new quote here

[Linas.P]

23 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

Two different things. Insurance companies price policies based on risk, and that risk is determined by multiple factors including age, experience, being involved in accidents or breaking driving laws etc.

The alternative is everyone pays the same, at which point people with clean driving records would be upset that they are subsidising others.

7 minutes ago, Bezzer said:

What a flawed opinion, you are way off. You are not being punished twice, you have committed a traffic offence so arguably have a greater risk of doing it again, it rightly costs to cover those risks, you either pay it or you don’t. There is a spent conviction time limit so your speeding and other minor stuff don’t have to be declared to almost anyone after 5 years, which shows if you have learnt your lesson….or not as the case may be. Nothing at all to do with human rights you are not being punished, you put yourself in that position, yes Insurance Companies are a rip off but you gave them more ammunition.

Same for both of you...

True to some degree, but because points are themselves somewhat arbitrary, then it simply can't be counted as risk factor. It is basically miscarriage of justice. And fairness in judgement and punishment is more important than some stupid private company profits. 

As well we need to appreciate practical implications of this... young person who already pays £2500 for insurance just because they are young (expensive, but not impossible to pay ~£300 month), misses that variable speed limit on 70MPH motorway changes for 60MPh to 50MPh for 1 section, minor and honest mistake. Would you argue it is fair to give them 3 Points and £100? I would say it is already harsh, but reasonable... I guess it would be better to do it like in other countries where first penalty in 12 month period is discount by 50%, so let's say warning and £50 fine perhaps would be fairer. But whatever we live in the country that hates motorists and we are in literal war against motoring, so the £100 and 3 points it is.

Now would you say banning the driver from driving for 3 years is suitable punishment?! Probably not? But that is exactly what happens, because if young drivers get's points then their insurance will triple and now they are effectively banned for 3 years and life is pretty much ruined for 3 years. 

To contrast that - drunk river who already has 6 points, crashes the car without insurance, no death no injuries, but they get 12 months driving ban... at least that is what we as society deem appropriate 12 month no driving... So young person get's 3 years ban for nothing and older person gets 1 year ban for multiple and repeated offences. Or we saying punishment is variable based on who can afford it... some rock star could happily pay £20,000 insurance with 9 points on license and they are still danger to the society when driving. So is that your solution? Those who can pay can ignore the law?!

Look - sure... life is not fair. But this is completely in government control. They can keep 12 points system and bans, they can make whatever they like in fines, but simple solution is not to publish it. Keep the point to themselves and for intended purpose i.e. where repeated offenders are banned from driving. I think that is good idea, just don't share it with private companies to pray on people after they been punished already. Same as they do with driving awareness courses, there is no public record of it, insurance companies can ask if you been on one, but they will never know, end of story. Obviously better solution is to say - this is sensitive private information which is out of your reach, not allowed to know.

[NemesisUK]

5 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Same as they do with driving awareness courses, there is no public record of it, insurance companies can ask if you bene on one, but they will never know, end of story.

If asked "Do you have any driving convictions?", one can legitimately answer, no but if specifically asked "Have you been on a speed awareness course, within the last 3.5yrs?" one must answer yes. To not do so would be knowingly giving false information and would be in breach of T&Cs if one enters into contract with them based on the premium offered in response to answers given

[Linas.P]

10 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

If asked "Do you have any driving convictions?", one can legitimately answer, no but if specifically asked "Have you been on a speed awareness course, within the last 3.5yrs?" one must answer yes. To not do so would be knowingly giving false information and would be in breach of T&Cs if one enters into contract with them based on the premium offered in response to answers given

Correct and unprovable. So down to you honestly and morale I guess... 

It is like asking "do you believe in aliens"... the answer to which is irrelevant. 

[Illogan]

One thing is for certain...

As DVLC and insurance companies are continuing to make their data records more accurate, the insurers are increasingly checking their driver applications for accuracy.

It is a brave person whom deliberately falsifies (forgets!) to include accurate data on their application - -

(however expensive it may be)

 

[NemesisUK]

29 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Correct and unprovable. So down to you honestly and morale I guess... 

It is like asking "do you believe in aliens"... the answer to which is irrelevant. 

Society tends to function better when the people are ...

It's nothing like, the former is factual and the latter opinion and it is relevant, to the person asking of the question.

[Linas.P]

24 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

Society tends to function better when the people are ...

It's nothing like, the former is factual and the latter opinion and it is relevant, to the person asking of the question.

Not sure what is the point here. Moral virtue, being Christian in our approach? Sort of when smacked to the left cheek, turn the right one? Basically, saying that you have to be honest with insurance company is the same as saying you have to be honest with the robber, so if they ask "do you have any more money on you, answer honestly or I will stab you", you have to answer honestly, because you are honest person and now you basically have verbal contract with the robber to be honest with them. 

I do agree honesty is generally a good thing, but the problem is that insurance companies are inherently dishonest, because they are allowed to be dishonest. The contract between drivers and insurance companies are fundamentally not made in good faith because drivers are forced to have insurance. There cannot be good faith in relationship by force, nor the insurance contracts are inherently fair - clearly insurance companies have undue control over them. 

So it becomes the matter of what you can get away with... And sure - you can be as honest as you like, but I will be as honest as I have to be. "Economical with truth" comes to mind, generally bad thing, but not when you being literally robbed in daylight.

[andrey77]

5 hours ago, RONNIE W HODGEKINSON said:

Only Problem Here is if you ever have an Accident or Incident involving another vehicle Your Insurance company check to see if there is any missing or incomplete information IE Your penalty points and that could impact your insurance claim in a big way Best to tell them to keep yourself right and avoid any hassle should anything unto ward happen..Andrey its good advice..!!!

as I said before, I never had any single question and I had two accidents for the last 5 years, one my fault, other not.

[Linas.P]

4 minutes ago, andrey77 said:

as I said before, I never had any single question and I had two accidents for the last 5 years, one my fault, other not.

As I have said, I am not judging, but that is luck...

[Rabbers]

Unless they are moral philosophers of proven distinction, I make it a rule to mistrust anyone who considers the difference between honesty and dishonesty to be a subject for debate.

[Illogan]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

 

I do agree honesty is generally a good thing, but the problem is that insurance companies are inherently dishonest, because they are allowed to be dishonest. The contract between drivers and insurance companies are fundamentally not made in good faith because drivers are forced to have insurance. There cannot be good faith in relationship by force, nor the insurance contracts are inherently fair - clearly insurance companies have undue control over them. 

 

Linas, - I do not agree with you that insurance companies are inherently dishonest.....but, that aside - - if you wish to make the very best of the role that insurance companies play in society - - -

 

-- Arrange to have your pension funds invested in insurance companies..  

Then at least you will be able to share in any unfair advantages that they may enjoy.

(and just hope that there is not any series of natural/unnatural disasters that befall their policyholders

[andrey77]

Linas is right for 100%. I paid fine and had points, why should I pay to insurance again if my license clear by now..

Insurance companies robbing  us so why I should not rob them a bit.  I'm from Ukraine and we very don't like when someone try to rip us off without need, it is just different mentality and we have no eye shores.

 

Law invented to be break gentelmen!

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Illogan said:

Linas, - I do not agree with you that insurance companies are inherently dishonest.....but, that aside - - if you wish to make the very best of the role that insurance companies play in society - - -

 

-- Arrange to have your pension funds invested in insurance companies..  

Then at least you will be able to share in any unfair advantages that they may enjoy.

(and just hope that there is not any series of natural/unnatural disasters that befall their policyholders

Mate I don't need to ask that to be done... majority of pension funds underwrite insurance on what is known as variable interest debt financing. This allows insurance underwriters to always declare almost no profit despite making 100s of millions and sometimes billions in profit. 

So - I rather have my pension fund responsibly invested somewhere else, I rather see insurance fairly priced and I rather see them paying tax on all the profits they actually made. But that will not happen anytime soon. I am generally honest, but I am not stupid - so I draw the line between reasonable honesty and outright self-harm. 

[andrey77]

One week of play on Gocompare I got the quote from my existing insurance company for circa 1300 per year, still very dear compare to £850 I paid for Porsche 911 GT3 I had before this Lexus.

I add one more extra driver with provisional driving licence

Secure car park on my work place

I had pleasure use only but I add commuting to work

Had accident about 4.5 years ago but I did not tell them

I was waiting that they gona call me if have any question about new policy  for a few days but all good by now.

 

Remember from my own experience,  never buy insurance from Gocopare in day number one, first 2-3 days you gona have all expensive quotes only but change the policy details a bit and put it back again make  the price cheaper and cheaper