young drivers curfew....

[poggy]

poggy, my point was that there are a higher percentage of younger drivers on the road at night so they'll have a larger proportion of the accidents in that period, regardless of the style of driving.

It still doesn't stop the idiots racing round the motorway roundabouts, or not realising that going over a sharp crest on a turn at 70mph means the front wheels don't have full grip and ploughing into a crash barrier during the day.

Yes, but it still points to younger drivers having more accidents because there are more on the road at night. That's all the insurance companies care about. As you say there are less older people on the road at night, so it follows that as a group they won't have as many accidents at night and therefore less likely to claim.

It's all based on risk.

 

[Helz]

Then why make large engined cars available for rich teenagers only, are you telling me that rich tenagers are less likely to cause accidents than poor teenagers and that's why they can have bigger cars?

Another possibility that has been discussed in the past would be for car licences to be similar to that for bikes. So for example, pass a basic test and you can drive a car up to say 100bhp, want anything over that and you have to take a further test eg. IAM, skidpan etc.

 

[StoneNewt]

Statistics 101
Groups A & B both have 1 accident per 1000 people on the road
During the day groups have 50% of the on-road population and thus each group contributed to 50% accidents.
During the night group A 50% of its day time population on the road at night, however group B only has 25% the day time number of drivers on the road. So during the night group A accounts for 66% of the road accidents even though the number of accidents occurring is less for both groups.

 

[DanGil]

I think they should have a similer structure to the way motorcycles are done, certain age and you can get something faster, logical. Also doing a few lessons at night and being shown how to use a motorway might help.

 

[Trancendental]

Model of car - Older cars have poorer security therefore are more likely to be stolen. High performance cars by their very nature tend to driven harder therefore the risk of an accident is higher, plus they are more desireable to thieves. A newer car is more valuable and will cost more to repair than an older one, so that also affects the premium.

You see, there yoiu have described nearly every type of car you can buy which means they have the "right" to charge high prices whatever you drive as even modern small engined cars have poor security.

And for those that still don't agree with this, ask yourself this question:

Who would you place your money on to NOT have an accident?

1. An 18 year old with one years experience driving a Vauxhall Corsa

or

2. A 45 year driving a Mondeo Estate, 27 years experience and a good driving record with no claims/ accidents in the last five years.

If it was me who was 18 I'd bet on me.

The only fair excuses to hike insurance in your list is area and where you park.

Claims is only fair if its your own fault as making a claim when you faultless should not affect your premium because as far as the person claiming is concerned, they were minding their own business when someone who wasn't paying attention hit them.

Adding security to your vehicle rarely reduced ones premium as insurance companies know they do not have to reduce your premium if its in their best interests to make more money out of you.

Points on your license should only affect you premium if the points come under a dangerous or wreckless driving catagory, driving with no insurance will land you 6 points and almost a 100% increase on ones premium when that could be the best driver in the world. I heard having sex in car could land the driver with points on their license, I bet a lot of insurance companies would use this as an excuse to raise a premium even though one is unlikely to crash when the car is stationary.

but then you can guarantee that newly qualified drivers will go straight out and buy a high performance car, and with little experience they will be highly likely to crash/ have an accident due to lack of experience...

then hopefully Darwins theory will make sure they do not have to renew the following year

poggy, my point was that there are a higher percentage of younger drivers on the road at night so they'll have a larger proportion of the accidents in that period, regardless of the style of driving.

He is probably right. The statistic that exists about more males have accidents then females is probably because at one point in time there was a higher percentage of males on the road when compared to females and someone forgot to do the maths

It might seem fairer, but the insurance company would loose loads of money. If you pay a low rate and make an expensive claim and then don't renew next year because of the price hike, how does the insurance company make their money back. They also have to have the money in place to pay the claims, which means getting money in advance of the risk. It's a bit like taking on a employee, unless they have the experience and track record you don't pay them the top rate for the job. When they show they can do the job, you give them a promotion.

Insurance is a business, they provide it to make money. It is also a competitive market, which means premiums are representative of costs.

What is the "real" cost of an average claim? probably about £700 I'm not talking about the ones where people claim injuries when there were none and the insurance co's have to pay out more etc I mean real claims.

If one paid £700 for 3rd Party insurance for the year then had an accident then the £700 should go towards the accident, any damages to their own car one would have to pay themselves and if one caused more then £700 in damages then one should have to pay the excess.

If one wanted Fire and Theft cover on top of the 3rd party then they could be charged maybe £900 in case their vehicle went missing or combusted and then the insurance co would cover it using the £900 paid along with the insurance companies own insurance.

All the money gathered from customers who did not make a claim that year could go towards larger claims which fall under the type stated in the paragraph above.

Then why make large engined cars available for rich teenagers only, are you telling me that rich tenagers are less likely to cause accidents than poor teenagers and that's why they can have bigger cars?

Another possibility that has been discussed in the past would be for car licences to be similar to that for bikes. So for example, pass a basic test and you can drive a car up to say 100bhp, want anything over that and you have to take a further test eg. IAM, skidpan etc.

Totally agree, I'd agree to it and would have my 6.0 Super Charged + Turbo Catagory License already as long as they were not being extortionate in the amounts they charged to take these tests.

 

[Chas Uno]

i don't think experience comes in to it, its if ur an arse of a driver

Some people drive like an arse whatever their age. But the longer you spend on the road the more experience you gain. A newly qualified driver has zero real road experience. How often have they encountered flooded/ icy roads? Reduced visibility? Wet leaves/ mud that causes skidding?

Like anything requiring a degree of skill, the more you do it the better you become. Give a set of darts to a novice and he'll be lucky to hit the dartboard. Give a set to someone whose been playing for a while and he'll rack up a good score.

Driving is no different...

Then why make large engined cars available for rich teenagers only, are you telling me that rich tenagers are less likely to cause accidents than poor teenagers and that's why they can have bigger cars?

The only way round that would be to base insurance premiums based on a percentage of how much income a rich teenager has. But it has nothing to do with making large engines available to rich teenagers. How come rich teenagers get bought new cars/ Houses/ Fancy clothes/ I-pods/ Lap Tops whereas poor teenagers don't? That isn't fair, but that's the power of disposible income and market forces.

I don't agree at all that just because someone is rich then they are able to insure a vehicle that every other less well off teenager is basically prohibited from. But that's life. Some kids get sent to Eaton, others can only afford the local comprehensive. That's the class divide for you :bang:

Another possibility that has been discussed in the past would be for car licences to be similar to that for bikes. So for example, pass a basic test and you can drive a car up to say 100bhp, want anything over that and you have to take a further test eg. IAM, skidpan etc.

That I think is the best idea of all. Show that you are willing to improve your driving skills (and have no accidents within the first two years say), and then the insurance companies should drop your premiums and allow you more competitive rates on bigger engined cars. Excellent idea, and I don't know why such a scheme isn't already in place when it works well for motorbikes?

 

[Ozzie1989]

Lets face it though guys, who is going to go for this little black box, if it can tell where you started your journey and where you ended it, it could probably tell if you're speeding etc etc, it's all about the government/private people wanting control over our lives and what we do. I'm young I work, so whats the point? Also, what's £200 off a £2000 quote for a young person, I'd rather scrounge the other £200 from somewhere and get unlimited travelling!

Another big point is, if you ban teenagers from driving at night, how are they ever going to gain experience? When this curfue is lifted, they are more likely to have an accident then as they won't have driven at night for a few years and it will be a bigger shock to the system!

I think the insurance companies are out to get younger drivers anyway, my mate drives a Mitsubishi L200 brand new truck and a few weeks ago a lorry skidded into the back of him at a dual carridgeway roundabout = write off! Even though it wasnt his fault, his insurance company contacted him and said that they required a sum of around £300 cause he had an accident and his premium therefore rose! What the hell is all that about! He asked for his money back for the rest of the year, refused to pay the £300, sent them an e-mail carbon copied to watchdog etc, and they eventually called him up and said that they would claim the expense to them from the lorry drivers insurance! Disgusting!

 

[custard]

Then why make large engined cars available for rich teenagers only, are you telling me that rich tenagers are less likely to cause accidents than poor teenagers and that's why they can have bigger cars?

Another possibility that has been discussed in the past would be for car licences to be similar to that for bikes. So for example, pass a basic test and you can drive a car up to say 100bhp, want anything over that and you have to take a further test eg. IAM, skidpan etc.

dont have ot be rich to get a high powered car,just a new one.plenty of old 2 litre+ cars out there.
its a utopian style idea to give everyone a clean slate at the start but since the % chance of a bump in the 1st year is so high its not really viable

 

[poggy]

Statistics 101
Groups A & B both have 1 accident per 1000 people on the road
During the day groups have 50% of the on-road population and thus each group contributed to 50% accidents.
During the night group A 50% of its day time population on the road at night, however group B only has 25% the day time number of drivers on the road. So during the night group A accounts for 66% of the road accidents even though the number of accidents occurring is less for both groups.

Statistics 102, groups A & B don't have the same number of accidents, that's the point. Statistics show that more accidents occur at night with less drivers on the road, hence if they are not on the road at this time the risk reduces. i.e 1 in 10 young drivers have an accident during the day, but this rises to 3 in 10 of young drivers at night. I don't think you understand the statistics as the way you calculate it excludes the additional number of accidents that occur per person on the road at night compared to the day.

 

[poggy]

Then why make large engined cars available for rich teenagers only, are you telling me that rich tenagers are less likely to cause accidents than poor teenagers and that's why they can have bigger cars?

Another possibility that has been discussed in the past would be for car licences to be similar to that for bikes. So for example, pass a basic test and you can drive a car up to say 100bhp, want anything over that and you have to take a further test eg. IAM, skidpan etc.

That' exactly the opposite of what I am saying. If they were less likely to have an accident then they would have a lower premium compared to people with smaller cars. The fact is they would pay a huge amount more because they are more likely to have an accident in a big car. The insurance company weighs up the risk and the charges them a huge premium to cover this risk. The insurance company aren't there to reduce accidents, just to cover the cost if it happens and still make money.It is simply a business for them.

Any licence restrictions would have to come from the goverment and in many countries like New Zealand they have a nightime curfew for young drivers anyway.

 

[Helz]

I never said licence changes didn't have to come from the government, I may be young and female but I'm not THAT stoopid

 

[poggy]

I never said licence changes didn't have to come from the government, I may be young and female but I'm not THAT stoopid

Sorry didn't mean to suggest that. The goverment should look at doing something like limiting engine size for new drivers (not just young) etc. The insurance companies would let you drive anything as long as they made money, so they are unlikely to help push this through.

 

[hollypop]

Norwich union do a pay as you drive policy, there is no '£25' charge if you drive on a night, you just have to pay £1 a mile. surley this is better, then you can at least drive as an when you need to!

i often make a 1 mile jouney at 11.30pm at night, but at least i no it only costs me £1 and its way cheaper than paying £600 for a full years insurance.

my bills are only about £30 a month!

 

[Jai]

how do they bill you? monthly statement listing the times cars used? mileage run, etc?

 

[Trancendental]

how do they bill you? monthly statement listing the times cars used? mileage run, etc?

Maybe itemised bill? And the costs for it will probably be added to the customers total premium

 

[hollypop]

they bill me, like a mobile phone bill.

it has a list of the time, where i went from, then where i went to, and the time of arrival. and the cost of that journey
(first 100 miles a month are free, 5.5p for 100-500 miles, then 3.5p for anymiles after that, and £1 a mile if driven between 11pm - 6am)

then it shows u the total amount that month.

quite handy really

 

[SkinzCinqSporting]

No good for me, sometimes I work past 11PM so I'd get charged £25 to drive home, Sod that for a game. Plus it'll just make people speed during the day, when there are more cars which would create greater risk.

 

[custard]

unless you were on the pay as you drive mentioned.
dont agree with the speed during the day argument.more police around during the day plus traffic volumes to an extent dictate traffic flows/speeds

fact is these are options,as long as your drivers are willing/able to pay 1.5k+ premiums then the insurers will charge it.
the markets there.insurance is always high for young drivers but we have all had to bite the bullet and get through it.
down to stats on accidents,older drivers will remember when hot hatches were a newish conept and insurance was reasonable on them till the insurers saw the % of accidents they were involved in.
after that we had a few years of 'warm' hatches as no one could insure the hot versions.
really only recently that the hot hatches have started coming back into 'fashion'

 

[SkinzCinqSporting]

unless you were on the pay as you drive mentioned.
dont agree with the speed during the day argument.more police around during the day plus traffic volumes to an extent dictate traffic flows/speeds

fact is these are options,as long as your drivers are willing/able to pay 1.5k+ premiums then the insurers will charge it.
the markets there.insurance is always high for young drivers but we have all had to bite the bullet and get through it.
down to stats on accidents,older drivers will remember when hot hatches were a newish conept and insurance was reasonable on them till the insurers saw the % of accidents they were involved in.
after that we had a few years of 'warm' hatches as no one could insure the hot versions.
really only recently that the hot hatches have started coming back into 'fashion'

Trust me if you are a young prat in a corsa sri or saxo vtr you would drive fast in the day if you weren't driving at night. There are so few traffic cops out, its all cameras nowadays, and the Big A Roads around here are pretty quiet during the day bar rush hour, you could drive as fast as you wanted to TBH.
We pay such premiums because we want the freedom of a car, insurance companies have a cheek to charge so much for a car they would only pay out a quarter of the premium for.
Hot hatches, it's all the mid life crisis blokes who are "staying young" that have hot hatches because they are the only one's who can afford to buy, run and insure them.

 

[custard]

its nothing to do with the payout on the car,its the likelyhood of you causing £X amount of damge with said car