Weird statistics and car insurance

Like many people I drive a car, by choice it’s a poor man’s 4 x 4 Hyundai Santa Fe, but it’s comfy and at least I’m assured of getting out of the street in the winter when the snow that we were supposed to have kissed goodbye too (according to the in-experts) comes around again. Because I’m a law abiding type I’m insured, pay the tax and have it MOT’d. Normally insurance would be a choice like home contents etc, but because I’m driving over a ton of metal around at fairly high speed at ground level I can see the case for having insurance, should the worst happen. What I’m not happy about though is the fact that others don’t think the same way for a variety of reasons, though mostly to do with cost. I’m lucky, I am over 25, have a clean current driving license and I shop around each year for a better deal, even so my premiums are still higher than I’d like and I dread having an accident with the excess thrown in if it were my fault, but that’s the risk you take. For the younger people though and those on a tight budget, car insurance can be a nightmare, hideously expensive and financially out of reach, so a good few don’t bother with insurance, they take a risk they wont get caught and if or when they do have an accident that pushes up the premiums for all of us and possibly drives more people into not bothering, a vicious circle, though I dare say some do it because they are cheapskates or simply criminal.
Mail.
Almost a third of motorists are driving without insurance in some parts of Britain, a report reveals today.
Their reckless behaviour costs claims firms up to £500million a year – and adds an average of £30 to every single annual premium.
The damning figures go some way to explaining why the cost of running a car is rocketing for law-abiding drivers.

There was also something else a bit odd about those areas so I and a few others did some checking on the postcodes…

B6 Aston Muhammad Afzal ,Ziaul Islam MBE, Ayoub Khan

B8 Washwood heath Tariq Ayoub Khan Mohamed Idees Ansar Ali Khan

B9 Bordesly Green Mohammed Aikhlaq Shaukat Ali Khan Shafique Shah

B10 South Yardly Nawaz ali, David Willis, Daphne Gavid

B12 Nechells Zahir Ali, Rashid Chauhdry and Yvonne Mosquito

B21 Sparkbrook Shockat Ali Tony Kennedy

B10/21 Lozells & East Handsworth Don Brown, Wazim Zafar, Hendrina Quinnen

BD3 Bradford moor Riaz Ahmed, Ghazanfer Khaliq, Mohammed Shafiq

BD3 Bowling and Barkerend Imran Ahmed Khan, John Antony Robertshaw, Zameer Hussain Shah,

BD8 Manningham. Asama Javed, Mohammad Amin, Shabir Amin,

BD9 heaton ward Sajid Akhtar,Rizwan Malik, Mohammed Masood

M12 Longsight Abid Latif Chohan, Luthfur Rahman, Suzanne Richards

Can anyone explain this coincidence?
Yes, this is a tilt at a certain religious group and no I’m not presuming all the uninsured are of this group, that would be bigoted of me after all, but it does strike me as odd. This is also coupled with reports that it is quite normal to find a licence and insurance being shared by dozens with the same name. oddly enough from the same religious grouping too.
It strikes me that the system used if we must legally hold car insurance needs to be overhauled to a state where it would be difficult to own a car and not have insurance. Or more draconian would simply be the crushing of any vehicle found being driven without insurance or a license and jail time for the uninsured.
Yes I know that isn’t very liberal of me, but I do believe that if I abide by the rules (unfair as they sometimes are) then others should abide by them too, particularly when the cost of not abiding by the rules hits me in the pocket.

24 comments for “Weird statistics and car insurance

  1. Boots McGonagle
    September 13, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    “… if I abide by the rules … then others should abide by them too”. Why?

    • September 14, 2011 at 6:44 am

      Is that a serious response?

      Because without this, society is divided.

  2. Al Jahom
    September 13, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    This post is a good point wrapped up in a litany of fail.

    I can’t be bothered to deconstruct your last 2 paragraphs, but they are utterly reactionary nonsense. They are particularly worthy of the comments section of the Daily Mail.

    And you drive a Korean car. Unclean.

    • September 14, 2011 at 6:45 am

      It’s reactionary nonsense to expect everyone to abide by laws equally?

  3. Mudplugger
    September 13, 2011 at 9:37 pm

    It is only the publication of lists such as that which enables an objective analysis of the common thread. They are all predominantly ethnic areas – no denying it.

    So why don’t the local Plod spend all day touring round with their fancy ANPR cameras and confiscate every third car on the street ? Because they’re shit-scared of the consequences – those are no-go areas, hence the problem continues, and will continue until they graps the nettle.

    Another interesting comparison is the source of most crash-for-cash incidents and ‘enhanced claims’ for phantom injuries – yes, you’ve guessed it – they’re all from those same districts too. Almost every street-corner has an Accident Management Company office, that should be a clue.

    It is not racist to point out these facts, because they are FACTS – not opinion, not bigotry, not discrimination, just objective statistical FACTS.

    The most depressing fact is that no-one in authority has the balls to address it – and then they wonder why the BNP and EDL get support !

    • September 14, 2011 at 6:47 am

      Spot on!

  4. Ripper
    September 13, 2011 at 11:23 pm

    Congratulations QM, you have just proven yourself to be one of the sheep. Do you really think that if uninsured driving was completely eradicated tomorrow, that your premium would go down? If you do you are deluded. The insurance companies are raking it in hand over fist and the only reason that premiums are rocketing is greed. Don’t forget that now the new law is in effect that its an offence to keep an uninsured vehicle, the insurance companies can have a field day with a captive audience. They need little if any excuse to charge eye watering premiums.

    There is no other industry where a company’s profits are protected by the law in this way. Add to that the fact that the insurance companies cry like babies because there are so many claims for fake injuries like whiplash, yet they themselves are complicit in this scam by the fact that they take payment from those obnoxious no win no fee lawyers for referals.

    “Almost a third of motorists are driving without insurance in some parts of Britain, a report reveals today.”

    Then name three. If the body that compiled this report know how many are uninsured then it logically follows that they know who they are. This, in typical style, is followed by some statistics pulled straight from the air.

    • September 14, 2011 at 6:47 am

      “Then name three.”

      Check out your local paper’s ‘Courts’ section. You’ll find far more than three.

      • Ripper
        September 14, 2011 at 12:41 pm

        Fair enough Julia, perhaps I would, but my point in saying that, is that everyone seems to be overlooking the insurance database. If a vehicle is not insured its registration will appear there, and the vehicle does not have to be driven on the road for the police to confiscate and crush it. I believe they can take it from your garage or off your drive.

        So they don’t actually need ANPR to know if an owner has insured their vehicle or not. It naturally follows that if, from the database, they know which vehicles have no insurance, then they also know who those owners are.

        There will be a few who will declare SORN and still take the vehicle on the road, but they won’t be able to get away with that for long.

        Anyway I apologise for straying from the main point of this article but I believe that its based on useless information.

        • formertory
          September 14, 2011 at 2:39 pm

          The problem with relying on the insurance database is that there are many cases recorded of properly insured vehicles not appearing. Companies have 28 days IIRC to register your vehicle and policy; admin screwups account for some non-registrations, but if you renew at the last minute (as most do) and your vehicle doesn’t appear for 28 days – and Plod nicks you and crushes your motor on Day 12 – you’d be pretty pissed off.

          It very often helps when information sources work properly.

          • Ripper
            September 14, 2011 at 3:21 pm

            A vehicle will appear on the database whether it is insured or not, and also when its last insurance ran out so the 28 days can be accounted for. Plod won’t nick you or crush your motor within that time and that’s where the ANPR comes in because you will definitely get nicked if you’re spotted on the road during that time, and that’s your chance to wave your new policy at them if you are insured. When I renewed recently I downloaded and printed my insurance certificate so it was in my posession before I actually drove the car.

            But I digress. Either way you look at it they know who the people are who have no insurance, and their addresses. Makes the DM article a bit of a moot point.

            I do take your point about admin screwups though, but that’s not likely to happen to 4% of the nation’s motoring population.

            • formertory
              September 14, 2011 at 3:32 pm

              OK, fair enough. Happy to accept I’m wrong on the 28 days thing; my understanding (?) was based on several well-reported examples of people being stopped as apparently uninsured, and Plod proceeding to impound the vehicle although in fact, it had been reinsured. They refused to check or to allow 5 days to produce documents.

              The 28 days thing was pointed out as a major weakness of the system 🙄

  5. September 14, 2011 at 6:40 am

    “Yes, this is a tilt at a certain religious group …”

    Is it the religion, though, or the ethnicity?

  6. September 14, 2011 at 9:25 am

    What was your method for checking the postcodes to get the names?

  7. Sue
    September 14, 2011 at 9:29 am

    I always thought it was a little weird that you had to have a “tax disc” and nothing to show for insurance. Wouldn’t it just be easier to say, have something stamped indelibly on the number plate (renewable every time)?

    Everyone could plainly see who was insured or who was not. It would certainly stop many people driving without insurance and would be much easier for the police to identify.

    • September 14, 2011 at 9:44 am

      The police have their number plate recognition cameras that can spot an uninsured car in seconds. As for everyone else, well what business is it of theirs?

    • September 15, 2011 at 6:56 am

      I believe that’s the system in the states, with a little insurance ‘sticker’ on display.

      I suspect we’ll never introduce that here, because it would highlight who the main culprits are much quicker than an analysis of the postcodes…

  8. September 14, 2011 at 9:42 am

    As Ripper says above, insurance companies have a captive audience.
    It is the law that every vehicle must be insured before it’s driven, therefore insurance companies can charge what they like.

    I am no fan of laws that penalise people on the off chance that they may hurt someone by their actions, such as breaking the speed limit. If you decide that a safe speed is above the posted limit and you are right and you don’t even come close to causing harm to anyone, you can still be hit with a fine.

    It’s the same with car insurance. You must pay, in my case £550 to a private company on the off chance that you cause an accident. I’ve been paying this premium for 17 years nearly and I’ve never caused an accident. I have had someone bump my car and stump up the cash to avoid going through the insurance. Fair enough.

    I think you should only be penalised for an actual crime, not the possibility of causing one. If you think you are in a position to pay up after causing an accident, they why be forced to buy insurance?

    I would always have car insurance, not because it’s the law but because if I hurt a person I would not have the money to compensate. I have considered not buying contents insurance because all the crap I own is worth naff all. I do buy it though because the premium is peanuts.

    I beleive that if car insurance was made non compulsary, competition would bring down the price (I don’t mean Meerkat style competition but real competition where companies are fighting to get customers to buy something they may not want), and the lower prices would induce more people to get covered.

    Back to the original theme of the post, ethnic miorities being the biggest culprits for not having insurance, who created the society where our darker brothers beleive the law does not apply to them?

    What would happen if insurance companies put £30 on every Asians policy rather than doing it to all of us? Uproar! The practice of giving women cheaper cover has already been banned. You would think that if the insurance companies thought they could cover women for less, then that should be their descision. The same if they want to charge Begums and Iqbals more.

  9. Bill
    September 14, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Very few people actually own their cars. They can sell and buy cars but legal title always stays with enitiy that has the certificate of origin in their possession. For the overwhelming majority of vehicles both on and off road its the DVLA.
    This is why the DVLA can turn up and lift a vehicle onto their wagon and crush it and why you are legally the registered keeper of the car and not the registered owner.

    So the scam goes on. We all keep cars but to use them on or off road we have to insure them and hand over road tax or whatever it’s called these days and get a driving licence from the DVLA which has to be renewed on a regular basis so it’s no wonder that people like those highlighted in the original article get round such a scam the best way they can.

    What the DVLA, plod, councils etc never make clear is how many of these people driving around without the right piece cause loss to any other road user nor how this compares to those driving around wth all the correct pieces of paper. Without this vital piece of information it’s all just a load of bollocks.

    • Ripper
      September 14, 2011 at 2:18 pm

      Yes, I believe you can de-register your vehicle, then if the DVLA confiscates it then it becomes plain theft. I’d do this myself if I could find out more about it, I was watching a guy who had done this on the TPUC website a couple of years ago but he’s not given any info or updates on the situation.

      • Bill
        September 14, 2011 at 4:02 pm

        You are right. The only successful way I have known people get around the ownership scam is to import a vehicle and keep its certificate of origin.
        Car ownership is such a cash cow for government they go to extraordinary lengths to obfuscate things. Having imported a car from Japan myself in 2006 I am really annooyed that I only discovered the certificate of orgin thing in 2008… but next time.
        (Next time could be a while as the car is a Toyota Hilux Surf and it is showing no signs of wearing out even though its now 14 years old. Even better it runs sweet as a nut on veg oil, hehe!)

  10. Lord T
    September 14, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    I’d assume that list has the highest first. So it is not even a third in the highest place and it tapers off. So it is nowhere near a third across the country. Not one area was over a third so how can it be on average. A load of bollocks as a headline grabber.

    But the figures are increasing and to be honest I find it difficult to blame them. £2K for a young driver in a car and if he buys a banger for £300 doesn’t get it taxed or insured and providing he doesn’t kill anyone, a small risk, he gets fined £500 tops. Seems a bargain to me. The law is an ass.

    I wonder what I would be doing now if I was growing up in this mickey mouse country. Probably driving without insurance just as a starter. What chance do our young people have?

  11. September 14, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    “a poor man’s 4 x 4 Hyundai Santa Fe” Not so poor. The V6 model is a fun drive in all weathers and even the in line 4 isn’t so shabby. Fords, Dodges, GM’s etc are all clunky by comparison. BMW and Mercedes are over rated and over priced, with the two best mid range 4×4’s on the market being the New model Toyota Rav4 and Subaru Forester.

    Of course you could go for a Range Rover, but I wouldn’t advise it.

    As for the lack of insurance coverage in less than ethnically diverse (Predominantly ‘ROP’ – snark) areas of Brum, tell us something new.

    • September 15, 2011 at 8:52 am

      Was referring to the price.
      It’s a lovely car to drive, very reliable and comfortable. has the added benefit of warming up the planet according to the greenies too 😉

Comments are closed.