Insurance what a piss take.

[fazersharp]

I used to use Bike Team supposedly run by bikers for bikers who were always the cheapest but last year they got brought out and -- you guessed it £100 extra. When I complained they came down by about £20 and said that was it because that was their minimum cost for cover, FOC off said I.
Bennets for me has never been the cheapest but there were this time, I wonder if they have had a drive to get more bikers, then ramp the renewals up.

Im telling you the whole -big increase on renewals thing is the next PPI especially with the auto renews. Everyone who has paid more than they should of done after an auto renew should be compensated for the last 5 years.   

[darrsi]

I used to use Bike Team supposedly run by bikers for bikers who were always the cheapest but last year they got brought out and -- you guessed it £100 extra. When I complained they came down by about £20 and said that was it because that was their minimum cost for cover, FOC off said I.
Bennets for me has never been the cheapest but there were this time, I wonder if they have had a drive to get more bikers, then ramp the renewals up.

Im telling you the whole -big increase on renewals thing is the next PPI especially with the auto renews. Everyone who has paid more than they should of done after an auto renew should be compensated for the last 5 years.   

I like your way of thinking, but.......good luck with that.
These are professional con people, they'll get around it somehow.

[Graham53]

I used to use Bike Team supposedly run by bikers for bikers who were always the cheapest but last year they got brought out and -- you guessed it £100 extra. When I complained they came down by about £20 and said that was it because that was their minimum cost for cover, FOC off said I.
Bennets for me has never been the cheapest but there were this time, I wonder if they have had a drive to get more bikers, then ramp the renewals up.

Im telling you the whole -big increase on renewals thing is the next PPI especially with the auto renews. Everyone who has paid more than they should of done after an auto renew should be compensated for the last 5 years.   

When I had to renew my 600 insurance last year before I got my 1000 which was with bennetts it went from £68 a year fully comp to £145 so I phoned bennetts and they told me they'd been taken over by saga plc and they couldn't get it any cheaper so I went with motorcycle direct at £85 then when I phoned them to change to my 1000 they said they wouldn't allow changes so I'd have to start a new policy at £550 for the year. I told them to foc off and got a meerkat quote and foc me bennetts were cheapest for the 1000 at £155 fully comp but I could only use my ncd on one bike so I cancelled the 600 policy ( 3 months left ) and went with bennetts then re insured the 600 with bennetts ( cheapest again WTF ) for £130 ( cheaper than my renewal with the ncd but now without ) saving £275 it took about an hour of quotes and phones calls but that's what I think they bank on that you can't be arsed to get other quotes and spend the time.
Also did you know that in many cases if you have a NON FAULT accident your insurance premiums go up how the foc can that be and if it's non fault why should you be penalised for it

[darrsi]

I used to use Bike Team supposedly run by bikers for bikers who were always the cheapest but last year they got brought out and -- you guessed it £100 extra. When I complained they came down by about £20 and said that was it because that was their minimum cost for cover, FOC off said I.
Bennets for me has never been the cheapest but there were this time, I wonder if they have had a drive to get more bikers, then ramp the renewals up.

Im telling you the whole -big increase on renewals thing is the next PPI especially with the auto renews. Everyone who has paid more than they should of done after an auto renew should be compensated for the last 5 years.   

When I had to renew my 600 insurance last year before I got my 1000 which was with bennetts it went from £68 a year fully comp to £145 so I phoned bennetts and they told me they'd been taken over by saga plc and they couldn't get it any cheaper so I went with motorcycle direct at £85 then when I phoned them to change to my 1000 they said they wouldn't allow changes so I'd have to start a new policy at £550 for the year. I told them to foc off and got a meerkat quote and foc me bennetts were cheapest for the 1000 at £155 fully comp but I could only use my ncd on one bike so I cancelled the 600 policy ( 3 months left ) and went with bennetts then re insured the 600 with bennetts ( cheapest again WTF ) for £130 ( cheaper than my renewal with the ncd but now without ) saving £275 it took about an hour of quotes and phones calls but that's what I think they bank on that you can't be arsed to get other quotes and spend the time.
Also did you know that in many cases if you have a NON FAULT accident your insurance premiums go up how the foc can that be and if it's non fault why should you be penalised for it

Yeah, penalising people for no fault of their own is just scandalous.

[celticdog]

There can't be any really good companies out there, otherwise we'd already all be using them. 

Word will always eventually get round about good business practice and value when people are reluctantly parting with money, but that doesn't really apply to insurance companies, they really are modern day Dick Turpin's.

Highway robbery indeed. It's an absolute racket. The law says you must be insured, although I like the idea of a gentleman's agreement- if it's a very minor prang and one driver is at fault then I see no reason to contact the buggers if the person at fault makes right on any damage. Unfortunately there are too many uninsured tw*ts out there. Which brings me to my next point, the legal cover and or personal accident add ons they want you to add to your premium, are they worth it? There seems to be no shortage of lawyers and companies offering to represent you on a no win no fee basis, what's the deal?

[darrsi]

There can't be any really good companies out there, otherwise we'd already all be using them. 

Word will always eventually get round about good business practice and value when people are reluctantly parting with money, but that doesn't really apply to insurance companies, they really are modern day Dick Turpin's.

Highway robbery indeed. It's an absolute racket. The law says you must be insured, although I like the idea of a gentleman's agreement- if it's a very minor prang and one driver is at fault then I see no reason to contact the buggers if the person at fault makes right on any damage. Unfortunately there are too many uninsured tw*ts out there. Which brings me to my next point, the legal cover and or personal accident add ons they want you to add to your premium, are they worth it? There seems to be no shortage of lawyers and companies offering to represent you on a no win no fee basis, what's the deal?

What's not normally shouted about with "No Win No Fee" is that you don't have to pay your lawyer for losing, but if you do lose you may have to pay the other sides court costs. This can be insured, but then that's laying out money again. They will generally only take on cases that they really think they can win, if they have the slightest doubt they won't touch it. They're not daft either, they're all from the same mould.

[mtread]

That's why they usually like taking on biker cases. Usually the car's fault, and usually some sort of injury to the biker that they can string out. The longer they can delay settlement, the more fees they charge as costs to the third party. It is not unusual for their fees to be as much as the injury claim

[mr self destruct]

In a round about way doesn't matter what you value your bike at. The more you put a value on the bike the higher the insurance goes but you still only get the market value if you put a claim in. You might as well down value your bike on requesting a quote
                                                                            Steve
                                                                                                                          Steve

I think its a bit of a trap that they lead you to. They ask what is it worth and you say £3,000 so they then load the insurance but as said will only pay out market value £1000.
But watch out because if you say £500 to get the insurance down then £500 is all they will pay out and not the £1000 market value.

I am withy bennets this year and they have a list of accepted mods that wont add to the insurance cost. Same with my last insurance I had to list my mods otherwise they would not pay out for them in the event of a claim, stuff like hugger, braided lines, rad cover, declaring them did not add cost to the insurance.

But yes insurance is a piss take and I get sick of having to go through the annual haggle when my new quote is £100 more than my last one.     

This made me laugh today. I've just declined my renewal with Bennets because they still had my bike's value at £2500. I called them to say it's dropped in the four years I've been with them and is now more like £1500. They said they adjust for age anyway, but the new value won't decrease my premium and they now want a £25 fee because I've made a change to my policy for fucks sake!

[fazersharp]

In a round about way doesn't matter what you value your bike at. The more you put a value on the bike the higher the insurance goes but you still only get the market value if you put a claim in. You might as well down value your bike on requesting a quote
                                                                            Steve
                                                                                                                          Steve

I think its a bit of a trap that they lead you to. They ask what is it worth and you say £3,000 so they then load the insurance but as said will only pay out market value £1000.
But watch out because if you say £500 to get the insurance down then £500 is all they will pay out and not the £1000 market value.

I am withy bennets this year and they have a list of accepted mods that wont add to the insurance cost. Same with my last insurance I had to list my mods otherwise they would not pay out for them in the event of a claim, stuff like hugger, braided lines, rad cover, declaring them did not add cost to the insurance.

But yes insurance is a piss take and I get sick of having to go through the annual haggle when my new quote is £100 more than my last one.     

This made me laugh today. I've just declined my renewal with Bennets because they still had my bike's value at £2500. I called them to say it's dropped in the four years I've been with them and is now more like £1500. They said they adjust for age anyway, but the new value won't decrease my premium and they now want a £25 fee because I've made a change to my policy for fucks sake!

Im sorry but you gotta laugh, its just a joke when is the Gov going to crack down on these insurance companies

[mr self destruct]

Yeah fuck em. I'm with LV now for £100 less and helmet/leather cover included so happy days!

[Rob]

stick the whole bloody lot on fuel !!!!!! you can't get anywhere without it and the ones that use the roads most will pay the most, Everyone would also be insured and tax duty as well stick the whole lot on fuel so you pay as you go simples

[Graham53]

stick the whole bloody lot on fuel !!!!!! you can't get anywhere without it and the ones that use the roads most will pay the most, Everyone would also be insured and tax duty as well stick the whole lot on fuel so you pay as you go simples

Not so simples, the add on to fuel would not be able to reflect the differences in vehicles like the current (flawed) system and bike would pay the same "add on" as a V8 car. My car does 45mpg normal and 38-40 spirited driving, my gen 1 if ridden spirited won't do that so then I'd be paying more tax on my bike where now it's half the car.

[mr self destruct]

stick the whole bloody lot on fuel !!!!!! you can't get anywhere without it and the ones that use the roads most will pay the most, Everyone would also be insured and tax duty as well stick the whole lot on fuel so you pay as you go simples

Not so simples, the add on to fuel would not be able to reflect the differences in vehicles like the current (flawed) system and bike would pay the same "add on" as a V8 car. My car does 45mpg normal and 38-40 spirited driving, my gen 1 if ridden spirited won't do that so then I'd be paying more tax on my bike where now it's half the car.

Ok not simple but raises an interesting point. The more 'spirited' the driver/rider, the higher the insurance risk and the more fuel used per mile? Smaller engined, more economical vehicles tend to get driven more carefully* so it could work in theory.






*Disclaimer: Half blind old bints in Daewoo Matizes and Nissan Micras who pay fuck all attention to anyone else on the road could prove this theory to be bollocks.

[fazersharp]

If they put the tax on fuel then that would mean they are throwing out the whole environmental cash cow that they have worked so long on perfecting because all transport would be paying the same regardless of the co2 output (per mile) 

[BBROWN1664]

Insurance is a scam

If you have no accidents, your premium will probably (at best) stay the same as last year.
If you have an at-fault accident, you are a high risk so your premium will go up.
If you have a non-fault accident, your a high risk as you put your car/bike into a situation where it could be involved in an accident so your premium will go up.
Say you do only a few miles a year at renewal and you are high risk due to inexperience so your premium will go up
Say you do lots of miles a year and you are a high risk because your on the road too much so your premium will go up
Say you have no alarm/immobiliser and your not taking it seriously so your premium will go up
Have an alarm/immobiliser and you obviously have a vehicle thieves like so your premium will go up.
Have this as your only vehicle and they think you will be badgering them for a decent/quick repair if you claim so your premium will go up
Have other vehicles and you can obviously live without this one so your less likely to be careful with it so your premium will go up
Tell them its worth more than it really is, your premium will go up but they will only pay book value in a claim
Tell them its worth less than it is and your premium may not go up, but they will only pay the value you told them and not the book value in a claim
Basically tell them anything, or nothing, and the price will go up.


As for the RFL, scrap it and add it to fuel has always been my argument.
I have a van, a car and two motorbikes at the moment. I can only drive one at a time and most of the time they don't even get parked on the road so why should I pay RFL for all 4 for 365 days a year. Add x pense to each litre of fuel based on the average miles covered by the average mpg car and anyone that buys a gas guzzler will automatically pay more so the government gets the dirty cars off the road eventually. Use it once a month, you pay proportionally.

[fazersharp]

Got it, the government can keep their environment cash cow.
Low co2 transport use a fuel with a green dye in it with low tax added.
Med co2 use fuel with a blue dye
high co2 use black dye

Hmm how to police it, perhaps have a chip in the nozzle and one in the cap that will only unlock with the right one.
Hmm that wont work cause you could use the right one just to open your cap and then fill up with the cheaper one.
So you have imobilising nano particles in the fuel that means if you put the wrong one in then you cannot start it, alongside that you have the chip in the cap to prevent accidental wrong fuel filling.
SORTED     

[BBROWN1664]

Got it, the government can keep their environment cash cow.
Low co2 transport use a fuel with a green dye in it with low tax added.
Med co2 use fuel with a blue dye
high co2 use black dye

BUT.....
A high CO2 vehicle will use more fuel than a low CO2 vehicle anyway so no need to use different dyes. Just use the same fuel, pay the same amount of additional tax per litre and the higher CO2 vehicles will pay more due to buying more fuel. (unless they don't get used much in which case it makes it fairer too)

[tommyardin]

Got it, the government can keep their environment cash cow.
Low co2 transport use a fuel with a green dye in it with low tax added.
Med co2 use fuel with a blue dye
high co2 use black dye

Hmm how to police it, perhaps have a chip in the nozzle and one in the cap that will only unlock with the right one.
Hmm that wont work cause you could use the right one just to open your cap and then fill up with the cheaper one.
So you have imobilising nano particles in the fuel that means if you put the wrong one in then you cannot start it, alongside that you have the chip in the cap to prevent accidental wrong fuel filling.
SORTED     

Yeah and it's only £4.99 a litre 

[crickleymal]

Insurance is a scam

Yup

As for the RFL, scrap it and add it to fuel has always been my argument.
I have a van, a car and two motorbikes at the moment. I can only drive one at a time and most of the time they don't even get parked on the road so why should I pay RFL for all 4 for 365 days a year. Add x pense to each litre of fuel based on the average miles covered by the average mpg car and anyone that buys a gas guzzler will automatically pay more so the government gets the dirty cars off the road eventually. Use it once a month, you pay proportionally.

Absolutely, my argument too.

[Graham53]

Insurance is a scam

Yup

As for the RFL, scrap it and add it to fuel has always been my argument.
I have a van, a car and two motorbikes at the moment. I can only drive one at a time and most of the time they don't even get parked on the road so why should I pay RFL for all 4 for 365 days a year. Add x pense to each litre of fuel based on the average miles covered by the average mpg car and anyone that buys a gas guzzler will automatically pay more so the government gets the dirty cars off the road eventually. Use it once a month, you pay proportionally.

Absolutely, my argument too.

Insurance is a scam and it's legal theft !
Replacing excise duty is still not a good idea imho , firstly you will penalise less well off drivers that can only afford to drive older cars that are not as fuel efficient as newer ones or the 19yr oldstudent who has a 600 to get here there and everywhere  will probably end up paying triple what he was plus how much do you think fuel would have to rise to cover it , the govt would have to equate for the loss of revenue from multiple vehicle owners as well as the drivers that do little mileage anyway and that would mean that fuel prices would rise by more than pence, what about haulage firms already stretched by high diesel prices they would pay huge amounts more and then those costs would have to be passed on to the consumer , everything we buy now is transported somehow from its manufacturer to point of sale by road by companies that use fuel more than the average person we would all be paying more than the extra on our own fuel via dearer goods/food/everyday items
It's not that simple when you look at it beyond our own vehicles and or financial state

[Dudeofrude]

A possible to the insurance problem is to insure the person instead of the vehicle. That way you'd pay one single amount and can ride/drive whatever you like. There could be a teored system for coverage so for instance you could pay £200 a year to be covered for up to £10000 or £300 for £20000 etc etc
At fault Accidents and penalty points could give you a Black Mark on your profile and instead of raising costs would simply make it harder to gain insurance from the cheaper companies.

[Townhill]

A possible to the insurance problem is to insure the person instead of the vehicle. That way you'd pay one single amount and can ride/drive whatever you like. There could be a teored system for coverage so for instance you could pay £200 a year to be covered for up to £10000 or £300 for £20000 etc etc
At fault Accidents and penalty points could give you a Black Mark on your profile and instead of raising costs would simply make it harder to gain insurance from the cheaper companies.

That's not a bad idea I.M.H.O simply because you can only drive/ride one vehicle at a time. Which was my argument with the insurance company on a multi policy. That was another time when they were taking the piss. It really does make a mockery of everything though. Making a purchase of any kind is supposed to be a pleasurable experience. This is not so when getting annual insurance you can spend hours trying to sort. Whilst they do there best to wind you up with stupid over the top prices.

[mtread]

What about the theft element of insurance? If you've got 3 bikes and a car, they could all get stolen.

[Dudeofrude]

What about the theft element of insurance? If you've got 3 bikes and a car, they could all get stolen.

Well that's where the amount you decided to insure yourself for would come in. If you choose to only have £5000 worth of cover then you'd only get paid out for that amount. If you had 3 bikes and a car then you'd take out something like £20000 coverage.

I'm sure I've read that that do something similar in either America or Australia where you can insure yourself if your willing to put something like £15000 into a bond account?  It's only a 3rd party insurance and in the event of an accident they use your money to pay out the other party?
It's an interesting idea though, if you go all your life without having an at fault accident or a vehicle theft then it never costs you anything. Best of all the money is yours so if you decide to not have a vehicle or want to insure it elsewhere you get all your money back?

[BBROWN1664]

An alternative is used in France (and other countries like Turkey) where you insure the car/bike.

Anyone can drive it without being named and they are covered by your insurance. the advantage of being named is it lowers the excess payable in the event of a claim. Add basic insurance to petrol prices and we just buy "top up" insurance to reduce the excess would work.