the cash?  Yet it is the law abiding lot of us who is paying high insurance because of these people (or because the insurers want to charge more and needed an excuse).  Surely there should be no extra cost due to these things... the insurer should recover their money when the criminals are busted rather than it going into the hands of the police (or some other government department) who will only waste it on Q7s and speed cameras.

Yes, I'm very bitter about the attitude towards motorists in this country.  Seems we have to pay for everything under the justification of the green lies propaganda that drivers are evil and are destroying the world because they hate nature.

Fines should go towards compensating the victims of the crime (or in this case to insurance companies on the assumption they use the money to reduce the loading burden of uninsured drivers), but it'll just end up in central or local government pockets.

[Bill_the_Bear]

Not sure whether i've been unlucky to be caught or lucky not to have been caught all these years - those mobile units are the toughest to avoid - by the time you see them (if you see them, and they're not hiding in bushes), they've got you.

Don't admit to anything, let them prove their case or piss off.

Considering a detector but there are so many conflicting reports on good and bad ones based on not only the hardware, but the quality of the databases you update also.

That won't help for mobile units will it?  Oh no, I'm gonna get started on the police now when I only just finished my rant on insurers!

I don't see their strategy as working to be honest.  In Bedfordshire they've extended the limits on all the A and B roads waaaay outside the villages on those roads, and most often taken them from 50 or 40 down to 30.  The effect (on me at least) is that on entering the limit forcing a cut in speed from 60 to 30 there is no reason apparent to the driver, the road appears the same as before... so people ignore it.  Then when they actually enter the village there is no "change" as they already passed that point 2 miles back and so they don't slow down for the bit they previously would have had the limit changed only when it needed to.

They've also started putting up signs indicating cameras on virtually every road.  There are no cameras, but one of these mobile units turns up once a year to 'justify' the sign.  This is pure entrapment.  If they wanted to improve safety they would clearly signpost the signs only at the specific dangerous corners... not the entire road.  If the entire road is so dangerous that it is an accident black spot at every point on its length then it shouldn't be open!

Then there is the average speed cameras on the A14.  They make things worse too.  The problem is the slow container trucks sitting in both lanes at 50 and 51mph and causing a massive tailback 20miles long with cars nose to tail.  The solution is to ban trucks from the outside lane.  Forcing everyone to spend extra time watching their speedos and not noticing the brake lights coming on in front of them reduces people's reaction time by critical seconds.  The crashes on this road have nothing to do with speed and everything to do with stopping distances, but speed cameras mean fines so...

[monkeyhanger]

Agree with all of the above - just another revenue stream. The Road I was caught on has seen some agressive speed cuts recently. The official reason for the cut from 50 to 30 is a fatality that occurred a few years ago. What caused the fatality? A police car with it's blues and twos on, not in pursuit of a speeding driver, but on it's way to an incident (or more likely they heard all the bakery produce was getting reduced in the local Tescos). Will the lowering of the speed have any impact on the speed of the next police car that passes through with it's lights on? Nope!