What do you drive?

[Davkaus]

On 14/09/2023 at 20:02, Genie said:

Aren’t Nissan Leaf’s still quite small? 

I missed this - not massive, but slightly bigger than a Focus/Golf, with a significantly bigger boot. Need to go and view one and see how much I can chuck in it, but I think it should have plenty of room.

I wouldn't want some massive SUV type thing unless forced into it, and estates are just out as I can't fit the damn things on the driveway - think even the Leaf might end up being a little bit long, I've got a raised driveway with some coping stones that pop up to just about the right height to scrape a bumper on them. I'm going to need to go along with a tape measure to see if the bonnet will go over so I can gain an extra foot or so of length there. Right pain in the arse, I'd be tempted to take the stones off if it weren't for there then being nothing to stop an inattentive parker driving over the bloody edge - and at the other end I don't want it hanging out into the pavement

Edited September 22, 2023 by Davkaus

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I missed this - not massive, but slightly bigger than a Focus/Golf, with a significantly bigger boot.

For some reason in my head they were the size of a Renault Clio.

[blandy]

On 21/09/2023 at 13:42, Chindie said:

Yes, because there is.

Someone who has an accident is more likely to have another. Which the insurer will use to rate the individual risk and put a number on it. Doesn't matter if they claimed, or where the fault lay (though it's likely they would account for fault in another statistical consideration in the model), it just matters that the Insured, as a factual matter, had an accident.

That's not quite true - at least not for an individual, but it is if you categorise "people who've had accidents" as a collective group.

If someone runs in to the back of me in a stationary queue of traffic, it does not make me as an individual more likely to be run into tomorrow or in the next year.

If you take all the drivers involved in accidents, some for the first time and group them together, because some of that group will be inexperienced, or terrible drivers and because some people (all who've not had a recentish accident) leave the group it kind of auto renews the group, as a whole, to be higher risk. So from the insurance companies point of view, it's just maths/cash, but from an individual, particularly in a no fault, or icy weather type situation, it's unfair, surely?

[Chindie]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's not quite true - at least not for an individual, but it is if you categorise "people who've had accidents" as a collective group.

If someone runs in to the back of me in a stationary queue of traffic, it does not make me as an individual more likely to be run into tomorrow or in the next year.

If you take all the drivers involved in accidents, some for the first time and group them together, because some of that group will be inexperienced, or terrible drivers and because some people (all who've not had a recentish accident) leave the group it kind of auto renews the group, as a whole, to be higher risk. So from the insurance companies point of view, it's just maths/cash, but from an individual, particularly in a no fault, or icy weather type situation, it's unfair, surely?

I'm talking from the insurers perspective where the entire rating model comes from categorising groups of people on statistically relevent metrics. In which case, sadly, if you've had an accident, you are more likely to have another statistically, which means you are a bigger risk than someone who had not.

I should add I've thankfully never worked in motor insurance but this is the case from what I've heard from people that do.

[bobzy]

On 17/08/2023 at 21:22, Demitri_C said:

Nissan qashqai. Can honestly its the best car ive ever had. I love it

Amen, sister.

[A'Villan]

Considering purchasing a Volkswagen Tiguan. Has anyone here had one?

[BOF]

On 22/09/2023 at 16:09, Chindie said:

I'm talking from the insurers perspective where the entire rating model comes from categorising groups of people on statistically relevent metrics. In which case, sadly, if you've had an accident, you are more likely to have another statistically, which means you are a bigger risk than someone who had not.

I should add I've thankfully never worked in motor insurance but this is the case from what I've heard from people that do.

Oh the model might be complicated alright, but it's also flawed - sorry, 'rigged' - to the benefit of the insurance companies. Of course they want as many people as high(er) risk as they can. High risk means high premium.  To go back to Blandy's example, rear-ending someone in stationary traffic does not make the victim any more high risk to have a future accident than had it not happened. Lumping them in with other victims (where blame might be partial) in some complex mathematical model might make that one person disappear into a vat of broader statistics where the general mean is broadly correct, but you've still mishandled that particular victim, solely to the benefit of the insurance company. I'd rather not defend a flawed model.

[bobzy]

17 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Considering purchasing a Volkswagen Tiguan. Has anyone here had one?

Mother in law has one - she's a car enthusiast to some extent (I'm absolutely not) and chops and changes her car a least once every 2 years.  She's had the Tiguan for about 4 years now; absolutely loves it.

[BOF]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

Mother in law has one - she's a car enthusiast to some extent (I'm absolutely not) and chops and changes her car a least once every 2 years.  She's had the Tiguan for about 4 years now; absolutely loves it.

Sounds like a reg plate enthusiast rather than a car enthusiast.

[A'Villan]

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Mother in law has one - she's a car enthusiast to some extent (I'm absolutely not) and chops and changes her car a least once every 2 years.  She's had the Tiguan for about 4 years now; absolutely loves it.

Excellent..

I've had a review from someone who worked at Volkswagen for years, can't remember the role exactly but mechanic or engineer, said they are sound and reliable. Reliability and minimal financial outlay after initial purchase being two at the top of my checklist.

Thanks @bobzy!

[Chindie]

13 minutes ago, BOF said:

Oh the model might be complicated alright, but it's also flawed - sorry, 'rigged' - to the benefit of the insurance companies. Of course they want as many people as high(er) risk as they can. High risk means high premium.  To go back to Blandy's example, rear-ending someone in stationary traffic does not make the victim any more high risk to have a future accident than had it not happened. Lumping them in with other victims (where blame might be partial) in some complex mathematical model might make that one person disappear into a vat of broader statistics where the general mean is broadly correct, but you've still mishandled that particular victim, solely to the benefit of the insurance company. I'd rather not defend a flawed model.

Insurance, especially something like car insurance, effectively doesn't work without such a model, so it's making the best of a bad situation.

[bobzy]

12 minutes ago, BOF said:

Sounds like a reg plate enthusiast rather than a car enthusiast.

They're not new cars, just different ones.  Waste of time if you ask me, but each to their own and all that  

[BOF]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Insurance, especially something like car insurance, effectively doesn't work without such a model, so it's making the best of a bad situation.

No I get that they need a complex model. Of course they do. It just seems they've tweaked the model to include a few innocents, because why not make a few extra quid. When you've got a self-regulating industry, why wouldn't they do that if they can get away with it.

[Chindie]

13 minutes ago, BOF said:

No I get that they need a complex model. Of course they do. It just seems they've tweaked the model to include a few innocents, because why not make a few extra quid. When you've got a self-regulating industry, why wouldn't they do that if they can get away with it.

I think it's more that the statistical data shows a trend where things that would logically appear unfair the numbers disagree with - i.e. having an accident makes you more likely to have another irrespective of fault etc. In the same way other totally innocent factors will actually make you more likely to have an claim even if those things are seemingly irrelevant or you are 'innocent' in the matter - the colour of the car, your occupation, your age, where you live, the specification of the car etc etc.

The industry isn't self regulated in the UK. It's regulated by the PRA and the FCA in differing aspects.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

the statistical data shows a trend where things that would logically appear unfair the numbers disagree with - i.e. having an accident makes you more likely to have another irrespective of fault etc

I’m very confident that is not the case. It’s how you use the numbers. Having an accident absolutely does not make anyone more likely to have another one. If anything the reverse is true for individuals. However if you cherry pick people and categorise them into a group, then that group can then be assessed. Essentially by adding in “drivers who have been rear ended while stationary” to a group “boy racers who just passed their test” or “bad drivers” if you  like, you can then justify to yourself that this group of “people involved in an accident” are higher risk. But only because you’ve lumped 2 or more different categories of driver into one “risk” group.  Or to put it another way, boy racers and bad drivers are high risk and remain high risk. People rear ended or driven in to are low risk and remain low risk.

[Chindie]

I'll assume everyone I've ever worked with with expertise in car insurance is wrong then. Silly gullible me.

Thank you all.

[Genie]

Could just be an excuse to push up premiums.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

51 minutes ago, blandy said:

I’m very confident that is not the case. It’s how you use the numbers. Having an accident absolutely does not make anyone more likely to have another one. If anything the reverse is true for individuals. However if you cherry pick people and categorise them into a group, then that group can then be assessed. Essentially by adding in “drivers who have been rear ended while stationary” to a group “boy racers who just passed their test” or “bad drivers” if you  like, you can then justify to yourself that this group of “people involved in an accident” are higher risk. But only because you’ve lumped 2 or more different categories of driver into one “risk” group.  Or to put it another way, boy racers and bad drivers are high risk and remain high risk. People rear ended or driven in to are low risk and remain low risk.

I don't agree. 

Your premium is already based upon where you live.  Statistically a high crime area that is exceptionally busy will lead to more claims than a sleepy retirement village. 

But where we drive is equally important. If I am involved in 5 accidents a year it shows that I regularly drive in areas where accidents occur.  From a statistical viewpoint,  whether I am to blame is irrelevant.  It simply shows that I am more at risk than someone who hasn't been involved in any accident. 

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I don't agree. 

Your premium is already based upon where you live.  Statistically a high crime area that is exceptionally busy will lead to more claims than a sleepy retirement village. 

But where we drive is equally important. If I am involved in 5 accidents a year it shows that I regularly drive in areas where accidents occur.  From a statistical viewpoint,  whether I am to blame is irrelevant.  It simply shows that I am more at risk than someone who hasn't been involved in any accident. 

That’s all fine. Location is a factor. But if you take all the drivers in a location, being rear ended on a Monday does not make it more or less likely that you will be rear ended on the Friday. The insurance companies treat you like it is more likely it will happen to you again, than if it hadn’t happened.  That’s simply not true.

[bobzy]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

being rear ended on a Monday does not make it more or less likely that you will be rear ended on the Friday.