MPs to debate £1200 insurance cap for under 25s.

[KrissKross]

Can someone please direct me to the £1200 insurance company, if one actually exists

Currently trying to insure my teenager and nothing is below £2000 on something with the same power as a soap box kart.

[sidicks]

KrissKross said:

Can someone please direct me to the £1200 insurance company, if one actually exists

Currently trying to insure my teenager and nothing is below £2000 on something with the same power as a soap box kart.

For good reason!

[KrissKross]

sidicks said:

KrissKross said:

Can someone please direct me to the £1200 insurance company, if one actually exists

Currently trying to insure my teenager and nothing is below £2000 on something with the same power as a soap box kart.

For good reason!

Slightly OT but shouldn't the insurance cost and other factors perhaps be in relation to a suitable test. For example 100 points, over 50 points is a pass, 100 points means you are a top gun pilot.

Some older people are a disaster on the roads but because of a their age get a free pass to drive a lethal weapon, the whole system makes no sense really.

[Gavia]

KrissKross said:

Slightly OT but shouldn't the insurance cost and other factors perhaps be in relation to a suitable test. For example 100 points, over 50 points is a pass, 100 points means you are a top gun pilot.

Some older people are a disaster on the roads but because of a their age get a free pass to drive a lethal weapon, the whole system makes no sense really.

Who's going to pay for this test?

Also, once you get to the age of 60 then insurance premiums start to rise as the risk does too. If they crash / claim a lot then they'll lose their NCD too.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

KrissKross said:

Some older people are a disaster on the roads but because of a their age get a free pass to drive a lethal weapon, the whole system makes no sense really.

Take 100 older people and 100 teenagers. Whose insurance claims costs would you rather be picking up? Of course some older people will have claims. In the supermarket car park. Very occasionally going the wrong way down the road. But not many will be in the car with 3 passengers at 4am on the way back from a club when they hit a tree at 80mph.


The whole system makes perfect sense.

[sidicks]

KrissKross said:

Slightly OT but shouldn't the insurance cost and other factors perhaps be in relation to a suitable test. For example 100 points, over 50 points is a pass, 100 points means you are a top gun pilot.

Some older people are a disaster on the roads but because of a their age get a free pass to drive a lethal weapon, the whole system makes no sense really.

The whole insurance system makes perfect sense - the premium reflects the expected number of claims and the expected cost of those claims.

Totally logical.

Whether some older (and younger) people actually have the skills to drive is a totally different question.

[anonymous-user]

KrissKross said:

Slightly OT but shouldn't the insurance cost and other factors perhaps be in relation to a suitable test. For example 100 points, over 50 points is a pass, 100 points means you are a top gun pilot.

Some older people are a disaster on the roads but because of a their age get a free pass to drive a lethal weapon, the whole system makes no sense really.

Completely agree. The test lasts a whole year. Drive without crashing and you get 20 points, after 5 years without crashing you have 100 points and get a whopping discount. Genius

[Moonhawk]

fblm said:

Completely agree. The test lasts a whole year. Drive without crashing and you get 20 points, after 5 years without crashing you have 100 points and get a whopping discount. Genius

Isn't that kinda how it works now with NCB? Drive sensibly and don't crash - you get a nice big discount the next year.

I suspect a large part of the issue with young people driving the way they do and taking unnecessary risks is that many of them aren't risking their own cash. Mum and Dad buy the car and pay to insure it (or they get put onto their parents insurance). If they do crash - Mum and Dad pick up the tab for increased insurance premiums.

I bet many young people would drive more carefully if it was their cash on the line?

[Gavia]

Moonhawk said:

fblm said:

Completely agree. The test lasts a whole year. Drive without crashing and you get 20 points, after 5 years without crashing you have 100 points and get a whopping discount. Genius

Isn't that kinda how it works now with NCB? Drive sensibly and don't crash - you get a nice big discount the next year.

I suspect a large part of the issue with young people driving the way they do and taking unnecessary risks is that many of them aren't risking their own cash. Mum and Dad buy the car and pay to insure it (or they get put onto their parents insurance). If they do crash - Mum and Dad pick up the tab for increased insurance premiums.

I bet many young people would drive more carefully if it was their cash on the line?

Is that a classic example of a whoosh parrot?

[sidicks]

Gavia said:

Is that a classic example of a whoosh parrot?

[rossw46]

aka_kerrly said:

rossw46 said:

I loose count of how many were killed in RTAs where they were over-enthusiastic and under-experienced.

How many would have still managed to kill themselves in a 1.2! Over enthusiastic and under experience can lead to death even in the slowest car in the world if you drive it incorrectly!

There doesn't need to be any engine restrictions brought in or caps on the cost especially extending to 25! By 25 you should dam well have enough money and sense to be able to budget and buy a car you can afford plus if you are any good at driving you should have accrued 5+years NCD thus be able to obtain much cheaper insurance.

For reference, 17 years ago it cost me £800 to insure a 1.0l Fiesta , adjusting for inflation that is about £1200! I could afford that working a part time job whilst in 6th form. The difference today is every 17 year old wants a £900 IPhone, wants a less than 3 year old car, wants £200 jeans, spends £30 for a bowl of chicken and a coke in Nandos and thinks saving for a car is unfair.

Not as many as would have in something like an M3! (no need to shout, my hearing is ok). A person could walk on the pavement, trip, knock their head against a cornerstone and be killed out right as unlikely as that may seem, it's possible. Risk is based on severity multiplied by likelihood. The likelihood of a youngster in an M3 crashing is fairly high, as well as the increased severity arguably equates to a much larger risk. I'm not saying they don't work the premium in their favour to make maximum coin, but you'd be an absolute fool/running a business into the ground to under-write that risk on the cheap (capped), as stated previously, you simply wouldn't.

[Moonhawk]

Gavia said:

Moonhawk said:

fblm said:

Completely agree. The test lasts a whole year. Drive without crashing and you get 20 points, after 5 years without crashing you have 100 points and get a whopping discount. Genius

Isn't that kinda how it works now with NCB? Drive sensibly and don't crash - you get a nice big discount the next year.

I suspect a large part of the issue with young people driving the way they do and taking unnecessary risks is that many of them aren't risking their own cash. Mum and Dad buy the car and pay to insure it (or they get put onto their parents insurance). If they do crash - Mum and Dad pick up the tab for increased insurance premiums.

I bet many young people would drive more carefully if it was their cash on the line?

Is that a classic example of a whoosh parrot?

A double helping of whoosh parrot is definitely in order

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 24th March 23:06

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I pay £260 a year, comp with a £250 xs, London suburbs, 7 year old VW Tiguan 2.0TDi, me and the wife, mid 50s, max bonus.
Thinking about swapping it for an Audi RSQ3 Performance, a year old, worth £40K. Extra premium for the remaining 11 months of the policy (renewed it last month), £60!!! But the thieving swines will put the xs up to £500

Bloody love UK insurance. Don't know what everyone's moaning about.

[KrissKross]

Gavia said:

Who's going to pay for this test?

Well we all would, and start the price at £500 for a "real" test.

[Gavia]

KrissKross said:

Well we all would, and start the price at £500 for a "real" test.

Why should I pay £500 for a test? That's around 20 months insurance costs for me on my M3

[Murph7355]

KrissKross said:

Can someone please direct me to the £1200 insurance company, if one actually exists

Currently trying to insure my teenager and nothing is below £2000 on something with the same power as a soap box kart.

Have you considered one of the "just add fuel" type deals?

sidicks said:

The whole insurance system makes perfect sense - the premium reflects the expected number of claims and the expected cost of those claims.

Totally logical.

Whether some older (and younger) people actually have the skills to drive is a totally different question.

I generally agree with your views, but on this one...

I would love to think the insurance industry is logical, but the discrepancies you get in quotes strongly suggest it isn't. It does not only consider the inputs you note. They may be the primary ones, but other factors must come into the quotes/premiums

[sidicks]

Murph7355 said:

I generally agree with your views, but on this one...

I would love to think the insurance industry is logical, but the discrepancies you get in quotes strongly suggest it isn't. It does not only consider the inputs you note. They may be the primary ones, but other factors must come into the quotes/premiums

The discrepancies reflect:
- Different views on risk
- Different risk appetite
- Different risks already on the books

There are numerous risk and rating factors used.

[Murph7355]

Indeed. But they are not solely based on the rational "number and cost of claims".

If they were, there would be no scope for me getting a quote for 2k,noting I have a quote for 1.7k elsewhere and immediately getting a new quote of 1.5k from the 2k people.

Lost opportunity also comes into. As no doubt do lots of other "non-claim statistic factors".

Or if we look at it the other way round and the 1.5k is purely based on claim stats, then their 2k quote includes a heavy dose of the" taking the piss because we think we can" factor.

The mathematics that inevitably form a large chunk of a quote are undermined by the fudge factors people get on quotes and it really isn't any wonder why people question it.

[Marc p]

People just need to stop being so lazy, when I was a young 'un, I used to scour insurance sites trying every car as some cars randomly come up cheap due to not many of that model being involved in accidents, my first car was a 306 1.8 XSi that was £1200 to insure, which was a damn quick car for a 17 year old, then when I was 19, I paid £1500 for my first Supra, yet in both of those instances, a 1.2 Polo would come out more expensive, you can always get a car that's cheap to insure, just don't look at A3/Golfs/etc like every other 17 year old wants.

[98elise]

Murph7355 said:

Indeed. But they are not solely based on the rational "number and cost of claims".

If they were, there would be no scope for me getting a quote for 2k,noting I have a quote for 1.7k elsewhere and immediately getting a new quote of 1.5k from the 2k people.

Lost opportunity also comes into. As no doubt do lots of other "non-claim statistic factors".

Or if we look at it the other way round and the 1.5k is purely based on claim stats, then their 2k quote includes a heavy dose of the" taking the piss because we think we can" factor.

The mathematics that inevitably form a large chunk of a quote are undermined by the fudge factors people get on quotes and it really isn't any wonder why people question it.

Or a loss leading first year because they know loads of people don't shop around. I've been with my current insurer for over a decade. The few quid I could save is not worth the hassle.