Insurance for youngsters is quite disgraceful and someone in Government should crack down on this. When i started driving i did the "fronting" thing for the first two years, passing it off as my Dad's car as it was the only way it was feasible to do it, although to be fair we did share the car, he used it for night work and i used it in the daytime, so symantics really i suppose, in terms of mileage i actually was the lowest user of it, about 40% of its miles. If i hadnt of done i'd probably still be unemployed due to where i live.

And before any holier than thou folk whine about what i did, maybe if they didnt penalise me for the hideous crime of not being a girl i wouldnt of had to do it. My girlfriend at the time was the same age as me, same area on a very similar car and she goti t for 45% off. Yet had the same driving record and experience that i did. How was that legal?

Absolutely thrilled to see the EU are finally cracking down on such disgusting behaviour and the women are going to have to stump up a proper price from next year onwards. Such sexist madness has gone on for far too long.

And as for the Pass Plus, a few of my friends did that and it made a small difference to their insurance but from what ive been told now, thanks to a study saying it doesnt improve road safety, insurance companies barely acknowledge the pass plus. Not enough to warrant the cost of paying for the pass plus anyway. Although that could depend on your location. As insurers do just throw a dart at a dartboard shaped like Britain and decide where they'll rip people off and where they wont. Where i live its deemed a low risk area anyway, so i suppose theres less to discount.

Edited by jamie745 on 23/04/2011 at 17:14

Sorry mate but i cant agree with that. Newer cars are alot safer and easier to drive and most parents wouldnt like the idea of their son/daughter in an old deathrap without airbags and ABS etc. I know mine didnt. I wanted an old Capri which insurance wise was actually less than a Fiesta but my parents wouldnt have it lol. And most youngsters do buy a low powered car. My first Fiesta had 70 horsepower at best on a windy day, yet i was still quoted 3 times what it was worth to insure it. So thats a non argument also. Insurance companies would rather people under 25 didnt have a car at all, lets face it.

Ive heard arguments of youngsters should have cars capable of a top speed of 70mph, thats a non starter also as on dual carraigeways they're going to be driving with their car at full speed, on sky high revs and the car will be lucky to last a year without blowing up so thats a non starter also. How often do you drive your car at the maximum speed it can achieve?

Premiums for youngsters is horrific, and all it does is encourage more to drive without insurance, thati s what bumps up the claim cost. I just dont feel its right to penalise people who havent done anything. Penalising them for what they might do is harsh. And usually the young drivers are the ones on lower incomes who cannot afford sky high insurance bills, people in their 40s can afford them and are usually the worst drivers on the roads in my experience, the kind who believe because they've been driving a long time then they can do no wrong. Yes youngsters have some silly accidents, i crashed my Escort into a tree just before i turned 20. It was my own tree so it wasnt too much of a bother, but i was always too scared to drive quickly so you'd never of caught me speeding round at a million miles an hour.

Equalising premiums for women is EQUALITY. Something women have banged on about for years. Im not disputing the statistics show them to have/cause less accidents etc, as thats statistical fact which i cannot argue with. The point is that those statistics are irrelivant. The point is that those stats cannot be used and do not matter.

If stats came out showing gay people cause more accidents would insurance companies be allowed to charge them more? Or would they be allowed to racially profile people if statistics said black people cause more crashes? They'd never be allowed to do that under equality laws no matter how definitive the statistics were.

Equality is about treating both men and women the same and not using gender to determine anything. So by ignoring stats favouring women in car insurance, equality is being enforced.

If it was the other way around and women were paying extra, it wouldve been outlawed 30 years ago, but because its only men who get conned, they get away with it for decades. Again, if they were charging gays, christians, jews etc more due to "statistics" they wouldnt be allowed to use those statistics. So why are they allowed to use gender statistics? Why has that one slipped through the net when all other discrimination has been banished? Equality means statistics favouring one side or the other cannot be used, so safer drivers will end up paying extra which is the ugly side of equality but so be it.

Women seem only interested in equality when its in their interest. When it suddenly means it wont suit them then all of a sudden they want the differences between men and women to be a working factor in things.

Funny that.

And the Government should step in and stamp out age being a factor. Driving experience fair enough, but not age. Like someone at 30 who's just passed their test can get cheaper insurance than someone of the same driving experience at 18, which just isnt right. They're both of the same level, so why should one pay extra? I have no issue with driving experience being used, thats fair enough. But age stats should be outlawed. And ive never known a Government to care what the public think about a policy so im sure old people moaning wouldnt be a problem.

And im nearly 27 now and i still feel very strongly about this issue even though it barely affects me anymore, ive got almost 9 years no claims with no points or convictions or anything and am getting very reasonable premiums, but i was lucky enough to have parents who would pay up the extortionate cost to start off with, others arent.

I cut my teeth on a 13 year old Triumph Herald. Stone age Technology. I had many a happy hour sitting on the front wheel getting the thing to go. iirc a grand total of 37 bhp. The beast could not go fast enough to do much damage but it did the job for me for three years at uni with a 300 mile one way journey.

17/18 year olds should resist the urge to get the latest/most 'in' chariot and settle for something that may be old/tatty/slow but does the job. Far cheaper all round

Being older and more mature doesnt mean you're a good driver or that you wont have an accident or make a silly mistake.

You pay an increase to subsidise them already. Everytime a claim is made, money has to be recouped, it goes on everybodies premium. According to moneysupermarket its going up 44p a day. But thats what'll happen as long as we keep letting private companies working for profit handle car insurance. They couldnt give a damn about rewarding you for being old and perfect. All they're interested in is making money for themselves.

Its interesting that a recent RAC survey (i think it was the RAC) found that over 70% of British drivers would drive without insurance if it were optional. This shows how most people never need it anyway.

But the point on the womens insurance stands. If i found stats which said black people are more of a risk and any insurance company racially profiled people to "reflect the cost of claims" they'd never get away with it. So its about time the EU did something as this sexist ageist country will never bother to do it, so others have had to do it for us.

"A big factor in pushing up costs is the survival rate of the injured. Young males are far more likely to experience the red mist than the young ladies. If young lad has three mates in the car and it hits a tree (something most 40 year olds have learnt not to do), there's a good chance, if the crash doesn't kill them, that the doctors will keep the poor b*****s alive, brain damged, paralysed, incontinent............... These claims cost millions, so you need a lot of acccident free youths to pay for the relative few who mess up."

More likely, possibly. Dead certain? Absolutely not. And insurers treat new drivers as if its a dead cert they will destroy 50k worth of Britain and put people in hospital. Are you saying you'd rather they die in the accident instead?

The friend of your son you're talking about sounds interesting, but if the first two crashes didnt write the car off then it cant've been much more than a ding. But when its a 40 something person its a "ding" or a "scrape" but when its a youngster you call it a crash. The roads are extremely busy these days and in my experience, very inexperienced drivers have the reactions of an old person and in most cases they just dont see something, or they panic when someone pulls out in front of them etc, not neccessarily their fault, as its not like the middle aged generation are perfect drivers, they usually are terrible drivers who think they own the road and harrass the youngsters into making mistakes. People aged 40+ and their attitude to learners is quite appalling as ive mentioned in a previous topic on here. Just because it was easy to pass a test in the 80s and earlier and there wasnt much traffic and you sailed through in 4 lessons with no issues doesnt mean its as easy for the youngsters of today. My Dad is 53 and has been driving for 35 years, passed his test in the 70s and even he admitted he'd hate to be a learner now and having to do it all now and he does feel sorry as "it was much easier back then as the roads werent nearly half as busy."

"Would you also say that insurers should not rate on postcode as this discriminates against those living in the north west over those say living in rural Worcestershire? It has been found that in some areas of the NW, 9 out of 10 accidents result in whiplash, whereas other areas, it's nearer 1 in 10."

Absolutely. And insurance companies massive differences in price between postcode was recently on watchdog due to the unfairness and seemingly random nature of it so im not the only one. This is where statistics can be massaged in such a way to show what you want them to. You say 9 in 10 accidents in the north west result in whiplash where as in worcestershire for example its 1 in 10. Is the reason 9 in 10 result in whiplash purely because its up north? Do you not accept other factors have to come into it?

Perhaps it needs to be pointed out people in the north west earn on average a lower wage than those in the home counties, and as such probably buy and drive older cars, less safety features, meaning on average a normal knock is likely to cause more damage. Being shunted at 20mph from behind in a 1997 Ford Escort is alot worse than in a brand new Freelander like most of the toffs have. You could also say on most surveys or police reports that drivers in the north are more likely to drive without seatbelts etc and motoring offences are more common than in the south but its far more in depth and complicated than "you'll get injured in the north, you'll be fine in the south."

Sky high insurance bills in the north only encourage more drivers to drive without insurance, if you've ever seen Traffic Cops in North Yorkshire episodes you'll know how bad the problem is. The police admitting "theres too many driving without insurance we cant nick them all" and also admitted some get away with it for up to ten years because theres just so many. And cranking up premiums isnt going to solve that issue. Eventually there'll just be one northern driver paying £10million a year and nobody else bothering having it if it continues.

The only reason they'll drive without it is because its too expensive. How can you charge the highest premiums in the lowest income area? Where posh toffs with their electric gates, earning 50k a year in BMW X5's get low premiums? It just isnt going to work. They'll say it "reflects claim costs" but continuing with that method is never going to solve the problem is uninsured drivers in low income areas is it?

"That's a moral risk and insurers now use credit scoring to access new business. Is that disciminatory against those who can't handle money?"

No thats totally different. Using someones own previous credit record to assess them is fair enough. Using somebody elses driving record to determine a new driver (who's never driven before, so obviously hasnt done anything wrong) insurance premium is wrong.

If i set up a new business and my insurance company said "well because someone down the road from you went bankrupt we're goin to have to charge you more" it wouldnt wash would it?

So because after years of safety campaigning, police warnings and vehicle manufacturers doing their best to make cars safer in accidents and now proportionately less people are dying on our roads (so far i think everything in this sentance is good and positive) now means we all have to pay extra because people didnt have the decency to die in their mangled crash?

So we're all now being persecuted and punished for surviving our car crashes? Somebody needs to take a look at that.

I agree with driving experience and the car being used as a factor. Thats fine. I never said otherwise. But i dont agree with new drivers being persecuted for someone elses claims. The problem is car insurance is compulsory, yet the people in charge of it are private companies looking to make profit. I never intend to make a claim on mine and have never had to do so, i take the cheapest cover with the worst terms i can get away with having no intention of using it. Because i know if i ever needed them, they'd do their best to not have to pay out, and then triple my premium the following year as punishment for using the insurance i am obligated to purchase. In most cases you're better off just throwing your car in the river (or sea, or canal, or whatever takes your fancy), paying for any damage caused to someone else (if there is any) yourself and just buying a different car.

And my argument about the postcode differences is all raising premiums in certain areas does is make more drive without insurance, effectivley locking in the descripency and offering no solution to it. There are places in Yorkshire where my policy would be 7 times what i currently pay (i know, ive checked) and that just isnt feasible for most people. And is it right for honest drivers to have to pay extra to subsidise fraudsters just because they happen to live near them? Insurance companies should leave it to the police to tackle fraud, not try and profit from it themselves.

But back to the original point of the thread, which is young persons insurance, i still feel its very unfair that youngsters get charged such extortionate premiums and are treated as if they WILL (not might, but will) crash and cause seven deaths. When i was 18 i got a quote on a car which was seven times what the car was worth. So they thought i was going to write the car off completely seven times a year?!? Madness.

You could argue if they're convinced teenagers cannot be trusted to drive then why allow 17 year olds to do it in the first place? Why not raise the age to 21? Probably wouldnt help but its a thought. I would never advise anybody to drive at that age, if possible i'd advise someone to get their licence at 18 but wait until they're 21/22 before buying a car, as insurance companies think holding a licence for 4 years without actually driving has made you a better driver (i know, work that one out) and premiums come down alot quicker. One years no claims at 22 in some areas can halve the price, even with the added levy for the hideous crime of not being a girl.

Edited by jamie745 on 25/04/2011 at 13:59

Things like traffic levels are for politicians to sort out progressivley, not do what this Government will probably do and just price people out of driving or ban them from driving. Compared to 20 years ago there's roughly 40% more cars on the roads now but only 10% more roads have been built. Thats the heart of the issue. And as for pollution, we as the UK are a tiny country and contribute a tiny amount yet we seem to be penalised very heavily for our tiny contribution where as the biggest contributors get away scott free with dirt cheap petrol etc. Anyway, rant over on that issue.

As for the rising of the driving age, most of the World has theres set at 18. It varies in the states between 14-19 although lower ages are heavily restricted in ways that our youths arent, so on average its 16-17 when they start driving solo, so younger than us, yet they seem to manage ok. As i said most of the World has it at 18 (younger in Australia) yet we seem to have a real issue with it. You could say America's roads are much better than ours, they designed their nation around the car from the year dot and it is easier to drive there. Britains roads are poorly laid out, poorly constructed with a blind bend on every turn and is very condusive to accidents, and that will remain the case until some future Government decides to bite the bullet and pull up every single road and start all over again.

As for no claims discount, the issue there is they're private companies, so unless a law is passed (unlikely) to stop them offering it the industry will never agree to do it, as one company will refuse and they will rake in the customers, corperate competition. Also to be fair just because you have No Claims Discount protected doesnt mean your premiums wont rise. That just protects the discount given for your no claims length, if you're convicted of something that counts as a conviction, not a claim, so that is added on. Overall that system is probably fair. And i also feel with the way the world is now people have to try and shift responsibility because admitting it gets you so screwed over it just isnt worth it. All these "stupid" laws we complain about had to be made as a counter law because somebody got screwed over, thats how it is.

And again, if you drove your car up a tree you'd still be better off ditching the car and buying a new one. I'd never claim on my insurance if any accident i was in didnt involve anybody else, its just not worth it, not for a ten year old car worth an optimistic 2k.

I agree the exaggerated injury claims are an issue, but the fact is i know if i fell over in Tesco and hurt myself i'd get my phone out and call a solicitor, not an ambulance. Ive met quite a few of those personal injury lawyer types and other varieties, most notably in my previous job where the genius was able to get a colleague out of what looked a certain driving ban. Absolute genius. I feel dirty for saying this but i do have his card LOL!!!

Anyway. Good lord is that the time?!?!?!? Bank holidays are no good for sleep patterns!

Should 40% more roads of been built? Maybe not totally required. But definatley more than the 10% which have been built. And existing ones need to be changed and adapted to handle 21st century traffic. Most town and city roads still date back to the Romans and it just doesnt work here today in 2011. And cluttering up every road with a million sets of traffic lights helps nobody. So we'd need to look at things like that first. But yes more roads need building, the same as more houses need building. But nobody ever gets round to it due to either lack of funds or greenie nimbys who dont want houses or roads where they live.

I think eventually premiums will rise so much people just stop paying them, insurance companies will panic and it'll result in a price war as each company endeavours to drive prices down. With so much competition out there it only takes a few of them to do it and the rest will follow, the success of things like confused.com and moneysupermarket.com means consumers are now more aware than ever on how people are ripped off. So eventually there will be a price crash as theres roughly 33 million motorists on Britains roads, and i doubt they pay over the odds to drive for the fun of it and nor do i think the majority sit in jams for entertainment so its clear that its a neccessity, not just people being annoying. So you're not going to get people out of cars within one generation, not a chance, not until something more viable comes along and over a century on from the invention of the motorcar still nothing looks vaguely like it could rival it.