That used to be available from one company for motorcycles allowing you to ride any m/c upto a certain capacity-cost dependent on max. capacity you wanted covered.

Hmmm, not so simple methinks...

The class of vehicle is the problem here. How to remember the class when I jump into another vehicle???

If the class is too broad, then I would insure my 2CV and drive my Porsche :-)

Similarly, an any driver policy on a car leads to the possibility of 17yr olds driving a Ferrari :-)

Very large excesses are no good either if the driver doesn't have any money (remember insurance covers Third Parties as well and the driver can cause someone to be paraplegic).

"You can only drive one car at a time" - yes, but you can leave the other ones parked where they can be stolen, rammed, set on fire etc

One area where I would agree with you is where an insurer charges extra for cover on a courtesy car whilst your car is being serviced or repaired, although given the nature of scammers you would need to declare the courtesy car, otherwise anyone for a Ferrari courtesy car??

The problem is - who and how would they determine the 'classes', people and manufacturers would appeal as to which theirs is in, etc. One car may have very expensive parts because they are very reliable/long-lasting/rugged, another may cost the same but is more 'luxurious'/performance/styling-orientated, yet both may cost the same but offer radically different levels of safety, performance and allure to people and theives. That is what, in theory, the insurance groupings are supposedly for. All 'classes' of car would benefit would be those people owning (and the manufacturers of them) cars at the top end of a range (e.g. the Titanium X rather than the LX for a Ford), as they would not pay any more for their car's insurance under such a plan than those owning the bottom of the range. It can't be done.

What IS required, and the governmant only scratched the surface in recent years, is to:

1. Stop the ambulance chasing 'law' claims handling firms from getting involved in dealing with accidents;
2. Stop insurers dictating who are 'approved repairers', which in my view encourages such firms to charge higher rates, carry out repairs that are not needed, and often in concert with 1) lengthen repair times to and/or overcharge for replacement vehicles during the repair, because its either recoverable from the other insurer (who just passes that cost directly to us, whether directly at next year's premium or indirectly through 'general price rises' due to 'increased industry costs');
3. Make buying/selling a car a more formal process that requires use of I.D. (which would need to be proven at the location, such as a passport) and proper forms at a government-type location, e.g. the Post Office or local DVLA centre, which could then instantly verify the authenticity of both parties (this could be done over the phone with dealerships or have a small facility at each, depending upon the size), and whether the new owner is insured to drive away the car. No waiting days/weeks to hear from the DVLA in Swansea about the change in ownership after you post the V5 slip to them.
4. Instant fines for those who don't comply (with a grace period at the time so you can phone [monitored for private sales] your insurer to check the change in policy has gone through. Government (including Plod) will have access to the raw data of what exactly you're insured to drive and when from/to, and any uninsured/under-insured cars taken away, sold and the proceeds (minus costs) going into a fund for the innocent victims of accidents with vehicles, particularly the uninsured. Clamp down hard on such people - no excuses except proven medical ailment or other circumstance that physically prevents you from re-insuring a vehicle.
5. Maybe include in all policies an additional 20% up-front 'deposit' to cover the above circumstance, repayable if not used each year, or taken off the cost of new insurance (from any insurer) when arranged if a problem exists. Insurers as well as the vehicle owner and any named drivers/vice-versa to be informed by law of any change in circumstance that will prevent them from re-insuring a vehicle, e.g. hospital stay, inprisonment, being stuck abroad during a war, transport strike, etc. The onwer must by law inform the insurer if such a circumstance may arise (e.g. travelling to a hot-spot or going in for an operation near to renewal time) so they may discuss (especially if there are named drivers on the policy) what to do about renewal.

Just some thoughts.

Hi,

This crossed with engineer Andy's reply to the post above his. I agree with much of what Andy says.

Reply to Concrete.....

Are these concrete proposals then? (Sorry, couldn't resist that) :-)

There are 50 insurance groups/classes at present. This would need to be drastically changed if anyone is to have any hope of knowing which cars they can drive, even if you are charged for your own highest group car.

A car such as say, a mondeo, would be different according to size of engine as well as year of make and exact specification. So when you drive someone else's car, how would you know?

Anyway, even if you could come up with workable proposals, the cry would be that premiums would rise drastically and it would unfairly penalise the careful driver who only has access to one car etc etc. Divide and rule :-)

It would be interesting if anyone has cost comparisons in Europe, although of course accident rates, third party injury awards and accident repair costs cloud the issue so some weighting would need to be applied.

Edited by mickeybay on 01/10/2016 at 19:11