VW Golf 1.6 -- £3100 Insurance

[Barks]

You hit a parked car that had occupants, the case of fronting means nothing to the other car.

If that is actually the case then this is a prime example of why our legal system is a complete joke.

The fact he had driven the car and and intended to drive it home should definitely be taken into account. I'm sure If I had the money I could have launched a separate legal enquiry into this.

Again though, you're proving my original point before all this arguing which was people can get away with fronting.

 

[Maccapacca]

What happens with the insurers that offer NCD on named drivers? are they then encouraging fronting? how would they ever prove who was the main driver??

 

[andy_mk3]

My first year of insurance was £2200 on a '97 1.6 Astra. Even for a 1.0 Micra, Corsa, 106, Saxo etc, it was like £2000 minimum!

Insurance prices are absolutely terrible, I'm on my second year now and still pay £1200 on my car, that's worth £400 tops! I've added my dad as a named driver which dropped it by about £300 I think. I'm with Admiral this year.

I hope it comes down more next year I do see why so many people are un-insured though, not saying it's right that they are, but it's not right that we, as younger drivers have to pay so much.

 

[Kenai]

it's not right that we, as younger drivers have to pay so much.

Well it is, because statistically we present a far higher risk and are the cause of more accidents and higher payouts. Even people who don't drive like a complete ******* are still much more likely to have an accident through inexperience.

 

[Barks]

but it's not right that we, as younger drivers have to pay so much.

It is right because younger drivers have more accidents. If you want to put a label on it might I suggest 'unfair' as it's unfair that careful young drivers have to pay the same as reckless young drivers, as there is no infallible or effective mechanism to separate the two. Also at the end, regardless of driving style, young drivers are still inexperienced.

In an ideal world insurers would be omniscient and thus some young drivers would pay very little but sadly this isn't realistic or possible.

 

[SGWills]

although fronting is the "cheaper" option by doing that the cycle of high prices for new drivers wont drop, the only time you would get 6 points is if the insurance company decide to revoke your insurance due to the information provided not being accurate*the company would more than likely still cover the cost of third party but then chase you for the amounts - which is a completly(sp?) different subject which i can not be bothered to type* if they revoke the insurance then there is a chance that you would get 6 points and an IN10 conviction which is one that not a lot of insurance companies cover.

The high prices basically mean the insurance companies dont want to cover you, it could be because the information you provide has a few bits of information that they are rating upon quite highly this year or it could just be a simple case of age & car.

I might be someone who looks at worst case scenerio's but i would rather pay for insurance i know i could use as oppose to paying a lower amount (which is still quite a lot) that when i needed to use it to claim for any damages - its not worth the paper its printed on


its not as easy as to say that young drivers who just passed their test should have lower prices because as soon as they pass their test they have clean licenses but that doesnt change the fact that your more likely to crash in the first few years of driving as to when you been driving for 15 years +

 

[snowdog]

I'd just front in such a situation, the only reason I have my own insurance is because of my collectivity bonus from work, if I'd have to pay the full dole they could k my a... Pretty much everyone I know has their cars on their parents name, I don't blame them. One of my mates was even blatantly refused insurance because they thought a Golf 2.3 V5 is too much of an insurance risk for a 19 year old, I'm very lucky I have insurance through work and that they insured me no questions asked for the same price as if I'd have 10 years NCB...


3100 quid for insuring a 1.6 golf is clearly a matter of someone being out of their mind.

 

[mjt]

I'd just front in such a situation, the only reason I have my own insurance is because of my collectivity bonus from work, if I'd have to pay the full dole they could k my a... Pretty much everyone I know has their cars on their parents name, I don't blame them. One of my mates was even blatantly refused insurance because they thought a Golf 2.3 V5 is too much of an insurance risk for a 19 year old, I'm very lucky I have insurance through work and that they insured me no questions asked for the same price as if I'd have 10 years NCB...

But is the car or the driver insured in the Netherlands?
In Belgium it's technically the car rather than the driver.
So driving around on your "parents'" car isn't exactly illegal as anyone can drive the car as long as they have the owner's permission.

FWIW, my insurance broker claimed my 150bhp leon had 110bhp as otherwise I wouldn't have been able to get insurance (at 22!)
I asked if it would have had ramifications had I been in an accident, but he didn't seem too worried...

 

[mufc802]

I took my test and passed, then had to wait for a year to get insurance, since I couldn't afford the first year. Having owned a licence for a whole year made my insurance cost a lot less so I could pay for it. So if you can't afford, don't front because its wrong and if nobody did it we wouldn't have such high prices.

 

[collisster]

Boo ****ing hoo.
You do what you like and **** thousands up the wall to the insurance companies, but people with nouse will do the right thing

I bet you all buy music and films in the shops too

good lad

 

[[TW]Fox]

Could be typical daily mail scare mongering, equally it could be just the MIB protecting its vested interests in making money out of people. Wouldnt like to take the risk myself

Of course you could be prosecuted - it is fraud. But not for driving without insurance, to my knowledge

 

[Morba]

If that is actually the case then this is a prime example of why our legal system is a complete joke.

The fact he had driven the car and and intended to drive it home should definitely be taken into account. I'm sure If I had the money I could have launched a separate legal enquiry into this.

Again though, you're proving my original point before all this arguing which was people can get away with fronting.

It means nothing! You hit them, intention to drive or who drove it last means nothing.
Fronting means nothing here.
If he had hit you, then you can argue all you want that people can get away with it.
I'm quite surprised you got away with 50/50.

 

[Hades]

Just like progressive taxes, it is my view that rising costs should be spread equally to protect younger drivers, taking into the account there is strong correlation between wealth/income and age.

I'm 41 with, so far, a good record of driving. I've had many years of high insurance and paid it myself with no-one helping me or subsidising me. Thankfully I'm now at the age where I can insure most cars fairly cheaply. This is because I am now far more experienced and therefore a lower risk. Why should I now subsidise a young drivers insurance by having my premiums inflated? The fact of the matter is that young drivers are a higher risk than older drivers and premiums therefore reflect it.

Insurance is indeed driven by market forces. If there is a swell of opinion that they are too high then there must be a gap in the market for someone to start a company specialising in insuring young drivers for less than current market value. So personally I think that a number of the young drivers should get together and start that company if they feel the risk is worth taking.

 

[snowdog]

But is the car or the driver insured in the Netherlands?
In Belgium it's technically the car rather than the driver.
So driving around on your "parents'" car isn't exactly illegal as anyone can drive the car as long as they have the owner's permission.

FWIW, my insurance broker claimed my 150bhp leon had 110bhp as otherwise I wouldn't have been able to get insurance (at 22!)
I asked if it would have had ramifications had I been in an accident, but he didn't seem too worried...

The car yeah, I was under the impression however, that it is required for the main driver to insure the car ?

If it's legal what you say then I might just as well put one of my cars on my dads name (27 years ncb) while keeping one my own just to build NCB ? I'd save a tenner or 2 per month that way.

 

[mjt]

The car yeah, I was under the impression however, that it is required for the main driver to insure the car ?

If it's legal what you say then I might just as well put one of my cars on my dads name (27 years ncb) while keeping one my own just to build NCB ? I'd save a tenner or 2 per month that way.

I just told my broker I had been driving (my parents' cars, nowhere near in my name) for 5 years and he gave me 5 years NCB. Belgium's great, huh?

 

[Hxc]

It is right because younger drivers have more accidents. If you want to put a label on it might I suggest 'unfair' as it's unfair that careful young drivers have to pay the same as reckless young drivers, as there is no infallible or effective mechanism to separate the two. Also at the end, regardless of driving style, young drivers are still inexperienced.

In an ideal world insurers would be omniscient and thus some young drivers would pay very little but sadly this isn't realistic or possible.

I'm glad after a million threads you've finally accepted this. Even if you are going to keep arguing a point that doesn't make any sense.

 

[gbradders123]

fronted till i was 25, had a claim and court etc.. never a problem the only people i have heard about getting into trouble where people who where taking there cars to uni.

My charming broker gave me 6 years ncb when i took my own policy out anyway.

 

[Fr0dders]

Of course you could be prosecuted - it is fraud. But not for driving without insurance, to my knowledge

i took the reference to fines and prosecution as a reference to motoring offences rather than fraud. But vermind its a bit ambiguous.

 

[Barks]

It means nothing! You hit them, intention to drive or who drove it last means nothing.
Fronting means nothing here.
If he had hit you, then you can argue all you want that people can get away with it.
I'm quite surprised you got away with 50/50.

Just because it doesn't apply in the context of the accident it doesn't mean it should be ignored. The accident would never have occurred had he not been driving and thus 'fronting.' There is no arguing against that fact, it is infallible logic.

This is precisely why I despise our legal system.

It's like a policeman pulling over someone for drink driving and finding a load of butchered body parts in the car, but not being able to do anything because the reason they stopped the car was because of suspected drink driving.

Also who are you to judge? Anyone who would side against me when I was by myself and the other car was full of 4 drunk teenagers at 3am needs their head looking at. What really should have happened is the drunk passenger should have paid for all damages, sadly I do not posses the wealth to launch that sort of legal challenge.

 

[Barks]

I'm 41 with, so far, a good record of driving. I've had many years of high insurance and paid it myself with no-one helping me or subsidising me. Thankfully I'm now at the age where I can insure most cars fairly cheaply. This is because I am now far more experienced and therefore a lower risk. Why should I now subsidise a young drivers insurance by having my premiums inflated? The fact of the matter is that young drivers are a higher risk than older drivers and premiums therefore reflect it.

Insurance is indeed driven by market forces. If there is a swell of opinion that they are too high then there must be a gap in the market for someone to start a company specialising in insuring young drivers for less than current market value. So personally I think that a number of the young drivers should get together and start that company if they feel the risk is worth taking.

I agree with the top paragraph.

The fact is car insurance is a legal requirement. I would argue that driving a car is not a 'luxury' in this day and age and it should be financially accessible. Many young adults have jobs where they require a car to get to work, is it really fair that they should have to spend an obscene quantity of money to do so. From my school most of us went on to University but I worked at a local supermarket with plenty of people who dropped out of school after GCSEs and had to use a car to get there.

On the subject of risk, some drivers are completely safe regardless of age. Some of my mates drive ridiculously cautiously and slowly and would never have an accident in a million years and should be paying virtually nothing. The other drivers (myself included) are aggressive, and it's only in this bracket where experience pays such a crucial role. Some drivers are aggressive and reckless, where as some drivers are aggressive but safe. Any petrol-head reading this who has been driving for 5-10 years could probably get in a 300bhp car, drive like a loony and still drive safely. An inexperienced driver (myself included) in such a car driving in the same style is always going to be significantly more likely to crash it, and it's infuriating speaking to youngsters who seem to think they're god's gift to driving, even more so when they're driving tin cans. I went through it at the age of 17/18, my brothers are now that age and I've heard 3 stories in the last year of their mates writing cars off - with no other vehicle involved - just due to driving like a moron in an incapable car. My brothers themselves have smashed two wing mirrors, scraped the alloys and the bodywork.