Is it just me ?

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by Nick Greg

I am simply referring to the issue regarding points not all the other risks. I see no reason why the insurance company should keep the details for 4 or 5 years when the legal authorities do not.What will they do next....extend it to 6 or 7 years.

As I understand it - it was to enable a proper risk assessment over a number of years. Theoretically if the only record had a three year lifespan then a bad driver could “go crazy” again in year four (forgive the poetic licence) - but as others have said, having points still registered after their three year “active” period allows for some sort of continuity.

Whilst I have no doubt whatsoever that some insurance companies are so bad, financially weak and administratively inept that they really only give you a bit of paper making it legal for you to drive, there are good companies out there that have good administration and an excellent claims paying record.

Cheapest is not usually the best.

You pays your money - you takes your choice (or more accurately - “chance”)

[MSS]

Originally Posted by Nick Greg

Yep. Definitely an insurance company employee....
I have no sympathy for this point of view whatsoever. Insurance companies are not charities and are modern day pirates.

No - absolutely not. I have spent my whole life in engineering, specialising in signal processing and large scale communication networks.

I probably pay more for insurance than most here due to living in a 500+ year old property and the number of cars etc. But, I do not begrudge it because of the risk my insurers are covering and the likely cost of resolution should one of those risks turn into reality.

I agree that insurance companies are not charities. They are businesses that have to achieve a certain return on their "investments" for the business to remain viable.

P.S. The above aside, if the insurance industry needs an advocate on the forum, here's waiting....

[Pueblo_Boy]

Whilst I broadly agree with the insurance companies having history to work with, I take exception to their ability to make up 'rules' that definitely penalise drivers who cross them. For example, insurance companies rub out your no claims discount after only two years. So, if you've been abroad and now returned, it can be hard to get your NCD verified. So, after over 40 years of safe driving, I suddenly become a high risk driver with low NCD...is that fair? How would you feel if your college degree, for example, became invalid after a few years? Or should you have to take the driving test again, because you've been driving in some foreign country for the past three or four years..? Seems to me, they just make up their own rules, and we all have to accept them.

Same goes for all those credit rating companies. They only back six years, and God help you if you've been working abroad, and even if your a millionaire and always paid cash for your bills, you'll still get a very low credit rating. Sorry to rant!

[baxlin]

Surely licence points for topping up purposes and insurance risk are different things?

One is looking back, the other is looking into the future?

[wraymond]

They are both entirely concerned with the future. It's Back to the Future.
At the time of being 'awarded' points it is for a specified time in the future and, crucially, there is no money involved other than the one-off fine and no risk being held by the DLA. The penalty period is also being reduced annually. At renewal of your insurance it is also for the future but for only one year - also reducing the penalty over a similar period.
There is also the opportunity to avoid the temporary inconvenience and expense by not doing it again!

[macafee2]

Sorry but there are many drivers on the road that pose a risk by the way they drive but it is not reflected in the number of points they have totted up.
Getting points means you have just been unlucky and been caught.

How many people here do not have points but speed, frequently or occasionally?

For insurance companies it may be a measure but what else do they have to asses risk, if someone has a clean licence and no accident record or no record the insurance company is aware of?

May be in time, insurance companies will link into the car and will automatically know how it is being driven but that still I suspect will not cover every eventuality.

some insurance companies charge if you have been on a driver awareness course instead of points

macafee2

[wraymond]

1.Sorry but there are many drivers on the road that pose a risk by the way they drive but it is not reflected in the number of points they have totted up.
Getting points means you have just been unlucky and been caught.

2.How many people here do not have points but speed, frequently or occasionally?

3.For insurance companies it may be a measure but what else do they have to asses risk, if someone has a clean licence and no accident record or no record the insurance company is aware of?

4.May be in time, insurance companies will link into the car and will automatically know how it is being driven but that still I suspect will not cover every eventuality.

5.some insurance companies charge if you have been on a driver awareness course instead of points.

1 & 2.
Couldn’t agree more. Manufacturers producing cars capable of up to three times the national limit for use on crowded roads should be held criminally responsible. When alleged adults then buy them, incidentally by incurring massive debt, so should they. If they want a race car, trailer one to a racetrack.

I admit to two speeding offences from many years ago, both were a result of my excessive youthful enthusiasm on motorbikes. Now I don’t take chances, but am constantly down-laneing on motorways to allow rockets to overtake (incidentally not least to avoid those messy undertakers from taking me and Celia out of the picture).

3 & 4.
That’s happening now and, with advance planning already being developed, motorists will be tracked continually by their insurers (recent thread on here covered it). Trouble is it won’t necessarily automatically result in lower premiums!
The risk to insurers is mitigated by the excess system. Adding voluntary and compulsory excesses together, many motorists do this so they can actually afford the cover, means around 65% of claims are paid by the owner of the vehicle.

5.
That amounts to the same thing in Insurers’ eyes (‘there must have been a reason for it, load it just in case’).
In short, you can’t win.

[MSS]

Originally Posted by Pueblo_Boy

Whilst I broadly agree with the insurance companies having history to work with, I take exception to their ability to make up 'rules' that definitely penalise drivers who cross them. For example, insurance companies rub out your no claims discount after only two years. So, if you've been abroad and now returned, it can be hard to get your NCD verified. So, after over 40 years of safe driving, I suddenly become a high risk driver with low NCD...is that fair? How would you feel if your college degree, for example, became invalid after a few years? Or should you have to take the driving test again, because you've been driving in some foreign country for the past three or four years..? Seems to me, they just make up their own rules, and we all have to accept them.

Same goes for all those credit rating companies. They only back six years, and God help you if you've been working abroad, and even if your a millionaire and always paid cash for your bills, you'll still get a very low credit rating. Sorry to rant!

I hope you do not mind me making this observation in the interest of an interesting debate, but the tone of you post and some of the words used would suggest that you are quite an emotional person, who could easily get angry and end up in an on-road conflict with other vehicles, thus making you a high risk from an insurance perspective.

Just be grateful that the insurance industry has not yet started to carry out psycho analysis on peoples' online presence in order to determine the risk posed by their character. Or have they?

With reference to the analogy of a university degree, it is possibly the worst analogy that a person could table to demonstrate the point being argued.

As for the performance of cars and manufacturer liability, my observation would be that the most powerful cars on the road are usually driven with the most consideration for other road users. It's an indication of the type of person that generally purchases and drives such cars. Perhaps this may explain why my most powerful car is the cheapest to insure and the least powerful the most expensive.

Originally Posted by macafee2

Sorry but there are many drivers on the road that pose a risk by the way they drive but it is not reflected in the number of points they have totted up.
Getting points means you have just been unlucky and been caught.

How many people here do not have points but speed, frequently or occasionally?

It could be argued that getting caught speeding, jumping red lights, etc. is actually related to a person's capability in decision making and judicious judgement which we could relate to intelligence as opposed to luck. In which case, it is quite a good indicator of a person's risk profile.

[Pueblo_Boy]

[QUOTE=mss;2729939]I hope you do not mind me making this observation in the interest of an interesting debate, but the tone of you post and some of the words used would suggest that you are quite an emotional person, who could easily get angry and end up in an on-road conflict with other vehicles, thus making you a high risk from an insurance perspective.

Interesting analysis. I could of course just argue that I have a wonderfully developed sense of fairness, and am not afraid to speak out about it. IMHO, too many people blithely accept such seemingly arbitrary decisions made by large corporations in their own interests, and are either too lazy to complain or have given up because they believe it futile to make the others aware of their 'feelings' Thank God I have them, who other than Sheldon Cooper wants to be emotionless?

To suggest that my 'anger' would result in an on-road conflict is taking it a bit far, however. Do you know of any insurance company that will reduce my premium because I happen to be docile, emotionless and compliant, thus making me a low risk from an insurance point of view??

[wraymond]

Interesting analysis. I could of course just argue that I have a wonderfully developed sense of fairness, and am not afraid to speak out about it. IMHO, too many people blithely accept such seemingly arbitrary decisions made by large corporations in their own interests, and are either too lazy to complain or have given up because they believe it futile to make the others aware of their 'feelings' Thank God I have them, who other than Sheldon Cooper wants to be emotionless?

To suggest that my 'anger' would result in an on-road conflict is taking it a bit far, however. Do you know of any insurance company that will reduce my premium because I happen to be docile, emotionless and compliant, thus making me a low risk from an insurance point of view??[/QUOTE]

John,
Even if there were such a company they would probably use their knowledge, however it may have been obtained and with absolutely no personal knowledge of you, to load your premium with prejudice. The insurance companies and others are not noted for their gentlemanly conduct, only whatever they can get away with.
You now have six months of membership behind you, hopefully you are finding it beneficial.