Insuring young drivers

[the snooper]

They should have to complete a pass plus before they are allowed on Motorways on their own. I know it's extra cost but letting some learners I see round here, loose on the Motorways ,even with experienced driver is dangerous.

they have to be competent before being allowed on there

 

[slim_boy_fat]

He was a candidate for Barryboys when he had his Polo with the distressed paint, massive amp and stupid wheel camber but I think he's realising it's just a waste of time now.

That's because he's a) getting older and b) gathering the wisdom that comes with the former. Having said that, I know a few stupid old folk.....

 

[owas]

I just went straight to old land rovers
Disco 300tdi,First year was about 2.3k fully comp (could not get less on any car other than a mini!)
Second year was 900 quid, now my third year is £500, and the 110 is £350 and will be less than £200 next year.
With a claim against me so only 1 years no claims.

Seemingly i can insure anything over 20 years and European regardless of engine size for £350 or less fully comp with footman james while normal car insurance is still around the £1.5-2k mark.

 

[pedrobedro]

BSM did a motorway lesson for newly passed drivers when my wife passed her test. It was quite good she said. Why not just make it part of the test after passing.

 

[slim_boy_fat]

Maybe they ought to more usefully include night driving [A & B roads, not m/ways] in the tuition and testing?

 

[winchman]

Well best price was under £1800 but he failed!
Retest in 4 weeks so lets hope I can still get it so cheap then, gives me more time to do a few bits on the car though

 

[Migmac]

Just been to look at a 57 plate golf, Match 1.9 TDI. Tidy wee motor, one owner from new drives very nicely. Serviced every year, 4 new tires, years MOT, years warranty. Insurance quote was surprising, £1500 for my son, me and the wife fully comp.

 

[hotrodder]

Obviously it depends where you live but in many areas there are dual carriageways which are effectively motorways in everything but name and a few rules about mopeds etc. Dunno if it's still the case but when i took my test it was common to make use of 'em, FWIW mine involved the A20 so only a 50mph limit but people that didn't reach the limit (when safe to) were marked down or failed because of it

There's plenty of logic to car insurance [/devils advocate] 3rd party only usually costs more because the policy holder has less incentive to inform their insurer of an accident or theft* (like they agreed to in the terms). This can mean the first thing their insurer hears about it is when they get a hugely inflated bill from an accident management company etc i.e. they charge more for for 3rd party and/or tpf&t because they have loads of statitics telling them they'd be mad not to. Along the same lines it can cost more to insure a car that's worthless than one worth a few grand... compared to the potential ££££££££ involved if a 3rd party is crippled even the value of a supercar is insignificant and for the average car in an average bump the 'compensashion innit' for a few whiplash cases is proably waaaaaaay more expensive than a few bits of bent metal

Along the same lines this is also why a non fault claim can result in premium increases because "you're statistically more likely to have another". Kinda makes sense sometimes if you think about it... the last of the late breakers is more likely to have someone run into the back of them and parked cars are more likely to be damaged if they're parked in stupid places. Obviously this is of little comfort to people that were sitting patiently at a set of traffic lights when hit but insurance, like life, isn't fair... it's about statistics and sharing risk

Statistically new drivers are very likely to be involved in an accident. A minor bump with one whiplash claim can soon be several grand so premiums are priced accordingly. Premiums were about a grand when i passed (pre ambulance chasers and crash for cash scams), soon dropped to 500ish and now a chunk lower than that. Lets say it stayed at a grand/year to make the maths easy, i passed in '92 so the evil insurance companies would have relieved me of £24k so far. If i crippled someone or destroyed something expensive next time i got behind the wheel they could potentially be on the hook for 7 figures. If i skidded into a bus stop full of schoolkids on bald tyres or something else that breached the contract they'd still have to payout, the only difference would be that could get a bit of it back by bankrupting me through the courts afterwoods

* damage caused by stolen cars can result in people (including plod etc) chasing the insurance company because of their responsibilities under the Road Traffic Act

 

[slim_boy_fat]

Where I passed my test [when a 'yoof'], there weren't even any traffic lights or pedestrian crossings. [Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.... ]

 

[rtbcomp]

....

Along the same lines this is also why a non fault claim can result in premium increases because "you're statistically more likely to have another". Kinda makes sense sometimes if you think about it... the last of the late breakers is more likely to have someone run into the back of them and parked cars are more likely to be damaged if they're parked in stupid places. Obviously this is of little comfort to people that were sitting patiently at a set of traffic lights when hit but insurance, like life, isn't fair... it's about statistics and sharing risk

...

On the other hand the experience might teach them to be more wary and defensive. Insurance companies take the line they do because it justifies increasing premiums rather than decreasing them.

 

[8ob]

I passed my test in 1974, my first car was a mini but at the same time I bought a wreck of an Etype Jag ( when they were £500 as a heap ) . The jag took two years to restore and put on the road , the surprise was that the Etype was £150 a year fully comp for a numpty like me with the insurers knowing that all I had driven previous to this was a kin mini

Bob

 

[slim_boy_fat]

I passed my test in 1974, my first car was a mini but at the same time I bought a wreck of an Etype Jag ( when they were £500 as a heap ) . The jag took two years to restore and put on the road , the surprise was that the Etype was £150 a year fully comp for a numpty like me with the insurers knowing that all I had driven previous to this was a kin mini

Bob

Bet you wish you still had the E today - inflation-proof investment, not to mention fun.

 

[Justme]

Why is it that with all the extra tuition and testing that keeps on being introduced, the standard of driving just carries on falling?

Lack of enforcement.
Different up bringing / child hoods.
Roads are different now.

By the time I got behind the wheel of a car I could already "drive" all I needed was to learn how to control the car. Most kids now do not watch the driver when they are in a car but sit in a virtual world.

 

[hotrodder]

@hotrodder - what car did you have in '92 that cost a grand to insure?

I passed when I was 17 in '94 and my first car was a mk2 escort insured for £500 and pennies.

Location makes a big difference though - my Carlton I had at 19 was £350 around here, but £1500 when I moved to Watford...

An old 2 door Escort too but i live in sarf east London

On the other hand the experience might teach them to be more wary and defensive. Insurance companies take the line they do because it justifies increasing premiums rather than decreasing them.

Insurance is an open market and something most people(?) buy on price alone... Before anyone says they're all in it together the competition and markets authority recently investigated private motor insurance and while they obviously found loads of issues the only mention of price fixing i'm aware of is agreements between insurers and comparison sites and that was fairly obvious to anyone that shops around properly and/or was aware that lots of the comparison sites are owned by the same companies

 

[Shox Dr]

If I had may way, you'd have to ride two wheels for xy months/miles before you get anywhere near 4 wheels.

Besides driving a car comes whey down the list of things to do, while driving

 

[knighty]

If I had may way, you'd have to ride two wheels for xy months/miles before you get anywhere near 4 wheels.

problem is all the useless drivers would be dead on 2wheels before they ever made it to 4


which is fine... until it's your kid on the bike :-o


low power restrictions would work... everyone has a few **** clenching moments after they pass their test... thing is when I passed (1999) an old 1 litre fiesta was best for insurance, and was slow enough that if something went wrong you couldn't do much damage to yourself/others

modern 1litre cars are pretty quick/nippy - much easier to lose control or concentration and have a daft bump if you're young / a bit usless

 

[Shox Dr]

problem is all the useless drivers would be dead on 2wheels before they ever made it to 4


which is fine... until it's your kid on the bike :-o

Why is it people think its their right to be in charge of a vehicle. Everyone has different skill levels, yet everyone believes they are capable of driving a car. And demand the right

 

[Shox Dr]

Ok, in order...

The majority of bike fatalities are caused by other road users - i.e. that person in the car not looking. If that person in the car had had bike time it's more likely they would be looking.

Surely the parent must bear some of the responsibility to help assess whether their offspring is suitable to be on the road in the first place? Like teach them what to look for while driving, take them out cycling to get used to roads - y'know, the sort of thing that apparently went out of fashion with flares.

I know the real problem though - there is a fixed amount of intelligence available to the planet, and the ever growing population means it's getting spread more thinly every year

Totally agree


(Im glad I got mine before all the cuts.)

 

[ukracer]

Ok, in order...

The majority of bike fatalities are caused by other road users - i.e. that person in the car not looking. If that person in the car had had bike time it's more likely they would be looking.

Surely the parent must bear some of the responsibility to help assess whether their offspring is suitable to be on the road in the first place? Like teach them what to look for while driving, take them out cycling to get used to roads - y'know, the sort of thing that apparently went out of fashion with flares.

Power restrictions are balls - whatever the vehicle. Before I was 20 I'd had big engines in cars (Carlton, Volvo, couple of others) and what did I crash? A 1.3 escort and an 850cc mini. The mini was after having bigger cars...


I know the real problem though - there is a fixed amount of intelligence available to the planet, and the ever growing population means it's getting spread more thinly every year

I agree with the last.part....but despite it being new year ....many bike fatalities involve bikes speeding into cars not computing their speed or seeing them......too many insist on fasion above visibility.

My number one motto "drive for everyone else on the road not yourself"

 

[pedrobedro]

take them out cycling to get used to roads - y'know, the sort of thing that apparently went out of fashion with flares

I went out yesterday on my pushbike and for the first time in years I rode on the pavement as I was rocked by cars overtaking me too close. The road is a 50 limit and it is as if the drivers feel you have no right to be on there. I don't ride in the middle of the road but they were not moving over at all and I would not wish that on a parent trying to teach kids responsible road use.