cheaper insurance for young drivers.....

[rabid]

yes, and the idea of this chip is to filter out those drivers (or charge them more, either way...) and so those 'types' wouldn't be driving at those hours anyway? allowing the ones who don't drive like idiots to drive at any time of day.

[harderfaster]

No, another solution would be that the insurance company weathers the cost. Example - 100 drivers insure their cars for £100 each with moneygrabber insurance. 10 of those drivers have an accident and make a claim, costing £1,000 each. The insurance company has made £10,000 in premiums, and oops, has to pay out £10,000 in claims. Boo hoo, moneygrabber insurance doesn't make a profit, other than the interest they gained on the original £10,000 while it was sat in the bank.

Insurance companies are profitable, they avoid gambling on that by making sure that all of their customers pay more. If only those who claimed (and you could have some sort of sliding scale from bumping a shopping trolley = 1% increase to total twat driver = 1000% or something) had increased premiums then the insurance companies may still lose some profit but not all of it.

I said I wasn't going to offer an alternative didn't I? Bugger.

And maybe if we did live in a world without car insurance everybody would drive more carefully?

Edited April 20, 2011 by harderfaster

[harderfaster]

What?

The point is they're trying to keep the cost down to attract more customers and they're doing this by not covering drivers at the time when they're statistically more likely to crash and by rewarding sensible drivers.

[Ed209]

With harsher winters becoming the norm insurance companies have to do SOMETHING to try and stop the prices going up every year like they have done for the last two

[llcoolphil]

but they're only statistically more likely to crash because the reckless drivers tend to drive at this time! and so if they didn't allow the reckless drivers onto their insurance policy they could allow the sensible drivers to drive at any time they want, and still keep their costs down.

[harderfaster]

You do understand that insurance is based entirely on statistical probability of various factors dont you? A sensible driver only has to make a mistake once and if 18 - 21 year olds are more likely to do that between 00.00 and 06.00 then the solution is obvious

Edited April 20, 2011 by harderfaster

[llcoolphil]

yes i understand fully. but do you understand that the entire idea of this new insurance is to incorporate this 'safety of driving' factor into the probability of a crash - and once this is accounted for the probability of a crash between 00:00 and 06:00 will be considerably less than before - maybe time will become insignificant - or maybe the probability of a (sensible driver having a) crash at night will lower than in the day because there are fewer cars on the road or something.

in short, once you account for the crashes due to poor driving and remove those drivers (which is what this new insurance is designed to do) then time will become insignificant in the probability and so such a restriction needn't be in place.

[harderfaster]

No it wont. The probability of an 18-21 year old having a crash between 00.00 and 06.00 will be unchanged until a huge number of 18 - 21 year olds that drive between 00.00 and 06.00 stop having crashes. The probability of an 18 - 21 year old that doesn't drive between 00.00 and 06.00 having a crash between 00.00 and 06.00 is zero.

[worm]

They don't have mandatory insurance in New Zealand. What do we think about that?

[harderfaster]

They don't have mandatory insurance in New Zealand. What do we think about that?

[llcoolphil]

no it won't be unchanged - the probability will fall as soon as reckless drivers are taken out of the picture.

[radish]

and so when your example holds, fantastic. but say 11 drivers have an accident - where should that £1,000 come from? a) the insurance companies pays it but is then out of money b ) the driver pays it, so effectively the driver is paying the full cost of their accident, defeating the point of the insurance or c) all the drivers split it, and their premium increases in year 2 (which is what you were protesting about in the first place).

a) is not viable, as the insurance company would go bust (the only way for them to get around it is by making that £1,000 back somewhere, i.e. by having higher premiums in the first place, which takes us to option c)

b ) if this was the case nobody would get insurance, because they've lost out on £100 here

c) seems to be the only viable option, however unfair it is on the rest of the drivers

[harderfaster]

You cant take inexperienced 18 - 21 year olds out of the picture though, can you. What proportion of accidents are caused by deliberately reckless driving and what proportion by inexperience amongst 18 - 21 year olds? You'll need to know this for your assertion to have any credibility

[radish]

They don't have mandatory insurance in New Zealand. What do we think about that?

[harderfaster]

It's what I was talking about when I said insurance companies avoid gambling. Their gamble in the (very simple and admittedly not at all realistic) example is that in year one of trading they'll only have maybe 5 payouts, and subsequently make a bit more profit. In year 2 (ceteris parabus) if they're lucky they get less than 10 again and they make a bit more money, if they're unlucky they have to dig into their profit from last year to cover themselves. In reality the insurance company never plans to cover itself, it makes sure the customers do it for them, passing on the cost to them. It's their way of finding the money to cover their potential losses, their insurance if you like, it's just that they take it much further and ensure that even if they have to make loads of payouts they still make a profit. We insure the insurers (alright, the underwriters do but I like the Watchmen vibe "Who insures the insurers?" and I'm being rather distracted by that woman in the Special K ad to the right - is it just me who finds her rather attractive?).

In the end it just boils down to social injustice - why should I have to pay for the actions of the complete moron who thinks he's above the laws and morals of our society and has the right to drive like a twat, endangering the lives of others? The answer being because I'm part of that society and I'm not stepping up to sort it out, same as everyone else. Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it. I'd like to think if I was in the position to I wouldn't penalise people 'in the right', but chances are that's just what I'd end up doing, and finding some way to justify it to myself. Mostly through the huge wads of cash I'd be sleeping on instead of a bed probably.

As it stands, there is no incentive for any company to act in such an altruistic manner and to be prepared to make a loss, even if the gamble upside is that if everything goes their way they make a load of money.

And I didn't assume you were criticising anything, merely discussing, which is good. We all need challenges to our viewpoints after all. Although mine won't change, as I'm old, set in my ways, stubborn, and above all else, right. ( )

Tbh I'm only really commenting here because of another thread I read involving Nightcrawler, where it was kind of lamented by a few people that these forums aren't what they used to be. As possibly one of the longest-registered members hereabouts I thought maybe I'd have a go at contributing a bit to things again, see what happens, test the waters, taste the marmalade, plough the furrow, serve the beer, and see what the lie of the land is amongst many other pointless sayings. This topic piqued my curiosity and I thought what the hell, why not. It isn't as good as the Doctor Who thread yet I have to say, but it's a distraction from other things. Apart from that Special K lady. Is it just me or are her legs impossibly long?

[worm]

but risk paying out potentially hundreds of thousands if you seriously injure someone in an accident

[harderfaster]

Does that make everyone more cautious or negligent, do you think?

[philipsteak]

is it mandatory in the US? i'd like to know if there was a difference in the number of crashes in NZ. but then again i'd imagine there are far fewer drunk reckless teenagers in NZ...

Edited April 20, 2011 by philipsteak

[harderfaster]

sorry, i meant crashes per driver in NZ. but yeah, the two are pretty difficult to compare, such different driving environments.

[llcoolphil]

well obviously i don't know what proportion do i, i don't have access to the statistics. the bottom line of my argument is that the inexperience won't have a greater effect between 00:00 and 06:00, whereas the recklessness will. in my opinion inexperience is actually more likely to cause a crash when there are more drivers on the road (in the daytime) and since this policy is only for inexperienced but sensible drivers they should allow their policyholders to drive at night and the loss caused by the small increase in probability of a crash at night (from 0 to whatever) will be recovered by attracting a lot more young drivers to their policy and making money from them.

[harderfaster]

Well given that accidents increase when the clocks go back in autumn ie when people are driving in the dark, your argument would seem to be null and void. You cant claim what does and doesn't contribute to the statistics if you haven't seen the statistics. I reckon CIS probably did a bit of work on the stats before they made this policy proposal

[llcoolphil]

only applies to drivers who aren't sensible (

[lost]

eta 2 One of the reasons that insurance is so much lower in NZ is there isn't the same culture of suing for things like personal injury. Instead there is ACC, Accident Compensation Corporation, essentially government run, everyone pays into in various ways, and can make a claim from it in the event of injury.

Edited April 20, 2011 by lost

[harderfaster]

What does this actually mean?

[llcoolphil]

that if you have an accident just because it's dark you weren't driving sensibly.