Insurance for a 17 year old, just passed his test. £4,000+
Discussion
I may be wrong or have missed this earlier in the thread but don't quote a few car manufacturers/main dealers offer 'free insurance' for the first year or two with some of their lower-spec models? That way if you went down the monthly-payment-for-a-new-car-and-free-servicing route by the time insurance was factored in, for once it could prove to be better to buy new than used... especially as 'starter' cars don't seem to depreciate nearly as quickly as full-fat ones.
vsonix said:
I may be wrong or have missed this earlier in the thread but don't quote a few car manufacturers/main dealers offer 'free insurance' for the first year or two with some of their lower-spec models? That way if you went down the monthly-payment-for-a-new-car-and-free-servicing route by the time insurance was factored in, for once it could prove to be better to buy new than used... especially as 'starter' cars don't seem to depreciate nearly as quickly as full-fat ones.
Not sure I've seen that type of offer in awhile ironically due to the costs involved because young drivers were taking up the offers.If they do offer it these days usually it's a minimum age of 21.
There maybe one or two still offering but as said haven't seen any adverts for it in awhile.
To those of you that are saying "it's a privilege" get f
ked. Seriously.
At 17 I was living at home, working 8 miles away with no reliable transport, busses were a "pre-book" only service and wouldn't operate early enough for me to get into work.
My parents chose to live where they did its made getting about a pain for me and my siblings, without a car you can't get to a place of work to earn the money to pay your insane insurance.
You want less people on the dole? Make it easier to get people on the roads and working, by providing basic TP only cover in your VED or fuel.
Bingo, no uninsured drivers, and a very mobile workforce.
Also I have no voluntary excess as my compulsory at 24 is £500 still. My caddy van is more expensive to insure than my A3 1.8t 4x4, both modified through a broker.
ked. Seriously.At 17 I was living at home, working 8 miles away with no reliable transport, busses were a "pre-book" only service and wouldn't operate early enough for me to get into work.
My parents chose to live where they did its made getting about a pain for me and my siblings, without a car you can't get to a place of work to earn the money to pay your insane insurance.
You want less people on the dole? Make it easier to get people on the roads and working, by providing basic TP only cover in your VED or fuel.
Bingo, no uninsured drivers, and a very mobile workforce.
Also I have no voluntary excess as my compulsory at 24 is £500 still. My caddy van is more expensive to insure than my A3 1.8t 4x4, both modified through a broker.
currybum said:
I'm sure there is..Unless of course your definition of “flamboyant” driving is safe driving while wearing a hat and a snazzy shirt.
What makes you so sure?I've seen a lot of accidents and all appear to be caused by stupidity and inattentiveness as opposed to having fun.
I'm sorry that you're not good enough to drive enthusiastically without crashing.
vsonix said:
I may be wrong or have missed this earlier in the thread but don't quote a few car manufacturers/main dealers offer 'free insurance' for the first year or two with some of their lower-spec models?
A lot of them also have minimum ages, plus it means spending a lot of money on not much car when you can buy something fairly plush and/or fast for a lot less if you buy second-hand, as most new drivers do and you're stuck with the car for the duration of the finance, by which point it's massively depreciated.JB! said:
To those of you that are saying "it's a privilege" get fked. Seriously.
At 17 I was living at home, working 8 miles away with no reliable transport, busses were a "pre-book" only service and wouldn't operate early enough for me to get into work.
My parents chose to live where they did its made getting about a pain for me and my siblings, without a car you can't get to a place of work to earn the money to pay your insane insurance.
You want less people on the dole? Make it easier to get people on the roads and working, by providing basic TP only cover in your VED or fuel.
Bingo, no uninsured drivers, and a very mobile workforce.
Also I have no voluntary excess as my compulsory at 24 is £500 still. My caddy van is more expensive to insure than my A3 1.8t 4x4, both modified through a broker.
I'm 41 and cycle the seven miles to work in all weathers, all through winter.ked. Seriously.At 17 I was living at home, working 8 miles away with no reliable transport, busses were a "pre-book" only service and wouldn't operate early enough for me to get into work.
My parents chose to live where they did its made getting about a pain for me and my siblings, without a car you can't get to a place of work to earn the money to pay your insane insurance.
You want less people on the dole? Make it easier to get people on the roads and working, by providing basic TP only cover in your VED or fuel.
Bingo, no uninsured drivers, and a very mobile workforce.
Also I have no voluntary excess as my compulsory at 24 is £500 still. My caddy van is more expensive to insure than my A3 1.8t 4x4, both modified through a broker.
It isn't a right, never will be, but it is your right to swing your leg over a push bike and use the public roads for free, I did this at 17 as well so I could get to work, insurance is ridiculous but it isn't going to change.
Four grand pays for a lot of taxis as well, it just isn't a good use of cash, think a lot need to delay a year or two and make alternative arrangements.
To the people on this who feel they are some sort of f1 driver of the road. It's not all about how long you have been driving for sometimes. I know people who have been driving for a while and think there invincible we're as my friends who have just passed still act like its there test.
We were all 17 once. How did ŷøù drive when you were 17?
Also people on this have asked questions about whiplash or other claims Saying should I claim or not?
Most people say yes! Easy way to get money etc but tbh it's you that is making the insurance high.
Another thing I have noticed is that people who have crashed on this are blaming old people? Yet insurance is cheap for them because the are sensible? Older people have terrible reaction, never give ŷøù room and also drive at very low speeds.
I think it should be like pet insurance. The older you get the more expensive.
We were all 17 once. How did ŷøù drive when you were 17?
Also people on this have asked questions about whiplash or other claims Saying should I claim or not?
Most people say yes! Easy way to get money etc but tbh it's you that is making the insurance high.
Another thing I have noticed is that people who have crashed on this are blaming old people? Yet insurance is cheap for them because the are sensible? Older people have terrible reaction, never give ŷøù room and also drive at very low speeds.
I think it should be like pet insurance. The older you get the more expensive.
J4CKO said:
I'm 41 and cycle the seven miles to work in all weathers, all through winter.
It isn't a right, never will be, but it is your right to swing your leg over a push bike and use the public roads for free, I did this at 17 as well so I could get to work, insurance is ridiculous but it isn't going to change.
Four grand pays for a lot of taxis as well, it just isn't a good use of cash, think a lot need to delay a year or two and make alternative arrangements.
The roads out here are lethal in the winter months, you don't see one peorson cycling into work along them, not so bad in the summer, I ended up car sharing with my old man untill I passed as thankfully I worked similar hours.It isn't a right, never will be, but it is your right to swing your leg over a push bike and use the public roads for free, I did this at 17 as well so I could get to work, insurance is ridiculous but it isn't going to change.
Four grand pays for a lot of taxis as well, it just isn't a good use of cash, think a lot need to delay a year or two and make alternative arrangements.
I also kicked off when they tried to charge me more for passing.
Things that help make it cheaper:
Own the car for over a year before insuring.
Live somewhere nice.
Add parents.
Pick obscure cars.
There are other ways too but nobody on PH ever bends the rules...
J4CKO said:
It isn't a right, never will be, but it is your right to swing your leg over a push bike and use the public roads for free, I did this at 17 as well so I could get to work, insurance is ridiculous but it isn't going to change.
What the are you even doing on pistonheads?Any way, considering it is car drivers who pay roadtax to maintain the public roads what makes you think it is your right to use them? I don't remember this being enshrined in law.
VTECBOY said:
Another thing I have noticed is that people who have crashed on this are blaming old people? Yet insurance is cheap for them because the are sensible? Older people have terrible reaction, never give ŷøù room and also drive at very low speeds.
I think it should be like pet insurance. The older you get the more expensive.
It is like that - I take it you don't have elderly relatives who have a car? As you get north of 70, fewer and fewer places will give you a quote. My grandfather gave up his car when he was 90-odd because the insurance cost worked out at about £4 per mile, at which point he decided that as much as he liked driving, it really did make sense to get a taxi.I think it should be like pet insurance. The older you get the more expensive.
Things I'd like changed:
1. More advanced tests, skid pan, motorway, simulated wet & icy, longer tests, and a sensible attitude to what is safe driving and what isn't.
2. Driver-related licence discs/plates. You carey an insurance and liscence card, you are covered TPO by the government. Property an heavy injury only, no soft tissue crap. Get your disc/card scanned or whatever every time you fill up. Drive loads? Insurance is expensive. Do 10 miles a year? Insurance is pennies.
3. Graded liscences, first 3 years 100hp/tonne max, regardless of age, then stepped up. Stricter tests for "direct access"
4. Income related fines (benefits included) in a scaled percentage, for stuff like speeding & not topping up your liscence. No points. Drink driving still punished as per now, dangerous driving on a case-by-case.
5. Clearer guidelines about roadworthy-ness. In black and white, none of this "officer discresion"
6. Foregion vehicles must buy "vignettes".
1. More advanced tests, skid pan, motorway, simulated wet & icy, longer tests, and a sensible attitude to what is safe driving and what isn't.
2. Driver-related licence discs/plates. You carey an insurance and liscence card, you are covered TPO by the government. Property an heavy injury only, no soft tissue crap. Get your disc/card scanned or whatever every time you fill up. Drive loads? Insurance is expensive. Do 10 miles a year? Insurance is pennies.
3. Graded liscences, first 3 years 100hp/tonne max, regardless of age, then stepped up. Stricter tests for "direct access"
4. Income related fines (benefits included) in a scaled percentage, for stuff like speeding & not topping up your liscence. No points. Drink driving still punished as per now, dangerous driving on a case-by-case.
5. Clearer guidelines about roadworthy-ness. In black and white, none of this "officer discresion"
6. Foregion vehicles must buy "vignettes".
JB! said:
To those of you that are saying "it's a privilege" get fked. Seriously.
So it's a "right" to be able to drive then? Surely, given that logic, you object to banning people from driving? What about the "right" of 15 year olds (or younger) to drive?ked. Seriously.JB! said:
You want less people on the dole? Make it easier to get people on the roads and working, by providing basic TP only cover in your VED or fuel.
So you'd rather everyone pays more for fuel and VED, even though it's easy to identify particularly high risk groups of drivers and ask them to pay their own (significant) costs?There is no automatic "right" to drive, as it can be removed or restricted.
There is no "right" to insurance at a particular price.
The way to reduce young drivers' insurance premiums is to reduce the accidents that young drivers cause, and the associated costs - not to lump that disproportionate cost onto others or the state. If young drivers didn't crash, they wouldn't be high risk and they wouldn't be asked to pay significant premiums to cover such a high risk.
scarble said:
J4CKO said:
It isn't a right, never will be, but it is your right to swing your leg over a push bike and use the public roads for free, I did this at 17 as well so I could get to work, insurance is ridiculous but it isn't going to change.
What the are you even doing on pistonheads?Any way, considering it is car drivers who pay roadtax to maintain the public roads what makes you think it is your right to use them? I don't remember this being enshrined in law.
Unless the law says you can't do something, then you can. So there is no "right" to ride a bike on the public road, but there are no (or rather, very limited) restrictions. Compare that to the requirements for driving a car and you'll see the distinction that J4CKO is trying to make.
PS - there is even a cycling forum on pistonheads.....
will_ said:
So you'd rather everyone pays more for fuel and VED, even though it's easy to identify particularly high risk groups of drivers and ask them to pay their own (significant) costs?
There is no automatic "right" to drive, as it can be removed or restricted.
There is no "right" to insurance at a particular price.
The way to reduce young drivers' insurance premiums is to reduce the accidents that young drivers cause, and the associated costs - not to lump that disproportionate cost onto others or the state. If young drivers didn't crash, they wouldn't be high risk and they wouldn't be asked to pay significant premiums to cover such a high risk.
I'd happily pay for TPO in fuel and not have VED.There is no automatic "right" to drive, as it can be removed or restricted.
There is no "right" to insurance at a particular price.
The way to reduce young drivers' insurance premiums is to reduce the accidents that young drivers cause, and the associated costs - not to lump that disproportionate cost onto others or the state. If young drivers didn't crash, they wouldn't be high risk and they wouldn't be asked to pay significant premiums to cover such a high risk.
The saying is stupid. There are parts of the country (outside London) where if you don't drive, you don't earn.
See my post above for my reasoning.
JB! said:
will_ said:
So you'd rather everyone pays more for fuel and VED, even though it's easy to identify particularly high risk groups of drivers and ask them to pay their own (significant) costs?
There is no automatic "right" to drive, as it can be removed or restricted.
There is no "right" to insurance at a particular price.
The way to reduce young drivers' insurance premiums is to reduce the accidents that young drivers cause, and the associated costs - not to lump that disproportionate cost onto others or the state. If young drivers didn't crash, they wouldn't be high risk and they wouldn't be asked to pay significant premiums to cover such a high risk.
I'd happily pay for TPO in fuel and not have VED.There is no automatic "right" to drive, as it can be removed or restricted.
There is no "right" to insurance at a particular price.
The way to reduce young drivers' insurance premiums is to reduce the accidents that young drivers cause, and the associated costs - not to lump that disproportionate cost onto others or the state. If young drivers didn't crash, they wouldn't be high risk and they wouldn't be asked to pay significant premiums to cover such a high risk.
The saying is stupid. There are parts of the country (outside London) where if you don't drive, you don't earn.
See my post above for my reasoning.
The saying is far from stupid, it is true. There are indeed parts of the country where if you don't drive, you don't earn - but that doesn't make driving a "right" (in the same way that having a job isn't a "right" either).
£4000 reasonable? Get a car.
£4000 not reasonable? Get a 125CC bike, CBT (you should know all the rules of the road from your driving tests so it's not as bad as just riding around on 125 with CBT and no clue) and insurance for £200.
Scared for your life? Get lifts or cough up the £4000.
£4000 not reasonable? Get a 125CC bike, CBT (you should know all the rules of the road from your driving tests so it's not as bad as just riding around on 125 with CBT and no clue) and insurance for £200.
Scared for your life? Get lifts or cough up the £4000.
JB! said:
To those of you that are saying "it's a privilege" get fked. Seriously.
Charming, you're not indicative of the whole country.ked. Seriously.Yes there are a many number of people who live in areas with very poor public transport but quite frankly and bluntly that is not the problem of insurers, if insurers feel and have proof young drivers are a high risk why should they not charge a high premium considering it is their money at risk.
Driving a car is not a privilege full stop there are many different options such a friend buying a car and you sharing costs, as mentioned moving to where there are more jobs etc
JB! said:
will_ said:
So you'd rather everyone pays more for fuel and VED, even though it's easy to identify particularly high risk groups of drivers and ask them to pay their own (significant) costs?
There is no automatic "right" to drive, as it can be removed or restricted.
There is no "right" to insurance at a particular price.
The way to reduce young drivers' insurance premiums is to reduce the accidents that young drivers cause, and the associated costs - not to lump that disproportionate cost onto others or the state. If young drivers didn't crash, they wouldn't be high risk and they wouldn't be asked to pay significant premiums to cover such a high risk.
I'd happily pay for TPO in fuel and not have VED.There is no automatic "right" to drive, as it can be removed or restricted.
There is no "right" to insurance at a particular price.
The way to reduce young drivers' insurance premiums is to reduce the accidents that young drivers cause, and the associated costs - not to lump that disproportionate cost onto others or the state. If young drivers didn't crash, they wouldn't be high risk and they wouldn't be asked to pay significant premiums to cover such a high risk.
The saying is stupid. There are parts of the country (outside London) where if you don't drive, you don't earn.
See my post above for my reasoning.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff