Firstly, you don't have to drive. Nobody is forcing you to. I know it's your right to be able to drive from age 17, but a 'right' is not the same as a 'requirement'. If you need to drive, then you'll need to save up for it.
Secondly, the barrier between girls' and boys' insurance premiums is due to be scrapped this winter. The EU decided that it was unfair to judge girls and boys separately, so the girls will have to pay the male rate now.
Thirdly, I do believe that the system is unfair. But so is life. I have been driving for 2 years without accident, and my insurance has steadily dropped. However, the insurance company expects me to be driving like a maniac. That is what their statistics say is going to happen. It didn't happen though, so why am I still being charged over a grand in insurance? If you feel it's a problem, write to your local MP. Google for it, and you can find out who they are. Write a letter asking them to consider car insurance in your area - I did, and I got a letter back from the house of commons about their reasons. With enough support, they may review the practises of the insuring bodies. Personally, I think every driver should start at an average baseline, and be assessed from there. No 'judging without evidence', just charge all new drivers at the average rate, and increase or decrease it from there. A friend of mine was 21 when he started learning to drive, and the statistics said that he would be safe - He totalled his car within 3 months. The system was wrong. I think it would be fairer to treat all new drivers as equal. A 21 year old who has been driving for 3 months is as experienced as a 17 year old who has been driving for 3 months - Yet the 21 year old was paying £400 for their insurance, and the 17 year old was paying £2400. Not fair.
Write to your MPs if you're concerned. They probably won't look at it, but you can't get anywhere without trying.
You don't HAVE to get a license at 17. But if you do then your insurance risk will steadily drop. So if you get your license at 17 but insure a car at 19 when you have the money, you'll see CONSIDERABLE savings in insurance costs as opposed to getting the license at the same time as you insure the car at 19. So it's not that its a necessity, but its a pretty smart investment.
As for the astronomical costs of insurance in the UK, I think its a a problem with the insurance companies colluding to milk the never-ending supply of young drivers for all the money they have. I insured my alfa romeo 1.9 last year as a 19 year old with 1 year on my license for around 300 pounds in the czech republic. I'm willing to bet that the accident rate is way higher here too, so I think the UK insurance companies are taking you guys for a ride...
(Original post by Zedd)
I'd agree if motorbikes were as practical as cars. TPO isn't exactly something to shout about either, because if things go tits up (and they do eventually) then you've got a bike that needs repairs which will cost you more than the slight premium it may have cost to get fully comp. Sometimes FC costs less than TPFT as well so maybe consider that for next year mate
To the OP: Any thread started with the word 'rant' with the intention of telling how much injustice there is about x is doomed to failure because you're angry, highly subjective, and the combination of those two leads to crappy arguments. My suggestion is that if you can't afford a car then bloody well get rid of it and stop whining about the reality of owning a vehicle at a young age.
i only went TPFT as it was cheaper then TPO.
at my age i have insurance for legal reasons only, im still going to pay for most of a crash (the entirty of my bike and £700 of the others), getting FC would be >£1500 (i did look) so not worth it, as its a new bike would be cheaper.