In message <mqgkvsF274pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:17:48 on Wed, 17
Dec 2025, No mail <nomail@aolbin.com> remarked:
You'd hope the insurance companies would [be forced to] lower the
premiums, and back-date that change. It's them that have been unjustly >>>>>> enriched by the error.
I would expect that as a given.
I would, too, as long as somebody pays for the admin costs. Or, do
you think that it's okay for them to be out of pocket as a result of
this fiasco?
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium
was -u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much
more.
That's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car,
maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional
named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying
less than -u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance and
2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-longer
need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered. It's still handy to have at least one, in case of emergencies.
In message <10huppl$3mv97$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:37:57 on Wed, 17 Dec
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium was
-u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much more.
That's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car,
maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium >>>>> was u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much >>>>> more.
That's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car,
maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional
named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying
less than u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance and
2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-longer
need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered. It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
Depending on the particular drivers, having at least one additional driver can >actually reduce the quotation. Don't ask me why.
I was on a 4-lane section of the M25 early Sunday morning earlier in the month, and traffic was understandably quite light. The alphanumeric
signs said something like "traffic queues ahead" and the variable limit reduced rapidly to 40mph.
The stretch with a 40 limit didn't have a queue, or any obstacles etc,
and was still very lightly trafficed. And then at the next set of
Variable Limit signs it went up to 70. What was *that* all about?
In message <mqgkvsF274pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:17:48 on Wed, 17FWIW I have been very pleased with a broker called Howden Insurance
Dec 2025, No mail <nomail@aolbin.com> remarked:
You'd hope the insurance companies would [be forced to] lower the
premiums, and back-date that change. It's them that have been
unjustly
enriched by the error.
-aI would expect that as a given.
I would, too, as long as somebody pays for the admin costs. Or, do
you-a think that it's okay for them to be out of pocket as a result
of this-a fiasco?
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium
was -u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much >>>> more.
-aThat's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car,
maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional
named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying
less than -u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance
and 2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and
no-longer need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered. It's still handy to have at least one, in case of emergencies.
In message <mqgkvsF274pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:17:48 on Wed, 17
Dec 2025, No mail <nomail@aolbin.com> remarked:
You'd hope the insurance companies would [be forced to] lower the
premiums, and back-date that change. It's them that have been
unjustly
enriched by the error.
-aI would expect that as a given.
I would, too, as long as somebody pays for the admin costs. Or, do
you-a think that it's okay for them to be out of pocket as a result
of this-a fiasco?
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium
was -u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much >>>> more.
-aThat's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car,
maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional
named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying
less than -u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance
and 2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-
longer need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered.
It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
In message <mqg440Ft94dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:29:51 on Wed, 17
Dec 2025, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
On 17/12/2025 10:22, Martin Brown wrote:
There are definitely some interesting glitches in the smart motorway
control software. Either that or the operators get perverse enjoyment
for causing traffic chaos on certain stretches.
On more than one occasion I have seen the M62 trans-Pennine motorway
between A1 junction and Huddersfield displaying 40 and 60 on alternate
gantries causing chaos with half the cars obeying the bonkers signage
and the other half maintaining a steady 50 mph.
I too am surprised that this latest MFU hasn't come to light sooner.
Smart motorways can be incredibly dumb at times.
I have yet to see an animal on that motorway despite have travelled
many miles at lower speed because of claims of animals on the road.
I agree that one sometimes sees signs with alternating 50 and 60
limits, and sometimes a limit which just applies for a couple of
hundred metres.
It's hard to believe that anyone could write software to make such a
mess of things - so perhaps you are right about operator enjoyment.
Either way it is appears potentially unsafe as many motorists seem to
ignore the limits when they seem perverse, while others do not.
The other annoying situation is when the last sign you see is, e.g. 50
mph, and then there are no more signs illuminated for many miles and
never a sign showing the national speed limit. For how long does is
the reduced limit supposed to apply: just until the next similar sign
whether switched on or not, or until you see another sign actually
illuminated?
I was on a 4-lane section of the M25 early Sunday morning earlier in the month, and traffic was understandably quite light. The alphanumeric
signs said something like "traffic queues ahead" and the variable limit reduced rapidly to 40mph.
The stretch with a 40 limit didn't have a queue, or any obstacles etc,
and was still very lightly trafficed. And then at the next set of
Variable Limit signs it went up to 70. What was *that* all about?
On 18/12/2025 05:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqgkvsF274pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:17:48 on Wed, 17
Dec 2025, No mail <nomail@aolbin.com> remarked:
You'd hope the insurance companies would [be forced to] lower the >>>>>>> premiums, and back-date that change. It's them that have been
unjustly
enriched by the error.
I would expect that as a given.
I would, too, as long as somebody pays for the admin costs. Or, do
you think that it's okay for them to be out of pocket as a result
of this fiasco?
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium >>>>> was -u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much >>>>> more.
That's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car,
maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional
named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying
less than -u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance
and 2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-
longer need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered.
It's *your* insurance we're talking about. Surely you must know?
It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
They can all drive and have presumably passed their tests, so why does
it fall to you to insure the whole world?
Don't any of them have their own cars or insurance?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 17:40:46 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
I was on a 4-lane section of the M25 early Sunday morning earlier in the
month, and traffic was understandably quite light. The alphanumeric
signs said something like "traffic queues ahead" and the variable limit
reduced rapidly to 40mph.
The stretch with a 40 limit didn't have a queue, or any obstacles etc,
and was still very lightly trafficed. And then at the next set of
Variable Limit signs it went up to 70. What was *that* all about?
Similar questions were raised at the Motorway Awareness Course I went on recently as a consequence of my M1 speeding incident. The instructor's
line was that a driver sitting in his car can only see what's happening within a few miles of him, while the traffic control centre's picture is much broader in both space and time. A hazard or traffic queue can emerge suddenly, prompt the imposition of a temporary speed restriction, and then disappear by the time the driver reaches it; indeed, the speed
restriction's *purpose* might have been to slow down approaching traffic
so as to give time for the hazard to disappear before you get there.
With a not terrifically exotic car, maximum no-claims, but
admittedly business-use and three additional named drivers, I'm >>>>paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm
paying less than u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" >>>performance and 2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the
country and no- longer need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal
I'll shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really >>still need to be covered.
It's *your* insurance we're talking about. Surely you must know?
It's still handy to have at least one, in case of emergencies.
They can all drive and have presumably passed their tests, so why does
it fall to you to insure the whole world?
Don't any of them have their own cars or insurance?
On 18 Dec 2025 at 08:42:42 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/12/2025 05:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqgkvsF274pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:17:48 on Wed, 17
Dec 2025, No mail <nomail@aolbin.com> remarked:
You'd hope the insurance companies would [be forced to] lower the >>>>>>>> premiums, and back-date that change. It's them that have been
unjustly
enriched by the error.
I would expect that as a given.
I would, too, as long as somebody pays for the admin costs. Or, do >>>>>> you think that it's okay for them to be out of pocket as a result >>>>>> of this fiasco?
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium >>>>>> was u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much >>>>>> more.
That's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car, >>>>> maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional
named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying
less than u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance
and 2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-
longer need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered.
It's *your* insurance we're talking about. Surely you must know?
It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
They can all drive and have presumably passed their tests, so why does
it fall to you to insure the whole world?
Don't any of them have their own cars or insurance?
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of having named drivers. Even if they >have their own car insurance (which they might not if they don't own a car) it >will only cover my car for third party losses, not for damage to my car.
On 18 Dec 2025 at 08:42:42 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/12/2025 05:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqgkvsF274pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:17:48 on Wed, 17
Dec 2025, No mail <nomail@aolbin.com> remarked:
You'd hope the insurance companies would [be forced to] lower the >>>>>>>> premiums, and back-date that change. It's them that have been
unjustly
enriched by the error.
I would expect that as a given.
I would, too, as long as somebody pays for the admin costs. Or, do >>>>>> you think that it's okay for them to be out of pocket as a result >>>>>> of this fiasco?
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium >>>>>> was -u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much >>>>>> more.
That's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car, >>>>> maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional
named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying
less than -u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance
and 2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-
longer need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered.
It's *your* insurance we're talking about. Surely you must know?
It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
They can all drive and have presumably passed their tests, so why does
it fall to you to insure the whole world?
Don't any of them have their own cars or insurance?
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of having named drivers. Even if they have their own car insurance (which they might not if they don't own a car) it
will only cover my car for third party losses, not for damage to my car.
In message <4540888817.89fafebe@uninhabited.net>, at 08:10:09 on Thu, 18
Dec 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium >>>>>> was -u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much >>>>>> more.
-aThat's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car, >>>>> maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional
named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying
less than -u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance and >>>> 2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-longer
need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered. It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
Depending on the particular drivers, having at least one additional
driver can
actually reduce the quotation. Don't ask me why.
Yes, that is a commonly quoted phenomenon.
I think the reason is that if you are insuring your car for (eg) other younger family members to drive, they'll be much careful not to bump
into things, because dad will give them a clip round the ear when they
get back home.
On 18 Dec 2025 at 08:42:42 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/12/2025 05:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqgkvsF274pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:17:48 on Wed, 17
Dec 2025, No mail <nomail@aolbin.com> remarked:
You'd hope the insurance companies would [be forced to] lower the >>>>>>>> premiums, and back-date that change. It's them that have been
unjustly
enriched by the error.
I would expect that as a given.
I would, too, as long as somebody pays for the admin costs. Or, do >>>>>> you think that it's okay for them to be out of pocket as a result >>>>>> of this fiasco?
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium >>>>>> was -u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much >>>>>> more.
That's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car, >>>>> maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional
named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying
less than -u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance
and 2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-
longer need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered.
It's *your* insurance we're talking about. Surely you must know?
It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
They can all drive and have presumably passed their tests, so why does
it fall to you to insure the whole world?
Don't any of them have their own cars or insurance?
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of having named drivers. Even if they have their own car insurance (which they might not if they don't own a car) it
will only cover my car for third party losses, not for damage to my car.
On 18/12/2025 01:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Dec 2025 at 08:42:42 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/12/2025 05:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqgkvsF274pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:17:48 on Wed, 17
Dec 2025, No mail <nomail@aolbin.com> remarked:
You'd hope the insurance companies would [be forced to] lower the >>>>>>>>> premiums, and back-date that change. It's them that have been >>>>>>>>> unjustly
enriched by the error.
I would expect that as a given.
I would, too, as long as somebody pays for the admin costs. Or, do >>>>>>> you think that it's okay for them to be out of pocket as a result >>>>>>> of this fiasco?
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium >>>>>>> was -u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much >>>>>>> more.
That's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car, >>>>>> maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional >>>>>> named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying >>>>> less than -u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance >>>>> and 2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-
longer need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered.
It's *your* insurance we're talking about. Surely you must know?
It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
They can all drive and have presumably passed their tests, so why does
it fall to you to insure the whole world?
Don't any of them have their own cars or insurance?
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of having named drivers. Even if they >> have their own car insurance (which they might not if they don't own a car) it
will only cover my car for third party losses, not for damage to my car.
That is not universal. In fact, I'd think it's unusual.
We each have a car and are each named on the policy of the other - fully comprehensive.
On 18 Dec 2025 at 05:13:23 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered. It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
Depending on the particular drivers, having at least one additional driver can >actually reduce the quotation. Don't ask me why.
On 18 Dec 2025 08:10:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Dec 2025 at 05:13:23 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered. It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
Depending on the particular drivers, having at least one additional driver can
actually reduce the quotation. Don't ask me why.
The fundamental "why" is pretty simple: cars with more than one named driver have a lower claim rate. Since the claim rate is the only thing that
insurers care about, they reduce the premium on cars with more than one
named driver.
Why cars with more than one named driver have a lower claim rate is a question which often crops up in discussions. It's possible that there may
be some research out there which goes some way to answering it. But the insurers don't care about that. All they care about is the fact that cars with more than one named driver are less likely to cost them money in
claims.
When I as younger, and single, I managed to exploit this by adding a female friend to my insurance even though she never actually drove my car. I
suspect that this would have been looked down on by my insurers. But it worked to reduce the premium.
On 2025-12-19, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 18 Dec 2025 08:10:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Dec 2025 at 05:13:23 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered. It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
Depending on the particular drivers, having at least one additional driver can
actually reduce the quotation. Don't ask me why.
The fundamental "why" is pretty simple: cars with more than one named driver >> have a lower claim rate. Since the claim rate is the only thing that
insurers care about, they reduce the premium on cars with more than one
named driver.
Well, they care about the average annual cost of insuring the client.
More claims will increase that of course, but other factors could too.
One Selby rail crash is worth quite a few Vauxhall Astras pranged into
trees.
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:58:14 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens^^^^^^^^^
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-19, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 18 Dec 2025 08:10:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Dec 2025 at 05:13:23 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll >>>>> shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still >>>>> need to be covered. It's still handy to have at least one, in case of >>>>> emergencies.
Depending on the particular drivers, having at least one additional >>>>driver can actually reduce the quotation. Don't ask me why.
The fundamental "why" is pretty simple: cars with more than one
named driver have a lower claim rate. Since the claim rate is the
only thing that insurers care about, they reduce the premium on cars
with more than one named driver.
Well, they care about the average annual cost of insuring the client.
More claims will increase that of course, but other factors could too.
One Selby rail crash is worth quite a few Vauxhall Astras pranged into >>trees.
Yes, but instances like Selby are very rare and don't really feature in the actuarial tables. It's the quantity and value of everyday claims that are
the key factors in setting premiums.
On 18/12/2025 01:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Dec 2025 at 08:42:42 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/12/2025 05:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqgkvsF274pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:17:48 on Wed, 17
Dec 2025, No mail <nomail@aolbin.com> remarked:
You'd hope the insurance companies would [be forced to] lower the >>>>>>>>> premiums, and back-date that change. It's them that have been >>>>>>>>> unjustly
enriched by the error.
-a I would expect that as a given.
I would, too, as long as somebody pays for the admin costs. Or, do >>>>>>> you-a think that it's okay for them to be out of pocket as a result >>>>>>> of this-a fiasco?
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium >>>>>>> was -u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much >>>>>>> more.
-a That's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic >>>>>> car,
maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional >>>>>> named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying >>>>> less than -u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance >>>>> and 2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-
longer need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered.
It's *your* insurance we're talking about.-a Surely you must know?
It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
They can all drive and have presumably passed their tests, so why does
it fall to you to insure the whole world?
Don't any of them have their own cars or insurance?
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of having named drivers. Even if
they
have their own car insurance (which they might not if they don't own a
car) it
will only cover my car for third party losses, not for damage to my car.
That is not universal. In fact, I'd think it's unusual.
We each have a car and are each named on the policy of the other - fully comprehensive.
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of having named drivers. Even
if they have their own car insurance (which they might not if they >>>don't own a car) it will only cover my car for third party losses,
not for damage to my car.
That is not universal. In fact, I'd think it's unusual.
We each have a car and are each named on the policy of the other -
fully comprehensive.
Is that 'fleet insurance' with the same insurer though?
On 18/12/2025 09:40 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <4540888817.89fafebe@uninhabited.net>, at 08:10:09 on Thu,
18 Dec 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest premium >>>>>>> was u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be much >>>>>>> more.
aThat's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic car, >>>>>> maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional >>>>>> named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying >>>>> less than u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate" performance and >>>>> 2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-longer >>>>> need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll
shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still
need to be covered. It's still handy to have at least one, in case of
emergencies.
Depending on the particular drivers, having at least one additional >>>driver can actually reduce the quotation. Don't ask me why.
Yes, that is a commonly quoted phenomenon.
I think the reason is that if you are insuring your car for (eg)
other younger family members to drive, they'll be much careful not to >>bump into things, because dad will give them a clip round the ear
when they get back home.
A 50-yr-old partner is one thing, but there is no obvious reason why
the premium should be lower when a teenaged driver is added to the
policy.
The "clip round the ear" theory doesn't hold water in those
circumstances, because the car is simply safer from damage if the
teenager doesn't drive it at all (see premiums for teenage drivers' own >cars).
In message <mqjse9FilhgU1@mid.individual.net>, at 02:43:22 on Fri, 19
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/12/2025 09:40 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <4540888817.89fafebe@uninhabited.net>, at 08:10:09 on Thu,
18-a Dec 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I don't know what you pay for motor insurance, but my latest
premium
was -u200. The admin costs for dealing with this could easily be >>>>>>>> much
more.
-aThat's very cheap for insurance. With a not terrifically exotic >>>>>>> car,
maximum no-claims, but admittedly business-use and three additional >>>>>>> named drivers, I'm paying ten times that.
Ouch! Perhaps worth a word with a broker, or the meerkats. I'm paying >>>>>> less than -u310 for a German brand with quite "adequate"
performance and
2 named drivers, but I'm in a rural part of the country and no-longer >>>>>> need a car for business.
That *is* a quote via meerkats, but when it comes up for renewal I'll >>>>> shop around again, and also ask my named drivers if they really still >>>>> need to be covered. It's still handy to have at least one, in case of >>>>> emergencies.
Depending on the particular drivers, having at least one additional
driver can-a actually reduce the quotation. Don't ask me why.
-aYes, that is a commonly quoted phenomenon.
-aI think the reason is that if you are insuring your car for (eg)
other-a younger family members to drive, they'll be much careful not
to bump-a into things, because dad will give them a clip round the ear
when they-a get back home.
A 50-yr-old partner is one thing, but there is no obvious reason why
the premium should be lower when a teenaged driver is added to the
policy.
The "clip round the ear" theory doesn't hold water in those
circumstances, because the car is simply safer from damage if the
teenager doesn't drive it at all (see premiums for teenage drivers'
own cars).
It appears you don't know much about risk management. For example if the very careful teenager is driving the car then clipper-dad isn't.
aI think the reason is that if you are insuring your car for (eg) >>>>othera younger family members to drive, they'll be much careful not
to bumpa into things, because dad will give them a clip round the
ear when theya get back home.
A 50-yr-old partner is one thing, but there is no obvious reason why >>>the premium should be lower when a teenaged driver is added to the >>>policy.
The "clip round the ear" theory doesn't hold water in those >>>circumstances, because the car is simply safer from damage if the >>>teenager doesn't drive it at all (see premiums for teenage drivers'
own cars).
It appears you don't know much about risk management. For example if
the very careful teenager is driving the car then clipper-dad isn't.
Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance companies.
In message <mqm9sdFgieU1@mid.individual.net>, at 00:45:02 on Sat, 20 Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
-aI think the reason is that if you are insuring your car for (eg)
other-a younger family members to drive, they'll be much careful not >>>>> to bump-a into things, because dad will give them a clip round the
ear-a when they-a get back home.
A 50-yr-old partner is one thing, but there is no obvious reason why
the premium should be lower when a teenaged driver is added to the
policy.
The "clip round the ear" theory doesn't hold water in those
circumstances, because the car is simply safer from damage if the
teenager doesn't drive it at all (see premiums for teenage drivers'
own cars).
-aIt appears you don't know much about risk management. For example if
the-a very careful teenager is driving the car then clipper-dad isn't.
Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance
companies.
You appear to have lost the plot. Again.
They might not be careful with their own car, but will be when driving dad's.
On 20/12/2025 07:22 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqm9sdFgieU1@mid.individual.net>, at 00:45:02 on Sat, 20
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
aI think the reason is that if you are insuring your car for (eg) >>>>>>othera younger family members to drive, they'll be much careful >>>>>>not to bumpa into things, because dad will give them a clip round >>>>>>the eara when theya get back home.
A 50-yr-old partner is one thing, but there is no obvious reason >>>>>why the premium should be lower when a teenaged driver is added to >>>>>the policy.
The "clip round the ear" theory doesn't hold water in those >>>>>circumstances, because the car is simply safer from damage if the >>>>>teenager doesn't drive it at all (see premiums for teenage drivers' >>>>>own cars).
aIt appears you don't know much about risk management. For example
if thea very careful teenager is driving the car then clipper-dad
Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance >>>companies.
You appear to have lost the plot. Again.
They might not be careful with their own car, but will be when
driving dad's.
Please show your working out.
Why would an eighteen-year-old be adjudged to be careful in his dad's
car, when his own Vauxhall Nova's policy premium would be up in the
u4,000 range?
In message <mqordbFdehqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:56:27 on Sat, 20
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 20/12/2025 07:22 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqm9sdFgieU1@mid.individual.net>, at 00:45:02 on Sat, 20
Dec-a 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
-aI think the reason is that if you are insuring your car for (eg) >>>>>>> other-a younger family members to drive, they'll be much careful >>>>>>> not-a to bump-a into things, because dad will give them a clip
round the-a ear-a when they-a get back home.
A 50-yr-old partner is one thing, but there is no obvious reason
why-a the premium should be lower when a teenaged driver is added >>>>>> to the-a policy.
The "clip round the ear" theory doesn't hold water in those
circumstances, because the car is simply safer from damage if the >>>>>> teenager doesn't drive it at all (see premiums for teenage
drivers' >>>>>own cars).
-aIt appears you don't know much about risk management. For example >>>>> if-a the-a very careful teenager is driving the car then clipper-dad
Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance
companies.
-aYou appear to have lost the plot. Again.
-aThey might not be careful with their own car, but will be when
driving-a dad's.
Please show your working out.
Why would an eighteen-year-old be adjudged to be careful in his dad's
car, when his own Vauxhall Nova's policy premium would be up in the
-u4,000 range?
Because when he brings his dad's -u50k Audi back with a dent in the side, he'll get a clip round the ear and banned from ever driving it again.
On 21/12/2025 09:24 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqordbFdehqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:56:27 on Sat, 20
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 20/12/2025 07:22 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqm9sdFgieU1@mid.individual.net>, at 00:45:02 on Sat,
20 Deca 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
aI think the reason is that if you are insuring your car for >>>>>>>>(eg) othera younger family members to drive, they'll be much >>>>>>>>careful nota to bumpa into things, because dad will give them a >>>>>>>>clip round thea eara when theya get back home.
A 50-yr-old partner is one thing, but there is no obvious reason >>>>>>>whya the premium should be lower when a teenaged driver is added >>>>>>>to thea policy.
The "clip round the ear" theory doesn't hold water in those >>>>>>>circumstances, because the car is simply safer from damage if the >>>>>>>teenager doesn't drive it at all (see premiums for teenage >>>>>>>drivers' >>>>>own cars).
aIt appears you don't know much about risk management. For >>>>>>example ifa thea very careful teenager is driving the car then
Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance >>>>>companies.
aYou appear to have lost the plot. Again.
aThey might not be careful with their own car, but will be when >>>>drivinga dad's.
Please show your working out.
Why would an eighteen-year-old be adjudged to be careful in his
dad's car, when his own Vauxhall Nova's policy premium would be up
in the u4,000 range?
Because when he brings his dad's u50k Audi back with a dent in the
side, he'll get a clip round the ear and banned from ever driving it >>again.
And that's enough to reduce the insurer's risk by thousands of pounds
per year, is it?
In message <mqq5mnFk2emU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:58:15 on Sun, 21
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 21/12/2025 09:24 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqordbFdehqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:56:27 on Sat, 20
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 20/12/2025 07:22 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mqm9sdFgieU1@mid.individual.net>, at 00:45:02 on Sat,
20 Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
I think the reason is that if you are insuring your car for >>>>>>>>> (eg) other younger family members to drive, they'll be much >>>>>>>>> careful not to bump into things, because dad will give them a >>>>>>>>> clip round the ear when they get back home.
A 50-yr-old partner is one thing, but there is no obvious reason >>>>>>>> why the premium should be lower when a teenaged driver is added >>>>>>>> to the policy.
The "clip round the ear" theory doesn't hold water in those
circumstances, because the car is simply safer from damage if the >>>>>>>> teenager doesn't drive it at all (see premiums for teenage
drivers' >>>>>own cars).
It appears you don't know much about risk management. For
example if the very careful teenager is driving the car then
Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance
companies.
You appear to have lost the plot. Again.
They might not be careful with their own car, but will be when
driving dad's.
Please show your working out.
Why would an eighteen-year-old be adjudged to be careful in his
dad's car, when his own Vauxhall Nova's policy premium would be up
in the -u4,000 range?
Because when he brings his dad's -u50k Audi back with a dent in the
side, he'll get a clip round the ear and banned from ever driving it
again.
And that's enough to reduce the insurer's risk by thousands of pounds
per year, is it?
Who said "thousands of pounds per year"? I didn't. Are you hearing
strange voices in the night...
Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance >>>>>>> companies.
You appear to have lost the plot. Again.
They might not be careful with their own car, but will be when
driving dad's.
Please show your working out.
Why would an eighteen-year-old be adjudged to be careful in his
dad's car, when his own Vauxhall Nova's policy premium would be up
in the u4,000 range?
Because when he brings his dad's u50k Audi back with a dent in the
side, he'll get a clip round the ear and banned from ever driving it
again.
And that's enough to reduce the insurer's risk by thousands of pounds
per year, is it?
Who said "thousands of pounds per year"? I didn't. Are you hearing
strange voices in the night...
It certainly reduces it enough to lead the insurance companies to point out >that insuring a car in a middle-aged person's name and then allowing a teenage >named driver effectively exclusive use of it amounts to insurance fraud.
In message <2940620345.8799fdd1@uninhabited.net>, at 15:03:26 on Sun, 21
Dec 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance >>>>>>>> companies.
You appear to have lost the plot. Again.
They might not be careful with their own car, but will be when
driving dad's.
Please show your working out.
Why would an eighteen-year-old be adjudged to be careful in his
dad's car, when his own Vauxhall Nova's policy premium would be up >>>>>> in the -u4,000 range?
Because when he brings his dad's -u50k Audi back with a dent in the >>>>> side, he'll get a clip round the ear and banned from ever driving it >>>>> again.
And that's enough to reduce the insurer's risk by thousands of pounds
per year, is it?
Who said "thousands of pounds per year"? I didn't. Are you hearing
strange voices in the night...
It certainly reduces it enough to lead the insurance companies to point out >> that insuring a car in a middle-aged person's name and then allowing a teenage
named driver effectively exclusive use of it amounts to insurance fraud.
That wasn't the scenario I was talking about.
On 21 Dec 2025 at 18:56:09 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <2940620345.8799fdd1@uninhabited.net>, at 15:03:26 on Sun, 21
Dec 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance >>>>>>>>> companies.
You appear to have lost the plot. Again.
They might not be careful with their own car, but will be when >>>>>>>> driving dad's.
Please show your working out.
Why would an eighteen-year-old be adjudged to be careful in his
dad's car, when his own Vauxhall Nova's policy premium would be up >>>>>>> in the u4,000 range?
Because when he brings his dad's u50k Audi back with a dent in the >>>>>> side, he'll get a clip round the ear and banned from ever driving it >>>>>> again.
And that's enough to reduce the insurer's risk by thousands of pounds >>>>> per year, is it?
Who said "thousands of pounds per year"? I didn't. Are you hearing
strange voices in the night...
It certainly reduces it enough to lead the insurance companies to
point out that insuring a car in a middle-aged person's name and
then allowing a teenage named driver effectively exclusive use of it >>>amounts to insurance fraud.
That wasn't the scenario I was talking about.
Well of course not! I am simply *supporting* your contention that a teenager >pays a lot less for insurance when a named driver than they would for his or >her own policy.
In message <6322010517.ef1133c8@uninhabited.net>, at 00:27:00 on Mon, 22
Dec 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 21 Dec 2025 at 18:56:09 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <2940620345.8799fdd1@uninhabited.net>, at 15:03:26 on Sun, 21 >>> Dec 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance >>>>>>>>>> companies.
-aYou appear to have lost the plot. Again.
-aThey might not be careful with their own car, but will be when >>>>>>>>> driving-a dad's.
Please show your working out.
Why would an eighteen-year-old be adjudged to be careful in his >>>>>>>> dad's-a car, when his own Vauxhall Nova's policy premium would be up >>>>>>>> in the-a -u4,000 range?
-aBecause when he brings his dad's -u50k Audi back with a dent in the >>>>>>> side,-a he'll get a clip round the ear and banned from ever
driving it
again.
And that's enough to reduce the iurer's risk by thousands of pounds >>>>>> per year, is it?
Who said "thousands of pounds per year"? I didn't. Are you hearing
strange voices in the night...
It certainly reduces it enough to lead the insurance companies to
point out-a that insuring a car in a middle-aged person's name and
then allowing a teenage-a named driver effectively exclusive use of
it amounts to insurance fraud.
That wasn't the scenario I was talking about.
Well of course not! I am simply *supporting* your contention that a
teenager
pays a lot less for insurance when a named driver than they would for
his or
her own policy.
It's the other way round - dad pays a less for *his* insurance by having
a younger named driver, even if the latter only borrows the car a couple
of times a year.
One of my cars has a named driver who hasn't used it at all since the
middle of last year. But I like to keep them on the policy, for
emergencies (something regular policies used to cover anyway, but T&C
are generally tightened up now, so I'm just following *their* rules).
On 22/12/2025 06:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <6322010517.ef1133c8@uninhabited.net>, at 00:27:00 on Mon,
22 Dec 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 21 Dec 2025 at 18:56:09 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <2940620345.8799fdd1@uninhabited.net>, at 15:03:26 on Sun, 21 >>>> Dec 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance >>>>>>>>>>> companies.
aYou appear to have lost the plot. Again.
aThey might not be careful with their own car, but will be when >>>>>>>>>> drivinga dad's.
Please show your working out.
Why would an eighteen-year-old be adjudged to be careful in his >>>>>>>>> dad'sa car, when his own Vauxhall Nova's policy premium would be up >>>>>>>>> in thea u4,000 range?
aBecause when he brings his dad's u50k Audi back with a dent in the >>>>>>>> side,a he'll get a clip round the ear and banned from ever >>>>>>>>driving it
again.
And that's enough to reduce the iurer's risk by thousands of pounds >>>>>>> per year, is it?
Who said "thousands of pounds per year"? I didn't. Are you hearing >>>>>> strange voices in the night...
It certainly reduces it enough to lead the insurance companies to >>>>>point outa that insuring a car in a middle-aged person's name and >>>>>then allowing a teenagea named driver effectively exclusive use of >>>>>it amounts to insurance fraud.
That wasn't the scenario I was talking about.
Well of course not! I am simply *supporting* your contention that a >>>teenager pays a lot less for insurance when a named driver than they >>>would for his or her own policy.
It's the other way round - dad pays a less for *his* insurance by
having a younger named driver, even if the latter only borrows the
car a couple of times a year.
One of my cars has a named driver who hasn't used it at all since
the middle of last year. But I like to keep them on the policy, for >>emergencies (something regular policies used to cover anyway, but T&C
are generally tightened up now, so I'm just following *their* rules).
You might find it cheaper / easier to consider availing of the services >proffered by companies providing temporary insurance cover.
you likely need to find a new insurance broker.
In message <mr0lf0Fmpq2U1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:03:59 on Tue, 23
Dec 2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 22/12/2025 06:59, Roland Perry wrote:
-aIt's the other way round - dad pays a less for *his* insurance by
having-a a younger named driver, even if the latter only borrows the
car a couple-a of times a year.
-aOne of my cars has a named driver who hasn't used it at all since
the-a middle of last year. But I like to keep them on the policy, for
emergencies (something regular policies used to cover anyway, but T&C
are generally tightened up now, so I'm just following *their* rules).
You might find it cheaper / easier to consider availing of the
services proffered by companies providing temporary insurance cover.
Yes, I did that originally, but time is money and filling in their forms every time someone wants to borrow the car for half an hour doesn't scale.
you likely need to find a new insurance broker.
I haven't been able to find a traditional human insurance broker for
more than 20yrs. Like local travel agents (rather than holiday
retailers) they are an endangered species.
On 24/12/2025 07:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mr0lf0Fmpq2U1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:03:59 on Tue, 23
Dec 2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 22/12/2025 06:59, Roland Perry wrote:
aIt's the other way round - dad pays a less for *his* insurance by >>>>havinga a younger named driver, even if the latter only borrows the >>>>car a couplea of times a year.
aOne of my cars has a named driver who hasn't used it at all since >>>>thea middle of last year. But I like to keep them on the policy, for >>>>emergencies (something regular policies used to cover anyway, butYou might find it cheaper / easier to consider availing of the
T&C are generally tightened up now, so I'm just following *their* rules). >>>
services proffered by companies providing temporary insurance cover.
Yes, I did that originally, but time is money and filling in their
forms every time someone wants to borrow the car for half an hour
doesn't scale.
No forms to fill in as it is all done on-line.
It took me less than 5 minutes the last time I did it.
I'll also remind you that your example is an individual "who hasn't
used it at all since the middle of last year".
I imagine it is taking you at least a similar amount of time, if not
longer, to answer questions about the named driver whilst in the
"proposal" phase of new policies each renewal window,
which, as you're not using a broker, ought to involve at least two >comparison sites plus two other sites, so that's a minimum of four
proposals in total. (Assuming you do not "auto renew", which you
*really* should not be doing!)
you likely need to find a new insurance broker.
I haven't been able to find a traditional human insurance broker for >>more than 20yrs. Like local travel agents (rather than holiday
retailers) they are an endangered species.
I have heard good reports about Howden Insurance (formerly A-Plan).
Your nearest branch is Bury St Edmunds
but they ought to be able to sort the majority, if not all of it, over
the phone.
Regards
S.P.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:30:09 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,842 |
| Posted today: | 1 |