I would go along with the line of "can't afford it" myself, or even nobody will offer them insurance. Even so, that should mean they don't buy a car, rather than use it uninsured.
For my car, if I get an online quote today it's in the range of 300-400 quid.
If I change my age to 17, nobody, anywhere, will quote me at all. Ok, it shoves out 211bhp, so no surprises there.
So, for a laugh, I put my details in on my MiLs 2006 Fiesta 1.25 Style. I was offered insurance as low as £120.
Again, I changed my age to 17 (I'm actually mid-30s) and the cheapest premium I could get was £2700 with huge excesses in force and optional features removed (e.g. legal cover, courtesy car etc). Some of the premiums went north of £4k!
Given that there's no way your average 17 year old can afford this, and 17 year olds don't always behave responsibly (be honest...), is it any wonder they risk paltry fines of a few hundred quid instead? Don't forget that young people today see driving as a right and not a privilege. Who can blame them with the rubbish public transport system we have now?
There's a simple solution to this though. In addition to the fines, anyone caught without insurance should be forced to provide evidence of having bought insurance within 21 days. Past that, the car they were caught in should be crushed, even if it doesn't belong to them, with an additional fine payable for the tow-away and storage costs.
The insurance policy should not be cancel-able for 12 months to avoid paying up and then cancelling the next day.
That might make people think twice, either not paying up to get insured or lending their cars to others without checking they're covered first.
Those that simply cannot afford the insurance would then be driven off the road, which is as it should be.
As to cutting down on the number of accidents caused by young drivers, that's a harder one. Not allowing kids to start learning until they're 18, and then enforcing a 6 month/25 lesson minimum learning period might help a little. Maybe mandatory display of P plates with no passengers allowed between the ages of 7-21 until the age of 21, except for immediate family, perhaps? It might help to have a BHP per tonne restriction too, say no more than 60bhp per tonne, with an overall limit of 100bhp. So, your average 1.2t supermini would limit them to 72bhp, not exactly rocket ship performance. Again, until 21 years old.
At that point, by the age of 21 some idea of common sense has usually kicked in!
I can't imagine that none of this is impossible or would have no effect, even if there were some who still got away with it...
|
I used to work with a man who had no license, no tax, no mot, and deffo no insurance and he did not give a hoot, he said there's loads at it and happily bragged about how good he could drive.!
Im quite sure there is plenty at it but the cost is far too high for insurance take a local lad £2k for the ford Ka insurance the car is worth £1.3k it's far too expensive the price needs to come down or plenty more will jump on this band wagon.
Do these foreigners have insurance in the uk or poland? is it valid for the uk roads? do they care?
|
|
Bigtee, the point is that it's not far too much. A straw poll of a young relative rekoned 50% of him mates had crashed within a year of passing. All on 3rd party, so the cost of the car is irrelevant, but young lads (and girls) do often drive like morons and the insurance costs reflect that, probably accurately.
|
No insurance is far too much for the younger end it needs to come down there is plenty of idiots on the road not just these that have passed some have been driving a while.
2k for insurance is way over the top £600. is more like it if a man aged 45 can get it for £212. 2k for his son is crazy.
They have to learn to drive safer but the only way they can do it is with experiance & you can't do it untill you passed.
|
|
|
|
The various toerags with there contrived "accidents" for whiplash claims dont help either.
Plus the spurious whiplash claims by those involved in a genuine accident, & yes they do exist cos I have worked with them ( unfortunately)
I wonder are the younger less experience drivers likely to be either (i) involved?
or (ii) innocent victims
btw non of my immediate/extended even family have to my knowledge, or that I have heard of,have been involved in any accidents, over this last 30 years.
We should get a super discount, but dont
Sniff
|
Britain is a highly mobile, car-oriented society and public transport is not a realistic alternative to personal transport for a sizeable part of the population. The slashing of the railways post- Beeching and the butchering of bus and coach lines in the 80s was all about putting Brits into cars and supporting what was then a large and prosperous nationally owned car industry.
A young inexperienced driver nowadays starting a new job - I'm thinking of nurses, fire fighters, night shift workers, minimum-salary workers at call centres, warehouses - cannot reasonably be expected instantly to move nearer to work, or to learn to ride a motorbike, or to take a taxi every time it's dark or rainy at the end or beginning of a shift. A foreign worker with years of driving experience coming to Britain faces huge premiums for years, and the archetypal "paper driver" (spouse of...) with virtually no experience is fully covered and pays a pittance. Those are the anomalies thrown up.
There is legally no excuse for driving without insurance but look how difficult it is for people in that situation to afford it, and this explains why it is so prevalent. ANPR? Brilliant system, catches thousands, bravo. But registration plates are cloned in their hundreds and drivers need to carry neither ID nor documents, go figure...
Other countries simply do not have the "losers and winners/them and us" attitude so common in Britain: "fronting" car insurance for younger drivers is acceptable and perfectly legal: the named driver, i.e. parent, faces any hikes or excesses, and NCBs are not so common or so generous.
On the continent there is a far more level playing field in that a Citroen C5 costs pretty much the same for any driver, kids can drive their parents' cars at the weekend and anyone can drive anyone else's car with permission. Added to that is the legal requirement to carry a driving licence whilst driving at all times, and the petty traffic stops and "producers" just do not occur. Much better system IMHO.
|
Anyone know where the 30% figure came from? The Association of British Insurers puts the number at 6.5% and I suspect many of those either would never buy insurance or can't for some reason, ie been disqualified.
|
Those are the anomalies thrown up.
Very well said. Does anyone know how much profit insurers actually make?
In many other countries cars are insured for anyone driving them. Why we have different (ie driver based) rule for UK?
|
In many other countries cars are insured for anyone driving them. Why we have different (ie driver based) rule for UK?
If it wasn't more profitable the insurance companies wouldn't do it. There must be a reason why they can get away with it, poor regulation maybe?
|
|
|
Does anyone know how much profit insurers actually make?
tinyurl.com/yc25usj
|
|
|
|
|
There is legally no excuse for driving without insurance but look how difficult it is for people in that situation to afford it and this explains why it is so
It's both legally and morally unaceptable to drive without insurance, unless the person doing so has a large amount of money that they are able to forfeit if they mow someone down.
If you are not insured, don't drive - it's as simple as that, in plain black and white.
I personally would increase the penalty for knowingly driving without insurance by a good deal, to include a fine and imprisonment.
On the continent there is a far more level playing field in that a Citroen C5 costs pretty much the same for any driver
Is that really true, and across the board? I very much doubt it.
|
>> On the continent there is a far more level playing field in that a Citroen >> C5 costs pretty much the same for any driver Is that really true and across the board? I very much doubt it.
Hmm, yes. I really can't see my C5 with it's 3.0 engine being the same to insure for a 17 year old, even in its home country of France.
If it is, I'd be gob-smacked, truly.
|
|
|
If you are not insured don't drive - it's as simple as that in plain black and white. I personally would increase the penalty for knowingly driving without insurance by a good >>deal to include a fine and imprisonment.
Sadly, higher penalties are unlikely to have much effect. Its illegal to murder people and despite the harsh penalties - people still get murdered. The mad, the bad and the sad...
Part of the problem is that there will always be those who:
a) - Dont think they will ever get caught so dont care what the penalty is
b) - Dont know what the penalty is
c) - think that they are the exception
d) - make a genuine mistake
Harsher penalties doesn't have much effect on a-c, and is also unfair on group d.
|
Couple of points regarding high premiums for young drivers.
All insurers by law have to offer insurance (third party only). Many insurers just dont want to insure spotty 17yr old lads, so they will quote crazy high premiums - not that they are expecting to ever get the money, they just dont want the business.
|
|
|
|
I personally would increase the penalty for knowingly driving without insurance by a good deal to include a fine and imprisonment.
>>
A fine to be paid out of benefits at pennies a week, no assets to confiscate, a few weeks in jail, warm, dry, hot food, and recreational facilities. No great deterrent.
Edited by Old Navy on 25/01/2010 at 20:52
|
|
I don't see why bona-fide young male drivers should have to pay more, largely because of statistics grossly skewed by nocturnal car theives/ 'joyriders'. The statistics are utter junk.
|
The big payouts are usually to their passengers who suffer personal injury, rather than crumpled metal.
|
|
|
young male drivers (...) have to pay more largely because of statistics grossly skewed by nocturnal car theives/ 'joyriders'.
Really? Then my and everyone else's premiums must be affected equally, mustn't they?
|
"Really? Then my and everyone else's premiums must be affected equally, mustn't they?"
No, every night, there are countless smashed caused by illegal young male drivers in stolen cars. Their age and sex goes in with the stats of every 'normal' person's crash and so skews the figures for insurance risk purposes.
|
every night there are countless smashed caused by illegal young male drivers in stolen cars. Their age and sex goes in with the stats of every 'normal' person's crash
These people are not insured. Their crashes are included in general statistics, but not used for insurance purposes.
|
|
I don't see why bona-fide young male drivers should have to pay more largely because
They dont. They can get a bus/taxi/walk/cycle
of statistics grossly skewed by nocturnal car theives/ 'joyriders'. The statistics are utter junk.
I can assure that the stats used by insurance companies are not junk. Stats are very important to insurers, it helps them make money :)
|
|
|
|
A fine to be paid out of benefits at pennies a week no assets to confiscate a few weeks in jail warm dry hot food and recreational facilities. No great deterrent.
Not everyone who drives without insurance is that down & out. It would cramp the style of many.
|
a large proportion of people i know , who have been charged with no insurance , has been brought about by a failed direct debit.
now i,m not the richest of people , and have fallen in this trap.
now i ENSURE that my policy is not paid by DD
|
now i ENSURE that my policy is not paid by DD
Quite right too. Why should I have to pay for your insurance as well as my own ;o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Britain is a highly mobile car-oriented society and public transport is not a realistic alternative to personal transport for a sizeable part of the population........................................ >> A young inexperienced driver nowadays starting a new job ...........cannot reasonably be expected instantly to move nearer to work .............
They could get a job near where they lived, so that they didn't need a car. That's what I had to do when I was saving up to buy a car. It's not rocket science.
|
It might not be rocket science but it's still a fact that not everyone lives in towns.
Villages have neither places to work at, or any means of public transport to commute to where the work is.
Is it better then for these youngsters to embark on a life on the dole instead of learning a work ethic?
How about a grade of insurance that covers 'commuting' only?
At an affordable price with enhanced penalties for any other use.
Pat
|
|
Haven't they tried something similar... based on miles driven if I remember rightly... is it still going?
|
There was a scheme by DIrect Line which fitted a chip in the engine and you got a discount for not driving at night but it was discontinued I think because of lack of take-up.
|
|
|
|
Villages have neither places to work at or any means of public transport to commute
to where the work is.>>
But it didn't use to be like that; car ownership put paid to that situation. If fuel/car ownership becomes too expensive again, then the balance will shift the other way.
I used to live in a village, but moved into town for convenience. It amuses me when villagers complain about rising fuel costs - it is their own fault that they lost the village facilities when they chose to drive into town.
|
I don't buy the "pity me I live in a village" argument either.
When I lived in the middle of nowhere and didn't own a car, I had to commute by bike, 15 miles each way. During the day I worked for 10 hours in tough conditions in a factory, and then cycled home again. I'm sounding like a Monty Python sketch now, aren't I.... ;)
Not easy, but do-able, especially when you're young.
The alternative is find a cheap flat in a town/city and move there for work.
Sure, it isn't ideal. But high house prices generally mean young people are forced to leave villages anyway.
It's a social problem that transcends car insurance issues.
|
>>>It's a social problem that transcends car insurance issues. <<<<
No, it's a practical problem that some prefer to pretend doesn't exist.
Cheap flat?......no such thing for a 16 yr old looking for a first job.
Pat
|
30% of drivers can't afford insurance?
Well, I can't afford a Bentley. Hence I don't have one.
Is insurance expensive for young people?
If so, don't drive. I didn't sit my test until I was 28. I managed without a car until then. I could not have afforded to run a car in my 20s, even if insurance had been free. So I didn't run one.
Are insurance companies unfair on young people and new drivers?
No. A very high proportion of the young drivers in my area have had accidents in recent years. And I'm not just talking about the wild kids. Even the reasonably well behaved ones have accidents. New drivers are prone to having accidents. I certainly was.
Is life without a car impossible if you live in a village?
I live in a small village in a remote area. There are working adults here who don't have cars - some without licenses. They manage.
|
Cheap flat?......no such thing for a 16 yr old looking for a first job.
Yes there is, it just might mean sharing with other young layabouts and putting up with one of life's less helpful landlords in a poor area.
There's always options, they're just not always that palatable, especially when compared to the comfort and ease of staying at Mum and Dad's!
I've been there and done it, there are practical issues, but they can be overcome - if you're willing to lower your standards, initially at least. Later on you get to pick the nice flats that require big deposits and have the supportive, helpful landlords.
Life isn't easy, and I suspect most young uns have been brought up with high expectations and very much shielded from some of the harsh realities out there...
The prime example of which is the near universal expectation of learning to drive at 17 and then buying a car. Or should I say, Mummy buys the car and fronts the insurance for them, if they're well off.
|
Strangly enough coming from a rural area & being a farmers son, it was expected that one got a licence at 17 ( though I did not until 18, first time though)
Except my father was very strict about insurances( among other things) so... NO "fronting" though quite a few mates were at it.
I did not have my own car , I bought that with my own money after Uni = Poly, with monies earned & saved from being in the TA
PS
in NI being a farmer did not equate to being wealthy
slept in sheets sewn up from Mortons flour bags, porrige for evening meals etc, etc.
Never slept in a cardboard box in middle of road though.
Mind I did once sleep in the gutter as a student ( alcohol induced)
|
Cheap flat?......no such thing for a 16 yr old looking for a first job.
That's irrelevant to this thread. They wouldn't have a driving licence anyway.
|
|
My daughter 24 pays £1800 insurance for a small fiat panda.She is a qualified nurse studied dam hard in Leeds to earn her degree.My future son in law who is polish smashing lad from poznan masters degree and works here in the uk as a social worker.They both arn't on high wages and deserve both every penny they work for.They both need a car for work they receive some petrol diesel allowance.Insurance cost is far to high for both their cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
