Car insurance definitely a complete rip off scam!!

[SbutC]

I realised that something was wrong in your method when you resulted in "average person claims once every 155 years" which is plainly not correct. Speak to people that drive and even anecdotally you'll be convinced that the rate is far far higher than that.

Part of it will be down to your 200,000 figure being way out.

I'm not sure what the above link classes as injury/casualty, but maybe this (http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/ras40007.xls) was your source for 200,000(?), meaning you counted injury claims only.

And those numbers don't seem to include whiplash, since a comprehensive 2010 study by the ABI, definitely worth you reading (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 91we05.htm), counted 432,000 annual whiplash claims alone(!!!)

That's also not accounting for the fact that the majority of incidents on the roads don't result in any injury at all, just vehicle repair and other property damage.

If you want to try to calculate an approximate "actual cost" then the actual UK claims frequency of between 10-20% (http://www.datamonitor.com/store/Produc ... d=DMFS2495) should be your starting point given that we can assume it's based on all the actual available data. You'd need to factor in average claim cost from somewhere too, and I suspect you'll end with an answer that more closely resembles the fact that insurance companies have operated at an underwriting loss in the UK for the last 15 years and so can't have been scamming the public (source: ABI report above)

I've heard it said recently that the premiums are having to rise because they are paying out more in claims than they are taking in. This has to be bullshit. I suspect it's more likely to be because the ambulance chasers and fat-cats are massively exploiting the captive audience and red tape.

It's not bullshit because these are one and the same thing. Increase in "accident management companies" and ambulance chasing solicitors taking advantage of the public's eagerness to never accept responsibility and always put in a claim (even make one up!) leads to what? Insurance companies paying out more in claims than they take in!

SbutC

[Geronimo]

Has anyone made a insurance claim recently where they are the "injured" party. I did. I was in a parked car when a car reversed into me. The chap got out apologised, admitted he was at fault and gave me his details which i forwarded onto my insurance.

Imagine my surprise when i was contacted and advised both insurance's were going to agree this was a 50/50 claim and both pay for it. I asked if this then would be entered onto my insurance history as a claim fault by me and was advised yes! I argued this and they stated they had made their minds up this was the way to deal with the claim.
Not accepting this i went to see the chap who had caused the accident and told him about the matter, he was outraged about whole matter and promptly wrote me a letter stating clearly that he was at fault.

I sent this to my insurers and again they rang me, they were concerned i had approached the other "participent in the accident" before they had dealt with the matter, not about my concerns of being ripped but their concerns! I explained, keeping my cool, the reason i did contact the other party was so i wasn't shafted by my own insurance company...I threatened that if they went 50/50 i would consider that slander and libel and fraudulent and theft and devil worship and many other somethings, i think i even threatened the wrath of Thor on them.

Anyways after a few run around the block in phone calls and talks with everyone in the office from manager to delivery man they agreed the chap who did the backing up was at fault and they would deal with it that way, Suffice to say his insurance paid up and my insurance sent me £20 for some reason!

After the dust had settled i cancelled my instalments, much to their chagrin, it was now their turn to issue threats of dire consequences, all which i dealt with in a cool an superior manner which seemed to irritate them no end.

This wasn't the end though, if you are hit by someone else and make a claim, it goes on your file and other insurance company's take this into consideration when they make their offer to you! It is almost as if they take into consideration how unlucky you might be. I now take a picture of the rabbit foot i have hanging from my rear view window, the garlic reed i have stuck in my tax disc and the evil eye i throw over the sterring wheel at anyone who comes within parking distance of me and send all this to the insurers every time i renew.

BTW I'snt insurance needed in an "event of an accident" not before or after an accident.

[HVYMTL]

Ok, so I just went digging for some more hardcore evidence and I found this :

http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/ras45010/

This is the official government statistics table for reported road accidents by quarter.

In Q3 2010, the figure for All roads & All accidents (slight + serious) was : 40,458

If we multiply by 4 to get a rough approximate for the whole year we reach the figure of 161,832 which is actually significantly less than the 200,000 I quoted previously.

The figure of 155 years was a mean average, clearly there would be many people who drive much more than 6500 miles per year and who never get into any accidents, whilst there are also people who drive less than that and bang into other cars often.

Personal experiences are far from accurate when dealing with national statistics.

I believe therefore that the statistical calculations I made previously are fairly accurate given the data I have available, and when you also consider that most of those 161,832 accidents are caused by :

1) drink driving
2) tired driving
3) drug driving
4) 17 year old's who think their Colin Mccrae
5) 15 year old's who think their on a playstation
6) poor weather conditions
7) mechanical failures

you can see clearly that not only are the chances of being involved in a collision are very low, but also that if your not a drink/drug driver or a 17 year old p***k then the probability shrinks even closer to zero.

I find that frequently when the statistics are mentioned they are mentioned with a huge bias, for instance they tell you that there are about 40,000 serious accidents a year and that that is a frightening figure, but they don't mention just how many cars and just how many miles are driven to produce that 40,000 figure... because if they did we would realise that we are being SCAMMED.

Not only is everyone being presumed dangerous when the vast majority of us are safe and sensible, but also we are all paying out far too much money to cover a tiny statistical minority of idiots + a huge money making industry supporting parasitical lawyers, criminal gangs and fat cats on massive bonuses that exists ostensibly to 'protect' us from said idiots.

[SbutC]

I'm puzzled whether you read my post at all. Your number of claims was too low, and I showed you it was too low, yet you've revised it lower?

Of course anecdotal evidence isn't ideal, but it can give you a feel for if your answer is right. Based on the many people I know who've made small claims, 155 years wasn't reasonable. For the average length of time before an *injury claim requiring reporting to the police*? More reasonable.

Need more actual evidence? (try clicking the links this time):
1) Both the numbers you've used so far have been *reported* incidents only ie. to the police. Now think about the likelihood of the average vehicle damage only incident requiring the police. Now think about how many of the "Oww my neck hurts" brigade are going to want to involve the police.

2) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 91/591.pdf
The Insurance Fraud Bureau reports around 30,000 fraudulent claims a year, mostly staged accidents. Does 20% of all claims being fraudulent sound sensible to you?

3) Same report we see over 600,000 claims were notified annually to the Compensation Recovery Unit in recent years. Again, this will not include all claims by a long stretch.

Yes, the vast majority of us are safe and sensible drivers, but that's simply how insurance works. The premiums of the many pay for the claims of the few (or actually as it happens, not so few)

SbutC

[HVYMTL]

I'm puzzled whether you read my post at all. Your number of claims was too low, and I showed you it was too low, yet you've revised it lower?

How can there be more claims than there are total number of reported collisions??

The number of collisions is not in question, the figures are right there in black and white.

Of course anecdotal evidence isn't ideal, but it can give you a feel for if your answer is right. Based on the many people I know who've made small claims, 155 years wasn't reasonable. For the average length of time before an *injury claim requiring reporting to the police*? More reasonable.

That's 155 years of driving the average number of miles driven per car per year. Of course a large number of people are going to be driving a lot more miles than that and a large number will be driving a lot less miles than that. If you double the number of miles per year to 13,000 then you halve the figure to 72.5 years.

Remember this is the mean average taken over a dataset of 31,000,000 cars, any individual sample you quote can vary wildly from that, for instance it's quite possible for someone to get into 5 crashes in a single year, just because of statistical variation.

The mean averages are important to consider because it shows the overall picture, which is that we are being collectively charged over 26 Billion pounds annually to deal with incidents which are in fact a statistical rarity.

Need more actual evidence? (try clicking the links this time):
1) Both the numbers you've used so far have been *reported* incidents only ie. to the police. Now think about the likelihood of the average vehicle damage only incident requiring the police. Now think about how many of the "Oww my neck hurts" brigade are going to want to involve the police.

I was working with the reported incidents because only reported incidents can have claims attached to them. Sure there is probably a bunch more collisions which occur which go unreported, but those are irrelevant to the insurance industry and how much it charges us because they don't incur any liability.

2) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 91/591.pdf
The Insurance Fraud Bureau reports around 30,000 fraudulent claims a year, mostly staged accidents. Does 20% of all claims being fraudulent sound sensible to you?

Yes that is reasonable.

3) Same report we see over 600,000 claims were notified annually to the Compensation Recovery Unit in recent years. Again, this will not include all claims by a long stretch.

How can you have over 600,000 claims when the governments own statistics show that there only 160,000 or so actual collisions occurring? If only 1 in 4 claims is actually a real one connected with an actual reported collision, then we have just uncovered the nature of the scam!

Yes, the vast majority of us are safe and sensible drivers, but that's simply how insurance works. The premiums of the many pay for the claims of the few (or actually as it happens, not so few)

That's how it's currently setup but that's not the only way it can work.

We could for instance have a voluntary insurance scheme where you simply insure your own property against the potential for damage you consent to by using it. The more expensive your car the more it's going to cost you to keep it insured against that potential for damage.

I could rattle off a whole load of scenarios and write justifications for all of them, but I can already predict that peoples personal greed and desire to lay blame on others for their mistakes will mean that the system whilst actually fairer would probably be rejected by most because it doesn't feel satisfactory or fair for them to take any sort of loss if they personally didn't cause it, despite the fact that they consented to the risks of owning a car by having a car in the first place.

[SbutC]

The number of collisions absolutely *IS* in question.

Perhaps I haven''t yet clarified enough. "Reported" in the statistics you are using refers to reported to the police *NOT* to an insurance company.

Those "incident/accident" numbers make up a tiny minority of actual claims. Most claims are handled without police involvement, and do not appear in those government statistics. The only organisations who know the true number of claims is the insurance industry, hence me attempting to show you their numbers, which you are completely ignoring.

We could for instance have a voluntary insurance scheme where you simply insure your own property against the potential for damage you consent to by using it. The more expensive your car the more it's going to cost you to keep it insured against that potential for damage.

Great, so what happens when the person who does not volunteer to be insured, has a momentary lapse of concentration, ploughs into a bus-stop, and paralyzes ten people?

Third Party Only cover is the only motor insurance that is compulsory. Insuring your own vehicle *already is* voluntary.

SbutC

[hughlle]

2 things.

1. Of course it's a rip off and a scam, the reason there has nbever been any thought of investigation into pice fixing and anti-competitive business practices is that the government taxes a percentage of every insurance policy sold. So just like with "minimum price per unit", it's just another area where the government has absolutely no interest in making sure the prices don't rise, because it means more money for their pockets if they do.

2. ha quote you have gotten, that is not so much the insurance companies ripping you off as the website you are using being retarded. I can insure a more powerful car fully comp even with a drink driving conviction to declare. And i was recently quoted just £700 to insure a 2.4L V6 audi A4 without the drink driving declaration. and that's wihtout then making ay phone calls and forcing their price down as you can in nearly every instance.

[SbutC]

the reason there has nbever been any thought of investigation into pice fixing and anti-competitive business practices is that

Utterly false, given that the government is in the middle of a comprehensive review of why motor insurance prices have risen (although they're now coming down) and has implemented strategy to combat the trend. I've even linked to their review in this very thread! Kind of undermines your point...

SbutC

[Geronimo]

the reason there has nbever been any thought of investigation into pice fixing and anti-competitive business practices is that

Utterly false, given that the government is in the middle of a comprehensive review of why motor insurance prices have risen (although they're now coming down) and has implemented strategy to combat the trend. I've even linked to their review in this very thread! Kind of undermines your point...

SbutC

Does the government receive money for each insurance policy sold?

[HVYMTL]

The number of collisions absolutely *IS* in question.

Perhaps I haven''t yet clarified enough. "Reported" in the statistics you are using refers to reported to the police *NOT* to an insurance company.

Those "incident/accident" numbers make up a tiny minority of actual claims. Most claims are handled without police involvement, and do not appear in those government statistics. The only organisations who know the true number of claims is the insurance industry, hence me attempting to show you their numbers, which you are completely ignoring.

Well if there is no connection between the reported collisions and the claims, what's stopping the insurers from cooking the books and creating lots of extra fictitious claims?

Great, so what happens when the person who does not volunteer to be insured, has a momentary lapse of concentration, ploughs into a bus-stop, and paralyzes ten people?

Said driver loses their licence and faces jail if they are shown to have been drunk / drugged up or otherwise driving without due care and attention etc,

and 10 people go to Hospital and get dealt with exactly the same way we deal with anyone else who has been involved in any other type of accident. We could have a nationalised non-profit support system for them, perhaps funded by the fuel duty which is the very essence of "pay as you go", instead of the american style massive compensation culture, ooh I got injured by someone who made a mistake let's see if I can get £10,000,000 pounds for free...

Third Party Only cover is the only motor insurance that is compulsory. Insuring your own vehicle *already is* voluntary.

Yup, we have it the wrong way around because we are addicted to the chance of a big payout for someone making a mistake, which incidentally opens up the possibility of deliberate mistakes which various criminal gangs exploit to the tune of millions.