46 replies to this topic

[Ethel]

An interesting story on Radio four's Moneybox.

17yr old lad, 1.3 Festa had quotes of £4k, paying £3100 with a black box fitted in his car. Limited to 6000miles/year, with extra monthly mileage for "good driving".

The insurance industry spokesman was enthusiastically promoting extending the scheme with us all being offered the benefit of having our insurers slapping our wrists for using the accelerator & brakes with a bit of enthusiasm.

[J960mayfair]

there also a company called young marmalade where you buy there car its either bran new or nearly and get dirt cheap insurance as they no its a moden safe car
it also has the black box i was going to do it but you got charged an extra 45 pound per night if you drove between 10pm and 5am but i work night so it was a no no for me!

[minibarnerz]

dont agree with this, but very much in favour of how the ozzies work it, in the 1st 12 months of driving, people under 21 are not allowed more than one passenger, and not allowed to drive after 10pm (dont quote me, but somethin very much like this)

think will do a lot to prevent the unfortunate amout of serious injurys and fatalitys on the roads!

im not saying all young drivers are morons... but younger people are more suceptable to peer pressure, n I know from experience its often the "other lads" in the car egging the driver to go faster, or "just overtake that one car, it'll be alright!"

im all in support of young drivers, but things like pass plus, in my personal oppinion, should be a necciesity.
also these driver improvement/awarness courses by police, cant these be offered to ALL people just passing their tests?

just some ideas... what other people think? and say if your older/younger, just out of interest...

[maryquant]

Im 24 - been driving for about 3 1/2 years now - probably spend over £8k on various car insurance policies since I passed my test.

Really annoys me that even now insurance on a mini for me would be £900+ so any incentive schemes which reduce the number of accidents etc for young drivers and in turn lowers everyones premiums gets the thumbs up from me.

I also think drivers should be reimbursed. Ive paid over 8k and never hit so much as the curb. My only speeding offence was doing 34 in a 30 because I was going downhill with cruise control on an automatic.

If you tell drivers that their insurance is £2000 - but if they dont crash they will get £1500 back in 12 months, their driving will dramatically improve.

[Beej123]

dont agree with this, but very much in favour of how the ozzies work it, in the 1st 12 months of driving, people under 21 are not allowed more than one passenger, and not allowed to drive after 10pm (dont quote me, but somethin very much like this)

think will do a lot to prevent the unfortunate amout of serious injurys and fatalitys on the roads!

im not saying all young drivers are morons... but younger people are more suceptable to peer pressure, n I know from experience its often the "other lads" in the car egging the driver to go faster, or "just overtake that one car, it'll be alright!"

im all in support of young drivers, but things like pass plus, in my personal oppinion, should be a necciesity.
also these driver improvement/awarness courses by police, cant these be offered to ALL people just passing their tests?

just some ideas... what other people think? and say if your older/younger, just out of interest...

I'm 19 and own a business marketing and promotion company, i have been driving for nearly 3 years with no convictions or acccidents, i do promotion work for clubs and offer DJ hire so i do a lot of driving between 2000 and 0600.

If i couldn't drive after 2200 i couldn't do my job.

I like the theory but are you saying that because im 19 i should be tucked up in bed for 2200 in case i have a crash?

[maryquant]

No doubt there is data to support the time frame.

If statistically most drivers under the age of say 25 crash after 10pm then that would be the reasoning behind the curfew.

Quieter roads = more chance to drive badly un-noticed. Whilst I suspect there is a degree of false statistics behind the plan, if a young driver is prepared to not drive after 10pm to benefit from the discount then fairplay.

As for making it a requirement by law I dont think this could work - once you hit working age, you need to be able to get to work, and not everyone does a 9-5

[Ethel]

It's prejudice really, they wouldn't get away with charging the Mums' Net demographic, or an ethnic group higher premiums. I agree a refund would be in order, you can't justify charging good young drivers for the mistakes of others any more than anyone else.

[maryquant]

I agree Ethel,

It is prejudice, but its statistically proved prejudice and at the end of the day an insurance company charges you based on the risk - similar in a way to a casino - and the amount they charge is based on the risk there is of you costing them *alot* more than what they charge you.

I would imagine if I was just inventing the "Insurance Company" for the first time I would do a similar thing. If my customer is potentially going to crash and cost me say £5k for a new car, £15k for the mercedes they hit, £50,000 in compensation for medical expenses the other side claim etc etc etc all of a sudden there is a massive potential cost and a huge risk for me - so I would turn to statistics to decide what to charge.

They wouldnt charge the mums net demographic more unless it was statistically proven that they crash more often (or cost me the company more) in some way. So its a very well justified argument on their behalf. I cannot disagree with them on this point - they should charge higher risk categories more - but reimbursement would be a more polite thing to do - but the profit they made on those extortionate premiums is theirs to keep because thats what they wagered on the bet.

It would be nice to treat everyone equally - but the sad unfortunate fact is - were not all equal.

Out of the 8k I have paid for insurance over the last few years - if I had one crash - the insurance company would have probably made a loss.

Edit: likewise If I had crashed without paying that money to the insurers I would have been lumbered with the bill.

Edited by maryquant, 05 February 2011 - 01:53 PM.

[Spud_133]

On the topic of equality, I've heard that the insurance companies now have to charge both young male and female drivers the same. As this is sexual discrimination!

[stu_cooper]

i wouldnt agree with a refund what i would say if you dont have an accident then that £1500 automatically goes to your quote fr the next year meaning you would only have to pay pence. if you then have an accident, you lose this. you will be insured till the end of the policy but when you renew you have to pay mor, so you kinda start again.

my mate had a mk4 fiesta. bit of a chav wagon but he drives it realy safely (due to it being his lil baby.) he had someone drive into him. and its now his renewal. he had to pay his 500 excess and then as the issue hasnt be solved yet he has had to claim he has lost his 2 years no claims and has had his new quote which is 5458 a year with a deposit of 1000 quid. its only a 1.3 and hasnt got any engine mods. he has all the extior and internal mods declared. i think its rather discusting that these companies can charge this much to some one ho has never done anything rong and is safer than most people that are older.

sorry for the rant but its out of order.

Stuart

[Ethel]

I don't think you can pick & choose, prejudice is prejudice. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with putting private business in charge of an important legal obligation.

Insurance is supposed to spread the cost of risk, the spreading bit is what makes it work, You can exclude groups, but the risk doesn't go away and we, collectively, still get to pick up the bill, even if the insurers side step the dint in their profits.

[Beej123]

On the topic of equality, I've heard that the insurance companies now have to charge both young male and female drivers the same. As this is sexual discrimination!

The statistics show young males are more likely to crash, girls claim more often on their insurance for minor scrapes and lads tend to make less much larger claims.

Now read what you like into why girls make more small claims than boys

I agree with the charges (or at least the reason behind them) we all risk assess in our day to day lives, you are more likely to cross the road to avoid a group of yound lads than say an old lady with a stick but who is to say that group of lads arn't on their way to church and that old lady has just killed her husband?

If a 17 year old can't afford insurance then they either go out and get a job or don't have a car. I had help from my parents with my first years insurance, didn't give me any money but they guaranteed the insurance policy payments for me. I was fortunate, i know some arn't but i always have a couple of days work a week for people if they want it but the work isn't glamourous enough for some!

[Carlos W]

Before reading the below, please note, I DO NOT condone the use of a vehicle without insurance, and have to my knowledge never driven without insurance.

The problem is, there is a minority of people who drive without insurance becuase they cannot afford it, if they have a crash (in most crashes someone is to blame therefore it's not an accident) then this pushes everyone elses premiums up, and therefore, more people drive with no insurance, as they cannot afford it.

It's a viscious circle. (but there's a small minority of people who wouldn't buy insurance even if it was a tenner)

I do not agree that if you are involved in a collision which is legally proven not to be your fault, your premiums go up. I am currently trying to claim this back as an uninsured loss after being involved in a collision where someone went into the back of me.

I think any scheme which gives young people additional skills and therefore reduces their premiums is a good idea, I did pass plus, (11 years ago) and it knocked 300 off my premium, I did motorway driving, night time driving, driving on country roads, etc etc

[Ethel]

That's why I advocate universal 3rd party cover paid out of road tax - or better fuel duty.

We'd pay to drive, without also paying insurers to make a profit, the more, faster, and bigger car, you drive the more you'd pay - all factors related to the amount of risk you create. Insurance premiums only penalise drivers on their ability to pay, the emphasis should be on penalising those convicted for poor driving - fit the black boxes in their cars until they've shown they've improved their driving habits.

It's not so radical, we have universal employment insurance and put black boxes on the ankles of wayward kids and prisoners on parole. It would be radical to let insurers administer their own ASBO scheme for motorists who can't afford better.

[Carlos W]

Our work vehicles have black boxes in, and I'm sure it encourages better driving. They are set to "ping" if you accelerate or brake hard, corner hard or go over a certain speed.

I'm certainly aware that they are there, and I've seen the data download from them, it's a bit like a tachograph!