Turn on thread page Beta

Quoted stupid insurance prices? Take it to your MP watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Since there seems to be a lot of complaints about the cost of car insurance here, I thought I'd share this with you: http://www.uxbridgegazette.co.uk/wes...3046-28521519/
    This kid also went to his MP, who's started an Early Day Motion, which doesn't necessarily mean that they'll debate it, however it might happen if the motion got enough support. http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1697

    I've brought it to my local MP's attention
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    MPs don't set prices, thankfully.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps we could revoke that silly EU directive which punishes women for the poor driving of men - that'd be a start.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    He should not have focussed on young drivers, rather the increasing insurance cost on everyone from young drivers not taking out insurance because it is too expensive and thus increasing the number of uninsured drivers on the road. It is law that you must have insurance, thus the government need to ensure that the law can be maintained effectively. In a roundabout way (as with anything in politics) by condemning the actions of uninsured drivers, you could bring in regulations and a watchdog with the insurers to insure prices are fair for the risk portfolio they have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    Perhaps we could revoke that silly EU directive which punishes women for the poor driving of men - that'd be a start.
    No, this is fair. Gender does not affect your ability to drive, just the statistics point that way. Some women drivers are awful, some men drivers excellent and vice versa. What should happen is the increased likeliness of younger drivers crashing, and therefore cost to the insurance companies, should be subsidised by less crash prone drivers.
    I know this doesn't seem fair on those who don't crash, but they could make a system where they jack up the price if you cause an accident, thus making driving carefully an incentive.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alwatkins1991)
    No, this is fair. Gender does not affect your ability to drive, just the statistics point that way. Some women drivers are awful, some men drivers excellent and vice versa. What should happen is the increased likeliness of younger drivers crashing, and therefore cost to the insurance companies, should be subsidised by less crash prone drivers.
    I know this doesn't seem fair on those who don't crash, but they could make a system where they jack up the price if you cause an accident, thus making driving carefully an incentive.
    Kind of exactly like the system thats already in place?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TickTockBoom)
    Kind of exactly like the system thats already in place?
    Ok yeah.. I thought that when I wrote it. But still, subsidising would be a much better system. The post office do it for the extremely rural routes, so why can't insurance companies do it for younger drivers?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alwatkins1991)
    Ok yeah.. I thought that when I wrote it. But still, subsidising would be a much better system. The post office do it for the extremely rural routes, so why can't insurance companies do it for younger drivers?
    lets spin it round, why should older, more careful drivers have to subsidise younger drivers who are statistically more likely to have a crash and a much higher risk?

    (devils advocate)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alwatkins1991)
    Ok yeah.. I thought that when I wrote it. But still, subsidising would be a much better system. The post office do it for the extremely rural routes, so why can't insurance companies do it for younger drivers?
    Hmmm, I don't think its a bad thing to force teenage boys to stick to less powerful cars though. I know not all drive like idiots, but loads do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gbduo)
    lets spin it round, why should older, more careful drivers have to subsidise younger drivers who are statistically more likely to have a crash and a much higher risk?

    (devils advocate)
    I understand this is the flaw in subsidies, but you could ask, why do people who have high paying jobs pay tax to fund JSA for those without jobs? It is kind of the same argument. I know it is punishment for older/more careful drivers, but as it stands insurance companies are forcing younger drivers out of the market, and making a fortune at the same time. This is leading to more people driving uninsured, which in turn will force insurance prices up for those who buy it.

    (Original post by TickTockBoom)
    Hmmm, I don't think its a bad thing to force teenage boys to stick to less powerful cars though. I know not all drive like idiots, but loads do.
    Then why not introduce a system where subsidised prices are available for those with cars under 1.4 litres? If they can afford it they can have more powerful cars, but at a substantial premium
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    Perhaps we could revoke that silly EU directive which punishes women for the poor driving of men - that'd be a start.
    Now you're just generalizing. I know of more women that have crashed their cars than I do men whom have crashed.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alwatkins1991)
    I understand this is the flaw in subsidies, but you could ask, why do people who have high paying jobs pay tax to fund JSA for those without jobs? It is kind of the same argument. I know it is punishment for older/more careful drivers, but as it stands insurance companies are forcing younger drivers out of the market, and making a fortune at the same time. This is leading to more people driving uninsured, which in turn will force insurance prices up for those who buy it.
    Not the same argument because without JSA people would have to either resort to crime to survive or starve. A young person who can't afford to insure their car just has to make do with public transport, their own legs and the occasional taxi. (I don't actually know where I stand on the issue of varying rates of insurance based on age/gender)


    (Original post by alwatkins1991)
    Then why not introduce a system where subsidised prices are available for those with cars under 1.4 litres? If they can afford it they can have more powerful cars, but at a substantial premium
    It already costs less to insure a car with a smaller engine.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rzc)
    Now you're just generalizing. I know of more women that have crashed their cars than I do men whom have crashed.
    Well that settles that then! God knows why they bothered with all of this statistical evidence rubbish when they could have just asked you about it.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    Perhaps we could revoke that silly EU directive which punishes women for the poor driving of men - that'd be a start.
    They didn't implement that in the UK, they decided it would only raise premiums for everyone.

    Also,
    Women are statistically just as likely to have an accident. BUT, the majority of women drivers accidents are only minor bumps.
    A majority of young male drivers have accidents that write the car off. Hence higher premiums, yeah guys, you get to pay for the amount of idiots out there that can't handle the shear power of their 1.4 litre with its trash can exhaust.

    There's also uninsured drivers bumping premiums up...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TickTockBoom)
    Well that settles that then! God knows why they bothered with all of this statistical evidence rubbish when they could have just asked you about it.
    Exactly! I'm glad you agree
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TickTockBoom)
    Not the same argument because without JSA people would have to either resort to crime to survive or starve. A young person who can't afford to insure their car just has to make do with public transport, their own legs and the occasional taxi. (I don't actually know where I stand on the issue of varying rates of insurance based on age/gender)
    OK then, well it is the same as having reduced prices for children on trains. Children take up the same amount of space, one seat, and yet they have lower train fares.

    (Original post by TickTockBoom)
    It already costs less to insure a car with a smaller engine.
    You are missing the point, I mean substantially cheaper (hence the subsidy from the more careful drivers) i.e. £500 a year as opposed to £2000.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alwatkins1991)
    OK then, well it is the same as having reduced prices for children on trains. Children take up the same amount of space, one seat, and yet they have lower train fares.



    You are missing the point, I mean substantially cheaper (hence the subsidy from the more careful drivers) i.e. £500 a year as opposed to £2000.
    I'm not sure why train companies do that, but its almost definitely got more to do with encouraging more people to travel and making more profit than it has to do with providing a public service.

    Its not particularly fair to expect other people to pay 3/4 of what it actually costs to insure that driver. Not being able to afford to drive for a while isn't the end of the world, its not like a basic human right or something.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TickTockBoom)
    I'm not sure why train companies do that, but its almost definitely got more to do with encouraging more people to travel and making more profit than it has to do with providing a public service.

    Its not particularly fair to expect other people to pay 3/4 of what it actually costs to insure that driver. Not being able to afford to drive for a while isn't the end of the world, its not like a basic human right or something.
    In economics its called price discrimination, and yeah it is to maximise profits. I don't understand why it isn't used in car insurance; if insurance was cheaper, there would be more younger drivers, and so the companies can make more money.

    And again, no it isn't fair, but that is the whole point of regulation is to make people who would otherwise be discriminated against taken care of. No it isn't a human right, but it provides job mobility. I wouldn't be able to do my job if I didn't have a car, as my shifts end at midnight or start at 7.30 am, and there are no buses running at that time.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alwatkins1991)
    In economics its called price discrimination, and yeah it is to maximise profits. I don't understand why it isn't used in car insurance; if insurance was cheaper, there would be more younger drivers, and so the companies can make more money.
    Wouldn't they lose money? They offer lower premiums to the people that are most likely to have an accident?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alwatkins1991)
    In economics its called price discrimination, and yeah it is to maximise profits. I don't understand why it isn't used in car insurance; if insurance was cheaper, there would be more younger drivers, and so the companies can make more money.

    And again, no it isn't fair, but that is the whole point of regulation is to make people who would otherwise be discriminated against taken care of. No it isn't a human right, but it provides job mobility. I wouldn't be able to do my job if I didn't have a car, as my shifts end at midnight or start at 7.30 am, and there are no buses running at that time.
    I work at night too. I normally get a lift home off someone I work with, but sometimes I have to spend nearly 2 hours wages on a taxi which seriously sucks but at the end of the day its my own responsibility. There is some sort of scheme where you can get a heavily subsidised scooter if you are 16-25, and can't use public transport to get to work or college. I've not really looked into it, but you could google Wheels to Work.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,960

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.