The State Farm two in one Camaro, it's simply amazing how it is two different models split down the middle, and all so insurance company claims adjusters can learn the specifics of collector car claims

In a very small area to the side of an aisle, the State Farm Camaro was there to show how SEMA isn't just the hot parts to go fast, it also embraces the knowledge and information companies have that makes the automotive enthusiast world work in a better way for the consumers

there wasn't a lot to get photos of from around the outside of the ropes, but I posted about this once before, and these shots are just supplemental. That first post is http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2012/10/fully-restored-vs-modified-state-farm.html

the funny stuff from the great variety at Parkoffka.ru

Parents should use this in the car they loan to the kids

Seriously? How much pot did these guys smoke to get the munchies, find that it was to late to get into the taco bell, and only the drive through was open?

Pretty clever, I wonder if other muppet and sesame street characters are as easy to make helmets into?

just a small sample of the good funny stuff at http://parkoffka.ru

Hurricane Sandy aftermath as it relates to collector cars

http://www.hagerty.com/classic-car-articles-resources/Features/News has several articles and videos regarding hurricane preparations you can make to save your collector cars, tools, spare parts, etc.

 I hope all of you are safe, your things are insured, and your health is intact.

Owning a Jaguar XJR is a stupid idea, no matter how cheap the insurance

THE woman from Confused sounded a bit, well, confused. When would I be interested in taking up insurance on a supercharged V8 Jaguar?

It's very nearly November, which in the Life On Cars household means enduring the expensive ordeal of insuring both a £300 Rover and a Mazda MX-5 at roughly the same time. With each year of driving around and not claiming for the cost of a crumpled heap of metal in a hedge my insurance has got a little bit cheaper, but I'm still paying more the cost of a year's insurance for the ancient Rover than the cost of the car itself.
Slightly depressed by that realisation, I turned to that opium of car enthusiasts, eBay, and immediately came up with a far more suitable banger. All 3.2 litres of a Jaguar XJ8, and mine for £750. I very nearly headed for the Buy It Now button, but then I clocked the wheelarch rot and a service history with more gaps than a jeans shop. So I moved on to the next offering.

Big mistake - I'd found a tidy T-reg Jaguar XJR, which back in the day would have set golfers back a cool £51,000 but was here, in the great Arthur Daley forecourt of cyberspace, for £1,750. True, it had 124,000 miles on the clock but it looked to be in good nick, and the thought of having 370bhp at my leather-lined, wood-trimmed disposal seemed tempting enough to look past the prospect of getting less than 20 to the gallon. It is, Jag people will know, a fabulous car; refined and graceful enough to wear the Big Cat badge with pride, but blessed with a 4.0 litre V8, beefy alloy wheels and sports trim and suspension for added zestfulness. Petrolhead heaven, basically.

Drunk with delight, I idiotically went to an insurance comparision website to find out how much it'd cost a twentysomething male working in journalism - which in insurance terms is about as dangerous a profession as they come - to make sure it was beyond my aspirations of automotive avarice. It wasn't. Someone as hamfisted as me could insure Coventry's finest, fully comp, for a shade over a grand, which unlike the Rover is less than the car itself cost.

I woke up the following morning and knocked the idea on the head, having realised in the cold light of day that having a supercharged Jag outside the house would be a stupid, expensive idea.

The only problem is, the insurance companies keep ringing me up now and suggesting otherwise!

UPDATE: An earlier version of this article included a picture of the special edition XJR 100 rather than the standard XJR. This has since been amended.

More training for young drivers is a good idea, but then so is cheaper insurance

WORDSWORTH might have written things differently if he were reincarnated as 17-year-old in 2012, trying to get fully comp on a secondhand Fiesta. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very expensive.

Impoverished young poets need not worry though, for help is at hand. That august body, the Association of British Insurers, has come up with some new suggestions to stop 17-25 year olds, who make up an eighth of Britain's motorists but of a third of those killed in car crashes. They're also, by and large, the most likely drivers to be a bit skint and yet the ones who get hammered the most by the singing man from the Go Compare ads.

In a nutshell, the ABI would like to ban intensive learner driving courses, insist that all youngsters spend at least a year at driving school, with the option to start at 16-and-a-bit, and that for the first six months they aren't allowed to take their mates out with them. Oh, and the amount of alcohol they'll be allowed to have their system will be absolutely none. Zilch. Not a drop.

Having vivid memories of being driven by a tailgating teenager in a cream-crackered Peugeot 206 down the M6 on a snowy day one winter, I can completely understand why the ABI are so keen on bringing in measures which effectively protect younger drivers from themselves. I'm old and wise enough to understand the benefits of things like defensive driving, but I'm still young enough to recall some of the extortionate figures insurance companies asked me when I tried to get a quote for a Mini 1000 which could barely crack seventy.

I reckon it's got to work both ways. Sure, I'm all for 17-year-olds learning more about their driving - in fact, chuck in a few Scandinavian-style lessons about car control while we're at it - but those who pass what'd be a far harder test should be rewarded with realistic premiums they can actually afford. To be fair to the ABI, they say they'd like to reward younger drivers with lower premiums, but really they should be actively encouraging it rather than passively saying how nice it'd be. Carrot, stick, and all that.

It'd be good to see new drivers spending the money they're spending now on ballooning car insurance on, say, decent tyres. The line "I understeered lonely as a cloud" doesn't really have a ring to it...

It's official. Car insurance is a rip off

AN MP and Life On Cars reader described excessive industry charges for car insurance as ‘dispicable and absolutely criminal'.

Southport MP John Pugh said he was calling for residents who'd been hit hard by excessively quotes and premiums to get in touch with him after he was shocked by the findings of a survey by the Office of Fair Trading found that insurers and garages were working to drive up prices and that the cost of getting cover had gone up in some cases by as much as 40%.

Mr Pugh said this week: “This sort of behaviour is despicable at the best of times, but in a recession when people are struggling to make ends meet, it’s absolutely criminal. "I've heard tales of courtesy cars being provided for a man who broke both legs in an accident and people who have been out of the country on holiday because it pays insurers to do a deal on with hire firms. There is clearly something rotten in the state of the car insurance market. The ordinary motorist is picking up the tab and it is about time action was taken.

"I would therefore like to ask Southport residents to send me their car insurance ”horror stories“ to submit as evidence to the Competition Commission. This is a great opportunity to clean up the car insurance market, and the more damning the weight of evidence the better."

Mr Pugh also cited the example of one of his constituents being charged £26,000 to insure a secondhand Citroen Saxo, despite the car itself being worth £1,000. The commission, led by Merseyside MP Louise Ellman, said that following the results of the OFT investigation that she was now looking forward to the Competition Commission working to reform the car insurance industry, and said evidence suggested that insurers, claims management firms, solicitors were exploiting motorists and inflating premiums.

"We found evidence to support the view that various features of the private motor insurance market prevent, restrict or distort adequate competition in ways that do not deliver a fair deal to motorists. The OFT’s provisional decision to refer the highly dysfunctional UK market in private motor insurance and related goods or services to the Competition Commission for full investigation is a major step forward.

"Like the OFT, we found evidence to support the view that various features of the private motor insurance market prevent, restrict or distort adequate competition in ways that do not deliver a fair deal to motorists. I will propose to the Transport Committee that we participate in the consultation announced today to make the strongest possible case for the referral. I now expect car insurers and the other firms involved to co-operate fully with all stages of this process."

If you live in the Southport area, MP John Pugh would like to hear your car insurance horror stories. Share them with us by sending an email to david.simister@champnews.com or leave a comment below, and we'll pass on any correspondence to John Pugh MP. Please include your contact details.

A FEW tips on how to avoid getting stung by excessive car insurance quotes:

 • Shop around and don't go for the first quote you find. With plenty of price comparision websites offering quotes from a wide variety of insurers, you can avoid paying over the odds.

 • Sharpen up your skills. Motoring organisations like the Institute of Advanced Motorists often offer their own insurance schemes for those who pass safer driving courses, meaning you'll not only be less likely to have an accident but quids in too.

 • Swallow your pride and avoid sporty, high-powered cars if you're keen to save on insurance costs. In the 1980s there was a long-running joke that GTI stood for Guaranteed Theft Item, but it had its basis in truth. Lots of people like hot hatches, sports cars and off-roaders... including car thieves.

 • Consider whether you really need to claim. If your car's only lightly damaged, there's a chance the rise in your premium if you claim will actually be more than the cost of getting it repaired at your expense.

 • Tell your insurer too much rather than too little - they're often able to offer you discounts on things by offering you specialised policies, such as if you own more than one car. Oh, and don't lie - insurers will often refuse to stump up if they find any discrepancies.

 • If you're smitten with an older model consider a classic car policy, which have more stringent limits on mileage but can save you money compared to more conventional insurance.

 • Don't insure it in your sister's or your girlfriend's name. Not only is this technically fraud but the savings women have been getting over men are set to outlawed later this year anyway, after an EU judge argued that female quotes being cheaper than male ones was a form of gender discrimination.

 • Don't pay monthly unless you have to. It might seem more manageable but in most cases it'll actually cost you more, so you might as well stump up and pay it off it one go.

 • Be alarmed - not with the cost of car insurance, but in terms of how secure your motor is. Fitting a device like a Tracker or beefing up your car security might be pricey, but often insurers will offer you cheaper insurance as a result.

 • Don't be a journalist. Reporters, and other professions like estate agents, sales reps, and entertainers are all considered more likely to claim, and have to pay more as a result.

Why using ANPR to catch out insurance cheats at petrol stations will never work

CONFESSION time, then, chaps and chapettes. Who out of this week's readers is driving around without their car insurance being up to scratch?

Apparently, just under 10% of the region's motorists are driving around without bothering with the pesky business of paying for cover, which means statistically at least one of you hasn't gone got any. After all, insurance is unbelievably expensive these days. It's also almost completely unfathomable and sold to you by an opera tenor who unites people from all walks of life because they all, without exception, would love nothing more than to have him removed from our TV screens for good.

Car insurance is confusing and expensive and as a result loads of you just can't be bothered with it. Even the Government, as I've mentioned previously, realise it.

Yet Whitehall's latest idea to crack down on the uninsured drivers - which I'm absolutely not one of, by the way - isn't going to work because while it's good in principle, it's got more holes than one of Jamie Oliver's colanders. As a bit of a self-confessed Dragons' Den addict, I just know that if it was some young business boffin's invention it'd be shot to pieces with just a handful of snide remarks from Duncan Bannatyne and a bad joke from Peter Jones. However, it's the Government who are suggesting it, so I will at least try to take it seriously.

In essence, they're on about fitting ANPR cameras, which can recognise car numberplates, to every petrol station in the country in a bid to spot uninsured cars as they pull in to fill up. The technology, which already works a treat on police cars, will then automatically tell the petrol pumps not to give the offending driver any fuel. And presumably give Plod a bell at the same time.

It's a great idea in principle but - Bannatyne mode activated - it will be horrendously expensive in practice, and it'd have to fitted to each and every one of Britain's 8,000 or so filling stations across the land. It'd also encourage even more crooks to clone car numberplates, siphoning would shoot up, and I can just see the court case where the one law-abiding driver, who the cameras clock by mistake, successfully sues for defamation after the system insinuates he's an insurance cheat.

It is, for all those reasons and a couple of others I can't squeeze into one Life On Cars column, a badly-thought out waste of what is basically YOUR money.

I'm out.

The great British insurance ripoff

LIFE ON CARS has been innundated this week with responses from readers who say they are being crippled by the soaring cost of car insurance.

Last week we reported on a Commons enquiry which has been set up to investigate the rising cost of premiums, particularly for younger drivers, and residents from across the region have got in touch to share their thoughts on the issue.

Maureen Gladhill reported difficulties in getting quotes for her two daughters, and said:

"I feel that it is onerous and extremely difficult to pass a driving test nowadays and yet the greedy insurers still penalise young drivers, I feel so sorry for our young people, hammered with extortionate tuition fees, no job prospects and hammered by the insurance industry, it is about time for a parliamentary enquiry.

"I expect the insurers will claim the amount of claims (fraudulent or otherwise) account for premium increases, but I know that the government has tightened up on no win no fee with the new insurance portal system, so come on."

Last week a Transport Select Committee was set up in Westminster to look at the cost of car insurance, armed with new research which suggests a whopping 96% of younger drivers feel they are being "priced off the road" due to high insurance premiums.

A reader from Maghull, who did not wish to be named, agreed with that view and said:

"I fear these insurance companies are seeing an easy target within the driving community not only with young drivers but all drivers in general.

"All in all its a complete rip off. Not only for being young, male, female the car you drive but also dependent where you live. You are discriminated for where you live which I also feel is totally unacceptable. It's a joke and although i dont agree with having no insurance and driving around, I can see why it's an option. The insurance companies need a strip tearing from them and told to drop their prices."

The car insurance industry responded to the Parliamentary enquiry by saying that the rise in claims from personal injury lawsuits and an increase in uninsured driving had helped to drive costs up.

Otto Thoresen, director general of the Association of British Insurers, said:

"Rising claims costs from personal injury claims, excessive legal costs, insurance fraud and uninsured driving, coupled with lower investment returns in recent years, have unfortunately led to rising motor insurance bills for many customers.

"In fact the motor insurance sector has not been profitable for the last sixteen years because the amount paid out in claims and expenses has been greater than that received in premiums."

Younger motorists have reported paying premiums which are hundreds - if not thousands - of pounds in order to get insured, which has led to worries being discussed at the committee that increasing numbers of motorists are resorting to driving with no insurance at all.

Sue Bruce was another parent who complained of crippling prices to insure her children, and told Life On Cars:

"I have paid £3,500 for my 18 year old son to be on the road in this Citroen C1 which incidentally is not much more than the car cost. I do appreciate that the insurance companies have to cover themselves for the small amount of young people that do drive erratic on the roads, but when my daughter passed her test the insurance was £1,900 which is a big difference.

"Maybe these insurance companies. could come up with some kind of scheme where they would accept the driver paying monthly then earning some kind of a no claims bonus month by month therefore making it more affordable for young drivers to get on the road."

Is car insurance for the young too expensive?

A PARLIAMENTARY committee led by a Liverpool MP has come to the same conclusion most motorists already know; that car insurance is crippingly expensive for younger drivers.

This week the Transport Select Committee has reopened its inquiry into the cost of car insurance, armed with new research which suggests a whopping 96% of younger drivers feel they are being “priced off the road” due to high insurance premiums.

Liverpool Riverside MP Louise Ellman, the committee's chairperson, said:

“I am extremely concerned about these results, which show that young drivers think they are being priced off the road because of the high cost of motor insurance. It is shocking that so many young drivers are considering breaking the law – by driving without insurance or changing the details they provide to insurers – in order to get a cheaper premium.

"It's revealing that most young drivers are also unaware that many insurers receive referral fees in order to deal with claims they make. This highlights why the committee called for referral fees to be made more transparent in its report on the cost of motor insurance earlier this year."

However, insurers continue to charge younger drivers higher prices than their older counterparts, and point to high accident rates to justify them - Department for Transport statistics show that although people under 25 make up just 12% of those on the roads, they're involved in more than a quarter of the accidents.

Are you a younger driver being hit by the cost of insuring your car? Or do you think the accident statistics justify the prices? Share your thoughts by sending an email to david.simister@champnews.com

Classic cars make financial sense. Honest

THIS week, I'm contemplating starting my midlife crisis at least a decade early. How young - or old - do you have to be to own a flash convertible?

Ironically, I've been pondering this dilemma, pint in hand, because the cost of driving a family hatchback around is soaring. Petrol, the last time I looked, was a scary £1.36 a litre, but the real rise is the one which doesn't get reported very often. The cost of car insurance, whisper it quietly, has rocketed over the past two years.

There is method in the madness, and I know this because I already own one old sports car. A year's fully comp in my everyday runaround, an elderly Rover 200, is £700, which is twice what I paid for the car. Logically, you'd reason the cost of me running around in my MGB, which is faster, more valuable and infinitely more treacherous on a wet roundabout, would be in the thousands for a dangerous twentysomething like me. But it isn't. It's £150 a year.

Why? Because the MG's covered by a specialist classic car policy, which limits me to 6,000 miles a year (what I'd usually drive anyway) and classic car owners are considered by the insurance industry not to be throttle-happy hedonists, but careful drivers who lock their toys away in garages and trailer them to shows. The upshot is that the cost of normal car insurance has shot up and classic insurance hasn't.

Because I've made the mistake of being young, insurance is the single biggest car expense I have, so the idea of saving money to keep an old classic on the road rather than the Go Compare tenor on the telly is wickedly tempting. I would love, for instance, the idea of an original Mazda MX-5 in the garage, which is both old enough to be considered a classic and reliable enough to actually get you to work.

It's not even as if you need it to be a two-seater sports car either, because there's no reason you couldn't get the likes of a Golf GTi or an original BMW M5, which you can just about pretend are practical family cars, if you've got dogs or kids to haul around. Even the very first Renault Espaces, which are now well over 25 years old, can get classic cover if you ask the insurers nicely enough. Sure, they might cost you more than a knackered old banger to buy, but in most cases a carefully-chosen classic will go up - not down - in value.

All you need now is some cheap petrol to run them around on. Oh wait...

Phwoar!

NOW that I've got your attention I'd like to talk to you about new laws the Government want to bring in outlawing owning an uninsured vehicle. It won't take a moment. Honest.

I immediately baulked when I read this report in this morning's Telegraph, which says that Road Safety Minister Mike Penning wants to make owning a car that isn't insured - as opposed to just driving one - an offence.

Crumbs. I own a car that isn't insured. Chances are, if you're doing up an old classic and it's been sat solemnly in the garage over the last few months, so do you.

It may have been The Telegraph's exclusive but I was relieved when I read the BBC's slightly more accurate version a couple of hours later; yep, if your car's on a Statutory Off Road Notice, or SORN, you won't be affected.

Naturally, being a journalist myself it's probably not in my interests to point out misleading articles - I've probably written a few in my time - but if you've read The Telegraph's article and got the jitters over the idea of a fine from the DVLA, don't worry.

At present it is illegal to drive a car while uninsured. The penalty for doing so is a maximum fine of £5,000 and six to eight penalty points. The police have the power to seize, and in some cases, destroy the vehicle that is being driven uninsured.

Under the new system, it will be an offence to keep an uninsured car. But - as the Department for Transport are now at pains to point out - owners who have a Statutory Off Road Notification, enabling them to keep their uninsured car, would not be affected.

Anyway; the Porsche 918RSR is the car you see in the pic above and just happens to be a hybrid that puts out 767bhp. I'll have mine with insurance, please.

A problem that'll take two years to solve

I HAVE a revelation which will shock number-crunchers everywhere; 24 months is no longer the same length as two years!

With the house gaily decorated, presents underneath the tree and the weather outside on the wintry side I know it's that special time of year again; the time when I get annoyed with the car insurance industry. This year, it's over the idea that 24 months and two years aren't the same thing.

I insured my Rover knowing I have one full year of No Claims Bonus from 2009 on the old Mini, 11 months on the Renault 5 this year and another six on another policy covering the Mini, which overall, is more than two years' worth of driving, during which time I haven't made a single claim.

Fairly enough, the Rover's insurers wanted proof of this, and although I haven't had all the paperwork to hand I've sent details of the NCB proof I have to hand right now - the two from this year - which both they and the previous company agree counts as one years' NCB between them. I am also in the process of sending the policy on the Mini which I had in 2009, which when it arrives in the post, will confirm a second 12 months of not claiming.

What I'm worried about is that the Rover's insurers won't see it that way, in which case I owe them £115 for the privilege of redefining how long 24 months is.

What's worse, the warning letter they sent to me on November 28th gave me ten days to sort my affairs out, which I would have done had one of my relatives not decided it was his post, ignored it, come back to it and then told me more than a week after he'd got it that I "might want to sort it out". So essentially I'm running the risk of being penalised to the tune of £115 because someone else had picked up my post and neglected to mention it.

I'm not the stereotypical Yoof who cost the car insurance industry millions by just not bothering at all; I insure all my cars fairly, squarely and honestly, I drive safely, I pay their ridiculously high premiums on the dot and - most importantly for them - I don't ring them up with those bothersome "claims" they're always moaning about. Yes, I'm a petrolhead, but I'm one who doesn't break the law.

Maybe, when I'm older and wiser, I'll share this story with my children in 20 years' time. Oh no, wait, make that 240 months...