MPs to debate £1200 insurance cap for under 25s.
Discussion
Anyone over 25 will have to pay more then?
£1200 is not a lot of money and I'd think it will push up premiums for others.
It's not uncommon to see young people driving about in some quite pricey motors, 20k plus and if they then moan about insurance prices, I don't have a lot of sympathy tbh.
£1200 is not a lot of money and I'd think it will push up premiums for others.
It's not uncommon to see young people driving about in some quite pricey motors, 20k plus and if they then moan about insurance prices, I don't have a lot of sympathy tbh.
Edited by s3fella on Wednesday 22 March 18:04
PositronicRay said:
If they cap ins premiums the ins companies will just decline cover.
Stupid debate, waste of public money.
They are only debating it because an e-petition on this subject got the required number of signatures to trigger a debate. They're just going through the motions.Stupid debate, waste of public money.
[quote=Gargamel]If they limit it to say 2.0 litre cars or below then I see no reason not to. Insurance is mandatory after all. some premiums are just outrageous.
Premiums are outrageous for obvious reasons. No insurance company is going to write insurance at a loss which means they will simply refuse cover. The unintended consequence would be an effective ban on the under 25's from driving interesting cars (in their own name) or ban youngsters who live in stty areas from owning a car at all. It's an idiotic idea.
Premiums are outrageous for obvious reasons. No insurance company is going to write insurance at a loss which means they will simply refuse cover. The unintended consequence would be an effective ban on the under 25's from driving interesting cars (in their own name) or ban youngsters who live in stty areas from owning a car at all. It's an idiotic idea.
Puddenchucker said:
How about another suggestion:
Keep the premiums for young/inexperience drivers the same as now but with, say, a 50% refund if they go the year without any (at fault) claims/accidents or convictions.
i.e. a tangible financial incentive to drive sensibly.
Where is the money coming from to pay the rebate. Do the insurance co staff have to hand back half their salaries, or to the people that crash only get half their car fixed?Keep the premiums for young/inexperience drivers the same as now but with, say, a 50% refund if they go the year without any (at fault) claims/accidents or convictions.
i.e. a tangible financial incentive to drive sensibly.
Puddenchucker said:
How about another suggestion:
Keep the premiums for young/inexperience drivers the same as now but with, say, a 50% refund if they go the year without any (at fault) claims/accidents or convictions.
i.e. a tangible financial incentive to drive sensibly.
You don't see a teeny little problem with this business model no?Keep the premiums for young/inexperience drivers the same as now but with, say, a 50% refund if they go the year without any (at fault) claims/accidents or convictions.
i.e. a tangible financial incentive to drive sensibly.
They could do this easily. Choose a group of cars that fit a low performance, low model criteria and then set a maximum on those cars.
Anything outside that and you get to pay whatever it takes. So flash boy in a Fezza can still have one but his parents pay accordingly.
It might make manufacturers build cheap low tech cheap to repair starter cars so they could be included in such a scheme.
It might stop so many having no insurance and getting behind the wheel of unsuitable cars.
Anything outside that and you get to pay whatever it takes. So flash boy in a Fezza can still have one but his parents pay accordingly.
It might make manufacturers build cheap low tech cheap to repair starter cars so they could be included in such a scheme.
It might stop so many having no insurance and getting behind the wheel of unsuitable cars.
Gargamel said:
If they limit it to say 2.0 litre cars or below then I see no reason not to. Insurance is mandatory after all. some premiums are just outrageous.
we have all kinds of market interference I don't see what is different here
Insurance prices are based on how much your risk group costs the insurance company. For it to be caped someone else needs to make up the difference. we have all kinds of market interference I don't see what is different here
spaximus said:
They could do this easily. Choose a group of cars that fit a low performance, low model criteria and then set a maximum on those cars.
Anything outside that and you get to pay whatever it takes. So flash boy in a Fezza can still have one but his parents pay accordingly.
It might make manufacturers build cheap low tech cheap to repair starter cars so they could be included in such a scheme.
It might stop so many having no insurance and getting behind the wheel of unsuitable cars.
The problem there is that even the crappiest Axiam 600 would still be able to get up to enough speed to kill or seriously injure people.Anything outside that and you get to pay whatever it takes. So flash boy in a Fezza can still have one but his parents pay accordingly.
It might make manufacturers build cheap low tech cheap to repair starter cars so they could be included in such a scheme.
It might stop so many having no insurance and getting behind the wheel of unsuitable cars.
A cap as low as £1200 is a pipe dream, if it happens then I could see a lot of the main line insurers declining under 25s as a matter of course.
Puddenchucker said:
How about another suggestion:
Keep the premiums for young/inexperience drivers the same as now but with, say, a 50% refund if they go the year without any (at fault) claims/accidents or convictions.
i.e. a tangible financial incentive to drive sensibly.
You don't really understand how insurance works, do you Keep the premiums for young/inexperience drivers the same as now but with, say, a 50% refund if they go the year without any (at fault) claims/accidents or convictions.
i.e. a tangible financial incentive to drive sensibly.
Murph7355 said:
Puddenchucker said:
How about another suggestion:
Keep the premiums for young/inexperience drivers the same as now but with, say, a 50% refund if they go the year without any (at fault) claims/accidents or convictions.
i.e. a tangible financial incentive to drive sensibly.
You don't really understand how insurance works, do you Keep the premiums for young/inexperience drivers the same as now but with, say, a 50% refund if they go the year without any (at fault) claims/accidents or convictions.
i.e. a tangible financial incentive to drive sensibly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff