[davidelliott294]

Hi,

This thread is all about young drivers car insurance rant. But really, why bother being able to pass your driving test at the age of 17 when insurance premiums for young drivers are sky high! How are young drivers supposed to be able to afford this?

Anyway, moving on to the point i'm trying to get across. I currently own a Volkswagen Polo 1litre and I'm currently paying £2400/year (£200/month) FOR A ONE LITRE, third party fire and theft. I pay the most for insurance out of all my friends, my postcode is a class c like all my friends (this hardly makes a difference, i've checked it against class a addresses. Class a was more expensive than mines) I have constantly searched high and low to try and reduce my premium and the lowest I could get without using this telematics technology was £2000+. I'm currently studying at College and struggle to afford this £200 a month. The only other way to get this cheap is by putting the car under your parents name, i.e they are the owner/registered keeper and main driver of the car which is of course illegal if you are the owner and main driver, no wonder there is a lot of insurance fraud. Just a little addition, big insurance company Aviva quotes me £5500 for insurance. I would be around £1200 for a telematics box but that would mean restricting me to 6000 miles, increasing my premium for driving at night, increasing my premium for accelerating hard/braking hard.

I have friends who are now 19 that when they passed their test had cars at 17 and only paid ~£1000 for insurance for their first car, it just shows you how times are changing and that insurance companies are getting away with it so they will bump up the premium.

Statistics APPARENTLY show that young drivers are the most at risk on the road. I TOTALLY disagree with this statement. In the news recently there was a young lad from Bromsgrove who was with Co-operative insurance (telematics technology insurance) and is now known to be 'one of the best young drivers in the country' and has only recently just passed his test. I'd also like to add that most of my friends that have currently passed their test have not crashed their cars except from two. Two out of about fifteen. NONE OF THEM HAVE MADE ANY INSURANCE CLAIMS. So how are these statistics adding up?
Article

Insurance premiums are affected how other people drive and this really pisses me off. Why should we suffer for other peoples collisions? It also infuriates me that female drivers get cheaper insurance than males, don't say this has stopped because it hasn't. I've checked.

So insurance companies take into account:
How many collisions in your area
How many of the car you own have has been written off
How many thefts in your area
Your name
Your job

That's all that comes to mind just now. All these facts here can increase\decrease your premium.

I hope the government do something about this, insurance is a f****ing scam.

What are your opinions?

[Tycho]

I actually agree with you, although I think some of your points are poorly made.

You can't disagree with statistics, they ARE correct. Young male drivers cost insurance companies more. Most of the money you pay to your insurance company is not to repair the damage that might be done to your car (assuming your WV Polo isn't worth too much), it's to repair the damage you might do to that brand new Merc or BMW that you crash into.

Some insurance quotes are designed to never be accepted, because they don't want to risk insuring you. Giving an impossibly high quote is their only way of legally "rejecting" your application.

If two of your fifteen friends have crashed their cars then - frankly - that is quite a high percentage. If 13% of every driver in the UK crashed their car over the same time period then insurance quotes would be impossibly expensive. I'd leave this out if I were you, as it undermines your argument. Even if they didn't claime on their insurance, the crash statistics is important because it shows they lost control of their vehicle - and could have crashed into someone else.

On the whole though, it's ridiculous that age discrimination is playing a role in today's market. You should be innocent until proven guilty, yet this industry seems to suggest you are guilty until proven innocent.

If I were you I would avoid driving until you are old enough to have a reasonable insurance premium.

[davidelliott294]

(Original post by Tycho)
I actually agree with you, although I think some of your points are poorly made.

You can't disagree with statistics, they ARE correct. Young male drivers cost insurance companies more. Most of the money you pay to your insurance company is not to repair the damage that might be done to your car (assuming your WV Polo isn't worth too much), it's to repair the damage you might do to that brand new Merc or BMW that you crash into.

Some insurance quotes are designed to never be accepted, because they don't want to risk insuring you. Giving an impossibly high quote is their only way of legally "rejecting" your application.

If two of your fifteen friends have crashed their cars then - frankly - that is quite a high percentage. If 13% of every driver in the UK crashed their car over the same time period then insurance quotes would be impossibly expensive. I'd leave this out if I were you, as it undermines your argument. Even if they didn't claime on their insurance, the crash statistics is important because it shows they lost control of their vehicle - and could have crashed into someone else.

On the whole though, it's ridiculous that age discrimination is playing a role in today's market. You should be innocent until proven guilty, yet this industry seems to suggest you are guilty until proven innocent.

If I were you I would avoid driving until you are old enough to have a reasonable insurance premium.

Yup, I understand that the money may be going to an expensive car in the event of a collision but no one I know has ever had to make an insurance claim so I don't believe in these statistics.

Only one out of two of them lost control of the car, the other person swerved to miss a fox and went into a bush whereas the other some how managed to crash into a wall coming off a round about? I knew this person was going to crash.

You are completely right there, 'you should be innocent until proven guilty'.

I love driving so I'm still gonna keep at it. You've made valid points, though!

[Sync]

(Original post by davidelliott294)
Yup, I understand that the money may be going to an expensive car in the event of a collision but no one I know has ever had to make an insurance claim so I don't believe in these statistics.

You don't believe statistics which have been compiled using data obtained from multiple sources over the past few decades?

You must realise how stupid "I don't believe in these statistics" sounds? I've never been to Scotland...but I'm pretty sure it exists. Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it's not the case.

The "innocent until proven guilty" idea also doesn't work as it would cause insurers to make an even larger underwriting loss. In 2011, for every £100 insurers took in premiums, they paid out £106 in claims. They made an underwriting loss...so how much more can you expect them to reduce your premiums? In fact, if anything, insurance is underpriced...

How do you presume the government could step in:

"Excuse me Mr. Insurance Company, can you please reduce your premiums as the electorate appear to believe driving is a fundamental human right. I know you already pay out more than you take in, but there are children who find driving very expensive. Won't somebody please think of the children"

That's a bit like asking the government to make sure that Apple reduce their prices because "I really want a new MacBook".

Government intervention in free markets doesn't work and invariably ends in tears.

As expensive as insurance is at that age, it isn't some sort of massive unfair conspiracy concocted by insurance companies and aimed at young people. The premiums are fair I'm afraid...just be reassured that it does get better as you get older!

[Tycho]

(Original post by Sync)
The "innocent until proven guilty" idea also doesn't work as it would cause insurers to make an even larger underwriting loss. In 2011, for every £100 insurers took in premiums, they paid out £106 in claims. They made an underwriting loss...so how much more can you expect them to reduce your premiums? In fact, if anything, insurance is underpriced...

How do you presume the government could step in:

"Excuse me Mr. Insurance Company, can you please reduce your premiums as the electorate appear to believe driving is a fundamental human right. I know you already pay out more than you take in, but there are children who find driving very expensive. Won't somebody please think of the children"

That's a bit like asking the government to make sure that Apple reduce their prices because "I really want a new MacBook".

Government intervention in free markets doesn't work and invariably ends in tears.

As expensive as insurance is at that age, it isn't some sort of massive unfair conspiracy concocted by insurance companies and aimed at young people. The premiums are fair I'm afraid...just be reassured that it does get better as you get older!

This part of your post is rubbish. Just because you can deduce from statistics that young people are more of an insurance risk does not give you the right to tar them all with the same brush (or at least it shouldn't). The same applies to gender. Imagine the uproar if insurance companies started using race or nationality as a statistical factor in determining insurance premiums; just because - for instance - blacks happened to - statistically - cause more accidents than whites. Clearly - and rightfully so - there would be legal suits being filed all over the place. Age discrimination is equally flawed from a moral perspective, as is gender discrimination. That the law doesn't protect the younger drivers from these horrendous charges is only really because these younger drivers are comparatively vulnerable, and won't defend themselves legally. Insurance premiums should be based on the car you drive and your previous record behind the wheel.

If insurance companies are not able to cover their outgoings then they should increase their prices across the board to compensate - not discriminate based on some arbitrary boundaries.

Your condescending response to the expense of drivers is laughable. Are you a driver? Are you aware of how much our economy relies on cars to get people to work? Drivers are already taxed to hell. We even have to pay tax on our tax when we go to fuel up! Not to mention that our road tax is not being fully used to improve the roads, so it's essentially just a stealth tax that's going elsewhere. If everyone decided to stop driving tomorrow as a protest, I think you'll find the government would need to do something very rapidly to persuade them to start driving again, or the economy would collapse very rapidly. So people don't see it as a "right", they see it as fundamental to their daily life, and consequently fundamental to the country as a whole.

[Sync]

(Original post by Tycho)
This part of your post is rubbish. Just because you can deduce from statistics that young people are more of an insurance risk does not give you the right to tar them all with the same brush (or at least it shouldn't). The same applies to gender. Imagine the uproar if insurance companies started using race or nationality as a statistical factor in determining insurance premiums; just because - for instance - blacks happened to - statistically - cause more accidents than whites. Clearly - and rightfully so - there would be legal suits being filed all over the place. Age discrimination is equally flawed from a moral perspective, as is gender discrimination. That the law doesn't protect the younger drivers from these horrendous charges is only really because these younger drivers are comparatively vulnerable, and won't defend themselves legally. Insurance premiums should be based on the car you drive and your previous record behind the wheel.

If insurance companies are not able to cover their outgoings then they should increase their prices across the board to compensate - not discriminate based on some arbitrary boundaries.

Your condescending response to the expense of drivers is laughable. Are you a driver? Are you aware of how much our economy relies on cars to get people to work? Drivers are already taxed to hell. We even have to pay tax on our tax when we go to fuel up! Not to mention that our road tax is not being fully used to improve the roads, so it's essentially just a stealth tax that's going elsewhere. If everyone decided to stop driving tomorrow as a protest, I think you'll find the government would need to do something very rapidly to persuade them to start driving again, or the economy would collapse very rapidly. So people don't see it as a "right", they see it as fundamental to their daily life, and consequently fundamental to the country as a whole.

Yes...but you haven't actually rebutted any of my points.

What you suggest is unworkable. We've already established that young people are a high risk group and insurers make an underwriting loss.

The gist of your post seems to be that young people should have reduced premiums until they are found 'guilty' of poor driving? You must see how illogical that is - by the time they are 'proved' to be a bad driver (i.e. when they have a crash) they could have already cost the insurance company millions in damages, legal fees, etc.

So, assuming that somebody is applying for their first year's insurance, how is an insurer going to use their "previous record behind the wheel" to set their premium when no record yet exists? The only possibility for the insurer is to load the premium to reflect the historical demographic risk. You then go on to suggest that premiums should be set according to the car you drive. If you object to age discrimination based on historical risk profile data, how can you be in favour of car discrimination based on the very same historical risk profile data?

This is why your idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' is nonsensical. If insurers were to implement it, then insurance companies simply could not exist as the business model could not work. In which case, the government would have to step in and set up a national insurance system - but the only way this could work without massive taxpayer subsidies is if they ran it according to risk profiles (i.e. exactly the same as private companies do at the moment)

To say that insurance companies should increase their prices across the board is just daft. Why should a demographic who are proven to be less of a risk subsidise a demographic who are proven to be a higher risk? It's like saying that a fit 20 year old and an obese 90 year old with a 60-a-day habit should pay the same life insurance premium because it hasn't yet been 'proven' that the 20 year old won't die first.

I know it's annoying that premiums are so high for young people (I paid £3000 for my first year's cover seven years ago) but the premiums are logical, they are fair, and the insurers still make an underwriting loss. People can bitch about it all they like - the premiums for young people are not going to reduce any time soon and that is entirely fair. Annoying, but fair.

Also, moaning about centrally set government taxation (and I agree with you entirely here - drivers are seen as a cash-cow) and then somehow trying to link that to premiums being set by private companies is, to my mind, a non-sequitur.

[VETwannabe]

i was looking for car insurance just yesterday and i think the insurance premiums offered by the cooperative for young drivers is pretty good. they don't judge you based on statistics but through your actual driving by installing a smartbox in your car which measures your driving ability based on speed, cornering, braking/accelarating and gear changes etc. the better you drive, the higher the discount on your premium. the best thing is that you see results quickly because you get a review of your premium every 3 months
check out the website for more info: http://www.co-operativeinsurance.co..../Insurance-Car
if i had a car or money for insurance then i'd definitely go for this offer
it's probably the best thing out there - well for me anyway

[Tycho]

(Original post by Sync)
So, assuming that somebody is applying for their first year's insurance, how is an insurer going to use their "previous record behind the wheel" to set their premium when no record yet exists? The only possibility for the insurer is to load the premium to reflect the historical demographic risk. You then go on to suggest that premiums should be set according to the car you drive. If you object to age discrimination based on historical risk profile data, how can you be in favour of car discrimination based on the very same historical risk profile data?

I wasn't referring to new drivers, I was referring to young drivers. Why is it fair that a 50-year-old woman who has just passed her test and behind a wheel on her own for the first time should pay less in insurance than an 18-year-old man in the same situation? Clearly both should pay more than an experienced driver with years of no-claims, but they should each pay the same amount. Why is it fair that a - for example - 22-year-old man with 5 years of no-claims still pays more than a 50-year-old woman who is just going on the road for the first time? It's clearly unfair.

Paying more for driving a more valuable car is not "car discrimination". Clearly if you're driving a more valuable car then you should expect to pay more to insure it. That's a choice people have when they decide which car to buy - but young people cannot suddenly make themselves ten years older.

(Original post by Sync)
This is why your idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' is nonsensical. If insurers were to implement it, then insurance companies simply could not exist as the business model could not work. In which case, the government would have to step in and set up a national insurance system - but the only way this could work without massive taxpayer subsidies is if they ran it according to risk profiles (i.e. exactly the same as private companies do at the moment)

I don't agree that it wouldn't work. Insurance premiums should be based on proven performance, not age. Start insurance premiums high for all new drivers, irrespective of age, and then reduce them appropriately as they probe their driving to be sensible. Set your base price on this basis and at a level which will still make a profit.

(Original post by Sync)
To say that insurance companies should increase their prices across the board is just daft. Why should a demographic who are proven to be less of a risk subsidise a demographic who are proven to be a higher risk? It's like saying that a fit 20 year old and an obese 90 year old with a 60-a-day habit should pay the same life insurance premium because it hasn't yet been 'proven' that the 20 year old won't die first.

This is discrimination, whichever way you want to dress it up. We are a nation of individuals when it comes to a fair society - not a nation of demographics. Where do you draw the line? Is it the age of the person, or is it that they have brown hair; like eating out a lot; are smaller than 6ft; are white; are not affiliated to a religion; are out of work; have a crap car; live in a ****ty area... the list goes on. It's senseless nonsense that fuels a very unfair system.

(Original post by Sync)
Also, moaning about centrally set government taxation (and I agree with you entirely here - drivers are seen as a cash-cow) and then somehow trying to link that to premiums being set by private companies is, to my mind, a non-sequitur.

I wasn't making this link. I was saying that to suggest those who cannot afford these extortionate premiums should simply avoid driving is completely unrealistic. People need their cars to get to work, so it tends to be other things they sacrifice - not their cars. Cars are fundamental to our economy, so the government should be trying to help drivers afford them, not trying to tax them off the road.

[Sync]

(Original post by Tycho)
I wasn't referring to new drivers, I was referring to young drivers. Why is it fair that a 50-year-old woman who has just passed her test and behind a wheel on her own for the first time should pay less in insurance than an 18-year-old man in the same situation? Clearly both should pay more than an experienced driver with years of no-claims, but they should each pay the same amount.

I see where you're coming from, but there's more to consider here. If the 50 year old's premium is lower, it will be because, historically, that group have cost the insurer less money in claims. I suspect the reasons for that are multi-factorial; less inclination to take risks, less inclination to drive fast/show off, etc. That's not to say that all newly passed 50 year-olds will be better drivers than all newly passed 18 year-olds, but when averaged out over an entire group, it will be the case. My point is, the insurer uses the group average as it's the only practical solution, at least until each individual has a chance to prove themselves by accruing some no-claims-bonus.

(Original post by Tycho)
Why is it fair that a - for example - 22-year-old man with 5 years of no-claims still pays more than a 50-year-old woman who is just going on the road for the first time? It's clearly unfair.

I suspect the premium difference in this instance would be relatively small. Certainly, I can insure most things now (aged 24 with 6 years' NCB) for only a couple of hundred pounds more than my father (aged 62 with full NCB). If you look at what brings the premiums down most, is isn't simply being older; it's gaining that all important NCB and time the licence has been held. In this sense, the insurers are being fair. Of course, age still plays a role in deciding premium at this point, but it becomes a lesser factor once that NCB comes into effect. If the 22 year old is paying more than the 50 year old, it will be because, statistically (even with those 5 years of NCB), he is still more likely to result in the insurer paying out.

(Original post by Tycho)
Paying more for driving a more valuable car is not "car discrimination". Clearly if you're driving a more valuable car then you should expect to pay more to insure it. That's a choice people have when they decide which car to buy - but young people cannot suddenly make themselves ten years older.

But as a young driver, you could insure a £10,000 Polo for less than I could insure a £1,000 Range Rover. It's not the value of the car that matters - the insurers aren't worried about you bumping your car...they're worried about you crashing into Wayne Rooney and the resulting PI claim. The point is, you seemed happy for insurers to discriminate according to engine size/car type, yet not happy for them to discriminate according to age? I'm saying that it's perfectly fair for them to discriminate according to both (and a multitude of other factors) - because that is what the statistics suggest they should do.

(Original post by Tycho)
I don't agree that it wouldn't work. Insurance premiums should be based on proven performance, not age. Start insurance premiums high for all new drivers, irrespective of age, and then reduce them appropriately as they probe their driving to be sensible. Set your base price on this basis and at a level which will still make a profit.

But then you're into the sticky situation of one group effectively subsidising another. The premiums are based solely on historical risk profiles. The reason young people pay more is simply because they cause the insurer to pay out more than other groups. Therefore, if the 'newly passed young men' group pay the same as the 'newly passed middle-aged women' group, then the old women are subsidising the young men's driving. That isn't fair. At the newly passed stage, there has been no opportunity to prove oneself, so it is entirely fair that riskier groups pay more based solely on historical data...even though within the risky group, there will be some outstanding drivers.

(Original post by Tycho)
This is discrimination, whichever way you want to dress it up. We are a nation of individuals when it comes to a fair society - not a nation of demographics. Where do you draw the line? Is it the age of the person, or is it that they have brown hair; like eating out a lot; are smaller than 6ft; are white; are not affiliated to a religion; are out of work; have a crap car; live in a ****ty area... the list goes on. It's senseless nonsense that fuels a very unfair system.

Absolutely; it is discrimination. But, it is fair to alter prices based on any of those factors if the data support it. To do anything else would inevitably lead to one group subsidising another. As it is, good individuals across all groups subsidise the poor individuals across all groups. It's not ideal, but it is absolutely impossible for it to work any other way - it's the nature of any sort of insurance you care to think of. In fact, it applies to society generally - the high earners subsidise the poor, the healthy subsidise the ill, etc.

(Original post by Tycho)
I wasn't making this link. I was saying that to suggest those who cannot afford these extortionate premiums should simply avoid driving is completely unrealistic. People need their cars to get to work, so it tends to be other things they sacrifice - not their cars. Cars are fundamental to our economy, so the government should be trying to help drivers afford them, not trying to tax them off the road.

I agree with a lot of this. Young people should be asking why they have to pay road tax, then fuel duty, then VAT on that fuel duty and then a tax on their insurance premium. That is grossly unfair and their anger should (quite rightly) be targeted towards the government who seem to believe that people drive around all day for fun, as opposed to driving round out of necessity.

What young people shouldn't do is moan about the pricing structures of insurance companies operating in a highly competitive marketplace. The fact that these companies have operated with an underwriting loss for decades, yet still turn an operating profit is testament to how efficiently they are run. God help us if the government steps in to try and 'fix' that...

[howlinwolf]

If you're looking for cheap insurance, get a motorcycle. I passed two months ago and am paying £350/year TPFT. You're also less inclined to crash because you know you'll come off worse. In a year or two I might even consider the £800 fully comp.

[Salu.]

Two can play at that game.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Sync)
I see where you're coming from, but there's more to consider here. If the 50 year old's premium is lower, it will be because, historically, that group have cost the insurer less money in claims. I suspect the reasons for that are multi-factorial; less inclination to take risks, less inclination to drive fast/show off, etc. That's not to say that all newly passed 50 year-olds will be better drivers than all newly passed 18 year-olds, but when averaged out over an entire group, it will be the case. My point is, the insurer uses the group average as it's the only practical solution, at least until each individual has a chance to prove themselves by accruing some no-claims-bonus.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I fully understand your points, I just don't agree with most of them.

[CurlyBen]

Basically, Sync's right. Young, inexperienced drivers present a much greater risk for an insurance company, and so their insurance is expensive. Ability to pay or the relative size of the premium to the value of the car aren't factors they take into account. There are also a number of myths about insurance, such as being older automatically reduces your premium - it has an effect, but I'm nearly 25 and didn't see a big drop after the magical age of 21, and I doubt I'll see one at my next renewal (25 supposedly being the next milestone). In fact, my premium has been pretty steady the last couple of years, despite increasing experience and no claims bonus. Indeed past 60 or 65 premiums tend to go up again.

As for being innocent until proven guilty, you are - you don't even want to think what your premium will be like after you've had a major accident or a driving related conviction (other than maybe a minor speeding fine).

As for why insurance is so expensive at the moment, there's a number of well documented reasons, main ones being the rise in personal injury claims, greater use of courtesy cars, claims handling companies, and the stock market. Insurers' costs have been rising faster than premiums.

I'll also say now I doubt any 18 year old driver fresh from the test centre will be saying in 10 years time they'd be happy to see their premiums treble or worse to subsidise the new crop of 18 year olds

[Derek.]

I'm 20 and pay £164 per month to insure my 1998 316i beemer. I'm with Co-op, but without those silly telestuff box things. Depends what car you insure too, and the probability of it crashing because lack of safety things (e.g. ABS etc)

[gintoki]

Car insurance is what prevents me from driving in this country because it is too expensive.

I only have the opportunity to drive when I go on holidays in my country. Simply in my country it's the CAR that is insured, not the car/person combination that we have here. As long as the car is insured there, any direct member of the owner's family can drive it without having the name down and still be covered not like here. Also, the insurance is quite cheap, about £400 a year, and you don't see any insurance companies going bankrupt.

[Boristhethird]

motorbikes FTW!

17yr, CBT, 0 NCB, Yamaha SR125, £260 TPO
18yr, Full licence, 1 NCB, Honda Bros 400, £215 TPO
19yr, Full licence, 2 NCB, Honda Bros 400, £315 TPFT
(these are annual prices)

[DarkArt]

I'll add my tuppence here, so take it for what you will.

I passed my test a week after my 18th, got a Peugeot 106 1.1 (51 reg) and paid night on £3.5k first year fully comp, second year went down to £2.4k and this year I've paid £1.8k. Having just graduated I've purchased a 12 plate Ford Focus 1.6TDCi Estate worth over £21k and yet my insurance is down to £1600 for the next year. Alot of insurance companies will look at the age and popularity of your vehicle as a reason for high insurance premiums, because old cars are (generally) easier to steal, a small minority care less about having a prang in an older car and there are cars out there with huge numbers of them involved in crashes. So choose a wise car and your insurance premium will be much lower.

On the issue of male vs female, young vs old drivers I'll say this, if I ever have a daughter in future I'll never let a lad in a corsa/clio/nova/boy racers car take her out for a drive. As a Special Constable for nigh on 3 years the VAST majority of drivers I've ticketed for speeding/no insurance/unroadworthy vehicles and who have attracted my attention for generally being prats have been young males in cheap 'typical' boy racer cars. I won't say it's always been males though, there are females out there who do it too, but my personal experiences have been vastly weighted towards males. But this is the reason insurance premiums are so high, young male drivers ARE more of a danger on the roads in general and whilst anyone might wonder why they're paying double or triple the price of their car on insurance, it's because your little runaround is still able to causes tens of thousands of pounds of damage to that house/car/bus that it may crash into.

[InconspicuousGuy]

car insurance really annoys me; im 27 with now 5 years no claims bonus and my insurance has gone up every year for the past 3 years without fail. I reallly fail to see what the benefit of my NCB is if im getting no reduction in my overall cost; it should be changed to a 'not putting up your insurance by as much' bonus

[davidelliott294]

My quotes: £3000. Change my gender to female, 50% decrease to £1500. Shocking. Absolutely, shocking.

[gintoki]

(Original post by davidelliott294)
My quotes: £3000. Change my gender to female, 50% decrease to £1500. Shocking. Absolutely, shocking.

And sexist.