Money grabbing Bar Stewarts

[renault12ts]

But would the £150 saving make up for having to spend a few £ on loan car cover?

Saved £400...down by £400, not from £400.

 

[Moonie]

But would the £150 saving make up for having to spend a few £ on loan car cover?

Down by 400, not from 400

Edit: Beat me to it double

 

[Dieselman]

But, but, but...what if they charge you £24 for covering a loan car...

 

[renault12ts]

But, but, but...what if they charge you £24 for covering a loan car...

Then, then...you could have 16 of them and still save.

 

[Spin_bowler]

Doesn't appear to be any downside. I could have picked any one of the first twenty offers and they would have beat my renewal quote by a minimum of £250. Like for like cover, excess, et al.

 

[markjay]

Mine did, but at a higher premium cost.

Looking at it, you may be right, they have added this clause to the policy on this year's renewal, so I didn't actually ask if there was a cheaper option.

 

[lxi]

For which they charge more premium to cover that.

You presumably bought the policy on price as opposed to a more expensive policy that covers loan cars.

I've had policies that offer both situations, but find it's reflected in the premium price.

As far as your car still needing cover. What if it was parked in the dealer carpark after you delivered it and it set fire?

The dealer hasn't touched it so would probably not accept any liability. You would like to hope your own insurance would.

Premiums are a combination of what they need to break even and what they think they can get away with.

My car is covered by the dealer's policy from the second their driver steps into it having delivered the loan car. Should it then be engulfed by inferno, it is on their policy and to save you the time to argue yet again, should it promptly detonate in a mushroom cloud after the driver has delivered it back, then he has already driven off in the loan car, ergo I do not need insurance on that, so it would be on my policy.

The attempted justification from Admiral was "I would like to reassure you the charge we applied was reflective of the additional risk we were taking on as your insurer. ". It seems that they failed to realise that there was no additional risk under these circumstances.

Clearly, they were not alone in that respect.

They did at least - albeit under duress - refund the charge when the penny finally dropped.

 

[grumpyoldgit]

Police retract promise.

 

[Harrythedog]

Reported

 

[shanksy]

Some of the criteria insurers use to calculate risk are ridiculous.
A couple of years ago someone up my road left their handbrake off and it rolled down the hill and wedged itself in my door/front wing, my car was parked at the time with no-one in it.

The muppet who left his handbrake off apologised and all the claims etc went through his insurance, however, when I came to renew my insurance I was told my premium had gone up because statistically even those who have non-fault incidents are a higher risk .
Obviously I told them where to go and made a point of checking with insurers if they did the same before taking out another policy.

I attended a driver awareness training course about 6 weeks ago. While i'm a bit of a captain slow (off the track) and consider myself a careful driver (was caught doing 34 in a 30) I did actually learn something.

The point they kept drumming home to us was that the kinetic energy involved in a pedestrian collision is magnified by a factor of 4 for every mph over, explaining why the small difference in speed between 30 and 35 can have such a significant effect on the pedestrian's chances of survival.

Consequently I now make more of an effort to not drift above 30.

It would be a shame if more people end up just taking the points their insurance will go up anyway.

 

[st13phil]

The point they kept drumming home to us was that the kinetic energy involved in a pedestrian collision is magnified by a factor of 4 for every mph over

I hope that's not what they said. If they did then they're complete muppets. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, so the KE for a given body at 31mph is 31^2 / 30^2 = 1.067 x that at 30mph, i.e. just under 7% more. That said, it's an important point, and explains why braking distances also increase significantly as speed increases.

BTW, at 34mph, your car had just over 28% more KE than it would have had at 30mph

 

[shanksy]

Think I might have explained that a bit wrong

The point they were trying to make (I always slated those 'hit me at 30 and......' ads) was that (and i'm prob gonna **** this explanation up as well !) that the KE was not directly proportional to the speed, i.e the energy involved in 31..........nah forget it I can't do it, you know what I mean though

I hope that's not what they said. If they did then they're complete muppets. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, so the KE for a given body at 31mph is 31^2 / 30^2 = 1.067 x that at 30mph, i.e. just under 7% more. That said, it's an important point, and explains why braking distances also increase significantly as speed increases.

BTW, at 34mph, your car had just over 28% more KE than it would have had at 30mph

 

[Tiff]

I've been really wound up with insurance companies this year. I'm a biker too, and obviously have seperate insurance for both car and bike. I have full no claims for the car and 4 years on bikes. I cannot use car no claims on bike and vice versa... I had a head on accident in July with a Vw Polo in Germany, Polo was a write off, my ZZR had a broken clutch lever and a few scratches. Young couple in the Polo claimed they had neck and back injuries and I ripped the pocket on my jeans.

I renewed my car insurance on the W126 on a classic policy for a decent price and thought nothing more of it. A few weeks later I got a letter from the insurance saying that as I had not disclosed a claim I had to pay an extra premium which took the price way above what I was happy to pay, they then wanted more than the cost of the original policy to cancel. SO, bike and car insurance are seperate, and no claims cannot cross over but claims can. I did disclose the accident on both policies on both cars on renewal and it made no difference. Confused.com right enough. W^&(*rs.