UKH

Jesus, I feel like a proper moaning b'stard at the moment.

Tories, cost of living, potholes, blah, blah

Just done both mine and my wife's cars, last year combined cost £615, now £864.

Spent two hours on various compare sites and ended up with the best offer being a multi car product otherwise it would have been over a grand. My renewal with the AA was a 100% increase for two people in their late 40s, early 50s, pretty standard cars, no claims, low miles per year, no adverse events, medicals or convictions. Neither of us are professional sportspeople or actors.

We are being hammered from every angle at the moment.

Could be because of the increase in crime due to the lack of funding for police, social services, education and society as a whole...

Welcome to Tory heaven

I believe a crashed electric car is very expensive to fix, even in smaller bumps and insurance companies may have used this as an excuse. I have just had my renewal as well - shocking!

I wouldn't know as ours are ICE but I saw a YouTube video last week explaining why Taycans prices are bombing. Loads of execs had them for low company car tax plus a crappy warranty and a battery replacement cost of £40k! Seriously,  you can grab a massive bargain (relatively). 

Leccy car fixing could well be a huge contributor to insurance hikes.

You have to factor in crumple zone body colour bumpers and multiple air bags, a minor accident costs far more to fix than it used to. Then there is the inevitable claim for whiplash.

Also back in the day if you had a bump ypu would get 3 prices from local body shops and your insurance would pay the cheapest. Most repairs involved a bit of filler and paint. 

Now your car is taken away to their approved repair center and in my experience they are a license to print money. My van has been run in to a few times, small dent on rear door, no sir we can't use filler, that's a new door and repaint, it's also a new door card, clips and all new badges. Me, no just fill it and paint it, I need it back on the road ASAP, sorry sir we can't do that, we need to order the parts in, it will be 4 weeks, here is a hire van.

Once they have got through the procurement process and are approved their job is to make as much as possible on each repair, your insurance doesn't question it because the other guys insurance is paying. 

Yup. Everything Dax H said is true and also the last year or two has seen big increases in the costs of parts, labour costs, electric and heating, shipping and import charges. No doubt car repair businesses have seen there insurance costs rise too. It all gets pushed back to the consumer in the end. 

You mention more pot holes, that might be leading to more claims too. Also, more potholes means more stones on the road and probably more chipped/damaged windscreens. 

Weirdly though, and not trying to make you feel worse, but my van insurance just went down £20 this year. I don't know, I still think insurance is the biggest scam ever! 

Never paid more than £250 for fully comp, no accidents, same car, same address and this year cheapest was £480. Same story from various friends and family around the UK: “Why’s my car insurance doubled”?

I had similar. Van went up a bit, but not loads. Car went up by £20. A lot of friends have had 50%+ increases, which was more along the lines of what I was expecting.

I would love to know how car insurance works. 

A few years ago we rented a flat we had one private garage and one private carpark space and if that didn't take your fancy, then out on the road. When we looked at insurance we looked at a price for each - the cheapest one? Keeping it on the road.... 

It's based on the number/value of claims for each of the sets of stats.  Sometimes what that results in is counterintuitive.

I've been told this is because most cars are now stolen with access to the keys, either from a break in to the owner's house, or with a 'bridge' device that boosts the signal from keyless entry keys.  If the car is parked on a drive/garage, it's pretty obvious which house needs to be targeted to get the keys.  If the car is on the road, the risk of theft is actually lower.

As we become more and more “car locked” as a nation it’s only going one way; people will continue to pay the premiums as the alternative public transport choices erode, hence insurance companies can collectively put prices up with no risk of people cancelling.

Shifting to a “pay per mile” approach to road tax and insurance would be interesting as it would force genuine price comparison at the point of journey commencement and/or make people consider if the journey is essential or could be undertaken on foot/bike etc. 

Also, if you want to spend a while trying to get into a car it's a lot easier if you are tucked away off the road on a private drive than if you are out on the road with cars and people passing.

The margins on those approved body repair shops are very thin and are not licienses to print money.

Yes it is a new car door, becuase customers complain if it is not done any other way.

And in the motor spare parts work...supply chains are still stretched and parts are just way more expensive.

Back in the day is just no longer good enough

I've made the case before (on here I think) which was very unpopular that if you create risk by driving a car that's expensive to repair, you should take some of the liability for a third part claim.

Whiplash should be limited to where loss of earnings can be proven. Most people have paid sick leave so wouldn't qualify.

Third party claim curtesy cars cars shouldn't be a thing. 

If you choose to drive, you accept the risk and should be prepared to bare some of the costs.

If nothing else it would make us all much more polite drivers.

If you want to pay for additional cover, you should be free to do so.

I also think you should have to pay an excess on a third party claim. The way it is at the moment, if you scratch my car, I can claim from your insurance, even if it's just a £50 claim and pay nothing.

 £200 minimum excess on such things would likely reduce tiny fender bender claims a lot.

If you want a pristine car, then you can pay to have the scratch repaired.

well I never knew that - 

Curtesy is a husband's right to the estate and property of his deceased wife, if a child was born when they were married. The rights for surviving male and female spouses differ

Courtesy cars should definitely be a thing on any claim that takes an essential vehicle off the road.

I can live with small dents and scratches but living in a rural location the thing that I need my insurance to cover is the essnetial function of a vehicle which is the ability to get around.

There is far too much focus on vanity and status symbols in the way that  insurance currently works.

But how do you know if it's essential.

As a short term solution I could work form home for a week or two. But if you offer me a car, I'll take it.

If I had to pay for the car, or even a part of it, I might reconsider.

We accept this approach with houses. If a tree fall down in my garden and damages your house, you claim against your insurance, and not mine. Or handle the costs yourself (at least this is what I think the rules were when I looked into it recently).

Agreed. Vanity shouldn't be at someone else's expense.

FTFY

Hmm, not sure about this, Monty.

I wholly disagree, I have had genuine whiplash (whilst misjudging a button ski lift as it happens, embarrassingly). I didnt claim but if I had been injured like this in a car I would have claimed. Personal injury due to someone else's neglect is perfectly reasonable.

I disagree. I work from home but occasionally need the car for emergencies.

Erm, that is the entire premise of insurance, the collective premiums of many to compensate the losses of few. Its how the industry started. Insurance excess further erodes insurance company responsibility and put more on top of the insured. I now pay £600 per year for my dog and had my first claim recently. It cost £1400 in assessments etc (which raises other massive questions) and I ended up paying an excess and a stealth excess which is a new one on me - a contribution to consultancy charges. So I bear the insurance and the excess, which totalled about £1000 so if this year goes by without any other issue, I'm £400 better off for having insurance after the premium and XS, which has cost me £1000s over the years without claiming. I have never claimed on the car yet pay, now, £500 per year and £400 in XS if i do claim

Genuine accidents happen, plus we often need insurance to protect us from uninsured and really bad drivers. And acts of god.

Which we often do, by a premium policy or a Ryannair approach to insurance.

Nonsense, are you saying that I should share the cost if you damage my car?

Most comprehensive cover has a much higher XS, which is designed to limit small claims. So, in my case, I pay over £500 per year and can have a pretty hefty bump which could cost me £399 and I have to pay that too. If it costs me £500-600-700 the calculation is then 'what will the impact on my premium next next year if I claim'

'How very dare you work hard and have nice things'

I wonder how much profit and dividends are washing through the insurance industry...

My mum banged her head at the weekend, 30 miles away.

My daugthers bus was cancelled a few weeks ago due to flooding.

I work from home and this makes zero difference to whether a car was needed in an emergency.

You dont understand insurance or are being purpusely argumentative/obtuse/disingenuous.

Your house doesnt drive down the road at risk of damaaging another house, although your buildings insurance has public liability inbuilt in case a tree from your garden falls onto the roof of another house.

Lets play opposite thinking. Its not, a person with a new Porsche, lucky as they are, will pay considerably larger sums to insure their expensive vanity toy - and have massive a XS - than a person with a clapped out Nova. They will also likely drive much more sensibly and with care and will be mandated to pay comprehensive whereas the Nova driver probs doesnt give a hoot about the odd scratch here or there and will have the option of third party only or third party fire and theft.

You're complaining about the cost of insurance, but you want Rolls Royce cover. Did your whiplash cost you anything? I've had whiplash, it hurts, but with support you can get on with a desk job. otherwise sick leave for many.

I know how insurance works, I suggesting more of it should be optional.

A small amount yes. How many car get a scratch, followed by a claim, and the car is an old beater. It's a waste of money. If you choose to have an expensive car, you own the risk.

There's no excess on third part claims if you're making the claim.

You can have them, but pay for the risk of having them.

For car insurance specifically - the insurers make far less than people think. 

https://www.ey.com/en_uk/news/2023/12/ey-s-latest-uk-motor-insurance-result...

(I can't remember exactly how it's calculated, but the combined ratio is something along the lines of claims and expenses out divided by premiums in, hence the idea of improving back down towards 100%, which is break even)

Taxi not an option?

If my tree falls on your house, you pick up the bill (or your insurance does). I don't make the rules.

It can still cause damage, above example. Fire being another. I think you are being all those insults here.

You really believe people with expensive car drive more carefully? What an arrogant ......

What you're really saying here is the person with the clapped out Nova has to pay a high premium so they are covered against damage to other people expensive cars and vanity of their pristine paintwork. Your views on this is why insurance is so expensive these days.

Also, third party cost more than fully comps on all cars I've owned in the last 10 years. Why? Your views.

Just a thought on this. Let's say the changes I propose means average insurance prices come down by £100. That's being conservative. I think it would be more.

I've only made one third party claim in 20 years of driving.

So I could have saved £2000.

So what if I had to hire a car for a week, or pay a £200 excess, Or maybe get a couple of taxis. I'm still quid's in.

If you're making an third party accident every year you're probably the problem.

What these changes would do is put more of the onus on people with expensive cars, and prevent all the small minor claims being made that don't need to be made. It would also prevent this attitude of "my right of way, I'm not stopping" if it could cost you.

This is the calculation I'm always making. This year my premium is about enough to purchase a spare car. Between the excess and the impact on next year's premium, only very serious damage will be worth making a claim on.

Im complaining at the rapid rise in costs in the insurance industry. The whiplash didnt cost me anything other than pain and even crappier skiing form. I have a desk job and if someone damaged me due to neglectful or dangerous driving it is reasonable that they or their insurance pays compensation if the injury is genuine.

Most of it is but in the case of car insurance it isnt and cars over a certain value are madated to have comperehensive by the industry.

You're conflating two issues. If you damage my car, you should pay. If its a scratch, most people would grunt and move along or ask for a small token gesture but they are perfectly within their right to ask for remediation.

An expensive car costs more to insure and has higher XS thus this risk is being paid for.

That doesnt answer any question.

And people do, your point?

No, and in an emergecy, as both examples were, would have been impossible.

If your tree falls on my house, you or your insurance will pay.

If a fire originates from your home, there is recourse from me to sue you or your insurer, and I'd win. I wasnt insulting, merely describing.

I would bet that those with a more expensive car would be more careful in the main than those who dont have an expensive car. 

No, and you are showing why you dont understand insurance.

Perhaps they feel that you are likely to drive like a loon and damage other people's expensive cars because you're a bitter jealous driver.

You are spectacularly missing the point and the practice of insurance and it seems we will not agree.

Not usually - https://www.thorstrees.co.uk/blog/legal-series/legal-series-am-i-liable/

Only in part.  If I scratch an expensive car, I (or my insurance) ends up paying more to the owner than if it's a cheap car.  As an extreme example, if someone chose to drive a car made of solid gold, should be liable if I accidentally scratch it?  It seems  a bit unbalanced to me.

Wrong. 

https://www.theaa.com/home-insurance/advice/trees-and-home-insurance

"If a neighbour's tree causes damage to your property, you probably won't be able to claim against them. For unlike car insurance, where your insurer can recover losses from a third party if you're not at fault, home insurance only covers the owner's property."

No it isn't. The expensive car premiums aren't higher to cover third party claims. They are high to cover their own high repair costs, theft desirability and replacement costs and in some cases additional likeness of being in an accident due to performance.

It doesn't cover the additional cost to the third party insurance to cover their repairs. That wouldn't make any sense.

Absolutely pathetic.

Only up to a point.  If your neighbour is careless (for example ignoring a rotting tree) they are probably liable, which is similar to the situation for driving.

I can concur with this. The wife's Nissan Leaf collected this morning after she wrapped it around a column in the multi-storey car park last week pulling out of a parking spot. A noticable scrape, rear panel probably needs replacing as it has a hole in it - body shop said they cant do EVs, the Nissan dealer quoted £6600! In the end the insurance company said they would handle it with their own approved garage...

Trying not to think what the premium will be next year... 

Back in the day, I was told to get two quotes for a car repair. The first garage I was at telephoned another, " I will quote 600 for this repair, you quote 700, and you can have the next job. "  " All sorted,Rick, no need to go round to the other garage."

When I told my usual mechanic he said he could have done it for a couple of hundred.

Maybe I should have called him out but I just wanted the car fixing on the other drivers  insurance. Having dedicated/ authorised repairers just allows shady practices between insurance companies and garages. Shysters the lot of them.

Don't worry it's not your responsibility to make that judgement.

Lucky you, many people don't have the option to work from home and they should not have to prove anything in order to get a courtesy car if it is needed.

Why should those who do need a car be penalised because people like you might be selfish enough to take a courtesy car that they don't need?

The increase seems to be in line with the "average Increase" this year although the average premium for one vehicle is now over £1000 ( I think for the first time) for a 43 year old. Not looking forward to finding out how much ours is going up in the summer.

Having said that ours had come down in the last couple of years and isn't much more than it was 10 years ago? I did question if this is normal, so looked it up. Household spending on car insurance was 2.6 billion in 2022 down from 4.1 billion in 2020 (covid related?) You have to go back to before 2011 for spending on car insurance to be less than 2.6 billion?

Things move on.  These days motor technicians etc are well paid , and no longer have to put up with earning pennies because people want car repairs for free and at low cost. 

People are also not prepared to put up with shoddy workmanship and rightly moan if repacked   are not done to a good standard. 

Cars are all …even for a basic one ..more expensive. 

Are you suggesting you would turn down a courtesy car at no expense to you? Really?

Why is is selfish opting to avoid working from home at no cost to me?

Of course I would not turn down something that is a necessity for me.  

You are the one that is arguing that courtesy cars should not be provided for anyone because your own personal circumstances mean that  you do not need one.

So if it was just an inconvenience not having a car you would turn it down. 

No, because my stance is that if you should not be left without a car because someone else has damaged yours.

As far as I can see you are the only one arguing against the simple courtesy of a replacement car whilst yours is off the road.

I thought you said I was selfish for accepting a free car even though you claim no one should be left without a car.

And why can't you take out an insurance policy for a courtesy car if it's so important to you. 

That way those that don't have a need don't need to pay for everyone not at fault to have the option.

Why should anyone have to insure themselves against someone else's neglect?

The alternative view is why should I (or my insurer) pay vast sums for a minor accident when such things are inevitable with millions of cars on the road in close proximity.  Should the balance shift more towards those those who take the risk such small accidents having a large effect on them cover the costs themselves?

Just had my renewal in today for buildings insurance.  Increase of more than 100%.
 

Nothing has changed, I’ve not made any claims, exceptionally low crime area.

Mine is coming up. I fully expect a hit on this too.

I might have some sympathy for your view with regard to minor incidents but how do you realiably decide to draw the line between a "minor accident" and damage that is serious enough to take a car off the road in order to provide a timely replacement when it is essential?

If it is a minor scratch then I probably wouldn't bother about getting it repaired at all and if I did then I understand that the repair shop are likely ro provide a courtesy car whilst they do the work.

However, if my car is taken off the road immediately due to your error then I need to be back mobile very quickly and the responsibiility quite clearly lies with you and your insurer.

They aren't.  Plenty of people go through life with no car accidents at all ever.  I don't believe my father has ever had one, for instance, and he's mid 70s.  I've had one part-fault which was due to youthful incompetence, and two other shunts from behind which were caused by the other driver not paying attention, for which they absolutely should cough up.

If you have lots and consider them inevitable some more driving training may be of use to you.  And if you're lazy enough to go round dinging doors, don't expect me to be nice to you if you do it to mine, it's very easily avoided by putting your hand round the back of the door as you get in/out to protect the other car.

As for anything more serious, I want a professional inspection at least to ensure there's no invisible structural damage.  Under no circumstances would I ever let a bump go or accept cash - if it happens it's going through the insurers so I can ensure my car is safe afterwards.  And if the bumper (!) is uninsured they're getting shopped in.

You really don't need to personalize this. As it happens, I have t caused any. My point is in general they will happen because of volume of cars, luck and human nature. Pointing to odd examples.doesn change that.

And this is why premiums are so high. If people treat cars as works of art rather than utilities

My car isn't a work of art, it's about 7 years old and has a few scratches and the likes from when I've been loading stuff into it.  But if someone else carelessly damages my property through their laziness and negligence then it's only right they pay to put it right.  Most car accidents are caused by bad driving or negligent opening of doors, or by choosing to park in spaces that are too small etc, not by genuine unforeseeable accidents.

It's not just cars.  If some muppet running across a railway station coffee in hand chucked it all over my suit I'd expect them to proactively pay for the dry cleaning and apologise profusely.

If you wrong someone, however minor, you willingly and apologetically put it right, end of.

My insurance just jumped by 300 quid, and that’s with maxed out no claims and with my last (non-fault) claim having fallen out of five year scope.

Really!? You sound ridiculously precious. If someone accidentally spilt something on me, I'd expect a. apology  and nothing more. If they started to try and charge me dry cleaning bills, I'd tell them to piss of 

No, I just believe in the principle that if you wrong someone it's on you to proactively and willingly right the wrong, particularly if what you were doing was negligent (e.g. running with a coffee in your hands, or driving badly, or opening a car door into another car).

Car accidents aren't caused by luck (unless you're unfortunate enough to experience an unforeseen mechanical failure like a tyre with plenty of tread blowing out - but this sort of genuine accident is very, very rare).  They're caused by negligence.  Indeed the term "accident" is a bad one to start with, hence why the Police now use the term RTC (collision) instead.

That doesn't mean to say I'm a perfect driver - I'm not.  But if my driving error causes damage to someone else's property, or worse to their person, I'm going to be willingly handing over my insurance details so it can be put right.

I could, to be fair to you, see a point in reducing administration by having an "excess" of about £500 on claims, under which your own insurer would settle the claim without any impact on no claims, a bit like a glass claim which tends to come to this sort of figure.  That would make things cheaper by reducing admin.  But I can't accept the idea that it's OK to damage someone else's property without putting it right properly - and doing so willingly, proactively and with good grace.

Do they? Beyond the frankly pathetic £109.40/week (pre tax) of SSP?

Sorry, you've lost me here. If they've spilt something on your clothes, why are they then sending you dry cleaning bills? Isn't it your clothes that have been soiled/damaged?

Yeah other way round of course. I was replying quicky to Neil 

They are at times.This idea that everything is someone's fault which requires legal redress is unhealthy.

Humans are error prone. Making a mistake or momentary lake of attention isn't negligence it's just being human. Airlines etc rely on reams procedures to try and avoid this but that wouldn't be practical for cars, and doesn't entirely work anyway.

When it's applied to genuine accidents in wider life yes.  However, with road traffic, accidents are pretty much always caused by not following the rules - speeding, fiddling with your phone/the radio, changing lanes when you're not supposed to, not driving so you can come to a safe stop in the distance you can see to be clear etc.  If you drive fully within the rules (and with a measure of common sense, e.g. not parking in a space that's too narrow and dinging the door of the next car) the chance of you causing one is very, very low.

The vast, vast majority of car accidents are caused by bad driving.

What's the point where you draw the line between shrugging your shoulders and saying "These things happen", and deciding that whoever caused the damage should take responsibility for it and offer redress?

Would you expect a homeless person to pay for your suit?

So do we let those with expensive high liability cars set the price that low income drivers have to pay for their insurance. Do you think that's fair?

I would rather a model were you unsure your own stuff. If you choose to go expensive you can pay for the liability.

An example from my way home where nothing happened but easily could:

I parked centrally in a marked bay. Getting out was very tight because the car next door was large and took up all their bay to the line.  I could very easily have marked their door getting out. If I had, I don't think that's bad driving and I don't think I should have needed to pay them anything.  It's  just life.

In most areas it done considering genuine negligence.  Up-thread we had the tree falling on a neighbour's greenhouse example.  If the tree is healthy and there was no reason to suppose it would fall, it's the neighbour's problem.  If the tree-owner knew it to be dead and did nothing it's their problem.  This seems reasonable to me.  I'd apply something similar to cars.  Insisting that absolutely everything is someone's fault, and even minor scratches requires £1000s in repair costs, makes this impossible, and drive up premiums.  

I broadly agree but there other side of things is that some people (e.g. 18  year old men) are more likely to cause damage so it seems unreasonable that they would get away with that.    Some sort of excess based on the value of the care you drive perhaps?  Say 10%, so if you drive a £100k car, you pay the first £10k regardless, but if you drive a £1k car only the first £100.

That's electricity for you.

Unless they have just spilt your own pint of beer on you. Then it's a new pint. 

What that leads me to believe, is that in the current climate, they can charge you an amp and a leg for repairing electric cars.
To make it worse, resistance to this is probably futile.

I thought about this as I was typing my last post. At the time I was wondering if a points system or PCN or similar could be used. Ideally means tested.

But didn't put too much thought into it.

Ohm my god!

Ohm my god!

Certainly if I'd knocked someone's pint over I'd buy them another one straight away.  They wouldn't even have chance to say it was OK before I did.  A bit of cack-handedness can be understood in a pub given that the purpose of the place is to consume something that does make you a bit less coordinated, but like the car you still have to put things right if you do do something bad to someone.

If there's not enough room to park in the space without damaging the other vehicle (even if it's parked badly) you just park elsewhere.  Or you take extreme care - it's very easy - put your hand between the door and the other car and you can't damage it.  Or if you really can't be bothered get some rubber edging for your door as used to be common in the 80s and 90s.

I might forgive it if it's a kid or if a sudden gust of wind caught it on a very windy day (even in that sort of case I'd still expect a profuse apology), but just saying it's OK like that is careless and inconsiderate of others' property.

You shouldn't need to pay anything because you shouldn't be so careless as to do it.  It's very easy to take steps to ensure you don't.

FWIW I wish car companies would go back to there being black plastic bumpers down the side of the doors, which prevents this happening.  But we are where we are.

Well I disagree. It was a marked bay I was correctly in. If people are so precious about their paint, they should park elsewhere, not expect me to or pay for their vanity 

I think your confusing common decency with liability here. In a pub you have no duty of care over other pub users when it comes to spilling a drink. You are legally under common law only required to use reasonable skill and care, which is a pretty low bar in a pub (I'm keeping that pun in there).

Basically if you tried to sue me for spilling a pint in a pub you would probably loose.

But, common decency would mean I would put it right regardless.

I don't think this is at all relevant to driving a car where you do have a duty of care (think snail in the ginger beer case) to other road users and reasonable skill and care means not crashing into them. Decency has nothing to do with it (although it helps).

In order to explain why I think you should insure your own stuff, let's apply the insurance model to a lower risk scenario, and let's keep it with drinks.

Ok, so it's been determined that there's a reasonable expectation not to have a drink spilled on you when walking down the high-street, so in order to ensure that those carrying drinks has the necessary liability cover it's been mandated that you have to have insurance. Odds and claim sizes are small so the premium is tiny.

Bet then rich kids started wearing trainers worth thousands of pounds, and all off a sudden premiums start shooting up. They become very picky about how they are cleaned and repaired so claim costs increase further. Then insurance companies are required to loan them an equivalent pair whilst they are being fixed building this entire lucrative industry around drink spillage claims.

Fortunately, we live in a world where if you do choose to wear expensive clothing, it's your risk and you carry that risk.

I'm a careful driver and wouldn't dream of touching somebody else's car. I don't need insurance premium liability risks to be that way.

Being correctly in a bay doesn't give you carte blanche to damage others' property.  It's very easy not to, just take a little care and put your hand round the back of the door as you open it.

This is the norm, although, I do wish car manufacturers put more effort into protecting cars form these incidents. Replacement plastic strips should be cheap and easily available on all cars. That way if your car gets dinged in a supermarket it's a £20 fix regardless of what car you have.

They should open source the designs of their protection so aftermarket companies can make them so there will always be a competitively priced supply.

If you choose to have a car that has fully exposed bodywork with no protection then you've created that risk.

I do agree car manufacturers should do it better.  I don't for instance get the opposition to simple black plastic bumpers, which basically remove the issue - if it does get scratched give it a quick polish with a household product and it's good as new.  And why are we obsessed with alloy wheels when you can have steels with a plastic trim that's quickly replaced for a low cost if damaged?

(I would actually rather have a car with simple black bumpers and steel wheels with trims - but hardly anyone wants to sell me one!  I think it's pretty much only Dacia...)

I think too many cars don't have protection that that isn't really a valid argument, and in any case there is no argument for not being careful with others' property when it's easy to do so.  Fit a door edge strip to your car if you're really that bone idle and inconsiderate.

There are too many reasons why accidents/mishaps can happen.

The wind catches it unexpectedly, kids add a whole other variable (I've been lifting a toddler into a car seat only for them to kick at the wrong moment, several times, just luck there wasn't a close car), then when they start using doors themselves good knows how that will be managed,  you can open a door between the notches such that can click to the next notch, then I've had cars park so close to me it's simple not possible to get in without crushing your fingers.

I think you get the idea.

The idea that any of the above means a claim on your policy followed by at least three years of quite significantly higher premiums is unjust. 

Yes, true.  Duty of care is significantly reduced by the fact that those entering a pub accept that it's an establishment for the purpose of consuming something that makes you more negligent in your behaviour, and thus that that is to be expected.  Of course there's a reason we don't allow driving after consumption of that thing...

(And nonetheless I'd always replace a pint I knocked over, as that's just what a reasonable person does, as you say!)

True.

I can see the point in having a limit to the repair cost liability which you'd have to insure above yourself - but it'd have to be carefully determined what the level was, and I can't see it being reasonable for it to be below the cost of an average brand-new family SUV so it's going to be at least £50K, which most claims are probably significantly below.  We aren't really thinking about Rolls Royces, Range Rovers and Porsches here - those are going to be involved in a tiny number of crashes because they're a tiny minority of cars.

The price of cars generally has roughly doubled over the past 10 years or so - well in excess of inflation - and that's pretty much across the market.  Even an old banger that's probably not going to get through the MoT used to be about £500 and is now likely to be a grand or so.  That's the real problem, and aside from the admin costs and personal injury* it is going to mean significantly higher premiums.

* This has got silly too and itself contributed to pushing costs up, and I'd definitely be supportive of something that would rein it in to sensible levels - but if your incompetent driving puts me in a wheelchair I don't see why you shouldn't be required to pay all the costs of adapting my house, car etc.

One thing that could be worth consideration is allowing a cheaper policy which would have an excess on the third party component - but you'd still have to pay it, it would just mean you would get a cheaper policy based on your confidence that you would be more careful and so be less likely to cause minor damage through laziness like car park scrapes and door dings.

I can see this, I did give them as examples as to where I'd probably just be accepting of a profuse apology.

It is not hard to avoid this, keep your hand between the door and the other car until you've closed it with the other hand, or if you aren't flexible enough to do that then add rubber strips to *your* door.  Central MK parking spaces are notoriously narrow so I end up doing this every time I go there and it's really not hard.

If another car parks too close to you after you parked correctly between the lines, *and* you try to put your hand there and it still fails, then you've done what you should.  But I'm not with the other poster that if there's not enough room it's fair game, if the space isn't wide enough for you as it is pick another.

I do think there should be room for a "small claim" type part of the policy, i.e. to get Dent Devils and the likes to push a door ding you did to someone back out for a small excess that's just similar to a glass claim and doesn't affect your policy or NCD.

However there's no excuse for being lazy either.  It's very easy as an adult not to open a door and just slam it back on the other car as I've seen happen loads.

I like both of these ideas. I know we will never get to a place any time soon where car insurance is completely optional, but I think there will be a lot of low hanging fruit that would help.

And we absolutely shouldn't, even if we do make changes to it to reduce the admin of claims.  Not giving people any liability* for their actions would harm careful drivers as there'd be far more out there who just didn't care about their old banger, as the cost barrier to entry would be much lower.

Those people are much better riding a bicycle** with which they can't do as much harm.

* Which would be the effect if you had to sue them to get your car fixed as they had no policy. And they might not have the money to pay.

** It's notable that many cyclists are insured by way of a generalised third party clause on their home policy, but probably don't know it.  Not all policies have this but a lot do.

You're right, but at the moment we have the opposite problem.

I see so many drivers who believe they have a right of way and drive dangerously at worst, or non-defensively as they know "they are in the right" and any claim will go their way.

This gets out of hand with brake checks as the default is the person behind is liable.

My mother in law was inching out of a junction with terrible visibility, a car came along the road and did nothing to give her space she was already occupying. Mother in law found at fault.

I don't know which of the two problems is worse, so some pain on both sides may be the best all rounder in terms of safety.

It's certainly true that some people don't drive defensively enough.  I'd probably agree with it being a "defence" in insurance terms if one can prove (very easy using dashcams these days) that another driver who could easily have taken easy evasive action to prevent the action failed to do so.

For one very clear cut example, someone overtakes you and has judged it badly and the person being overtaken doesn't spot this and lightly lift off to speed up the manoeuvre and allow it to be completed without an accident once it's become clear they aren't going to abort it.]

I also think defensive driving should be part of the (probably theory) test and part of the Highway Code.

I had to take a defensive driving course due to totting up points in a company car. It’s changed my driving immeasurably for the better and I’m completely chilled out at the wheel.