Tag Archives: confused.com

cost of motoring, women drivers

Women drivers face increased bills if annual MOTs scrapped

FOXY Lady Drivers Club supports today’s research findings that the cost to the UK of scrapping the annual MOT could be as much as £1.5 billion.

Government claims that reducing MOT frequency will also reduce the financial burden on motorists are challenged today in a report which shows the opposite – that proposals to scrap annual testing will hit both motorists and the UK economy hard.

The report by Pro-MOTe is titled “A cost too far” and includes research that the average female motorist would be more than £57 worse off under a less frequent MOT system than she is today.

It also shows that the overall cost to the UK in increased costs of road deaths, injuries and damage, as well as 40,000 lost jobs and reduced tax revenues, will be some £1.44bn.

The research compares costs of the existing 3-1-1 MOT system (where cars over three years are tested every year) with the 4-2-2 system more commonly used elsewhere in Europe (where cars over four years old are tested every two years).  It estimates that under 4-2-2, the average motorist would incur annual SAVINGS of £24.44 a year made up of:
– £20 a year in saved MOT fees
– £3.30 a year in saved personal time
– £1.14 a year in saved fuel costs as a result of fewer visits to a MOT station

But the average motorist would incur annual INCREASES of £81.81 under 4-2-2 from:
– £30.59 in additional repair costs
– £46.05 in additional insurance premiums
– £5.17 in additional fuel costs of £5.17

The research was carried out using data from the DfT and the Treasury, and motor industry sources.  Pro-MOTe is supported by the RAC, AA, road safety campaigners, industry groups and insurance companies to campaign against plans to reduce MOT frequency.

Commenting on the report, Pro-MOTe co-ordinator, Bill Duffy, said:

“This research shows that scrapping annual MOT testing would not only be dangerous but prove very expensive too, to both drivers and taxpayers alike. The Government has suggested that reducing the number of safety tests would reduce the financial burden on motorists.  Yet the truth is exactly the opposite.  Moving to two-yearly tests would mean extra repair costs, extra insurance premiums and extra fuel costs for already hard-pressed motorists. And the cost to the UK economy in lost jobs and higher costs arising from the additional accidents that we would see due to less frequent testing would be significant.”

Hear hear Bill. This is a poorly considered proposition and it’s time it was scrapped. This is also costing road safety, consumer organisations like ours and directly affected motor industry businesses a lot of unnecessary time and money attempting to do this research for our Government.

An interesting and possibly previously ignored dimension here seems to be that insurance companies plan to respond to the scenario of an increased number of unroadworthy cars by raising premiums for us all.   Then motorists would surely hold the Government responsible for another rise in the cost of motoring…

So it’s time to shut the UK’s back door to this proposal now. Heaven knows we all have more productive things to be getting on to benefit not threaten the UK economy and its motor industry.

FOXY

For further information go to the Pro-MOTe website or contact Ed Owen at EdO@pro-mote.org.uk or on 07774 759653. Pro-MOTe was launched in October 2011 to press the Government to drop plans to reduce the frequency of MOT testing. The launch report “Dangerous, expensive and unwanted” is available at http://www.pro-mote.org.uk/assets/download/PRO-MOTE_launch_report.pdf

Supporters of the Pro-MOTe campaign include AA, Andrew Page, Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel, Autoglass, Aviva, Brake, British Cycling, Confused.com, Driver’s Edge UK, Euro Car Parts, FOXY Lady Drivers Club, Garage Equipment Association, GEM Motoring Assist, Halfords Autocentres, Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation, Kwik Fit, MOTEST, MOT Trade Forum, MOT Club, National Tyre Distributors Association, Parts Alliance, RAC, The Retail Motor Industry Federation, Road Safety Analysis, Road Safety GB, The Scottish Motor Trade Association, Tyre Industry Federation, UNITE.

women drivers

Dear Justine…

Dear Justine Greening…

We know you have a lot on your plate and you probably didn’t expect to get the transport job in such a hurry but, on behalf of  motoring mums and daughters across the UK, can you please reassure us VERY SOON that the UK will be maintaining its MOT status quo in favour of safer roads in future.

This means saying NO to the EU; opting for the UK’s 3-1-1 MOT model and not the EU’s 4-2-2 version in the face of previous government figures showing that this will cost us lives and ‘000s of jobs.

Just to remind us all, this is what the MOT industry experts are saying to encourage motorists and motor industry colleagues alike to sign the Pro-MOTe petition…

Edmund King, AA President
“All too often you spot cars driving with a headlight, tail light or brake light out. The only time many of these drivers do anything about it is when the car goes for an MOT test or if traffic police pull them over. The Government’s idea to extend the MOT test intervals may be portrayed as an olive branch to drivers by reducing the burden on them, but the AA and three-fifths of our members believe it is a false saving which could lead to more expensive repairs later, and that’s before the safety argument. The Government should state that they will not change the frequency of MOTs.”

Jonathan Fox, of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel
“At a time when we have the lowest rate of road deaths in any equivalent developed country, conversely our MOT failure rate has increased by 12% over the last five years. Moving away from our current annual examination to an MOT every two years is misguided and this can only result in even more defective vehicles on our roads than at present. The only conclusion that can be extracted from these poorly thought out proposals is that we see an increase of injuries and deaths on our roads at a time when they have never been safer.”

Nigel Bartram, Senior Motor Underwriting Manager at Aviva
“We believe MOT timings should remain unchanged. The MOT is the only time some vehicles receive any safety checks and maintenance – this applies particularly to older cars which are often driven by younger drivers – and to reduce the frequency of this check could cost lives.”

Julie Townsend, Deputy Chief Executive at Brake, the road safety charity
“As a charity supporting families whose lives are devastated by road death and injury, we are aghast that the Government is proposing such an appalling backwards step. We should be doing everything we can to stop people being killed and injured on roads, to prevent families suffering so terribly, and to reduce the economic burden of these casualties. That means having a robust system to ensure vehicles are roadworthy. Downgrading the system so MOTs are only required every two years is a nonsensical and inhumane policy that would mean many more needless tragedies.”

Martin Gibbs, Policy and Legal Affairs Director, British Cycling
“We would be concerned at any changes to the MOT system that is likely to increase the number of unsafe vehicles on the road. Cyclists, perhaps more than any other road users, rely on the Government to create a safe environment on the road and the MOT system is a key part of that.”

Gareth Kloet, Head of Car Insurance at Confused.com
“Driving is one of the most dangerous things people do on a daily basis. It’s vital that all drivers are doing regular maintenance checks of their vehicle to ensure our roads are kept as safe as possible. Currently, more than a third of the vehicles presented for their first MOT fail the test. Confused.com is passionate about road safety as shockingly, five people are killed and a further 65 are seriously injured on UK roads every day. For us, a yearly MOT is a must. Many may argue that cars are more reliable now than when the test was first introduced in 1960 and as a result, yearly checks are not needed but why take the risk? No amount of car safety or reliability features will make the roads 100% safe and the importance of regular car checks should not be underestimated.”

Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia, Chairman & Managing Director, Euro Car Parts Ltd
“If this crazy proposal is adopted, many millions of motorists will abandon preventative maintenance and drive for up to 2 years with dangerous tyres, brakes, lights etc. The cost to the nation in death, injury, car accidents, breakdowns and increased emissions will be truly massive … all for a measly £15 to £20 annual ‘saving’ per car.”

Steph Savill, Founder of FOXY Lady Drivers Club
“Many women rely on the garage industry alone to keep their cars safe. Not just the ones we own but also the vehicles that other motorists drive. We know from experience that many motorists (male and female) are scrimping on car servicing to save money today so an annual MOT might be the only time a garage professional can spot a potentially dangerous car. On behalf of all motoring mums and daughters we want to be reassured that our cars will be MORE, not less, SAFE on UK roads in future. We are supporting PROMOTE and the UK 3-1-1 MOT model because the 4-2-2 EU MOT version could cost us lives and motor industry jobs.”

Dave Garrett, Chief executive, Garage Equipment Association
“The GEA has an interest in retaining the integrity, quality and consistency of the MOT. Although motor vehicle technology has improved over the years, MOT failure rates remain high, with many vehicles failing their first test because of inefficient brakes and worn tyres. Therefore in order to meet the European object of reducing road deaths by 50% by 2020, the MOT frequency for cars must remain the same at 3-1-1. It may also be advisable to reduce the MOT frequency for Vans to 1-1-1, as many so called “white vans” have covered over 250,000 miles before their first MOT.”

Bill Duffy, Chief Executive of Halfords Autocentres
“Halfords is a friend of the Motorist and we want to help them reduce costs and to travel as safely as possible. We believe that extending the MOT frequency would be bad news for drivers and bad news for road safety and the environment. We know, from the tests at our own garages, that without an annual safety check up millions more cars would be driving in an unroadworthy condition. We also see the financial consequences for drivers who don’t get repair work fixed in a timely manner. It always leads to higher bills later and that isn’t what we want for our customers. There’s no doubt that the MOT test is an affordable and basic component of road safety, protecting road users and pedestrians. It saves lives, keeps people safe and it saves motorists money. We welcome a review of the MOT system to make improvements to help the motorist. But reducing MOT test frequency is a bad move for motorists and society as a whole.”

Brian Spratt, Chief Executive, Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation
“The Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation (IAAF), representing manufacturers, importers and wholesale distributors of vehicle components, and independent garages, service centres and MOT stations, welcomes the PRO-MOTE campaign to reject government proposals to reduce the frequency of MOT testing. The IAAF is certain that these proposals will have a serious adverse effect on road safety, the environment, and employment in the independent motor trade, and we can see no merit in the proposals. The IAAF is committed to ensure the effectiveness of the MOT system and its benefit to road users, and will continue to lobby the appropriate authorities and work with other organisations to achieve that end.”

David White, Customer Services Director at Kwik Fit
“A reduction in MOT testing is going to hit many businesses hard, particularly local small and medium-sized companies. The industry as a whole takes on about 10,000 new apprentices every year and it seems inevitable that this will be significantly scaled back if MOT frequency is reduced.”

John Ashton, Director of the MOT Club
“If 4-2-2 is adopted who will check the one million vehicles that hit the market after a three year lease contract, many of which have extremely high mileage?”

Jim Punter Chairman of the MOT Trade Forum
“On average, every day, MOT Testers inspect over 72,000 vehicles to make sure they are safe to drive on the road, and are fully roadworthy. Of these, over 2,200 vehicles are found to have defects, which, Testers consider, render them dangerous to drive. These vehicles are either repaired or scrapped by motorists which ensures that significant numbers of deaths and serious injuries on our roads are avoided every day. Any action on the Government’s part to reduce MOT Test frequency would leave these vehicles uninspected and still in use on the roads despite their dangerous condition. I would urge the Government to seriously re-consider, and abandon this dangerous, unwanted, expensive and irresponsible policy.”

Richard Edy, Director, National Tyre Distribution Association
“The NTDA is proud to support the PRO-MOTE campaign to maintain the current frequency of MOTs. Tyres are safety critical items which constantly wear. It is imperative that they are regularly inspected and properly maintained. Many motorists rely on their annual MOT for the inspection of their tyres, any extension or lengthening of the MOT frequency is likely to have a major impact on road safety and contribute to increased deaths and major injuries on our roads.”

David Bizley, Technical Director, RAC
“The current MOT testing regime has stood the UK in good stead and ensures that there are relatively few accidents directly attributable to unroadworthy vehicles. RAC therefore supports the retention of the current arrangements and is an enthusiastic supporter of PRO-MOTE.”

Richard Owen, Finance & Operations Director of Road safety Analysis
“In our work with the road safety profession we regularly carry out detailed analysis of collision records. It is clear through the statistics that vehicle defects cause a tiny percentage of all crashes with fewer than 2,000 crashes in 2010 attributed to defective vehicles. With less frequent vehicle checks we would undoubtedly see large increases in these types of collisions.”

James Gibson, spokesperson for Road Safety GB
“Road Safety GB is keen to support the PRO-MOTE campaign – the evidence shows that changing the testing regime will reduce safety on our roads. The MOT test has been in place for over forty years, we all know that vehicles have become more reliable in this time but many components still require regular safety checks. An annual check for vehicles over three years old isn’t excessive, especially when we think of drivers who fail to carry out even basic safety checks like checking tyres or lights from one MOT to the next!”

John Ball, RMI MOT Chairman
“Our members’ garages constantly see the worsening state of cars and vans as motorists are cutting back on maintenance. Three-year-old vehicles at first test are also a concern, despite their improved design, with high failure rates on safety critical items like tyres, brakes and lights. What’s more, reducing MOT frequency will add to the financial burden on motorists and undermine thousands of small and medium-sized businesses putting at risk thousands of jobs, including many apprenticeships.”

Douglas Robertson, Chief executive, Scottish Motor Trade Association
“At the SMTA Annual Dinner in November 2010, Scotland’s First Minister, the Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP, publicly supported the SMTA’s opposition to any reduction in the frequency of MOT Testing that may be proposed by the UK government. In welcoming this support the SMTA acknowledged that much work to garner all party support within Scotland and the United Kingdom was still required and that would take place once the UK government’s review proposals were formally made public. Rather than opposing a reduction in testing frequency, the SMTA will be proposing an increase in frequency following confirmation by VOSA that failure rates have increased since the last UK Government Report on MOT Testing in 2008. The SMTA with over 800 members is the leading trade association for the retail motor industry in Scotland.”

David Seward, Chairman, Tyre Industry Federation
“25% of MOT test failures are for tyre-related causes. Putting two years between MOT tests will greatly increase the number of vehicles being driven on unsafe and illegal tyres.”
______________________

Granted the UK MOT industry can do a better job in future but that’s what we should all be concentrating on – making our garage industry a better place for motorists by highlighting all evidence of measurable quality and outing the bad apples that continue to let the good garages down. And not having to spend all our time attempting to fend off a crazy EU proposal that should have been dismissed as such ages ago.

We are sure you understand and appreciate our concerns Justine…

FOXY

women

How to make long car journeys more bearable

Is it possible to make any car journey with children fun?

Well maybe for the children and for a short space of time…

Anyway, perhaps your experiences here have been rosier one mine (our son was always prone to vomiting without notice) but he’s a lot better now he’s 18…

On the other hand, there’s no reason why car journeys can’t be part of the holiday if you plan well in advance. And with these clever games suggested by insurance comparison website Confused.com why would you need to have children to enjoy them anyway…

See what you think about these ones!

1. Yellow convertible mini
This game can be played with all sorts of different variants, but the general rule is this: A point for spotting a yellow car, a point for a mini and a point for a convertible. Any combination of the two (eg: a yellow mini) will get you 5 points, and a whopping 10 points for the Holy Grail – a yellow convertible mini!

2. Three for a pig
If you’re driving in VERY rural areas, you can play this animal game if you’re really lucky.  Award three points for each pig spotted, a point for other animals but lose 10 points if you see a horse…

3. I spy
A good version of this old favourite is to list 10 items you’re likely to see on the next stage of your journey – a police car, a bridge, a caravan etc – and see who spots them first. Especially the police car 😉

4. Alphabet game
Add an educational flavour. Look out for consecutive letters of the alphabet on road signs or licence plates. I instantly thought of Abergavenny and Magherafelt …

5. I went to the shops
This one is just as good when you get to your destination and accompanied with a long cool drink (and no children probably)… The first person starts with “I went to the shops and bought…” something beginning with the letter A. The second player repeats the first sentence, and adds an item that starts with B, and so on. The more the drinks, the better my memory I find.

6. Map reading
Not to be recommended if children are prone to vomiting lke ours… Older children might appreciate being given the chance to follow the route you are taking on a map – you can encourage them to look out for things like service stations, motorway junctions or villages and churches.

7. What can you do with…?
This is an odd one and we haven’t tried it yet. You have to think of an everyday object – for example a brick, a Wellington boot or a wooden spoon. Players then have to take it in turns to think up possible uses for it. No holds barred apparently.

8. 20 questions
This is a more common game. Players take it in turns to think of a famous person or a household object and others can then ask them yes/no questions before guessing who or what they are.

9. Count the cars
Best for children this one – look out for cars of a particular colour for starters. Whoever manages to spot, say, 30 first is the winner. You could alter this to use number plates – for example one child has to look for “06” registrations, and the other “56” registrations.

10. Sleeping lions
Narnia nirvana for Mums this one! All you have to do 😉 is to convince your children that trying to keep quiet for as long as possible is a game! Certainly worth a try for a few minutes’ peace.

Very original games here we thought. Good for a Friday afternoon when we’re all flagging a bit and apparently Andy Murray is too ;-)…

The only other one we could think of adding was the alphabet of cars. Usually best with teenage boys (and petrolheads) you start with A and everyone names a car brand or make and so on until someone can’t go and drops out… and so on.  If you ever get towards the end, Citroen’s Xsara, XM, and ZX come in really handy!

Enjoy your car journeys and the holidays when they come.

FOXY

If you’re a motoring Mum and you feel frazzled behind the wheel (like the most of us get at times) why not join FOXY Lady Drivers Club and find yourself in like-minded motoring company. We need our cars but they can be stressful…

women's car insurance

Young female drivers insurance deterrent

Now that the EU is dictating common-rated gender car insurance premiums in future, fewer young women drivers will be able to afford to learn to drive and those that can will surely face the full force of motor insurance scams which are more likely to be caused by and involve men.

According to Confused.com the average fully comprehensive car insurance premium rose by 38% in 2010 and now stands at £695. These rates are influenced by the fact that 15% of young drivers currently cause 31% of all accidents leading to 40% of all motor insurance claims. As things stand, the average premium for a 17-20 year old male is currently a staggering £2,976 and for women £1,694. Come December 2012 women will pay considerably more than they do now and men slightly less we think – either way this is more than most young drivers will pay for their first car.

Which is why I see this as the equivalent of a new and unfair ‘tax’ on young females in particular from working and middle class families, facing higher University fees on the horizon and who probably can’t afford to drive in future now that the cost of insurance will rise so much. The truth is that  children from more wealthy families stand a much better chance of their parents paying for their car, their insurance and their education. Which seems unfair to me.

No wonder insurers are worried if fewer (of the safer) motorists can afford their products in future.

The reason car insurance premiums have risen so much for men and women drivers alike is to pay for accidents caused by uninsured drivers, for staged ‘cash for crash’ accidents and the ever increasing practice of submitting fraudulent claims. All of these have a self fulfilling and cyclical feel to them in that the higher the premiums, the more appealing it is to drive uninsured or to prepare a fraudulent claim; therefore the higher the premiums need to be to pay for them and so on…

Confused.com wants better data sharing between the DVLA and insurers to help reduce instances of fraud. Quite right. They also want the test to be harder but we see this as a crude method to clobber young women again when we aren’t the real risk on the roads. It’s the young men who cause the majority of serious accidents remember, being much more confident drivers more likely to put their foot down, and who tend to pass the test after fewer lessons than more cautious women. Which is perhaps why we are the safer drivers I feel.

So any attempt to make the driving test tougher for us is likely to hit young women harder than young men; and cost us even more to pass than it does already.

This is all such a mess.

In an attempt to be seen as politically correct when dealing with Mars and Venus matters we are clobbering less confident and more cautious young women drivers when we should be tackling the more accident-prone male mindset here. We should rate men as the known risk they are, invest some of their premium in gender marketing & education and reward the god male drivers. Is that so very difficult to do? And similarly with women…

Just don’t rate women the same as men when we aren’t.

Making the driving test harder, re-assessing the Pass Plus scheme, getting insurers to offer discounts for those who have had additional training and increasing the use of telematics devices (which Aviva pioneered and discontinued for cost reasons…) should all be reviewed of course.

But the penalty for being caught driving uninsured is ludicrously low – a maximum £1,000 with an actual average fine of £200. When they have saved so much money on not being insured? Who thought that formula up I wonder?

We should all be expected to wear our insurance on our windscreens like tax and any car with out of date or non existent evidence of insurance (this applies to SORN’d cars too I believe) should be reported by passing motorists. The penalties need to be a lot more realistic and punitive. If it was down to me I’d confiscate cars and licenses and make those that offend pay the costs of doing this.

Something needs to be done to stop women becoming the soft target for even more unfair increases in their insurance.

FOXY

If you feel this is unfair, please join FOXY Lady Drivers Club and add your voice to ours – women drivers need to be heard not forgotten after the EU ruling.

women's car insurance

Gender based insurance confusion

The cost of car insurance has rocketed alongside fuel in 2010. And to add salt to our motoring wounds, there’s talk of gender-based pricing raising car insurance premiums further for women if the way UK underwriters work today is outlawed by the EU in future.

According to price comparison site Confused.com, the cost of premiums rose by 38.2% in 2010 with the average premium now £695 – meaning drivers are now paying nearly £200 more than they were at the beginning of 2010.

And ringing loud bells with me (with a 17 year old son about to start driving lessons) I see that the biggest rises came in the 51-55 age group, with parents adding children to their policies as named drivers accounting for the bulk of that increase. No surprises really when you realise that annual car insurance is likely to cost more than their first car did. Parents will look to reduce the insurance costs for their cash-poor offspring (and themselves of course…) for obvious reasons.

In fact many well-meaning parents have resorted to “fronting” to escape the spiralling costs of insurance for younger drivers, not realising that this is fraud, could invalidate their insurance cover and lead to a criminal conviction. But clearly this is a BIG temptation for those trying to get cheaper car insurance; they insure a vehicle in their name as the main driver, with their son or daughter listed as an occasional driver but the son/daughter are the main users and therefore more likely to have an accident. More than half the [parent] motorists questioned by the ABI in January said they would not rule out doing this.

And once more the European courts are expected to rule shortly on whether gender can be used for underwriting insurance policies in future. If they ban the use of gender based prices and the facts that relate to each, car insurance prices will rise for young women drivers in particular with a predicted 25% increase in premium for women drivers under 25 years. They will be paying for their young male counterparts serious and fatal accident record.

Similarly life insurance cover would likely rise for women (to fund claims made by men who are more likely to die younger) whereas health insurance costs may fall for us.

The future for annuities is uncertain – as always it’s best to take independent advice re car finance for women from a qualified professional.

FOXY

Women drivers who want to save money running their car and have insurance and finance feedback, advice and information from within the Club should join FOXY Lady Drivers Club. Just £23 for a lifetime subscription.