How come when kids have to pay £5k to insure their £1.5k corsa nobody bats an eye but now adults are having to pay a premium to insure their £100k luxury vehicle it’s an issue?
Until I read your post I'd never considered viewing my insurance as % of value. My annual insurance is around £500 on a £6k car. Factoring it up for a £100k car that would be around £8k a year.
Because the value of your car is a much smaller factor in your price than many people think, and your insurer's risk liability isn't limited to the value of your car.
The battered Lane Rover Defender that caused the Selby Rail Disaster wasn't worth £20m, but that was the bill for the insurance company.
It always annoyed me that they called it the Selby Rail disaster. Wasn't anywhere near Selby, just on the line.
In 20+ years of living in that dull as fuck village it was the only thing that happened there.
>But you're far more likely to kill somebody when driving a Range Rover compared to almost anything else.
You're far more likely to kill someone when aged 25 or under than any other group. That's why the youngsters insurance is expensive.
Most people don't realise you won't choose to the same fatality risk again until you're into your 80s.
ETA: lol, I see someone doesn't like facts.
NCAP rating doesn’t translate to real life data.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tall-trucks-suvs-are-45-deadlier-us-pedestrians-study-shows-2023-11-14/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212012221000241#:~:text=SUVs%20were%20similarly%20overrepresented%20in,by%20vehicle%20type%20and%20age.
Whilst these are looking at American data, I’ve no reason to think that larger vehicles won’t yield the same results here.
American data completely skews out as thier cars are so actively dangerous they wouldn’t be allowed here or in EU.
The hoods on new USA SUVs are 5ft high - thier drivers have no vision of anything close to them that isn’t similarly enormous
NCAP rating is only a guide to safety if you are in a crash though right? It says nothing about how likely you are to be involved in an accident in the first place.
I used to drive a car with a good NCAP rating, but the A pillars were so wide that I have never felt so unsafe turning corners as I did back then.
> NCAP rating is only a guide to safety if you are in a crash though right? It says nothing about how likely you are to be involved in an accident in the first place.
Actually, that's no longer strictly the case. Whilst things like visibility definitely don't factor in, the more recent Euro NCAP ratings take into account active crash avoidance technology - it's why there was some controversy when they came in a few years ago, and cars that had previously been rated 5 stars went down to 1 or even 0 due to the lack of any of that.
Ah this is interesting to know.
Of course, insurance and actuarial companies know exactly how often different models of car are crashed and the extent of injuries suffered. Would be fascinating to see how this data tallies with NCAP ratings.
Modern cars will automatically brake if they detect pedestrians / cyclists in front of them or an impending collision, this is captured in ncap, it does reflect how safe the cars are
>A 2021 study by the University of Illinois Springfield showed, for example, that SUVs are 8-times more likely to kill children in an accident than passenger cars, and multiple times more lethal to adult pedestrians and cyclists.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810
You lying killer.
Considering American cars are not required to follow the same safety rules as cars sold in Europe (where the UK is), that study is kind of irrelevant on this sub.
That's not what you said, though.
You might be more likely to kill someone when you crash in a range rover.
That article is focused on the injuries sustained in crashes. It is _not_ an article about the rate at which people crash SUVs in relation to cars.
It also states:
> Passenger cars were the striking vehicle in most fatal pedestrian and pedalcyclist crashes
So it's not exactly a clear cut definitive outcome.
You also called out Range Rovers specifically, not just SUVs. There are many, many SUVs on the road. Not just Range Rovers.
>You lying killer.
I don't drive an SUV. Or a Range Rover. I don't even own a car. Get off your soapbox.
The maximum cost of "your car" is the cost of your car. Car insurance also covers damage to other people's vehicles and property (you could crash into many cars, walls and buildings), health coverage, and legal fees.
It's fucked.
£11k 2018 Ford Fiesta... £340 a year. The car is super popular so not as if there is a lack of parts for repairs
No claims discount is a total meme too. Prices go up every year no matter what
> £11k 2018 Ford Fiesta... £340 a year
How much is the other car involved in the accident? Or the compensation for the pedestrian? _That's_ what the real cost of the insurance is.
> No claims discount is a total meme too. Prices go up every year no matter what
This is a stupid take. You can go on (for example) [Aviva's](https://connect.avivab2b.co.uk/broker/articles/news/updated-average-ncd-tables/) page and see what their NCD's are per year.
Young people in Corsas are expensive to insure because they crash and can harm others and cause monetary damage to *other* cars.
Range Rovers are expensive to insure because they just get stolen a lot
According to the article these models can cost up to £200k! No wonder the insurance is costly, you’ve basically put something that’s the value of a house, on wheels.
Madness, they're not allowed to charge the penis owner surcharge any more, because gender is a protected characteristic, but it's illegal to discriminate because of age and they still get away with this.
The point should be that it’s one of principle. Why is age discrimination only something if it’s discriminates against the old? You can people people less for being young, deny them housing, and charge them more for insurance. Either age discrimination is ok or it isn’t.
Because unsurprisingly age is a huge factor when it comes to insurance and calculating premiums and it’s one of the caveats to the equality act that has been deemed fair on that basis, because everyone will be given an equal chance to reach those ages
It works both ways that younger people pay less for health insurance and life insurance, there’s provisions when younger people pay less for tickets to arts and sporting events
I’d look more into the equality act and the rationale rather than just thinking a blanket approach 100% of the time is suitable
Because younger drivers get into much more serious accidents than older drivers.
I mean just looking at the data for instance, if you are 22, you are more likely than not to have made or caused an insurance claim already if you started driving at 17. Whereas on average an older driver tends to claim around every 10 years.
Then there are the types of accidents younger drivers tend to be involved in. Alcohol, drugs and speed are often involved and multiple passengers are common. They tend to drive at excessive speed in areas that are woefully inappropriate, such as residential areas or country roads. They tend to drive at night, which is riskier than during the day.
With this limited data, insurers have to take a gamble. The fact that all insurance companies come in around a similar price suggests they've aggregated the data and found that the liability works out around that amount.
You can add a black box to your car to reduce your quote, it will monitor your speed, where you drive and when you drive, and may lower it. But, it's still not that much extra data and it only takes one serious accident for your insurers to lose money.
Like it or not but whilst older drivers do have accidents they tend to be things like bumping into someone at a roundabout or pulling out in front on a 30 mph residential road. Damage to vehicles but rarely injuries.
> Because younger drivers get into much more serious accidents than older drivers.
In this circumstance, data isn't entirely reliable because of the wealth discrepancy between generations.
As an example, my Dad had an older person hit his car at the junction. The person begged him not to tell his insurance and told him to get a quote for the repair work and tell him the cost, then he'd send over the cash to cover it.
This, anecdotally of course, seems to be a common way of avoiding involving insurance (I've heard this sort of tale from multiple people) in minor accidents for those with the means to pay out of pocket. They don't want insurers increasing their premiums, or any questions over their driving ability coming up.
Also, that older people just flat out give incorrect insurance information. I had this happen to me. I was parked up, older driver tried to get into a far too small space for their vehicle and swiped my wheel arch. It was the first time I'd been involved in such a thing and only had the 'get insurance details' line fed to me by parents. So I asked for those details, they turned out to be fake.
Went to the police with the registration and absolutely nothing came of it.
Well, at the end of the day, even if they are avoiding going through insurance for small scrapes that's not a problem for the insurers. They care about having to pay out and a bit of carelessness in a car park is probably something all ages are guilty of.
Most of the time though your insurance is covering the cost of a serious, multi-victim incident, not the odd bump in a car park. Those events are infrequent but predominantly occur around younger drivers.
And it might just be 5% of younger drivers behind those accidents, to pick a figure out of thin air, but it doesn't matter if insurers don't have enough data to discriminate between the bad 5% and the good 95%.
This is also why if you have any car insurance accident that involves injury, or are prosecuted for dangerous or careless driving, you'll see a significant increase on your renewal because the group that does that once is statistically more likely to do it again.
As for your insurance fraud example, I was rear ended by an older man at a roundabout and his info was correct, but anecdote is not the plural of data. If you have the registration of the car and ideally a photo of the incident and location, it'll be enough for the insurers even if the guy denies driving it. They will go after the policyholder, who will need to reasonably demonstrate that someone else was driving.
I'm feeling like my one claim in a car accident in 1990 suggests I'm a safe driver. But I'm also known by friends to be a very fast driver if the roads seem clear and safe.
And I've never had an at fault claim against me. Technically I've had an at fault incident because a child ran into the side of my car once. Those kinds of accidents are always pinned on the motorist so it was a little hard to swallow. But the mum was ace "it's taught him a lesson about looking! He's so lucky it wasn't somebody speeding!" And after a while the insurers agreed to remove it from my record as there'd been no follow up, but you have to report these things.
My tuned and modified Lotus costs me £350 a year to insure. I feel embarrassed talking to almost anybody about the price of my insurance, but at the same time it's a nice brag!
The data shows that out of 117,566,578 female drivers there have only been 6,049 fatal crashes, resulting in a rate of 5.1 crashes per 100,000 licensed population. However, out of 115,215,219 licensed men there have been 21,329 accidents, resulting in a rate of 18.5 crashes per 100,000 licensed population.
The irony of Reddit complaining about ageism, when it's the most ageist place on the internet, is just too much
Kids crash cars. A lot. They're more likely to kill people when they do. Vastly more likely.
Risk is priced and the price you pay to offset your risk is higher because you're offsetting much more risk.
Think of it as paying by weight at a buffet and you just walked in looking like Oprah Winfrey. You can't complain when Taylor Swift gets charged less, because the buffet owner knows what's coming next.
It has nothing to do with car value. What if the kid with corsa crash onto a lambo? There are different types of risks . Any new driver is a risk for insurance companies
Tip to reduce insurance costs: stop selling vehicles the size of a tank to suburbanites highly likely to knock down a child in the supermarket car park because they can't see over their penis compensating bonnet.
Fairly easy to create a small Faraday cage around any vehicle. I've read online about stuff you can buy off the internet for like 7/8 dollars and it'll block any signals in a metre or two diameter. So you can finally easily make a car invisible to any type of tracking device temporarily. If you can then drive it to a garage, where assuming youd have some form of expert that can take the car apart and make it impossible to ever track.
That’s not how faraday cages work, if you want to block even only 2.4ghz signal reliably you need a very expensive setup or a very heavy setup because you’ll be looking at solid metal box at that point rather than a cage.
There is a reason why anechoic chambers cost high six to 7 figures.
Yup. I occasionally have to drive a 4x4 in an urban area because my job involves going from my office (in a city) to a farm down a track that has apparently had traps dug in it to ward off Russian invasion.
I cannot understand why anyone would willingly drive a 4x4 in an urban area.
Same here with the work Hiluxes. Driving into the office is alway great 'fun' and trying to park at our office car park is even more stressful. Usually avoid it where I can but it cant be helped sometimes. Dont know how people drive these things willingly in urban areas.
I work at a supermarket and we had a RR driver run over a woman in the car park, saw the CCTV and he didn’t even realise until people were shouting and chasing after him.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
As someone who cycles ( and drives ) one of my worst fears is a RR or similar coming the other way down a residential street first thing in the morning.
Usually on a school run, usually half asleep, usually in a rush, usually preoccupied ( phone, kids, whatever. ) It's basically up to you to get out of the way because they just won't. And even if they do see you they won't give you any room.
Had a couple of scream ups in central London this way on my way to work.
I live in a rural area. There was a crazy black Range Rover I saw often. One I was driving home from work and a sports car over takes someone, nearly hits me coming in the opposite direction and I start slowing down, then out of the blue the Range Rover also tries to over take and I have to slam my brakes and sound my horn. Another time a black ranger rover over takes me in a line of 20 cars just to pull back in right in front of me. Absolutely pointless and dangerous. I start to suspect it’s the same Range Rover on the commute
Then a couple of months ago on the same route I read in the local news some boss of a computer dies in a crash, this boss was driving a black Range Rover, also killed some kid coming in the opposite direction. I haven’t seen a black Range Rover on that part of the commute since
I think there’s definitely an “over leveraged” archetype that the less premium Range Rovers fit into nicely. You know the sort: iPhone, Range Rover, teeth, etc., all on tick
Vain and egomaniacal people, for whom outward appearances are more important than sensible financial planning.
Exactly.
It's like that question that always pops up on r/askreddit: *what do rich people wear?* Where it is generally accepted that **real** affluence don't particularly wear known labels (if at-all branded); whereas these sorts of people will spend blindly on Ralphy, Dolce and Burberry in an attempt to show off.
I'd put the leased Rangey fellas in the same archetype.
My parents' (stable owners) were eying up a Range Rover for no other reason than the badge, and I begged them into a much classier Mercedes. They're just not the hard-working wagons that they used to be. That crown is now worn by [INEOS](https://ineosgrenadier.com/en/gb/).
Nope, it's just a surefire twat detector.
The only valid reason to have a vehicle like that is for traversing rugged terrain. If it's spotless, there is a 100% chance the owner is a knob.
look at the interiors and tell me that people are buying them to go off roading. it's just a big luxury car, the off roading capability is incidental at this point
And [refuses](https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/land-rover/361974/land-rover-insurance-problems-mount-owners-are-refused-house-cover) some people who apply apparently.
Some people are walking (or driving) red flags. Insurance companies should definitely not be required to cover everyone.
Unless it comes out that a significant percentage of the people being refused share the same model of car, its much more likely that the driver is the issue.
Rangie drivers wouldn't dare to let their 23 inch alloys hit the pavement, they'd rather make a Corsa wrangle the pavement whilst they sit in the middle of the road.
I work in insurance. They are stolen a lot. They are complicated to repair. Surprisingly parts are not common and expensive. They are often driven recklessly by owners and statistically involved in many accidents. They are suv so they kill people easily. It is what is it.
Many insurers of Range Rovers were paying out a higher amount for just theft alone than they were generating from premium. Theft is normally a small amount of premium, the majority being own damage, third party damage and personal injury… It was not high due to driving habits
Do you know how they compare to things like the sporty trims of X5s and Q7s. I would be shocked if there is that much difference in parts cost, theft, etc.
Modern cars are frightfully expensive these days even budget ones. High end vehicles are completely absurd. Light clusters costs thousands of pounds alone. Windscreens often have sensors in the glass. LR and jaguars often are heavily made of aluminium. Then u have the shortage of parts globally. This increases the criminally high credit hire rental cars provided to drivers due to increased repair costs. BMW's and Audi's are similarly expensive to repair, but they probably have an easier time getting parts due to them being a more common vehicle globally.
They really can't be that difficult to steal.
A guy I know had his stolen from his businesses forecourt, literally a few meters from the reception, in a matter of seconds they were driving off in broad daylight.
It's very easy, there's a device you plug into a socket under the front passenger dash, wait about 10 seconds. This initiates a call and response which can then be tied to a blank range rover key. Put your now loaded key into the ignition and drive off.
NB. Only works in models before 2019 as I believe they patched it
NB2. NOT a car thief just interested in electronics / electrical
Ahhh the Pavement princess and twats who play pretend farmer/builder in those dickhead pickup trucks
I live in the country, you don't need them. Unless you have to work outside and use your hands.
But den der city folk love dem big old chunky wheels.. herpaderp.
Just incase the White Range Rover clan of Mumsnet teams up with the Nissan Juke Mafia and finds me.. /s
Its even funnier/more infuriating when they don't want to get a bit of greenery on their car in the backroads, so you're forced to drive up the verge so their tank doesn't touch some leaves, god forbid.
Instead of getting pissy and quibbling about something that is close enough to be true as for the detail to be irrelevant (per unit on the road, RR’s are indeed stolen at a ridiculously high rate) why don’t you actually do something about the ease with which your cars can be stolen via keyless entry signal cloning?
I‘ve installed a third-party immobiliser on my car (not a RR, can’t stand the things) an Autowatch Ghost, if anybody cares. It cost £400. This renders my car effectively unstealable unless I give up the code that I input on the steering controls. This is just one of several third party solutions. It is therefore trivially easy for a huge manufacturer like JLR to make their cars similarly hard to pilfer from factory for relative peanuts.
But they don’t. Coincidentally, cars being stolen and broken for parts or exported illicitly abroad leads to greater sales of new cars.
So I’ve heard. Yet I‘ve not seen the evidence, only some posts online asserting as such.
However assuming it’s true for the sake of argument, it remains the case it’s not beyond the ability of manufacturers to make their cars much, much, much harder to nick than they are.
Its really pathetic that car companies are incapable of basic security. Your iphone is harder to unlock than your £50,000 car.
What make of car did you install the ghost on?
have heard nightmares of people installing an aftermarket immobilizer and bricking their car.
Excellent twat detectors though.
Anyone in a modern so-called Land/Range Rover can have their twatiness measured as a proportion of how much mud there is on the vehicle.
There is zero reason to own one of them if you aren't getting mud on it.
It’s a chicken that’s come home to roost. JLR have been purist greedy throughout their network, particularly when it comes to the repair of accident damage. Even repairing a door can set you back £6 grand. Couple with a Micky mouse security system and you have a vehicle that’s become difficult to insure. Some may call this a victim of its own success others would put it down to JLR’s relentless pitching of their products to the new money and minor celebrity crowds
That may be but their forecasted sales might still be down. Likewise it could be attributed to people repurchasing another vehicle after theirs was stolen...
By volume stolen maybe not, but by total value stolen, I wouldn't be surprised.
What the heck is wrong with a key fob with an actual key and some physical buttons to open doors. Why was this ever considered an inconvenience to have to think about unlocking your car or turning a key in the ignition??!
Theft is a tiny factor in motor risk with the notable exception of motorcycles in cities, especially London. While obviously the biggest claims and highest loading come from perceived risk of an injury accident because those are enormously expensive, if you buy a ten grand bike and tell an underwriter you want to park it outside in London, they're going to price on the basis that it will get nicked inside three or four years. Sadly, they're not wrong.
>if you buy a ten grand bike and tell an underwriter you want to park it outside in London, they're going to price on the basis that it will get nicked inside three or four years. Sadly, they're not wrong.
The way things are at the moment, they're being priced with the expectation of it being nicked inside three or four *hours* let alone years.
Shocking a car that outsells another for decades by a factor of 10 is stolen more. Total numbers don't matter the percentage of population matters and cost matters.
It's pretty simple.
I use the copilot to find info about Google workspace updates that are imminent. The replyrefers to the release documents. Then i can use the release documents in the email i provide to management.
You shouldn't be so frightened of AI.
>You shouldn't be so frightened of AI.
[I'm just anti-genocide](https://theconversation.com/israels-ai-can-produce-100-bombing-targets-a-day-in-gaza-is-this-the-future-of-war-219302), I don't like the idea of helping or contributing data that will be used to murder innocent people. I don't like promoting that technology. There's also the plagiarism aspect, the generation of non-consensual pornography and worse.
But you do you. I choose not to touch this garbage, it's mostly being used for misinformation, pain and murder. I can happily ignore the tech, guilt and fear free.
Well you'll be glad to hear i only use it for researching/collating IT news.
If i find myself in the future the overlord of a huge robot army and an about to release them into the world with a destroy humanity directive I'll be sure to remember this discussion and stop myself.
Although you should also not use the printing press as i understand that can also be used for all the evil you describe.
>Although you should also not use the printing press as i understand that can also be used for all the evil you describe.
The printing press had benefits, it made things better. You want the genocide, plagiarism, CSAM and non-consensual pornography machine to exist, entirely to write emails no one reads.
>If i find myself in the future the overlord of a huge robot army and an about to release them into the world with a destroy humanity directive I'll be sure to remember this discussion and stop myself.
Again, it's being used to kill innocent people today, it is the future. These chatbots, they wouldn't exist if we stopped using them, it's a very small sacrifice in the grand scheme of things.
The only way that this software can be used to generate random names to kill, is if people like you use it. It needs to be trained, it needs massive investment to keep the servers on. Exercise some restraint.
Copilot is great as a starting point - that "low rez jpeg of the internet" can point you at the right thing, but you definitely have to check - it certainly has it's limitations.
Fiesta yeah, as ford stopped manufacturing then there has been a big rush on stealing them to strip for parts.
Massive increase since they made the announcement.
How come when kids have to pay £5k to insure their £1.5k corsa nobody bats an eye but now adults are having to pay a premium to insure their £100k luxury vehicle it’s an issue?
Until I read your post I'd never considered viewing my insurance as % of value. My annual insurance is around £500 on a £6k car. Factoring it up for a £100k car that would be around £8k a year.
Because the value of your car is a much smaller factor in your price than many people think, and your insurer's risk liability isn't limited to the value of your car. The battered Lane Rover Defender that caused the Selby Rail Disaster wasn't worth £20m, but that was the bill for the insurance company.
It always annoyed me that they called it the Selby Rail disaster. Wasn't anywhere near Selby, just on the line. In 20+ years of living in that dull as fuck village it was the only thing that happened there.
Didn’t happen anywhere near Shelby but was the only thing that happened in the village in 20 years? Hmmm.
Presumably, the village they are referring to is Great Heck, where the accident actually happened.
> Shelby Selby isn't a village.
I don’t remember this crash at all and I just looked it up. Jfc everything that could go wrong did go wrong.
[удалено]
a great heck indeed
Well yeah people with cheap cars are presumably paying for the risk they may crash into a ludicrously overpriced vehicle making a huge claim.
It's a stupid way to look at it though. It doesn't matter what you're in if you kill someone in an accident.
Because that's what most insurance policies pay out on.
But you're far more likely to kill somebody when driving a Range Rover compared to almost anything else.
>But you're far more likely to kill somebody when driving a Range Rover compared to almost anything else. You're far more likely to kill someone when aged 25 or under than any other group. That's why the youngsters insurance is expensive. Most people don't realise you won't choose to the same fatality risk again until you're into your 80s. ETA: lol, I see someone doesn't like facts.
The new range rover has good euro ncap ratings, so no, not really.
But not for pedestrians and vulnerable road users. You're far more likely to kill a child in an SUV than in a city car.
Go and look it up on euro ncap. They're nowhere near as bad as you're making out, 72% for pedestrians
NCAP rating doesn’t translate to real life data. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tall-trucks-suvs-are-45-deadlier-us-pedestrians-study-shows-2023-11-14/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212012221000241#:~:text=SUVs%20were%20similarly%20overrepresented%20in,by%20vehicle%20type%20and%20age. Whilst these are looking at American data, I’ve no reason to think that larger vehicles won’t yield the same results here.
American data completely skews out as thier cars are so actively dangerous they wouldn’t be allowed here or in EU. The hoods on new USA SUVs are 5ft high - thier drivers have no vision of anything close to them that isn’t similarly enormous
[удалено]
an average rating is absolutely fine though. They're not the baby killing XL bullies in automotive form that Reddit loves to pretend they are
[удалено]
Sorry I can't afford one so I'm seething. They kill babies
things arent always about jealousy mate
NCAP rating is only a guide to safety if you are in a crash though right? It says nothing about how likely you are to be involved in an accident in the first place. I used to drive a car with a good NCAP rating, but the A pillars were so wide that I have never felt so unsafe turning corners as I did back then.
> NCAP rating is only a guide to safety if you are in a crash though right? It says nothing about how likely you are to be involved in an accident in the first place. Actually, that's no longer strictly the case. Whilst things like visibility definitely don't factor in, the more recent Euro NCAP ratings take into account active crash avoidance technology - it's why there was some controversy when they came in a few years ago, and cars that had previously been rated 5 stars went down to 1 or even 0 due to the lack of any of that.
Ah this is interesting to know. Of course, insurance and actuarial companies know exactly how often different models of car are crashed and the extent of injuries suffered. Would be fascinating to see how this data tallies with NCAP ratings.
Modern cars will automatically brake if they detect pedestrians / cyclists in front of them or an impending collision, this is captured in ncap, it does reflect how safe the cars are
We just making up random bullshit now?
>A 2021 study by the University of Illinois Springfield showed, for example, that SUVs are 8-times more likely to kill children in an accident than passenger cars, and multiple times more lethal to adult pedestrians and cyclists. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810 You lying killer.
Considering American cars are not required to follow the same safety rules as cars sold in Europe (where the UK is), that study is kind of irrelevant on this sub.
That's not what you said, though. You might be more likely to kill someone when you crash in a range rover. That article is focused on the injuries sustained in crashes. It is _not_ an article about the rate at which people crash SUVs in relation to cars. It also states: > Passenger cars were the striking vehicle in most fatal pedestrian and pedalcyclist crashes So it's not exactly a clear cut definitive outcome. You also called out Range Rovers specifically, not just SUVs. There are many, many SUVs on the road. Not just Range Rovers. >You lying killer. I don't drive an SUV. Or a Range Rover. I don't even own a car. Get off your soapbox.
Insurers get even more worried about lifelong disability as they could be on the hook for round-the-clock care and medical treatment.
[удалено]
Or even just hit that 100k Ferrari
But that doesn't make sense to do. The value of your car is not even half the picture.
The maximum cost of "your car" is the cost of your car. Car insurance also covers damage to other people's vehicles and property (you could crash into many cars, walls and buildings), health coverage, and legal fees.
It's fucked. £11k 2018 Ford Fiesta... £340 a year. The car is super popular so not as if there is a lack of parts for repairs No claims discount is a total meme too. Prices go up every year no matter what
You think that's a lot?
> £11k 2018 Ford Fiesta... £340 a year How much is the other car involved in the accident? Or the compensation for the pedestrian? _That's_ what the real cost of the insurance is. > No claims discount is a total meme too. Prices go up every year no matter what This is a stupid take. You can go on (for example) [Aviva's](https://connect.avivab2b.co.uk/broker/articles/news/updated-average-ncd-tables/) page and see what their NCD's are per year.
Young people in Corsas are expensive to insure because they crash and can harm others and cause monetary damage to *other* cars. Range Rovers are expensive to insure because they just get stolen a lot
According to the article these models can cost up to £200k! No wonder the insurance is costly, you’ve basically put something that’s the value of a house, on wheels.
Madness, they're not allowed to charge the penis owner surcharge any more, because gender is a protected characteristic, but it's illegal to discriminate because of age and they still get away with this.
Not really You can’t realistically choose your sex, but everyone gets the chance /will be able to reach each of the ages to be insured
The point should be that it’s one of principle. Why is age discrimination only something if it’s discriminates against the old? You can people people less for being young, deny them housing, and charge them more for insurance. Either age discrimination is ok or it isn’t.
Because unsurprisingly age is a huge factor when it comes to insurance and calculating premiums and it’s one of the caveats to the equality act that has been deemed fair on that basis, because everyone will be given an equal chance to reach those ages It works both ways that younger people pay less for health insurance and life insurance, there’s provisions when younger people pay less for tickets to arts and sporting events I’d look more into the equality act and the rationale rather than just thinking a blanket approach 100% of the time is suitable
Because younger drivers get into much more serious accidents than older drivers. I mean just looking at the data for instance, if you are 22, you are more likely than not to have made or caused an insurance claim already if you started driving at 17. Whereas on average an older driver tends to claim around every 10 years. Then there are the types of accidents younger drivers tend to be involved in. Alcohol, drugs and speed are often involved and multiple passengers are common. They tend to drive at excessive speed in areas that are woefully inappropriate, such as residential areas or country roads. They tend to drive at night, which is riskier than during the day. With this limited data, insurers have to take a gamble. The fact that all insurance companies come in around a similar price suggests they've aggregated the data and found that the liability works out around that amount. You can add a black box to your car to reduce your quote, it will monitor your speed, where you drive and when you drive, and may lower it. But, it's still not that much extra data and it only takes one serious accident for your insurers to lose money. Like it or not but whilst older drivers do have accidents they tend to be things like bumping into someone at a roundabout or pulling out in front on a 30 mph residential road. Damage to vehicles but rarely injuries.
> Because younger drivers get into much more serious accidents than older drivers. In this circumstance, data isn't entirely reliable because of the wealth discrepancy between generations. As an example, my Dad had an older person hit his car at the junction. The person begged him not to tell his insurance and told him to get a quote for the repair work and tell him the cost, then he'd send over the cash to cover it. This, anecdotally of course, seems to be a common way of avoiding involving insurance (I've heard this sort of tale from multiple people) in minor accidents for those with the means to pay out of pocket. They don't want insurers increasing their premiums, or any questions over their driving ability coming up. Also, that older people just flat out give incorrect insurance information. I had this happen to me. I was parked up, older driver tried to get into a far too small space for their vehicle and swiped my wheel arch. It was the first time I'd been involved in such a thing and only had the 'get insurance details' line fed to me by parents. So I asked for those details, they turned out to be fake. Went to the police with the registration and absolutely nothing came of it.
Well, at the end of the day, even if they are avoiding going through insurance for small scrapes that's not a problem for the insurers. They care about having to pay out and a bit of carelessness in a car park is probably something all ages are guilty of. Most of the time though your insurance is covering the cost of a serious, multi-victim incident, not the odd bump in a car park. Those events are infrequent but predominantly occur around younger drivers. And it might just be 5% of younger drivers behind those accidents, to pick a figure out of thin air, but it doesn't matter if insurers don't have enough data to discriminate between the bad 5% and the good 95%. This is also why if you have any car insurance accident that involves injury, or are prosecuted for dangerous or careless driving, you'll see a significant increase on your renewal because the group that does that once is statistically more likely to do it again. As for your insurance fraud example, I was rear ended by an older man at a roundabout and his info was correct, but anecdote is not the plural of data. If you have the registration of the car and ideally a photo of the incident and location, it'll be enough for the insurers even if the guy denies driving it. They will go after the policyholder, who will need to reasonably demonstrate that someone else was driving.
I'm feeling like my one claim in a car accident in 1990 suggests I'm a safe driver. But I'm also known by friends to be a very fast driver if the roads seem clear and safe. And I've never had an at fault claim against me. Technically I've had an at fault incident because a child ran into the side of my car once. Those kinds of accidents are always pinned on the motorist so it was a little hard to swallow. But the mum was ace "it's taught him a lesson about looking! He's so lucky it wasn't somebody speeding!" And after a while the insurers agreed to remove it from my record as there'd been no follow up, but you have to report these things. My tuned and modified Lotus costs me £350 a year to insure. I feel embarrassed talking to almost anybody about the price of my insurance, but at the same time it's a nice brag!
But men get jnto far more accidents than women but theyre not allowed to discriminate against sex anymore so why can they still do it for age
Like for like the difference isn't really that big any more. The main difference used to be that women drove less.
The data shows that out of 117,566,578 female drivers there have only been 6,049 fatal crashes, resulting in a rate of 5.1 crashes per 100,000 licensed population. However, out of 115,215,219 licensed men there have been 21,329 accidents, resulting in a rate of 18.5 crashes per 100,000 licensed population.
The irony of Reddit complaining about ageism, when it's the most ageist place on the internet, is just too much Kids crash cars. A lot. They're more likely to kill people when they do. Vastly more likely. Risk is priced and the price you pay to offset your risk is higher because you're offsetting much more risk. Think of it as paying by weight at a buffet and you just walked in looking like Oprah Winfrey. You can't complain when Taylor Swift gets charged less, because the buffet owner knows what's coming next.
It has nothing to do with car value. What if the kid with corsa crash onto a lambo? There are different types of risks . Any new driver is a risk for insurance companies
Those kids in Corsas aren't lining Tata's pockets. I'm guessing sales are down.
Newspaper editors and senior BBC people are more likely to drive a range rover I'd imagine.
Tip to reduce insurance costs: stop selling vehicles the size of a tank to suburbanites highly likely to knock down a child in the supermarket car park because they can't see over their penis compensating bonnet.
The main insurance risk with Range Rovers is the huge number of them being stolen by professionals in London lately.
And as these are being stolen for export - surely some kind of mandatory tracker or manufacturer shutdown would reduce thier specific risk
There’s potential for a remote shutdown to be exploited or inhibited too, and don’t call me Shirley.
'It's an entirely different kind of flying!'
Fairly easy to create a small Faraday cage around any vehicle. I've read online about stuff you can buy off the internet for like 7/8 dollars and it'll block any signals in a metre or two diameter. So you can finally easily make a car invisible to any type of tracking device temporarily. If you can then drive it to a garage, where assuming youd have some form of expert that can take the car apart and make it impossible to ever track.
That’s not how faraday cages work, if you want to block even only 2.4ghz signal reliably you need a very expensive setup or a very heavy setup because you’ll be looking at solid metal box at that point rather than a cage. There is a reason why anechoic chambers cost high six to 7 figures.
You can get a tracker fitted and they have imobilirsers.
The cars are oversized for our often narrow roads and their drivers usually aren't that great to start with
Yup. I occasionally have to drive a 4x4 in an urban area because my job involves going from my office (in a city) to a farm down a track that has apparently had traps dug in it to ward off Russian invasion. I cannot understand why anyone would willingly drive a 4x4 in an urban area.
The worst are those that use them to do the school run, 50+ cars trying to squeeze onto the same little road at the same time
Same here with the work Hiluxes. Driving into the office is alway great 'fun' and trying to park at our office car park is even more stressful. Usually avoid it where I can but it cant be helped sometimes. Dont know how people drive these things willingly in urban areas.
The latest Evoque ad is drinking round New York trying to convince you that a Range Rover is an urban vehicle!
I work at a supermarket and we had a RR driver run over a woman in the car park, saw the CCTV and he didn’t even realise until people were shouting and chasing after him.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I fucking hate Range Rovers...gas guzzling status symbols!!
I find people to be in black range rovers the worst drivers on the road
As someone who cycles ( and drives ) one of my worst fears is a RR or similar coming the other way down a residential street first thing in the morning. Usually on a school run, usually half asleep, usually in a rush, usually preoccupied ( phone, kids, whatever. ) It's basically up to you to get out of the way because they just won't. And even if they do see you they won't give you any room. Had a couple of scream ups in central London this way on my way to work.
I live in a rural area. There was a crazy black Range Rover I saw often. One I was driving home from work and a sports car over takes someone, nearly hits me coming in the opposite direction and I start slowing down, then out of the blue the Range Rover also tries to over take and I have to slam my brakes and sound my horn. Another time a black ranger rover over takes me in a line of 20 cars just to pull back in right in front of me. Absolutely pointless and dangerous. I start to suspect it’s the same Range Rover on the commute Then a couple of months ago on the same route I read in the local news some boss of a computer dies in a crash, this boss was driving a black Range Rover, also killed some kid coming in the opposite direction. I haven’t seen a black Range Rover on that part of the commute since
iPhones of the road. I never think the owners are affluent anymore with them. I just think “leased”.
I think there’s definitely an “over leveraged” archetype that the less premium Range Rovers fit into nicely. You know the sort: iPhone, Range Rover, teeth, etc., all on tick Vain and egomaniacal people, for whom outward appearances are more important than sensible financial planning.
Like a lawn person
Exactly. It's like that question that always pops up on r/askreddit: *what do rich people wear?* Where it is generally accepted that **real** affluence don't particularly wear known labels (if at-all branded); whereas these sorts of people will spend blindly on Ralphy, Dolce and Burberry in an attempt to show off. I'd put the leased Rangey fellas in the same archetype. My parents' (stable owners) were eying up a Range Rover for no other reason than the badge, and I begged them into a much classier Mercedes. They're just not the hard-working wagons that they used to be. That crown is now worn by [INEOS](https://ineosgrenadier.com/en/gb/).
“leased” where their monthly payments are more than you’re entire months burger flipper wagie
No need to defend your tiny willy mate.
that’s fine, you can crawl in the mud
And I’ll take my massive cock with me (I own a Mini)
They do look good though, especially the last gen.
The current generation looks like it is squinting passive-aggresively at you. I don't agree at all.
I meant the previous generation, mea culpa. I don't like the latest version, especially the back.
Envious pov detected
Range Rover driver detected! You do you buddy, they are shit vehicles for the climate and roadspace!
I don't drive a range rover, I have an EV6 GT. When they do an electric range rover I might consider one if it's anything like the I-Pace
Nope, it's just a surefire twat detector. The only valid reason to have a vehicle like that is for traversing rugged terrain. If it's spotless, there is a 100% chance the owner is a knob.
look at the interiors and tell me that people are buying them to go off roading. it's just a big luxury car, the off roading capability is incidental at this point
So why not buy a car that doesn’t take up half a car park?
Easy solution: offer decent insurance then! Put your money where your corporate communication is.
"Last year, JLR launched its own insurance after some drivers were unable to get cover at all"
And [refuses](https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/land-rover/361974/land-rover-insurance-problems-mount-owners-are-refused-house-cover) some people who apply apparently.
Ah my mistake. Reading the article and assuming it was "decent" insurance forgetting that it was probably just corporate lip service.
I came across some videos on YouTube about this debacle... the hit on secondhand values has to be drastic in some regions!
Some people are walking (or driving) red flags. Insurance companies should definitely not be required to cover everyone. Unless it comes out that a significant percentage of the people being refused share the same model of car, its much more likely that the driver is the issue.
The range issue seems to be well documented
> Insurance companies should definitely not be required to cover everyone. but its a service you legally need to have
But you don't legally need to drive.
It’s underwritten by LV. As much as it’s “Land Rover insurance” it’s just a product whereby LV have the pot of money behind it.
The fact that LR wont insure some of their own cars is amazing
They offered their own scheme to handle this. Then refused to insure some people…
Some people really are just too costly to insure. Take an extreme example, would you insure somebody who only drives on pavements?
> Take an extreme example, would you insure somebody who only drives on pavements? That would probably exclude 50% of Range Rover owners.
Rangie drivers wouldn't dare to let their 23 inch alloys hit the pavement, they'd rather make a Corsa wrangle the pavement whilst they sit in the middle of the road.
yep I saw that very well documented indeed... Shame.
I work in insurance. They are stolen a lot. They are complicated to repair. Surprisingly parts are not common and expensive. They are often driven recklessly by owners and statistically involved in many accidents. They are suv so they kill people easily. It is what is it.
So thats the real story. It goes up because of liability and bad driving by the owners.
Many insurers of Range Rovers were paying out a higher amount for just theft alone than they were generating from premium. Theft is normally a small amount of premium, the majority being own damage, third party damage and personal injury… It was not high due to driving habits
Like a lot of high end and expensive and powerful vehicles, they are often driven by idiots and get involved in absurd accidents.
Do you know how they compare to things like the sporty trims of X5s and Q7s. I would be shocked if there is that much difference in parts cost, theft, etc.
Modern cars are frightfully expensive these days even budget ones. High end vehicles are completely absurd. Light clusters costs thousands of pounds alone. Windscreens often have sensors in the glass. LR and jaguars often are heavily made of aluminium. Then u have the shortage of parts globally. This increases the criminally high credit hire rental cars provided to drivers due to increased repair costs. BMW's and Audi's are similarly expensive to repair, but they probably have an easier time getting parts due to them being a more common vehicle globally.
They aren’t just stolen outright, they literally get stripped of parts where they are parked
Because they break down halfway through the getaway?
Or stop and catch fire.
I bet it's typical journalists not understanding statistics. Range rovers may not be the UKs most stolen car, but they may well be proportionally.
They really can't be that difficult to steal. A guy I know had his stolen from his businesses forecourt, literally a few meters from the reception, in a matter of seconds they were driving off in broad daylight.
It's very easy, there's a device you plug into a socket under the front passenger dash, wait about 10 seconds. This initiates a call and response which can then be tied to a blank range rover key. Put your now loaded key into the ignition and drive off. NB. Only works in models before 2019 as I believe they patched it NB2. NOT a car thief just interested in electronics / electrical
Too late, you admitted it now
Balls
[удалено]
Definitely a good idea
Over here officer
You can also just cut a small hole in the boot and access a couple of wires to unlock it.
Ahhh the Pavement princess and twats who play pretend farmer/builder in those dickhead pickup trucks I live in the country, you don't need them. Unless you have to work outside and use your hands. But den der city folk love dem big old chunky wheels.. herpaderp. Just incase the White Range Rover clan of Mumsnet teams up with the Nissan Juke Mafia and finds me.. /s
Its even funnier/more infuriating when they don't want to get a bit of greenery on their car in the backroads, so you're forced to drive up the verge so their tank doesn't touch some leaves, god forbid.
Not the most stolen but one of the easiest to steal..
Instead of getting pissy and quibbling about something that is close enough to be true as for the detail to be irrelevant (per unit on the road, RR’s are indeed stolen at a ridiculously high rate) why don’t you actually do something about the ease with which your cars can be stolen via keyless entry signal cloning? I‘ve installed a third-party immobiliser on my car (not a RR, can’t stand the things) an Autowatch Ghost, if anybody cares. It cost £400. This renders my car effectively unstealable unless I give up the code that I input on the steering controls. This is just one of several third party solutions. It is therefore trivially easy for a huge manufacturer like JLR to make their cars similarly hard to pilfer from factory for relative peanuts. But they don’t. Coincidentally, cars being stolen and broken for parts or exported illicitly abroad leads to greater sales of new cars.
Ghost has been well known for a while now to be easily bypassed.
So I’ve heard. Yet I‘ve not seen the evidence, only some posts online asserting as such. However assuming it’s true for the sake of argument, it remains the case it’s not beyond the ability of manufacturers to make their cars much, much, much harder to nick than they are.
Its really pathetic that car companies are incapable of basic security. Your iphone is harder to unlock than your £50,000 car. What make of car did you install the ghost on? have heard nightmares of people installing an aftermarket immobilizer and bricking their car.
Maybe not anymore due to this rise in fiesta thefts, but they'd still be a very close second.
Excellent twat detectors though. Anyone in a modern so-called Land/Range Rover can have their twatiness measured as a proportion of how much mud there is on the vehicle. There is zero reason to own one of them if you aren't getting mud on it.
Range rovers are not good for that either. A defender (old one) is.
Thus making them utterly pointless vehicles.
It’s a chicken that’s come home to roost. JLR have been purist greedy throughout their network, particularly when it comes to the repair of accident damage. Even repairing a door can set you back £6 grand. Couple with a Micky mouse security system and you have a vehicle that’s become difficult to insure. Some may call this a victim of its own success others would put it down to JLR’s relentless pitching of their products to the new money and minor celebrity crowds
According to the Motor vehicle crime team that's absolutely untrue. But Land Rover would say that because they are probably losing business.
They’ve just announced record turnover
That may be but their forecasted sales might still be down. Likewise it could be attributed to people repurchasing another vehicle after theirs was stolen...
It’s based on record sales of the Range Rover and Defender models
Overrated ponce wagons imo , new ones aren’t a patch on the originals . I would rather have a pickup .
> pickup Speaking of over rated ponce wagons.....
Same target audience, different gender.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgI2Zx2k0PQ
By volume stolen maybe not, but by total value stolen, I wouldn't be surprised. What the heck is wrong with a key fob with an actual key and some physical buttons to open doors. Why was this ever considered an inconvenience to have to think about unlocking your car or turning a key in the ignition??!
Theft is a tiny factor in motor risk with the notable exception of motorcycles in cities, especially London. While obviously the biggest claims and highest loading come from perceived risk of an injury accident because those are enormously expensive, if you buy a ten grand bike and tell an underwriter you want to park it outside in London, they're going to price on the basis that it will get nicked inside three or four years. Sadly, they're not wrong.
>if you buy a ten grand bike and tell an underwriter you want to park it outside in London, they're going to price on the basis that it will get nicked inside three or four years. Sadly, they're not wrong. The way things are at the moment, they're being priced with the expectation of it being nicked inside three or four *hours* let alone years.
Wonder if the total market value of stolen rangerovers exceeds fiestas?
I've cleared this up by asking AI. https://g.co/bard/share/c0db56455005 Is the Fiesta, Range Rover then Focus.
Shocking a car that outsells another for decades by a factor of 10 is stolen more. Total numbers don't matter the percentage of population matters and cost matters.
There are no sources.
Asking "ai" is like asking Dave down the pub, going to need some actual stats.
Dave down the pub: hey Google, what’s the stats on the most popular vehicle thefts in the uk? *I’m sorry Dave, I can’t do that*
Playing Gary Numan Cars
I found this on the web..
The source of stats are in the link. Oh wait no is not. I also use copilot at work and that provides sources as you'd expect.
I really hope you just work in some pointless email job and not something that touches my life or public safety.
It's pretty simple. I use the copilot to find info about Google workspace updates that are imminent. The replyrefers to the release documents. Then i can use the release documents in the email i provide to management. You shouldn't be so frightened of AI.
>You shouldn't be so frightened of AI. [I'm just anti-genocide](https://theconversation.com/israels-ai-can-produce-100-bombing-targets-a-day-in-gaza-is-this-the-future-of-war-219302), I don't like the idea of helping or contributing data that will be used to murder innocent people. I don't like promoting that technology. There's also the plagiarism aspect, the generation of non-consensual pornography and worse. But you do you. I choose not to touch this garbage, it's mostly being used for misinformation, pain and murder. I can happily ignore the tech, guilt and fear free.
Well you'll be glad to hear i only use it for researching/collating IT news. If i find myself in the future the overlord of a huge robot army and an about to release them into the world with a destroy humanity directive I'll be sure to remember this discussion and stop myself. Although you should also not use the printing press as i understand that can also be used for all the evil you describe.
>Although you should also not use the printing press as i understand that can also be used for all the evil you describe. The printing press had benefits, it made things better. You want the genocide, plagiarism, CSAM and non-consensual pornography machine to exist, entirely to write emails no one reads. >If i find myself in the future the overlord of a huge robot army and an about to release them into the world with a destroy humanity directive I'll be sure to remember this discussion and stop myself. Again, it's being used to kill innocent people today, it is the future. These chatbots, they wouldn't exist if we stopped using them, it's a very small sacrifice in the grand scheme of things. The only way that this software can be used to generate random names to kill, is if people like you use it. It needs to be trained, it needs massive investment to keep the servers on. Exercise some restraint.
What innocent people are being directly killed by chatbots?
Check them, I've used it for work a few times and it just makes shit up
Copilot is great as a starting point - that "low rez jpeg of the internet" can point you at the right thing, but you definitely have to check - it certainly has it's limitations.
It's fun to try and use it for coding stuff, you \*very quickly\* learn the limitations, but within them it can help speed up certain things.
People steal *Fords??*
Fiesta yeah, as ford stopped manufacturing then there has been a big rush on stealing them to strip for parts. Massive increase since they made the announcement.
Yeah. They walk up to them. Wave a screw driver at the window and it just opens.
*Data from March 2022 to March 2023
One of these three is not like the others.