Insurance of a black car...

mhaire_s

Hi,

I was talking to my friend recently and she said remerked that the insurance of a black car is higher that that of a light coloured car (due to lack of visibility at night etc).
I'm not so sure. Anyone out there with any views. Does her view hold up?

Comments appreciated,
Merci,
Mhaire

ninty9er

mhaire_s wrote:

Hi,

I was talking to my friend recently and she said remerked that the insurance of a black car is higher that that of a light coloured car (due to lack of visibility at night etc).
I'm not so sure. Anyone out there with any views. Does her view hold up?

Comments appreciated,
Merci,
Mhaire

BullSh1t - While there are statistics showing mor collissions and mor aggressive driving from drivers of black cars, it is an immaterial fact about the car. material facts include engine size and value,

drdre

nah, i think hes just messing with you and you didnot realise that.:D

Max_Damage

mhaire_s wrote:

Hi,

I was talking to my friend recently and she said remerked that the insurance of a black car is higher that that of a light coloured car (due to lack of visibility at night etc).
I'm not so sure. Anyone out there with any views. Does her view hold up?

Comments appreciated,
Merci,
Mhaire

LMAO!!! Who comes up with this bullshít!?

mike65

Tis well known that people driving black cars esp German saloons are psychos while sandal wearing carers for beige hatchbacks are paid by the insurance companies!

Mike.

Stephen

Bull****. They don't even ask you the colour of your car when you apply for insurance.

Trotter

I was told by a fella in AXA that if I put my girlfriend on my policy my quote would go down by about 100 quid... because...


I'd have more to live for.. so statistically I wont drive as fast.


I sh*t you not

Since then I'd believe anything when it comes to insurance.

ninty9er

Trotter wrote:

I was told by a fella in AXA that if I put my girlfriend on my policy my quote would go down by about 100 quid... because...


I'd have more to live for.. so statistically I wont drive as fast.


I sh*t you not

No statistically only one of you can be drivin at a time, she being female would be cheaper (AFAIK) Doesn't work for parents though, plus its a ploy to get her to insure with them too

mike65

That does work for wives/girlfriends and sisters.

Mike.

bazz26

mhaire_s wrote:

Hi,

I was talking to my friend recently and she said remerked that the insurance of a black car is higher that that of a light coloured car (due to lack of visibility at night etc).
I'm not so sure. Anyone out there with any views. Does her view hold up?

Comments appreciated,
Merci,
Mhaire

Total rubbish imo.

Insurance companies don't even ask you what colour your car is when taking out a policy with them.

Fey!

The colour thing is rhubarb, but the partner insurance is true.

I think it comes down to if you're on a journey and get tired, you can switch drivers, which makes you less of a risk on the road. A couple of years ago this was only offered to women to insure their partners; guys had to ask about it!

the_batman

Red cars also cost more to insure, because red cars go faster.

preilly79

somewhat related:

in the states where my wife is from it is more expensive to insure a red car as they're seen to be driven in a more aggressive manner. there may be other reasons for this.

prospect

Colour is rubbish.

Partners thing is true though.

The_Magoo

the_batman wrote:

Red cars also cost more to insure, because red cars go faster.

And take the air outof the spare tyre, it will make the car lighter, and fold your seats down to lower your centre of gravity.:D
Did you know the word gulible is not in the dictionary!

seamus

As said, the colour things is crap.

The partner thing is true because the stats back it up, simple as that. If you're living with someone, then you will spend a larger proportion of your time driving with that person in the car. When they're in the car, you will drive with more caution than on your own. They will also be spending some of the time driving your car, and they're statistically backed up to cost less.

I'm surprised they don't ask if you have any children - surely the existence of children would make one drive safer.

the_batman

seamus wrote:

I'm surprised they don't ask if you have any children - surely the existence of children would make one drive safer.

I wouldn't agree with this statement. I would have thought they could be considered a distraction?

seamus

In theory you could say that any passenger is a distraction, especially older ones since they can/do talk to you. A small child in a child seat strapped into the back, (or a baby in the front) isn't going to present a massive distraction.

Stark

People who spend most of their time commuting Northbound are statistically less likely to be in a crash. It's a Feng Shui thing.

the_batman

seamus wrote:

In theory you could say that any passenger is a distraction, especially older ones since they can/do talk to you. A small child in a child seat strapped into the back, (or a baby in the front) isn't going to present a massive distraction.

If my girlfriend had a child (or dog) strapped in the passenger seat or the back seat, she would spend more time looking at the child/dog rather than looking at the road.

seamus

Ah here. A dog bouncing around the back of a car is completely different from a child with barely any motor skills lying on his back in a seat.

prospect

seamus wrote:

Ah here. A dog bouncing around the back of a car is completely different from a child with barely any motor skills lying on his back in a seat.

What if the child is female?

maidhc

seamus wrote:

A small child in a child seat strapped into the back, (or a baby in the front) isn't going to present a massive distraction.

You must be joking!

Mammys on the school run are scary and seem to believe they can drive while looking backwards at their children. I have had one lucky escape with one veering across the road towards me. They also stay stopped when the lights turn green if little Johnny needs a bit of attention. Grr.

Stark

seamus wrote:

Ah here. A dog bouncing around the back of a car is completely different from a child with barely any motor skills lying on his back in a seat.

What they lack in motor skills, they make up for with lungs and vocal cords.

kikel

Got to be rubbish.

edit: previous poster had posted ecact same thing