How to deal with 17 year old driving dangerously?
Discussion
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.
Either this is trolling, which is actually a bit sad as this topic has some very good responses to a good question asked by the OP, including a nice follow-up from reg local, or this poster is the sort of person who also thinks that injecting bleach may solve covid-19. 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 - if you aren't joking (I really hope you are for your sake) then some friendly advice. You are incredibly naive and your understanding of the topic of insurance is nowhere near as good as you believe it to be. Step away from the keyboard and drive safely. Doing this will result in your future insurance being cheaper when you become less of a risk. You sound like an enormous risk right now.
vonhosen said:
That's unfair on those who present least risk, they are subsidising the risky.
What's fair is you pay an amount relative to your risk rather than spreading the cost across all users.
What's fair is everyone pays the same regardless. Me paying more at 17 because some guy who is also 17 stuffed his car into a Jag is not fair. The system is flawed and cost should be spread.What's fair is you pay an amount relative to your risk rather than spreading the cost across all users.
DaveyBoyWonder said:
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?
I understand that, but that doesn't make it fair. Not all 17 year olds crash so why should all 17 year olds pay more?Please tell me you understand that?
Wombat3 said:
You guess correctly - except that when I was younger I too paid what at the time were huge amounts of money for insurance - just like everyone else.
Again, you should not be prematurely punished for something that has yet to happen. The cost shouldn't come before you crash as you probably wont, It should come after. tgk300 said:
What's fair is everyone pays the same regardless. Me paying more at 17 because some guy who is also 17 stuffed his car into a Jag is not fair. The system is flawed and cost should be spread.
Everybody paying the same isn't fairer.We've already paid more when we represented more of a risk & that's gone down as we moved to becoming a lower risk. You now want us to bail you out during your high risk phase, at a time when we represent a lower risk (having paid when we were a higher risk).
What's flawed is your thinking.
It's skewed by your desire to lower your premiums by offsetting it's costs to others.
You won't be wanting to increase your life/health/travel insurance premiums to offset my parent's premiums.
Pay your own costs/bills.
The costs are spread by those in the same risk groups.
tgk300 said:
vonhosen said:
That's unfair on those who present least risk, they are subsidising the risky.
What's fair is you pay an amount relative to your risk rather than spreading the cost across all users.
What's fair is everyone pays the same regardless. Me paying more at 17 because some guy who is also 17 stuffed his car into a Jag is not fair. The system is flawed and cost should be spread.What's fair is you pay an amount relative to your risk rather than spreading the cost across all users.
I have earned the right to pay a low premium, you have not yet, but you want me to pay more to cover your / younger drivers claims so you can pay the same as me at 17 years old.
How about life insurance then, and holiday insurance, house insurance, in fact any insurance, should we all pay the same for that as well.
How about you paying insurance for something you don't have, but others do, you know just to spread the cost.
You will be on here in 7 years time when you have qualified for your full no claims bonus arguing you should pay less than a 17 year old who has just started driving because he has not earned any no claims and it is unfair he is paying the same as you under your madcap scheme.
Be careful what you wish for
tgk300, I agree the car insurance system isn't fair - Are you happy now?
It's not fair because those with a good record are actually subsidising the young (with little/no record) and the bad drivers. We all paid extra when we were young ( I recall my first premium at 21 years was half the value of my 6 year old car).
Once you've built up a record of not crashing, you get what's called a no-claim bonus - you may have heard of that.
It's not fair because those with a good record are actually subsidising the young (with little/no record) and the bad drivers. We all paid extra when we were young ( I recall my first premium at 21 years was half the value of my 6 year old car).
Once you've built up a record of not crashing, you get what's called a no-claim bonus - you may have heard of that.
tgk300 said:
Wombat3 said:
You guess correctly - except that when I was younger I too paid what at the time were huge amounts of money for insurance - just like everyone else.
Again, you should not be prematurely punished for something that has yet to happen. The cost shouldn't come before you crash as you probably wont, It should come after. Monkeylegend said:
You will be on here in 7 years time when you have qualified for your full no claims bonus.
Judging by the level of maturity and the attitude I would say that statistically this would seem unlikelySure this scheme would be popular for those that live in Bradford postcodes. It's not just about accidents - as said before it's about risk. Why should someone who lives in a reasonable area with a low crime rate pay the same as someone who lives in a dump where a wheelie bin would get nicked? It's not only age that dictates risk
I'm 45, with a clean license held for 28 years, never had a point or a conviction of any kind and live in a decent area. In my youth I liked to drive fast so I joined a motor club and did auto tests. My best mate built several rally cars and we drove like tw4ts on closed stages where we were less likely to injure others - not exactly the "boring" people that you insinuate us to be
Your idea for insurance is a "Socialist" scheme. When you're a bit older and your political leanings move away from those indoctrinated into you by a left-leaning education system you might understand the real world a touch better
Wombat3 said:
If insurance companies were ripping everyone off they would all be making insane and disproportionate profits. They are not. Their profits are in line with what would be expected of business of their size. All businesses exist to make a profit, insurance companies are no different. It therefore follows that their total premiums collected are about what they need to be.
The reason premiums are so high is because of the cost of claims. Its also partly true that the cost of claims is higher than it could be partly because insurance companies are a bit lazy with keeping repair costs down and partly because some people are fraudulent w
kers. However, the cost of repairing bent metal is nothing compared to the cost of injury claims.
Whilst I deeply disagree with the other bloke's unintelligent ramblings about "It's everyone else not me, I'm perfect hurr durr durr" - it is interesting to note that I've been clued up to the fact that most insurers will not underwrite a risk without at least a 26% RoE. That's a floor, not an average.The reason premiums are so high is because of the cost of claims. Its also partly true that the cost of claims is higher than it could be partly because insurance companies are a bit lazy with keeping repair costs down and partly because some people are fraudulent w
kers. However, the cost of repairing bent metal is nothing compared to the cost of injury claims.Granted there are certain other factors not included such as the upkeep of buildings, etc. But the cost of funding is included. It's a fairly shocking amount to be honest. Ultimately only a few large entities have the legal right to underwrite risk. It's no wonder that comparison sites shuffle the margin around daily from one to the next so they all get white labelled under different names, even if ultimately underwritten by the same group of 5 or 6 large re-insurers.
However I do think you are absolutely right about some of the reasons why; benefit scrounging scroats, fraudsters, ruinously expensive repairs and of course the cost of 3rd party claims. One can imagine the cost of rehabilitation for the poor rider who suffered in 10P's crash.
Edited by Mr_Megalomaniac on Thursday 28th May 17:34
tgk300 said:
vonhosen said:
That's unfair on those who present least risk, they are subsidising the risky.
What's fair is you pay an amount relative to your risk rather than spreading the cost across all users.
What's fair is everyone pays the same regardless. Me paying more at 17 because some guy who is also 17 stuffed his car into a Jag is not fair. The system is flawed and cost should be spread.What's fair is you pay an amount relative to your risk rather than spreading the cost across all users.
It's not fair even by your own logic. If everyone is paying the same regardless, despite them not driving the same, it does not equate to fairness.
To explain it in other terms - if it were everyone gainfully employed being paid the same regardless; despite working longer (or shorter hours) in harder (or easier) conditions, in skilled (or unskilled) occupations would make no sense either. There's an inherent unfairness in such a model. A janitor working the night shift would not logically be paid the same as a neurosurgeon. Or put simply; one is not entitled because one breathes.
Therefore, someone driving 6 hours a day across much greater distances in an expensive Range Rover is statistically more likely to incur a cost to the underwriter than someone pootling along in their Jag once in a fortnight to visit Billy down the lane. Therefore the pricing would logically need to differ.
Edited by Mr_Megalomaniac on Thursday 28th May 17:35
Wombat3 said:
Again , you haven't thought that through. If you have a incident & the only premium that goes up is yours , do you think you could afford the increase?
Anyway, if he is happy to pay for any damage he causes, he won't have to have insurance.Obviously he has to be good for the money, and will have to lodge a deposit with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court.
otolith said:
Anyway, if he is happy to pay for any damage he causes, he won't have to have insurance.
Obviously he has to be good for the money, and will have to lodge a deposit with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court.
Mm, I'm happy for him to do that, as long as he has the funds to cover liabilities to a similar level to an insurance policy.Obviously he has to be good for the money, and will have to lodge a deposit with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court.
I think mine goes up to something like £20m.
tgk300 said:
Again, you should not be prematurely punished for something that has yet to happen. The cost shouldn't come before you crash as you probably wont, It should come after.
Look we know you skipped quite a few classes at school, particular spelling and grammar, but you are demonstrating a huge lack of ability to think things through.How do you propose to recover money from someone after the event. They may chose not to drive again, they may be dead, they may be in a coma in hospital, skip the country, etc.
You are not being punished by insurers, you need to earn your lower insurance premiums. You are a classic case of the ‘me, me, me’ generation, expecting everything instantly, on a plate, provided by others. It just doesn’t work that way, so suck it up.
tgk300 said:
This is funny as literally knowone understands what It was I said.
Young people are hammered by insurance companies to protect other peope cars,
.
FFS, that is NOT it.Young people are hammered by insurance companies to protect other peope cars,
.
lets put it simply
Other people's cars are not the biggest cost for insurance payouts.
If claiming had no or few consequences, more people would drive like knobs.
Edited by Gary C on Thursday 28th May 18:07
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff