Jolfa Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 Why can I insure an 96 spec jdm integra type r cheaper than a 2.2 accord? Seems crazy to me. As I already said, people who can afford the nicer model will look after it better, thus less of them are crashed. But if theres 10 of one car, 1 of which gets crashed, and there's 1,000,000 of the other, 100,000 of which get crashed then yeah, the more popular ones being crashed much more frequently, but the chances of one specific example of each of the 2 being crashed is 10%, so from an insurers point of view, it wouldn't matter which of the 2 cars it was, the chances of it being crashed is still 10% so the risk's the same. That would be much too logical, but if amount left isn't taken into account, from an insurers point of view if you look at a car of which 100,000 were crashed last year, vs a model that only 2 were crashed, my theory is correct and there is no mystery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinJI Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) But that's not how statistics work. You can't treat the probability of something happening within a population as the same as the probability of something happening to an observed individual within that population. It's like the chances of someone dying in the next minute are basically 100%, but the chance of me (or any other chosen individual) dying in the next minute is very very small. The observation of an individual altered the probability. When an insurer assesses the risk of their client crashing, they don't care what the risk of a crash happening involving any other car of the same make/model is, they're only arsed about the one their client owns, making it an observed individual item, and if 10% of that type of car get crashed, that's what they care about, because that's what's statistically relevant to them. It's like the chance of me winning the lottery is tiny, but the chance of someone winning it's pretty high really. The chance of someone crashing a Passat is much higher than someone crashing a Scirocco, but that doesn't mean that a specific Passat's more likely to be crashed than a Specific Scirocco. Edited January 1, 2013 by RobinJI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) The chance of someone crashing a Passat is much higher than someone crashing a Scirocco. So therefore the Passat costs more to insure, simples Then it's down to the age group of people who crash, your specific circumstances regarding claims and points and the area you live in, and the amount of time you spend on the road it really is that simple, test the theory Just to clarify, I'm not saying it should be done that way, but it is! Edited January 1, 2013 by Jolfa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) No, it isn't that simple. You're over simplifying the entire insurance industry based on the number of cars you see in scrap yards. And that's just isn't the way it works. Edited January 1, 2013 by Pashley26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Reynolds Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 I am pissing myself laughing at some of these wild theories Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 No, it isn't that simple. You're over simplifying the entire insurance industry based on the number of cars you see in scrap yards. And that's just isn't the way it works. Prove me wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Reynolds Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 Prove me wrong. I work for an insurance company, and jardo's right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 I work for an insurance company, and jardo's right Enlighten me then, why does a lower powered Passat cost more to insure than the higher powered Scirocco? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 I don't need to prove you wrong Rich, I have no point to prove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Reynolds Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 Enlighten me then, why does a lower powered Passat cost more to insure than the higher powered Scirocco? Market value, insurance group, how easy it is to steal, make/model, ect. I could have 300bhp in my ax, but it'll be cheap to insure because no-one wants to steal an ax.... however i could have a modern car with less power, but someone would want to steal it because its more modern, more reliable, better looking, ect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 I don't need to prove you wrong Rich, I have no point to prove. New years resolution? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 Market value, insurance group, how easy it is to steal, make/model, ect. The Passat is worth less, harder to steal, same make less desirable model; costs more to insure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinJI Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) Yeah I know insurance is way more complicated than I'm making out. The point I'm trying to make is about statistics, not about insurance. That is that if you pick an individual to observe, then the probability of something happening to that specific individual within a set time isn't the same as the probability of the same thing happening to anyone in that population. It's like the chances of it being someone's birthday today is basically 100%, but the instant you pick a specific person to observe, the chance of it being their birthday is 0.274%. The chance of it being someone's birthday is dependent on the size of the population, if you're looking at a population of 10 it's pretty unlikely, if it's 1000000 it's very likely, but the chance of it being a specific chosen individuals birthday isn't effected at all regardless of the population. That's all I was trying to say. The number of a certain car there is on the road doesn't effect the chances of a specific observed example being crashed. Obviously the chances of it being crashed is only a small part of the algorithms used to calculate insurance costs, but it's the part we were discussing. Edited January 1, 2013 by RobinJI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Reynolds Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 The Passat is worth less, harder to steal, same make less desirable model; costs more to insure... That's your opinion, not your insurers/the general markets opinion.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiamWood! Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 Half the time it just feels like insurance companies just pluck figures out of thin air. My premium went up because somebody pulled out on me, causing me to crash and write my civic off. Person that caused the accident, f**ked off and left me to claim off my own back because the police are useless. Just seems that I'm having to pay out even more because some dozy bitch can't judge when to pull out of a junction. I'm not moaning here, just saying because there isn't anything I can do about it now anyway. But still pisses me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 The only way to describe insurance is random, and bullshit. Best example i've had so far. My friend had a 200sx. Modified, modifications declared, running 250 odd bhp. Bought a shit Civic for 500 quid, insurers refused to insure to him. It's obvious that insurance is bull shit, as soon as you start moaning they'll slash 300-400 off the quote. Renewals are the best. They'll increase it, you'll ring up, get it for the same price or slightly less, makes it feel like you've actually gained something, when really, they've given you the price of a bottle of wine off. Not dealt with Australian insurance so far, hoping it's better ha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) It must be bullshit when you think about it, it's a business and they're out to get money out of you. Fact is that everyone I know and can think of is paying silly amounts in insurance (my Mums is well over £500 now), but everyone needs their cars, so they just pay it, which makes the insurance companies happy. (If they can charge you £500, why would they want to charge you £250?) Best example I can think of is that since the late 90s, the number of people passing their bike tests have been falling massively because the government/DVLA have made the test harder. Insurance companies need the business, so insurance is DIRT cheap on bikes now. For example, at 21 I could insure a 150bhp, 170mph superbike for £350. If you can find a car that a 21 year old can insure for less than 10 times that, that does 170mph, I'll be surprised. When you consider that was fully comp on a bike worth £3k, with breakdown cover, overseas cover etc, and it was a pretty high risk bike, in a high risk area, parked on the street overnight, you start to realise that things are not that simple. Last bike I insured was my MZ ETZ 125, and it cost £85 TPFT, and that was on a provisional licence. I think that was purely because business from bikers is dropping. The answer is simple really, you all need to scrap your cars so I can afford one. Edited January 2, 2013 by Muel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isitafox Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 This seriously does my head in as if I had a bike it would be so much cheaper to run and use for commuting to work than the car but I can't actually afford to take my test as it's so stupidly expensive now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skoze Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 "Yeah it's never sucked water and had a new cambelt just before i took it off the road" Bollocks it has! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) Dave: Commuting on bikes is nasty dude, don't do it! I doubt it'd be that much cheaper to be honest. Most bikes only do about 50mpg, and your commute isn't that long is it? Would take a good while to pay off, plus bikes are horrible for commuting on in winter. In the middle of a winters day is OK normally, but at commuting times it's always dark. Edited January 2, 2013 by Muel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 It must be bullshit when you think about it. For example, at 21 I could insure a 150bhp, 170mph superbike for £350. If you can find a car that a 21 year old can insure for less than 10 times that. The answer too everybodys motoring needs - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiamWood! Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 Not for me I'm affraid Jardo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 The answer too everybodys motoring needs - Fails on the first criteria, it isn't as fast as a big bike. How much is your insurance if you don't mind me asking? Any car you present must do 170mph and 0.60 in under 3 seconds. Tis completely crazy, it would cost me double to insure a 0.8l Suzuki Wagon R than a Yamaha FZR1000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 My insurance is just over £700, mods declared at 21 with 4 years NCB. Before I declared the mods it was £200 less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 That's silly cheap for that car! But still, £700 is double £350, for something that is slower, safer in a crash and harder to steal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.