Conference terri::cars_uk

    Anyone out there notice that Insurance companies are looking
    to double the number of 'groups', from 9 up to 18.
    
    Their argument being that within a single group, there
    may be a large variation in car performance (and risk).
    
    The idea being that existing group 1 would be split into 1 and 2,
    group 2 into 3 and 4, etc.
    
    The AA think that is is a 'good idea' - they think that car
    manufacturers will put extra effort into car security so that
    it can be rated in a lower group.  What rubbish !  If the manufacturers
    wanted to do this, they could do so already.
    
    If it happens (expected by end of this year), I am sure that it
    will be done in such a way that insurance companies will increase
    premiums for cars in the 'upper half' of the current groups, but
    will definitely not reduce premiums for cars in the lower half.
    
    Anybody have any comments on this - or information on it.
    
    (Source of the above being Auto Express)
    
    J.R.

    
    Of all the things in life, only death, taxes and the humble punter
    being ripped off at every available opportunity by **ANY** supplier of
    products and services are immutable certainties.
    
    So what makes anybody think that the Insurance Companies will do
    anything thats good for anybody except them?

�    So what makes anybody think that the Insurance Companies will do
�    anything thats good for anybody except them?
    
    Also being of a cynical nature, I agree that punters *will* be ripped off.
    
    What I thought was bad about the article I read, was that the AA
    were quoted as saying that it would be beneficial for the motorist.
    Just goes to show that the AA do not have the interests of motorists
    at heart. They also have an insurance branch, don't they?

I thought that these extra groups were effectively already in place...

some companies rate a R5 Gt turbo as group 5, others at group 7,
others have bands within groups eg. 5A etc etc 


has no-one else come across this?

...art

On a different tack...

Why does insurance cost around �25 extra because I'm not married to my other �?
We share a mortgage, house, bank account to name but a few. Why more dosh 
because we don't share a name?  We are probably more "married" than a lot
of "technically married" couples are! Are we really more likely to have an 
accident BECAUSE we didn't sign a piece of paper? Seems to me like YAE (yet
another excuse) to rip the motorist off.

Jc 

>Why does insurance cost around �25 extra because I'm not married to my other �?

probably because you're a cavalier young man without a care in the world & no
responsibility to wife & home (in THEIR eyes anyway)

to make you feel better I got a 10% loading because I'm not married; perhaps
insurance companies disaprove of folk that 'live in sin'


...art

    
    Does this mean I cna look forward to cheaper insurance now I'm a
    responsible married man?
    
    Mark

    
    Do I detect a reluctance to save �25 :-) John,
    
    Just think though how much your saving, by being 'single' the reception 
    alone will pay for your insurance for the next 25 years....
    
    Garry              
     

	Yes, I got suddenly safer overnight after getting married.  That's
	the problem with statistics - it depends on the questions asked.
	Married people are a sub-set of monogamous people who (generally)
	drive more safely.  Trouble is, the accident report forms only ask
	your marital status, so only the sub-set gets rewarded.  

	Dave

    
    Re .17
    
    Why should monogamous people drive more safely than others?
    
    Have you heard the argument that goes with this? 
    
    Mark

    Insurance companies aren't phsychologists, and nobody would pay the
    premiums if you had to have a character/skill etc evaluation regularly. 
    Their premiums are based on the likelyhood of anyone having an accident
    based on a few simple and collectable statistics - age, car, past
    claims etc.  If statistically people who are married cost more in
    claims compared to those who aren't then it makes sense to use that bit
    of information.
    
    Rob 

	All I'm saying is that insurance companies work out there cover
	costs using statistics collected (by insurance companies) from
	accidents.  So, you are statistically less likely to have an accident
	if you're married.  The forms do not cope with long term relationships
	(such as homosexual ones).  Perhaps, members of long term relationships
	are more careful - just a guess, we don't have the statistics for
	non-married ones.

	Why should married people make less insurance claims?  I don't know,
	try a combination of the following:

	1. They don't go out as often (less travel = less accidents)
	2. They regularly drive with more than one person in the car.  Quite
	a number of people travel more carefully with passengers than on their
	own.
	3. They share the driving, and women are (statistically) safer.
	4. They are less agressive, 'cos they are happy in their lives.
	5. They are older, and, generally, people get safer as they get older
	(or at least slower).

	Dave

	Please, no replies that start with, "well I know one 80 year old
	married man who shares the driving but still has 20 accidents a 
	year..."

    
    In the case of men, (who are statistically more prone to this type of
    behaviour) they have already 'caught' their woman so don't have to
    drive around like a 'boy racer' to prove their virility/status/eligibility
    in order to impress! :-)

    
    Well I know one 80 year old....
    
    
    
    Sorry! :^)
    
    Interesting combination of suggestions. I don't really care why this
    should be the case (as long as it is!), I was just intrigued, there's
    usually a (or a number of) reason(s) put forward as to why a particular
    group are safer or less safe than others.
    
    Re .21 Come on Elaine, where's your evidence for that! :^)
    
    Mark

    RE: .21 Sounds like very sensible...
    
    When I got married I drove a Triumph Spitfire... 2 months later an 1100
    Escort.
    
    
    Mind you, as people get older they do funny things... I have now
    swapped my nice family Carlton for a "boy racer" Calibra!
    
    
    For those of you who think a Calibra is NOT a boy racer - you haven't
    driven a Carlton!

Elaine, Does the fact that Derek now goes racing not spoil your argument?  Or
is he looking for a replacement...

Scott
;-)

	But, I though as people got older, their insurance got cheaper, so they
	could afford the racy cars that were out of reach before.


	I mean, we got the NG 8 months ago - 3 months after we were married!
	

	Heather  (and no, we aren't 80 - yet!)

As an insurance broker commented to my Dad at some point :-



  You can't afford a fast car when you want one, but you don't want one when 
you can afford it.


     Probably true in geeneral, but slightly incorrect around this conference.



		 Alan
		~~~~~~