Another young driver crash,sad story, Hamble, Hampshire

[Drihump Trolomite]

I was too tall for the car I was no giant at 6'3, im shorter now at 6'1

[GliderRider]

Drihump Trolomite said:

I was too tall for the car I was no giant at 6'3, im shorter now at 6'1

It must be weird after all those years of looking over the windscreen, to now be looking through it...

[hutchst]

Shakermaker said:

I drove like a tt when I was 17 and had my first car, which was at the time a D-reg polo nearly as old as me. Because I felt immortal, had no supervision, and was showing off to my mates because I had a car and they didn't have a car.

Then a girl in my year at school - coincidentally who had her driving test at the same time as me - crashed and died and put 2 of our schoolmates in hospital for a few weeks - and I drove like a bit less of a tt after that for a while.

I still have very sad memories of a great young 16 year old girl from Hamble, in my class at school, tragically killed in a motorcycle accident. 1973. RIP.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Drihump Trolomite said:

Then try changing sex

Makes no difference, and hasn't done for years. Do keep up.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Heaveho said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

With age comes maturity. Do a quote for a 50 y/o who passed their test yesterday. Then just change the age to 19, and date of passing test to 2 yrs ago, and keep everything else the same. Now watch the premium go thru the roof.

If experience = maturity, a 19 y/o driving for 2 years should pay less than a 50 y/o who's just passed. But they pay much more.

A 50 yr old new driver may not have more driving experience, but they have 30 yrs more life experience. with that comes wisdom. Common sense would dictate they are less risk. I think you already know this though.

Exactly. That's what's called maturity.

Bottom line, driving experience or lack of makes only a small difference to the risk. A 50 y/o driving for 30 years will pay less than a new 50 y/o driver, but not much less. All other things being equal. Of course, if the 50 y/o driving for years has earned a no claim bonus, that'll make a difference. But a 50 y/o with 30 years experience buying their first insurance for many years and without bonus, will only pay a bit less than anew 50 y/o driver.

A 19 y/o driving for 2 years will pay a lot more than a new 50 y/o driver. They will pay less than a new 19 y/o driver, but not much less.

Some people say if you raised the minimum driving age to 25, it would make no difference to accident rates, because the new 25/26/27 y/o drivers will have the same accident rate as 17/18/19 y/olds have today, due to inexperience. It's not true. They wouldn't. They would have a much better record, because they would be more mature.

That's not saying I support a higher minimum driving age.

[julian64]

Jasey_ said:

poo at Paul's said:

Cars are safer than they have ever been, small cars now are likely safer than Mondeos of 10 years ago. But certainly a lot safer than small cars of 20 or 30 years ago.
People have been getting killed in cars for years and years, young and old. There are 5 people a day who go out and about their daily business and don't come home . who knows the cause, but it is not easy to die in a modern car driving sensibly at sensible speeds for the conditions and without distractions. It can happened, catastrophic failure, but most likely some one was driving like a twonk and someone died. Like thousands before. Sad, but it happens.

Always remember 5th gear's test of modern small (Renault Modus) v old big (Volvo Estate)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

Have a look at that video and turn off the idiot speaking. Note the Volvo moves very little after the accident, and the modus flies up into the air The deceleration/acceleration forces in the modus are far far higher looking at that impact. Try to plot where the occupants travel after the impact and you'll see what I mean. That is because the modus is much lighter. Like a billiard ball hitting a ping pong ball.
Looking at that video I would say that the Volvo would damage your legs but the head would be much more protected in the Volvo, both having airbags of course.

In an accident I want to be in the heaviest vehicle, and that video doesn't change my mind.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

julian64 said:

In an accident I want to be in the heaviest vehicle, and that video doesn't change my mind.

Of the same era, by and large, I agree. But those big Yank tanks of the 50s and early 60s were huge, heavy, and lethal. I'd rather be in a Citroen C1 than one of those if the 2 were in collision.

An customer of mine has a 63 Corvette. It's a beautiful thing but wow, there are so many things waiting to kill you in a very low speed accident. The orange juicer style thingies on the steering wheel and dials spring to mind. And no seat belts!

[Drihump Trolomite]

GliderRider said:

Drihump Trolomite said:

I was too tall for the car I was no giant at 6'3, im shorter now at 6'1

It must be weird after all those years of looking over the windscreen, to now be looking through it...

Indeed, but at that time the weird thing was looking through the windscreen as some police officer stuck his hands through and told me to keep calm. It didnt register at the time that half the windscreen was now in a million pieces in my arms or that my foot was no longer attached.

[Drihump Trolomite]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Drihump Trolomite said:

Then try changing sex

Makes no difference, and hasn't done for years. Do keep up.

Has it not? Does it not? Go do 3 comparable quotes on 3 different platforms then come back and report your findings.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Drihump Trolomite said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Drihump Trolomite said:

Then try changing sex

Makes no difference, and hasn't done for years. Do keep up.

Has it not? Does it not? Go do 3 comparable quotes on 3 different platforms then come back and report your findings.

It has been illegal to rate insurance on the grounds of sex for 8 years. It doesn't happen. Changing the sex on a quote, whilst not changing anything else, will not change the quote.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

However, insurers are entitled to give discounts for beauticians, nail technicians, bra fitters, and pink Micras over blue ones, whilst loading for satellite dish installers. If that means men pay more than women, so be it.

But a female beautician will not pay less than a male beautician, with all other info being unaltered.

[eldar]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Makes no difference, and hasn't done for years. Do keep up.

Statistically there is a big difference. Legislation equalises the premiums via cross subsidy.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

eldar said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Makes no difference, and hasn't done for years. Do keep up.

Statistically there is a big difference. Legislation equalises the premiums via cross subsidy.

Absolutely. I'm not saying it shouldn't make a difference, just that it doesn't. The legislation works against women on motor insurance, and works against men on private medical insurance and annuities.

[lyonspride]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Drihump Trolomite said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Drihump Trolomite said:

Then try changing sex

Makes no difference, and hasn't done for years. Do keep up.

Has it not? Does it not? Go do 3 comparable quotes on 3 different platforms then come back and report your findings.

It has been illegal to rate insurance on the grounds of sex for 8 years. It doesn't happen. Changing the sex on a quote, whilst not changing anything else, will not change the quote.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

However, insurers are entitled to give discounts for beauticians, nail technicians, bra fitters, and pink Micras over blue ones, whilst loading for satellite dish installers. If that means men pay more than women, so be it.

But a female beautician will not pay less than a male beautician, with all other info being unaltered.

Pretty much, they were told not to price based on gender, so they used stereotypes instead.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

lyonspride said:

Pretty much, they were told not to price based on gender, so they used stereotypes instead.

Insurance is based on stereotypes. If it weren't, a new young driver wouldn't pay more for their cover. After all, they have a clean record. But they get stereotyped, and most of the time, rightly so.

[DoubleD]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

lyonspride said:

Pretty much, they were told not to price based on gender, so they used stereotypes instead.

Insurance is based on stereotypes. If it weren't, a new young driver wouldn't pay more for their cover. After all, they have a clean record. But they get stereotyped, and most of the time, rightly so.

Not most of the time, but definitely more of the time than other age groups.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

DoubleD said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

lyonspride said:

Pretty much, they were told not to price based on gender, so they used stereotypes instead.

Insurance is based on stereotypes. If it weren't, a new young driver wouldn't pay more for their cover. After all, they have a clean record. But they get stereotyped, and most of the time, rightly so.

Not most of the time, but definitely more of the time than other age groups.

Fair point. Over 50% of young drivers will not crash, but their accident rate is 4-5 times higher than some other groups.

[M4cruiser]

M4cruiser said:

Regarding the Hamble incident, the police still haven't released any more information as far as I know, but no one is suggesting it happened at 60mph, just that it was on a 60mph road.

Inquest now opened, but it could be the end of May 2020 before we know more about what happened:-
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18105884.inquest-...

[M4cruiser]

I see now that the locals are calling for a speed limit reduction on that road in Hamble.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18118547.calls-re...

[skwdenyer]

M4cruiser said:

I see now that the locals are calling for a speed limit reduction on that road in Hamble.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18118547.calls-re...

And, sadly, they will probably prevail. One of those “dangerous roads” it seems...

[yellowjack]

skwdenyer said:

M4cruiser said:

I see now that the locals are calling for a speed limit reduction on that road in Hamble.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18118547.calls-re...

And, sadly, they will probably prevail. One of those “dangerous roads” it seems...

Always the fault of the road though. Just before Christmas I was cycling in the New Forest and rode past a warm Focus lying on it's side just off the road. It had rolled at least once, judging by the marks leading to it. On a dead straight road, and with the whole Forest (save for a couple of 'A' roads passing through it) subject to a blanket 40 mph speed limit (on account of loose livestock on the roads).

How does one even begin to roll a car on a dead straight road at 40 mph? Without it being preceded by a "watch this" moment, I can't imagine how it's even possible, unless you deliberately set out to roll it by steering violently into the scenery?