[mills705]

On radio 1 today this was announced.
They got peoples views on this via text. Some people said that its stupid which I 100% agree with but ALOT of people say its unfair for them to get so much money off of people at such a young age.
Whats people on here views?

I passed my test a year ago and now pay, 1200 pounds on a 58plate car with 120bhp. I think its a gd value. My car is comprehensively insured!
However my girlfriend has a quote of 840 for tpft on a 12 year old corsa that is beaten up! How on earth does that figure tbh!
There is also the fact pass plus is worthless! Many insurance companies do not honour the fact you have done this! Its atleast another 6 hours in the car and learning about motorways etc.

[Rolebama]

The sad fact is that younger drivers have more collisions than older ones, and as insurance is basically a risk assessment business, it follows that all young drivers are seen as higher risk, and will be penalized when it comes to working out premiums. The other factors involved, such as value of car and cost of replacement panels will also affect premiums, as will the postcode where the car is kept relative to how many cars are stolen/vandalized in that area.

[wagolynn]

I am still wondering how one would set about calculating these numbers? Err excuse me do you have insurance? Well, that’s one yes?:confused:

[mills705]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

The sad fact is that younger drivers have more collisions than older ones, and as insurance is basically a risk assessment business, it follows that all young drivers are seen as higher risk, and will be penalized when it comes to working out premiums. The other factors involved, such as value of car and cost of replacement panels will also affect premiums, as will the postcode where the car is kept relative to how many cars are stolen/vandalized in that area.

Whilst I accept younger people are seen as a larger risk and therefore should be a little higher.
I still think it is a rip off TBH. Majority of cars ran by young people are worth less than £1000. However the majority of insurance is well above. I feel that this is over priced.

[smudger]

Aye! its yet another case of the few spoiling it all for the many.
That's why we have have these speed bumps on our roads, due to a small minority of speeders and boy racers, spoiling things for the majority?

[Rolebama]

There are a number of ways now used to count cars on the road, from electronic counters to the guy on the roundabout with a clipboard. Coupled with the various databases, it is not difficult to work out how many uninsured, untaxed, and un-MOT'd cars there are on the road, the problem is that the Govt/Police seem to take delight in proving their ability to count these cars instead of getting rid of them.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by mills705

Whilst I accept younger people are seen as a larger risk and therefore should be a little higher.
I still think it is a rip off TBH. Majority of cars ran by young people are worth less than £1000. However the majority of insurance is well above. I feel that this is over priced.

For a start, insurance companies are commercial businesses, and are in business to make a profit. They are not philanthropic organisations. They are also in a competitive market (with each other), so it is reasonable to assume that their premiums are not blatantly inflated, otherwise they become easy targets for undercutting by their competitors.

So, on the basis that the only way to give the young drivers a better deal would be to increase premiums (or reduce NCB levels) for the experienced drivers, I say "not on your Nelly".

I have earned my low net premium; let them go out and attend to their driving to earn theirs. Why should I subsidise them?

Concerning young people having low value cars, this does not prevent them from causing extremely high costs in a RTC. In fact, it could be regarded that a vehicle worth £1,000 or less is much more likely to be less roadworthy. I'm not accusing young drivers of not maintaining their vehicles properly, but in the process of setting a premium, I feel sure this factor may well be pertinent. Place yourself in the position of deciding risks and possible costs for any permutation of "car-plus-driver" and it soon becomes obvious that it is a gamble. Not much different from bookies taking bets on horses; you won't find them giving good odds on the favourite.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by mills705

Whilst I accept younger people are seen as a larger risk and therefore should be a little higher.
I still think it is a rip off TBH. Majority of cars ran by young people are worth less than £1000. However the majority of insurance is well above. I feel that this is over priced.

The last time I checked, the basic 3rd party insurance, to comply with the law, has to offer a potential payout of £1,000,000 to cover any injuries or damage to third parties or their property. I think most insurers will/do pay out more. Would you back your friends for that amount? I think you can still put up a security of £500,000 and drive without insurance, or that was the case in 1991.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

The last time I checked, the basic 3rd party insurance, to comply with the law, has to offer a potential payout of £1,000,000 to cover any injuries or damage to third parties or their property. I think most insurers will/do pay out more. Would you back your friends for that amount? I think you can still put up a security of £500,000 and drive without insurance, or that was the case in 1991.

Would'nt this have risen by now to at least meet the minimum legal surety requirement of £1,000,000?

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Would'nt this have risen by now to at least meet the minimum legal surety requirement of £1,000,000?

I had a quick look snowball and the most recent legislation I could find was 1991, of course, the injured party could sue for any amount. I wondered if anyone using this would appear on the DVLA data base.

[98selitb]

I'm not surprised by the statistic, as many drivers who rely on their cars are priced out by insurance costs. I am NOT for one minute saying they are right to drive without insurance - absolutely not, and anyone doing so should be removed from the road forthwith, but it is easy to understand WHY so many people do, as it is such a problem as the insurance companies are such rip-off merchants. Young drivers have to spend many years simply proving they can safely drive around without causing an accident, before their insurance rates drop to an affordable price.

What would happen if you reduced the cost of premiums for youngsters to a realistic, affordable rate? Many people who are currently illegally uninsured will be good and buy insurance like they're supposed to. Therefore: less uninsured drivers on the road, and more customers and thus profits for the insurers. A win-win for all of us.

[smudger]

I've heard that the best way of a young driver to gain a NCB is to be added onto a parents policy as a named driver, then they can build up their own NCB.
If that is the case, it does sound like a good way of getting cheaper insurance;)

[Rolebama]

I noticed on my Policy two years ago that my third party liability for damages and personal injury is up to £20,000,000. If you now lodge £2,000,000 with a bank, to meet any third party claims, you may drive uninsured. However, you need to obtain the Certificate of Deposit which is the equivalent of the Certificate of Insurance.
*Certificate of Deposit has different names depending on who issues it.*

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

I'm not surprised by the statistic, as many drivers who rely on their cars are priced out by insurance costs. I am NOT for one minute saying they are right to drive without insurance - absolutely not, ........ it is easy to understand WHY so many people do, as it is such a problem as the insurance companies are such rip-off merchants.

What would happen if you reduced the cost of premiums for youngsters to a realistic, affordable rate? Many people who are currently illegally uninsured will be good and buy insurance like they're supposed to. Therefore: less uninsured drivers on the road, and more customers and thus profits for the insurers. A win-win for all of us.

I understand what you are saying, but I do not accept the statistics as an excuse. Most people accept that it is a criminal and punishable offence to take something just because they cannot afford the price.
Car insurance is no different, particularly as, in the event of causing serious harm in a RTC, they have knowingly ignored the fact that they have made no provision for financial help for potential victims.

On the second point, whilst it may appear a practical solution on the surface, I think insurance companies view it from a different angle. They would probably take the stance that more young drivers with lower premiums may result in higher payouts than increased profits; bottom line, bad for business.

To appreciate this, we only have to look at the real world of human nature. I would imagine that all insurance companies want only the experienced drivers, so that is why they continually court them with special offers. Young drivers are possibly seen as an incumbrance to be avoided.
Not a noble attitude I know, but they are businesses and not really any different to other types of business.
How often do we meet employers who much prefer to poach skilled labour from other companies, rather than take on and train inexperienced staff? For insurance companies, young drivers fall into much the same category.