Is it actually possible to insure cars anymore?

[Topher-EP82]

And let's be honest - nobody reads through the 200 pages of terms and conditions which basically say "we own you. Unlucky, motherfucker!".

Sorry to be blunt mate but thats the only part you should be reading... they outline the details of your policy..

and i can assure you people DO read the T's and C's i for one definitely do.. Why the fuck would you pay so much money to someone and not read what they are actually giving you...

 

[dac69er]

to be honest, the terms and conditions are pretty much the same accross the board. if you pay extra for what you think is the same cover, alot of the time you will get more lenient/better terms and conditions.

the costs are kept down by insurance companies by reducing the little perks. i have noticed over recent years that driving other cars has slowly dissapeared unless asked for. a lot dont do free windscreen chip repairs anymore, the excess for replacement windscreens has increased quite considerably too.

 

[sdutton007]

Sorry to be blunt mate but thats the only part you should be reading... they outline the details of your policy.. and i can assure you people DO read the T's and C's i for one definitely do.. Why the fuck would you pay so much money to someone and not read what they are actually giving you...

OK, but you don't normally get the Terms and Conditions through the post until a few days after you've insured your car, by which time you have probably already committed a crime (of driving uninsured), plus you will normally have to pay a cancellation fee. I suppose you could find the cheapest quote, then *MAYBE* find their T&C on-line before accepting the quote, although I'm sure a lot of insurers won't provide this.

My Policy document is 9 pages, T&C are another 28 pages, and then there is another 52 page document with more information on...

If I read every T&C and EULA for every product/service I have/use, then I wouldn't have any time to use the product/service or drive my car...

I just make sure that all the details are correct and then pay for it.

You are right though that I *SHOULD* read them all - but only because the companies try to screw you on every tiny detail. Although I'd probably be half way through my policy by the time I'd finished reading it all...

the costs are kept down by insurance companies by reducing the little perks. i have noticed over recent years that driving other cars has slowly dissapeared unless asked for. a lot dont do free windscreen chip repairs anymore, the excess for replacement windscreens has increased quite considerably too.

That's fine to be honest. Reduce the perks to keep the costs down. But if you remove parts of the insurance policy that would cause people to break the law and drive uninsured, the least they could do is MENTION it to you...

I'm sure there are a few thousand people in this country driving around without insurance due to this, even though they fully believe that they are insured - and just because they didn't read the T&C doesn't mean they deserve to lose their licences / have their cars crushed / go to jail / etc.

As for windscreen cover, I can fully understand the increasing excess - modern windscreens are a LOT more expensive to replace due to the technology inside them. My Focus' windscreen cost something like £600 (off the top of my head) because it has built in rain sensors, heated elements and something else I believe. Compare that to a older car where the whole windscreen would have probably cost less than £150..

 

[sdutton007]

@SkyInsurance:

Bit off-topic here, but you basically said roll-cages are more likely to hurt you - that is completely untrue. Plus if this was true then why would rally & Nascar cars have them? They protect the occupants, and reinforce the structural integrity of the car.

And the roll-cage is extremely unlikely to cause more costs to the insurer since:
1) The car is almost certainly a write off if the damage is so bad that the roll-cage would have any effect.
2) The roll-cage will help maintain the structure of the car so that the roof doesn't collapse, among other things.
3) Personal Injury claims will be lower due to the roll-cage preventing the occupants from being crushed/maimed/etc.

Sorry, but what you said was absolutely ridiculous. Phenom was right when he said "In a word - BULLSHIT. The usual Insurance Company Corporate line - yet again..." and :-

Let me give you a scenario.

Identical vehicle - Identical Crash.

One WITH roll cage fitted.
One WITHOUT roll cage fitted.

Which one would you prefer?

Hmm, difficult choice... lol


EDIT:

Got a little test for you:

Get 2 identical cardboard boxes. Reinforce 1 with a wooden/metal frame. Now drop a heavy item on both of them in the same conditions (height, weight, etc) - which one is more damaged?

I'm pretty sure you will come up with some bullshit excuse why you can't compare this test with a car, but let's face reality - you are just trying to make excuses why you can rip people off by increasing their premiums.

I really wish I'd seen that topic while it was alive because I would have ripped your ridiculous argument to shreds!

 

[AdamB]

There are a lot of people out there who assume that they are able to drive anyone elses car on a comprehensive insurance cover (as long as the other vehicle is insured). A lot of people believe this because they are 21, or 25, or older than this, but it isn't always on the policy.

When I first passed my test at 17, I was with Quinn insurance, I read the policy and it stated that I was allowed to drive other peoples cars as long as they were insured. This seemed a little silly to me as there was no restrictions as I had even enquired, bearing in mind I was only on TPFT policy as well. After ensuring that what was in the policy booklet was correct, I was then driving around in my dads 600bhp Skyline GTR at 17.

Just because you may have it one year, it doesn't mean you will automatically have it another, it is your responsibility to read and agree to the T&C's, and by taking out the policy you will be agreeing to these terms, if and when the terms are posted, if you read something you don't like, cancel and pay like a £20 fee, I would rather be paying £20 fee than losing my licence.

I agree if you specificly ask on your policy for driving other vehicles, and its not on the policy when you recieve it, then thats their cock up, most calls are recorded anyway so should be able to trace it back. If you don't ask, you don't get, never assume.

 

[AdamB]

Sorry for double post.

The reason why roll cages add to your premium is because they do cause injury.
Yes they surve a purpose, but they were designed and built to use in the world of motorsport, where the occupants of the vehicle are wearing safety approved clothing.
You on the road in your road vehicle are not likely to be wearing this.

The purpose of the roll cage is not to ensure the vehicle remains structurely sound, hence the energy is dispersed to the rest of the chassis. They are designed as a box to enable the occupants of the vehicle to remain inside this "box" without injury.
Motorsport teams no1 priority is not winning, losing, its the safety of their drivers, this is also replicated on the road as insurance companies priority is yourself and the vehicle occupants.

If safety wasn't no1, we wouldn't have all the forms of motorsport we do today, so thank Jackie Stewart and Bernie Ecclestone.

 

[sdutton007]

Just because you may have it one year, it doesn't mean you will automatically have it another, it is your responsibility to read and agree to the T&C's, and by taking out the policy you will be agreeing to these terms, if and when the terms are posted, if you read something you don't like, cancel and pay like a £20 fee, I would rather be paying £20 fee than losing my licence.

£55 not £20, and if it's shouldn't be your responsibility if they hide things in T&Cs that you can't read until you've accepted the policy.

And my point was more that they should just FUCKING TELL YOU instead of trying to hide it like the underhanded scum they usually are...

Sorry for double post.

The reason why roll cages add to your premium is because they do cause injury.
Yes they surve a purpose, but they were designed and built to use in the world of motorsport, where the occupants of the vehicle are wearing safety approved clothing.
You on the road in your road vehicle are not likely to be wearing this.

The purpose of the roll cage is not to ensure the vehicle remains structurely sound, hence the energy is dispersed to the rest of the chassis. They are designed as a box to enable the occupants of the vehicle to remain inside this "box" without injury.
Motorsport teams no1 priority is not winning, losing, its the safety of their drivers, this is also replicated on the road as insurance companies priority is yourself and the vehicle occupants.

If safety wasn't no1, we wouldn't have all the forms of motorsport we do today, so thank Jackie Stewart and Bernie Ecclestone.

You are partly right - They are designed to protect the occupants inside the "box" as you say. But they normally result in far less injury than would have resulted otherwise.

And to be fair, you should have padding on any areas of the rollcage where you might come into contact with in a crash.

 

[AdamB]

The fee will vary between companies. Regardless what it is, its still cheaper than paying for a test and the increased insurance premiums once you been banned.
They do tell everything, in the terms, if they were to literally tell you the terms over the phone, you would be there until the week ends, just as you would reading the terms.

Just easier to do a bit of bed time reading lol.

Cages do result in less injury, if the occupants are in the correct manner to be resisting injury, ie wearing a helmet. A cage isn't designed to clapse, they are designed to stay rigid, hence 2 inch thick heat treated steel. You smack you head off that a couple of times whilst rolling or experiencing some lateral G forces, you will know about it, and so will the rest of your family when your in a box. Padding means nothing, padding is what is used in childrens play areas. Cars and cages are not toys.

 

[sdutton007]

The fee will vary between companies. Regardless what it is, its still cheaper than paying for a test and the increased insurance premiums once you been banned. They do tell everything, in the terms, if they were to literally tell you the terms over the phone, you would be there until the week ends, just as you would reading the terms.

Yes, it is cheaper - but nowhere near as cheap as if the insurance company was upfront and honest to begin with. Obviously too much too hope for.

Cages do result in less injury, if the occupants are in the correct manner to be resisting injury, ie wearing a helmet. A cage isn't designed to clapse, they are designed to stay rigid, hence 2 inch thick heat treated steel. You smack you head off that a couple of times whilst rolling or experiencing some lateral G forces, you will know about it, and so will the rest of your family when your in a box. Padding means nothing, padding is what is used in childrens play areas. Cars and cages are not toys.

If your head is bouncing off the rollcage, then you've done something wrong. Maybe try a seatbelt or harnesses? Or you are just too tall for the car. And in any case, if you are rolling then you're probabably a lot better off hitting that than your head being the only thing supporting the roof which could easily result in snapping your neck or other serious injuries...

As for padding, let somebody hit you in the face with a baseball bat wrapped in an inch of strong padding. Then let them hit you in the face with an unpadded baseball bat. Then tell me if your opinion has changed. An inch of padding may not seem much but it will make a huge difference.

 

[AdamB]

An inertia seatbelt will only do so much. At the end of the day, your road car was designed to be a road car, not a race car, hence why roll cages are not standard in vehicles off the production line. A roof is designed to clapse and distribute energy, ensuring that it takes a certain force before it gets to the head height of the head restraint, but which time the roll is probably most certainly over, hitting your head is worse than a clapsing roof which distributes energy. The only thing that distributes energy when hitting a cage is your skull, so not only will your head feel the impact, your neck, your vertabrae, your legs, your arms etc.

Regardless if someone hit you in the face with a bat wrapped in padding or not, if they hit your hard enough it will still knock your teeth out, so essentially is hasn't achieved anything has it? It may soften the blow to a certain amount, but the outcome will still be the same nonetheless.

 

[Ted]

Classic insurance is second car only. 6000 miles limit. It's with Allianz through a local broker. Allianz don't do it direct.

 

[SupaStu]

Dude just read up on all the terms and conditions and shop around. Some insurers makes things seem more complicated than they need to be. I'm with Quinn and its dead simple (paper work easy to read and no bullshit), I can drive anyones car. I also have a 2nd car insured but its a commercial under a broker by the AA, its way more paperwork and less user friendly in terms of documentation. I understand your pain with reading all that "crap", but get smart on it and it will make life easier for insuring cars.

 

[Rory]

Agree with Adam regarding the cage. There a danger to anyone involved in an accident if not wearing a helmet, harness and proper bucket seat.
Even if you were to use a harness on a reclining seat, that in itself is a danger. Seat collapses, harnesses dont harness and you end up on the wrong side of them.

Simple really.

As for the insurance thing, i had no problems insuring 2 cars at once. And to be honest anyone could as long as there smart with there money

 

[dac69er]

As for the insurance thing, i had no problems insuring 2 cars at once. And to be honest anyone could as long as there smart with there money

insuring 2 cars is a bit of a joke due to the 'no claims' farce. surely no claims means you have made no claims. not that you can only use it on one car and insurance on the other car is treated like your a 17 year old noob with no driving experience.

 

[sdutton007]

SOME GOOD NEWS AT LAST:
http://www.bitterwallet.com/now-you-dont-need-insurance-to-tax-your-car/60012

A roof is designed to clapse and distribute energy, ensuring that it takes a certain force before it gets to the head height of the head restraint, but which time the roll is probably most certainly over, hitting your head is worse than a clapsing roof which distributes energy. The only thing that distributes energy when hitting a cage is your skull, so not only will your head feel the impact, your neck, your vertabrae, your legs, your arms etc.

Have you actually seen how easily a roof collapses in even low-speed rolls? Yes, they are designed to distribute the energy but I'd much rather have the cabin area (with me inside) intact than have the roofline level with the bonnet. Have a look at some rally crashes (which are highly modified ROAD CARS) - I have seen some cars roll nearly a dozen times and take brutal damage and yet the occupants climb out of the relatively undamaged cabin area just fine. The helmet certainly helps but its not going to do jack if the roof collapses.

Regardless if someone hit you in the face with a bat wrapped in padding or not, if they hit your hard enough it will still knock your teeth out, so essentially is hasn't achieved anything has it? It may soften the blow to a certain amount, but the outcome will still be the same nonetheless.

It would still knock your teeth out, but unpadded it would probably shatter your jaw. The outcome will NOT be the same.
Why do you think so many racetracks have stacks of tyres instead of solid metal barriers? Because the padding/tyres absorb a LOT of the momentum, meaning less damage.

Even if you were to use a harness on a reclining seat, that in itself is a danger. Seat collapses, harnesses dont harness and you end up on the wrong side of them.

Surely in a typical accident, you and the seat would still have forward momentum so even if the seat did collapse, the harnesses will hold you and the seat firmly. Unless the seat is ripped out the ground, by which time you're fucked anyway TBH.

As for the insurance thing, i had no problems insuring 2 cars at once. And to be honest anyone could as long as there smart with there money

Can you explain this further? Since you cannot use your no claims bonus on the 2nd car, you will pay somewhere around 3 times more than it should be for the 2nd car... (assuming you have a good few years NCB)

insuring 2 cars is a bit of a joke due to the 'no claims' farce. surely no claims means you have made no claims. not that you can only use it on one car and insurance on the other car is treated like your a 17 year old noob with no driving experience.

Spot on mate.

 

[AdamB]

I've been in a car which has rolled a few times, and still walked away with no injuries other than a couple of bruises, that was a jap tin can also.
A rally car is no where near the same league as a road car, it has been specially adapted for its purpose. The purpose of a road car is to be on the road with other public users, its not a race track (so they say).

The reason why race tracks have tyre barriers is because, one, they do absorb energy, and they have high amount of strain, meaning that they can be elastically deformed and they will return to their original shape and still take the same load next time around. They are also cheaper, quicker and easier to replace than a barrier. If you have noticed you will probably find at most race tracks a metal barrier behind where the tyres are placed anyway.

Insuring 2 cars in one persons name is a complete joke, I have had to renew my policy and I couldn't use my no claims on both cars, so it was a case of use one car and get cheap insurance, or pay an extra £400 just so I can drive both cars. Just because I have 2 cars does that mean I'm also more likely to have an accident? Even though one of those cars only does about 2000 miles a year?

 

[sdutton007]

A rally car is no where near the same league as a road car, it has been specially adapted for its purpose.

If you have noticed you will probably find at most race tracks a metal barrier behind where the tyres are placed anyway.

Insuring 2 cars in one persons name is a complete joke, I have had to renew my policy and I couldn't use my no claims on both cars, so it was a case of use one car and get cheap insurance, or pay an extra £400 just so I can drive both cars. Just because I have 2 cars does that mean I'm also more likely to have an accident? Even though one of those cars only does about 2000 miles a year?

I did say rally cars were highly modified road cars - but us fitting rollcages, harnesses, strut braces, etc has all been derived from the modifications done to these cars. Yes, not as extreme and usually our goal isn't safety but the principles are the same.

I think we are going to have to disagree about whether a roll cage is a good thing in a crash - I know which I'd rather, but you are welcome to have a different view.

And the tyres would go flying and do basically nothing if there wasn't a barrier behind them.

Anyway, this has kinda gone off topic a bit with rollcages and padding, etc.

You are completely right about the 2 cars thing which is one of the main reasons I started this discussion.

The second car SHOULD in general be much cheaper to insure than the first assuming that both cars won't be on the road at the same time...

 

[Rory]

I had all my no claims on the GT, but insured my A4 S-Line for the same price.
But yes i do have alot of NCB.

I now only have the 1 policy now due to the GT being of the road for good now.

 

[sdutton007]

I had all my no claims on the GT, but insured my A4 S-Line for the same price.
But yes i do have alot of NCB.

I now only have the 1 policy now due to the GT being of the road for good now.

Lucky SOB! How did you get the A4 insurance so cheap??? (Or are you paying a hell of a lot for the GT insurance?)

I was quoted something like £550 for a N/A starlet worth about £500, when I was paying £305 for a EP82 turbo (with exhaust and alloys declared) worth £1500+


Completely off topic, I borrowed a S6 S-Line a while ago - really nice car (and not too bad to get the back end out lol). Easily 100x better to drive than a Mercedes or BMW (which I personally consider in the same league as a saxo/106 due to the lousy pedal configuration in both of the 3-series I drove. And the X5 is just horrible). The S6 was very close to being as nice to drive as the best car I've ever driven - the Lexus RX300 (absolutely brilliant and even though its a big hulking SUV, it handles like a normal car somehow!).

 

[Rory]

Having just stopped insuring the GT this week, i was £450 with Adrian Flux, the renewal was £380.

The A4 with zero no claims and with my lass on the policy was the same with Direct line. Bearing in mind i live in a very low crime area etc etc

Never had a shot of an S4 or 6 for that matter but i do like my derv.