I finally sympathise with young drivers

Von Smallhausen · 9 May 2006 at 14:01

Mr Man said:
But your forgetting its not just about what the car is worth if its stolen, what happens if this young inexperienced driver crashes into someone driving a nice new BMW or other expensive car, the cost to the insurance company is going to be much higher than the £3k premium they paid.

As it was for young drivers when I passed my test nearly 10 years ago, but as I recall it wasn't that high then and expensive cars were around then.

They will pay more being inexperienced, that is unavoidable, but the premiums now are ridiculous, irrespective of the fact they may run into a BMW or a Bentley.

While premiums are so high, uninsured driving will be equally as high.

el_dazza · 9 May 2006 at 14:18

[TW]Fox said:
The cost of insuring a Ka in Liverpool is £3k becuase there is a VERY high chance it'll get nicked

Talk about being stereotypical :rolleyes:

merlin · 9 May 2006 at 14:25

Von Smallhausen said:
As it was for young drivers when I passed my test nearly 10 years ago, but as I recall it wasn't that high then and expensive cars were around then.

They will pay more being inexperienced, that is unavoidable, but the premiums now are ridiculous, irrespective of the fact they may run into a BMW or a Bentley.

While premiums are so high, uninsured driving will be equally as high.

It's been explained why premiums are so high VS, - massive increase in Personal Injury claims fuelled by ambulance chasers. That's our newly adopted culture now - where's there's blame there's a claim.

That's greed.

Who mentioned the word greed first?

merlin · 9 May 2006 at 14:26

el_dazza said:
Talk about being stereotypical

That's not stereotypical - it's factual.

Trojan · 9 May 2006 at 14:27

[TW]Fox said:
Justify this comment please - as they dont make THAT much money. The cost of insuring a Ka in Liverpool is £3k becuase there is a VERY high chance it'll get nicked, or crash..

More chance of getting nicked? Certainly. More chance of crashing? Not at all. So how can you justify £3k premiums for a car worth far less than that, given that the most likely payout is going to be for the car being nicked?

merlin · 9 May 2006 at 14:31

Trojan said:
More chance of getting nicked? Certainly. More chance of crashing? Not at all. So how can you justify £3k premiums for a car worth far less than that, given that the most likely payout is going to be for the car being nicked?

Postcode rating takes into theft and traffic density/accident frequency.

It's not purely an indication of theft risk.

And let's also bear in mind - an amendment to the RTA now means that if your car is stolen - and runs someone over - guess what - your insurers pay for the injury.

So - £1000 car = stolen.

£1000 theft claim less excess = £750.

Plus cost of whatever the thief manages to hit mid-gettaway. £10k?

Plus cost of death/injury £30k?

William · 9 May 2006 at 14:38

Trojan said:
More chance of getting nicked? Certainly. More chance of crashing? Not at all. So how can you justify £3k premiums for a car worth far less than that, given that the most likely payout is going to be for the car being nicked?

There is a bigger chance of crashing a car if you drive around liverpool compared to driving around country lanes in the Yorkshire dales or somewhere.

ajgoodfellow · 9 May 2006 at 14:57

Jay said:
try elephant and admiral, with 2 older experienced woman drivers.

This is a good suggestion

Add your Mum as a named driver - this dropped my insurance considerably. It's still perfectly legal as it's in your name and you're the main driver

Trojan · 9 May 2006 at 14:59

merlin said:
And let's also bear in mind - an amendment to the RTA now means that if your car is stolen - and runs someone over - guess what - your insurers pay for the injury.

I didn't know that.

I can certainly see the reason behind it, but putting the cost of insurance up to an extortionate amount really isn't the way forward. It's just going to encourage uninsured drivers.

Trojan · 9 May 2006 at 15:00

William said:
There is a bigger chance of crashing a car if you drive around liverpool compared to driving around country lanes in the Yorkshire dales or somewhere.

But a bigger chance of having an expensive, write off crash? I wouldn't have thought so. Feel free to prove me wrong though

ajgoodfellow · 9 May 2006 at 15:03

Trojan said:
But a bigger chance of having an expensive, write off crash? I wouldn't have thought so. Feel free to prove me wrong though

Sometimes a write off crash where it's just the driver involved is cheaper for the insurance company

Say you spin off a corner, hit a tree and write the car off (very common for young drivers). With a Ford Ka, valued at £3k say, this will cost the insurance company about £3k, minus excess, plus a few small costs

If you hit someone else though your car will need to be repaired and theirs will. If you spin you might also hit a lamp post, taking out phone lines, walls, etc. This all adds up. In today's dreadful claim culture someone will probably put in a PI claim. This could cost the company way more than £3k and this is more likely, statistically, to happen in a busy built up city than a country road