Ah yes and mug an old lady for the cash. Simples.
How can I mug myself? What are you on about.
Me tarzan, you jane.
Let's agree to disagree. You think I'm a knob and I think you are a moron so fairs fair.
It's the insurance companies' fault anyway. Just because someone is a teenager doesn't mean they will have an accident - sweeping generalisations like that aren't acceptable anywhere else in society, so I don't see why they should be allowed here.
Unfortunately, the world of Insurance (an a lot of other things) revolves around sweeping generalisations, so I suggest you re-evaluate your opinions on society.
Of course, they could always employ 10 time more staff to individually assess every situation of every customer.... but then who do you think would cover the additional cost of that?
Everybody has to start somewhere, and a lot of people at that age don't have a thousand or so to chuck at insurance.
I understand the logic behind charging more. But a young driver crashing a 1.2 at 100mph or a 2.5 liter twin turbo at 130 mph or whatever, whats the difference, theres still most likely going to be deaths or horrendus damage? The same amount of damage can easily be caused tbh.
It's more about charging relative to the chance of an accident, than charging in accordance with scaleable resultant costs of an accident.
I'd like a 3 bed detached house in the country, but they tend to start at £300,000.
Therefore, rather than SAVING- I just think they should be cheaper. I mean seriously - some people just don't have £300,000 or so to chuck at a house.