How to deal with 17 year old driving dangerously?
Discussion
tgk300 said:
Xenoous said:
Jesus Christ some of the replies in this thread from the last few days are shocking. I can't believe what I'm reading. I'm assuming these are either trolling for the hell of it, or are from 17 year olds that think their premiums are unfair. Tough..
The premiums are unfair regardless of what anyone says, hence why the insurance system is flawed beyond beliefs and unfairly benefits the old people. Insurance premiums are a measure of risk based on claims experience & claims history. Its quite simple. Younger drivers are likely to cause more damage that costs the insurance companies more to fix, therefore they pay higher premiums
If it were 40 year old housewives that caused most damage then they would pay the highest premiums, its not hard!
Wombat3 said:
You really are a bit simple aren't you?
So under your genius scheme, 50 year old bloke in a £50K BMW minding his own business gets taken out by hard of thinking teenager driving like a w
ker & running out of talent in a crappy old Nova .
BMW sustains £10K's worth of damage & bloke is injured and has to take 2 months off work and you think his insurance should pay for that?
...and then by extension that his premiums should go up (because that's what happens when you make a claim)?
Utterly moronic.
And then, do tell, who pays for the injuries to the people at the bus stop when the same teenage wker runs out of talent & misses a bend doing 60 in a village? Apparently not his insurance according to you!
Again, law changes would prevent the increase in premiums. And yes, his insurance should pay for it, hence why the system is a better one. So under your genius scheme, 50 year old bloke in a £50K BMW minding his own business gets taken out by hard of thinking teenager driving like a w
ker & running out of talent in a crappy old Nova . BMW sustains £10K's worth of damage & bloke is injured and has to take 2 months off work and you think his insurance should pay for that?
...and then by extension that his premiums should go up (because that's what happens when you make a claim)?
Utterly moronic.
And then, do tell, who pays for the injuries to the people at the bus stop when the same teenage w
ker runs out of talent & misses a bend doing 60 in a village? Apparently not his insurance according to you!As for your last point, if we lived in a country with private healthcare (which we should as publically owned healthcare clearly isn't working) then those people would healthcare insurance to cover that. There is a lot that could be changed in this country to make it better.
Either that, or every motorist regardless of age or their vehicles pays 300 quid a year more tax that goes into a pot that covers all costs for everything for everyone to do with cars and injury claims. This is just as fair as the other system and also prevents to exploitation of young drivers.
tgk300 said:
Wombat3 said:
You really are a bit simple aren't you?
So under your genius scheme, 50 year old bloke in a £50K BMW minding his own business gets taken out by hard of thinking teenager driving like a wker & running out of talent in a crappy old Nova .
BMW sustains £10K's worth of damage & bloke is injured and has to take 2 months off work and you think his insurance should pay for that?
...and then by extension that his premiums should go up (because that's what happens when you make a claim)?
Utterly moronic.
And then, do tell, who pays for the injuries to the people at the bus stop when the same teenage wker runs out of talent & misses a bend doing 60 in a village? Apparently not his insurance according to you!
Again, law changes would prevent the increase in premiums. And yes, his insurance should pay for it, hence why the system is a better one. So under your genius scheme, 50 year old bloke in a £50K BMW minding his own business gets taken out by hard of thinking teenager driving like a w
ker & running out of talent in a crappy old Nova . BMW sustains £10K's worth of damage & bloke is injured and has to take 2 months off work and you think his insurance should pay for that?
...and then by extension that his premiums should go up (because that's what happens when you make a claim)?
Utterly moronic.
And then, do tell, who pays for the injuries to the people at the bus stop when the same teenage w
ker runs out of talent & misses a bend doing 60 in a village? Apparently not his insurance according to you!As for your last point, if we lived in a country with private healthcare (which we should as publically owned healthcare clearly isn't working) then those people would healthcare insurance to cover that. There is a lot that could be changed in this country to make it better.
Premiums go up so that the insurance company can survive. Insurance companies are not bottomless pits of money, premiums are where they get the money to pay the claims.
If the claims then exceed the premiums (which apparently they can't raise because of legislation under your idiot scheme) then they go out of business.
That went well then!
Fundamentally what you are proposing also means that if you are the perpetrator of damage or injury you should be able to walk away scot-free with no consequences. Beyond idiotic.
What do you want to next, prosecute the people at the bus stop for "dangerous queuing" ??
Lastly as to public healthcare not working - indeed, you really are clueless. Go live in the USA and see how well that system works in comparison.
Wombat3 said:
More idiocy.
Insurance premiums are a measure of risk based on claims experience & claims history. Its quite simple. Younger drivers are likely to cause more damage that costs the insurance companies more to fix, therefore they pay higher premiums
If it were 40 year old housewives that caused most damage then they would pay the highest premiums, its not hard!
Why should all young drivers be punished because some of them crash? Insurance premiums are a measure of risk based on claims experience & claims history. Its quite simple. Younger drivers are likely to cause more damage that costs the insurance companies more to fix, therefore they pay higher premiums
If it were 40 year old housewives that caused most damage then they would pay the highest premiums, its not hard!
tgk300 said:
Wombat3 said:
More idiocy.
Insurance premiums are a measure of risk based on claims experience & claims history. Its quite simple. Younger drivers are likely to cause more damage that costs the insurance companies more to fix, therefore they pay higher premiums
If it were 40 year old housewives that caused most damage then they would pay the highest premiums, its not hard!
Why should all young drivers be punished because some of them crash? Insurance premiums are a measure of risk based on claims experience & claims history. Its quite simple. Younger drivers are likely to cause more damage that costs the insurance companies more to fix, therefore they pay higher premiums
If it were 40 year old housewives that caused most damage then they would pay the highest premiums, its not hard!
Wombat3 said:
As thick as mince. You really have no clue as to what you are talking about, I should quit before you look even more of an idiot.
Premiums go up so that the insurance company can survive. Insurance companies are not bottomless pits of money, premiums are where they get the money to pay the claims.
If the claims then exceed the premiums (which apparently they can't raise because of legislation under your idiot scheme) then they go out of business.
That went well then!
Fundamentally what you are proposing also means that if you are the perpetrator of damage or injury you should be able to walk away scot-free with no consequences. Beyond idiotic.
What do you want to next, prosecute the people at the bus stop for "dangerous queuing" ??
Lastly as to public healthcare not working - indeed, you really are clueless. Go live in the USA and see how well that system works in comparison.
I am guessing that you're one of those old people who are creaming the benefits from cheap insurance while young people cover the costs? Looks like you have taken your cake and scoffed the lot leaving us with an empty plate and a load of dishes to wash. Premiums go up so that the insurance company can survive. Insurance companies are not bottomless pits of money, premiums are where they get the money to pay the claims.
If the claims then exceed the premiums (which apparently they can't raise because of legislation under your idiot scheme) then they go out of business.
That went well then!
Fundamentally what you are proposing also means that if you are the perpetrator of damage or injury you should be able to walk away scot-free with no consequences. Beyond idiotic.
What do you want to next, prosecute the people at the bus stop for "dangerous queuing" ??
Lastly as to public healthcare not working - indeed, you really are clueless. Go live in the USA and see how well that system works in comparison.
tgk300 said:
Wombat3 said:
Why should everyone else be punished because some young drivers drive like idiots and run out of talent?
How is it an punishment if everyone pays the same to protect themselves? I am suggesting a system where everyone pays an identical sum to protect themselves. tgk300 said:
Why should all young drivers be punished because some of them crash?
Because its a proven statistic that young drivers are inexperienced which leads to a higher chance they'll be involved in an accident. Higher risk group = higher premiums.Please tell me you understand that?
tgk300 said:
Wombat3 said:
As thick as mince. You really have no clue as to what you are talking about, I should quit before you look even more of an idiot.
Premiums go up so that the insurance company can survive. Insurance companies are not bottomless pits of money, premiums are where they get the money to pay the claims.
If the claims then exceed the premiums (which apparently they can't raise because of legislation under your idiot scheme) then they go out of business.
That went well then!
Fundamentally what you are proposing also means that if you are the perpetrator of damage or injury you should be able to walk away scot-free with no consequences. Beyond idiotic.
What do you want to next, prosecute the people at the bus stop for "dangerous queuing" ??
Lastly as to public healthcare not working - indeed, you really are clueless. Go live in the USA and see how well that system works in comparison.
I am guessing that you're one of those old people who are creaming the benefits from cheap insurance while young people cover the costs? Looks like you have taken your cake and scoffed the lot leaving us with an empty plate and a load of dishes to wash. Premiums go up so that the insurance company can survive. Insurance companies are not bottomless pits of money, premiums are where they get the money to pay the claims.
If the claims then exceed the premiums (which apparently they can't raise because of legislation under your idiot scheme) then they go out of business.
That went well then!
Fundamentally what you are proposing also means that if you are the perpetrator of damage or injury you should be able to walk away scot-free with no consequences. Beyond idiotic.
What do you want to next, prosecute the people at the bus stop for "dangerous queuing" ??
Lastly as to public healthcare not working - indeed, you really are clueless. Go live in the USA and see how well that system works in comparison.
tgk300 said:
This is funny as literally knowone understands what It was I said. I know that third party is the only compulsory form of insurace, however that is the problem.
Young people are hammered by insurance companies to protect other peope cars, but if the rules were changed and third party was gotten rid off and replaced with an alternate system it would be far better.
Insurance should be done in such a way that every take out a policy that covers themself, their own car and their own passengers. This provides no cover to other drivers but because they all have their own policy that is the same as yours everything is ok. This means that if you have a nice car that you care about then thats fine you can pay a fortune, but if you don't care about your crap car then you can just have a cheap policy. This IS a better system regardless of what anyone says as it prevents young people from being taken advantage off like they are at the moment. Insurance should be the same price for everyone regardless of age and the vehicle.
So under your scheme then if I am walking along as a pedestrian and a car driven by someone driving like an idiot loses control and knocks me down injuring me so badly I can never work again they get away with it scot free and I am left with nobody to claim off? Young people are hammered by insurance companies to protect other peope cars, but if the rules were changed and third party was gotten rid off and replaced with an alternate system it would be far better.
Insurance should be done in such a way that every take out a policy that covers themself, their own car and their own passengers. This provides no cover to other drivers but because they all have their own policy that is the same as yours everything is ok. This means that if you have a nice car that you care about then thats fine you can pay a fortune, but if you don't care about your crap car then you can just have a cheap policy. This IS a better system regardless of what anyone says as it prevents young people from being taken advantage off like they are at the moment. Insurance should be the same price for everyone regardless of age and the vehicle.
Eyersey1234 said:
tgk300 said:
This is funny as literally knowone understands what It was I said. I know that third party is the only compulsory form of insurace, however that is the problem.
Young people are hammered by insurance companies to protect other peope cars, but if the rules were changed and third party was gotten rid off and replaced with an alternate system it would be far better.
Insurance should be done in such a way that every take out a policy that covers themself, their own car and their own passengers. This provides no cover to other drivers but because they all have their own policy that is the same as yours everything is ok. This means that if you have a nice car that you care about then thats fine you can pay a fortune, but if you don't care about your crap car then you can just have a cheap policy. This IS a better system regardless of what anyone says as it prevents young people from being taken advantage off like they are at the moment. Insurance should be the same price for everyone regardless of age and the vehicle.
So under your scheme then if I am walking along as a pedestrian and a car driven by someone driving like an idiot loses control and knocks me down injuring me so badly I can never work again they get away with it scot free and I am left with nobody to claim off? Young people are hammered by insurance companies to protect other peope cars, but if the rules were changed and third party was gotten rid off and replaced with an alternate system it would be far better.
Insurance should be done in such a way that every take out a policy that covers themself, their own car and their own passengers. This provides no cover to other drivers but because they all have their own policy that is the same as yours everything is ok. This means that if you have a nice car that you care about then thats fine you can pay a fortune, but if you don't care about your crap car then you can just have a cheap policy. This IS a better system regardless of what anyone says as it prevents young people from being taken advantage off like they are at the moment. Insurance should be the same price for everyone regardless of age and the vehicle.
tgk300 said:
Wombat3 said:
Why should everyone else be punished because some young drivers drive like idiots and run out of talent?
How is it an punishment if everyone pays the same to protect themselves? I am suggesting a system where everyone pays an identical sum to protect themselves. What's fair is you pay an amount relative to your risk rather than spreading the cost across all users.
tgk300 said:
Wombat3 said:
Why should everyone else be punished because some young drivers drive like idiots and run out of talent?
How is it an punishment if everyone pays the same to protect themselves? I am suggesting a system where everyone pays an identical sum to protect themselves. Eyersey1234 said:
tgk300 said:
This is funny as literally knowone understands what It was I said. I know that third party is the only compulsory form of insurace, however that is the problem.
Young people are hammered by insurance companies to protect other peope cars, but if the rules were changed and third party was gotten rid off and replaced with an alternate system it would be far better.
Insurance should be done in such a way that every take out a policy that covers themself, their own car and their own passengers. This provides no cover to other drivers but because they all have their own policy that is the same as yours everything is ok. This means that if you have a nice car that you care about then thats fine you can pay a fortune, but if you don't care about your crap car then you can just have a cheap policy. This IS a better system regardless of what anyone says as it prevents young people from being taken advantage off like they are at the moment. Insurance should be the same price for everyone regardless of age and the vehicle.
So under your scheme then if I am walking along as a pedestrian and a car driven by someone driving like an idiot loses control and knocks me down injuring me so badly I can never work again they get away with it scot free and I am left with nobody to claim off? Young people are hammered by insurance companies to protect other peope cars, but if the rules were changed and third party was gotten rid off and replaced with an alternate system it would be far better.
Insurance should be done in such a way that every take out a policy that covers themself, their own car and their own passengers. This provides no cover to other drivers but because they all have their own policy that is the same as yours everything is ok. This means that if you have a nice car that you care about then thats fine you can pay a fortune, but if you don't care about your crap car then you can just have a cheap policy. This IS a better system regardless of what anyone says as it prevents young people from being taken advantage off like they are at the moment. Insurance should be the same price for everyone regardless of age and the vehicle.
You are born with a body, you didn't choose to walk around in it.
You choose to buy and drive a Rolls Royce on public roads. Why should a less well off person have to insure themselves against damaging an incredibly expensive choice?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff