young drivers curfew....

[Jai]

i meant it as a whole, theres no denying that there are particular groups of drivers who do pose a greater risk, a financial exposure if you will, to the insurance industry. year on year, some more than others, younger, less experienced drivers have shown time and again, that from their ranks, there is a higher probablity of collision and claim. so as a whole, if they can change that, it would be of benefit.

there does need to be equality at the other end of the scale too, i fully agree, but beleive me i've been to more collisions for under 25's, male and female, than over.

 

[alainax]

i think its a totaly silly idea

"they" yet again are tarring a certain group with the same brush.

i consider my self to be a very observant and competant driver, especially considering i have a bike liscence and have had since i was 16 so am natuarally more observant than "most" over 25 any way!!!

you get bad drivers of all age groups.

imo the best solution is a driver capabilty scoring, a test you do every year where you are scored on how capable a driver you are and how observant you are, your score then reflects your premium.

it annoys me that at 19 2nbc on cars n 3 ncb on bike i am still penalised for driving a modified car, a show car with £Ks spent on it, is classed as the same risk as a paxo with a kit stuck on with chewing gum which has a driver that wouldnt know how to life saver if it jumped up n smacked them in the face! a driver that thinks its cool to slide it wrecklessly around corners

i say compency test!!

that woudl also get those terrible over 25's drivers off the road, who presume that bikes are there to be cut up and the modified cars are al chavs!
make them do the test and bump thier premiums up!
id like to see any of "the drivers im talking bout(you know the kind)" pass thier theory or hazard percep never mind be safe to drive on the road!!!


***** deep breath*******

ps and how on earth am i supposed to get my show car to bloody shows!!! will they pay to trailor it 500 odd miles round trip??

hmm i think not!

xxx

 

[Randomman]

Oh wasn't having a go at you Jai, just meant to point out that all insurance companies jump on the same band wagon of 'young drivers' Surely the fact I have driven a variety of cars 100% safe over the last few years should lower my premium more than the fact I am 19 raises it

(if that makes sense)

 

[poggy]

A compentency test won't work, people could behave well during the test and drive like a complete lunatic afterwards. Unfortunately this is what the statistics show, I think there was a report a while ago which showed that a new driver under 25 was still much more likely to make a claim than a new driver over 25. Also their competency has already been tested with a driving test.

As a business, the insurance companies decide on how much a product costs and how much they need to sell it for to make a profit. If an insurance company could offer cheap insurance to under 25's and still make a profit, then they would because they could beat the competition and sell more policies. Like any business it's based on percentages.

To look accurately at every drivers individual ability would probably cost more in admin & costs than any saving over the current way of calculating premiums. Bad drivers are already punished, if you claim you insurance goes up, if you drink & drive, get too many speeding tickets your price goes up.

The reason the curfew is offered is because it is a way for the insurance companies to sell a cheaper product and hopefully get more customers. Like any product it is consumer choice, if it works for you then you buy it, if not you don't.

As for the goverment offering insurance, they would only have to cover the same costs so the premiums wouldn't be any different and as we all know the goverment is not the most efficient business so it could cost even more. Also why should the goverment do this, driving a car is not an automatic right as some people think, if you can't afford it you don't do it.

 

[beanjardo]

Who was the moron who first decided that age should be the deciding factor in whether you're a good driver or not?

Surely it would make more sense if it was based on experience?

 

[custard]

Who was the moron who first decided that age should be the deciding factor in whether you're a good driver or not?

Surely it would make more sense if it was based on experience?

the moron is a statisticion(sp)
really i down why so many struggle with this.its down to statistics
eg the male 17-21 year old driving group is most likely ot be involved in a accident.
why does a cinq with a turbo conversion cost more to insure than a more powerful renault 5 turbo?because the insurer see's thew cinq as a higher risk even if it is slower

 

[beanjardo]

Yeh, I see that, and know that that age group is more likely to be involved in a collision, it's just that why should everyone be put in the same boat?
I'm a 19 year old female student, but i've done the pass plus and IAM and with most insurance companies that counts for nothing...these things should be recognised.

 

[custard]

yes i suppose but if these things lower the chance of an accident they will.if its been found trhat they have little impact then it wont

 

[99% Chimp]

To everyone getting over-excited in this thread... don't worry.

Insurance companies have always been tarts trying to seperate you from your money if various creative ways... at least we are starting to see some ways ppl can save money back off them.

For these companies, it's all about the stats. And lets face it, theres probs some truth (statistically) that certain age groups, at certain times of day, are more likely to come a cropper.

But my personal 2 pence is this: any company that uses a fat middle class bloke and a dog I'd like to kick in the teeth to sell me insurance should not be touched with a barge pole anyway.

 

[poggy]

Who was the moron who first decided that age should be the deciding factor in whether you're a good driver or not?

Surely it would make more sense if it was based on experience?

But if your young you won't have had much experience.

 

[Chas Uno]

To everyone who doesn't understand how insurance works, think of it like gambling. The insurance company is placing odds on you as to how likely you will be to claim from them. The higher the odds, the more likely you will claim therefore the more they will charge you to provide cover.

They have to take many factors into consideration when calculating your premium:

Gender - Males are more likely to have accidents than females.
Age - New/ young drivers are more likely to claim/ have accidents than older.
Driving record - A clean licence is obviously preferable to one with points.
Claim record - Previous claims (fault or no fault) show a higher chance of future claims.
No claims bonus - The more years no claims you have, the bigger the discount as you prove you're a lower risk.
Location - Densely populated cities like London are riskier for theft,damage and accidents than a remote village in Scotland.
Security - A car parked on a street is more likely to be damaged/ stolen than one parked in a garage.
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.

These are just a few of the issues the insurance company takes into consideration (look at all the info you have to give them when getting a quote). The biggest factor is age, as the risks for drivers under 25 having an accident or making a claim is way higher than any other group. On the FF we've recently had one member who just passed their test and managed to ROLL their car and write it off within a few weeks of being on the road...

Of course it seems unfair to those under 25, but that's what the statistics prove and that's how the insurance company calculates your premium. It also affects EVERYONE, all the older drivers were once in the same situation when they were young and had just passed their tests.

BUT, you can prove you are a good driver by not claiming, not getting any convictions and accumulating a no claims bonus. Do that and your premium will tumble over the coming years.

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.

Put yourself in the shoes of the insurance company and you'll see why they load the premiums for young drivers so high

 

[Helz]

I have to agree with Hellcat's sentiments on the front page. Start everyone off the same and put the premiums UP each time you have an accident that's your fault or 50/50. Much fairer IMO.

 

[Chas Uno]

I have to agree with Hellcat's sentiments on the front page. Start everyone off the same and put the premiums UP each time you have an accident that's your fault or 50/50. Much fairer IMO.

Yes, 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...

 

[Helz]

I think many young people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I didn't even look for powerful cars when I first passed and that wasn't purely for insurance reasons. If they do and they crash it, tough luck, back to the 1l Corsa they go.

 

[Chas Uno]

I think many young people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I didn't even look for powerful cars when I first passed and that wasn't purely for insurance reasons. If they do and they crash it, tough luck, back to the 1l Corsa they go.

That is true, but how many 17 year males would choose a 0.9 litre Cinq over a Punto GT?!!!!!! It's often not the cost of the car that is prohibitive, it's the insurance.

Of course not ALL young drivers are the same, but given the opportunity I'm fairly sure that most don't go for a higher powered/ bigger engined car for insurance reasons. If they were able to start off with a higher powered car, then you can be sure that everyone else would complain about the increase in accidents and lowering of road safety.

Put it this way, if you had a 17 year son/ daughter who'd just passed their test, would you be happy with them cutting their teeth in a Punto GT rather than a 0.9 litre Cinq?

Insurance sucks, but it is like it is for a reason.

 

[StoneNewt]

Anyone stopped to consider this, that the base statistic is biased by the on-road population? When it's late/early I see a disproportionally higher quantity of seemingly younger drivers on the road compared to other times. To this end you'd expect to see a higher percentage of younger drivers having accidents purely because there's a higher proportion of them on the road at that time.

Yes there are some people who drive like total idiots and they're more likely to do it at night. But for people who don't do that kind of thing this, and don't drive at night this is a good way for them to save money, but the big brother factor would put me off even if it applied to me.

 

[poggy]

Anyone stopped to consider this, that the base statistic is biased by the on-road population? When it's late/early I see a disproportionally higher quantity of seemingly younger drivers on the road compared to other times. To this end you'd expect to see a higher percentage of younger drivers having accidents purely because there's a higher proportion of them on the road at that time.

Yes there are some people who drive like total idiots and they're more likely to do it at night. But for people who don't do that kind of thing this, and don't drive at night this is a good way for them to save money, but the big brother factor would put me off even if it applied to me.

You have explained exactly why the insurance company charge more for young people, they are on the road at night and more likely to have an accident.

 

[StoneNewt]

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.

 

[jaysenysen]

Yes, 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...

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

 

[poggy]

I have to agree with Hellcat's sentiments on the front page. Start everyone off the same and put the premiums UP each time you have an accident that's your fault or 50/50. Much fairer IMO.

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.