Why do we insure a person, not the car?

[Mr Pointy]

As I understand it in Europe it's the car that's insured, not the driver so anyone can drive, although maybe there are limitations. How come we ended up with a different arrangement where the driver/s are named as well? Presumably their system works suffiently well, although maybe they have different issues to those we have like uninsured drivers & huge quotes for new drivers.

[Dingu]

I don’t want to pay more on the off chance an 18 yo drives my car.

[joropug]

You can do this too with any licenced driver add on, but it isn’t cheap, so very few would unless they need it.

[Mr Pointy]

But presumably they have young drivers in Europe as well so how do they cope? It's difficult to imagine they pay way more than we have to otherwise it would be untenable.

[MikeM6]

I suspect it's why we have always had quite cheap insurance in the UK.

[kambites]

I've never understood why all countries don't drift towards the very specific model of insurance that we have. For a low risk driver it's presumably always going to be cheaper to insure their car for only them to drive which means such policies should exist for low risk drivers (because offering such a policy would give the insurer a huge competitive advantage when appealing to those drivers). This in turn would mean that the only people who took out the "anyone can drive the car" policies would be those who expected higher risk drivers to drive their cars, which would in turn push up the cost of those policies until you end up with a situation very much like what we have in the UK.

I can only imagine there's a legislation difference of some sort?

[Baldchap]

We have a car in Spain that is just 'Insured' for any licensed driver over 18, however, I'm sure were it a Ferrari rather than a 1.0 Dacia, additional terms would apply.

[Mr Pointy]

Baldchap said:

We have a car in Spain that is just 'Insured' for any licensed driver over 18, however, I'm sure were it a Ferrari rather than a 1.0 Dacia, additional terms would apply.

True, but here an 18 yo is probably going to get quoted four figures even for a Dacia.

[Dingu]

Mr Pointy said:

True, but here an 18 yo is probably going to get quoted four figures even for a Dacia.

Rightly so.

[vikingaero]

I don't think there is a perfect system.

Countries where cars are insured do it for social economic reasons so that the Insurers pick up the tab for all property damage, personal injury and medical costs as the car is insured whoever drives it. It doesn't sit easily as people could drive recklessly as there would be someone to pick up the tab. You are still given quotes under this system and the cost varies with your driving record.

At least the UK system incentivises you not to claim and build up a no-claims and acts as a deterrent to young drivers in powerful cars.

[ingenieur]

It's worth noting at this early stage in the thread that my insurance has doubled in price from around £200 to around £400 in the last 2 or 3 years. (no obvious change, just more NCB + longer driving record).

So are we sure insurance in the UK is still cheap?

[ZedLeg]

Dingu said:

Mr Pointy said:

True, but here an 18 yo is probably going to get quoted four figures even for a Dacia.

Rightly so.

Nothing encourages young drivers like making a thing they legally need to have unaffordably expensive.

[CLK-GTR]

ingenieur said:

It's worth noting at this early stage in the thread that my insurance has doubled in price from around £200 to around £400 in the last 2 or 3 years. (no obvious change, just more NCB + longer driving record).

So are we sure insurance in the UK is still cheap?

I would say so. I'm now insuring an Audi RS6 for less than the cost of insuring a Q2 in Italy. I don't know if that's because of the car versus the person question or that they like to crash more in Italy, I suspect a bit of both. It is easier to insure the car without a doubt but anybody with a licence could have driven the Q2.

[Dingu]

ZedLeg said:

Dingu said:

Mr Pointy said:

True, but here an 18 yo is probably going to get quoted four figures even for a Dacia.

Rightly so.

Nothing encourages young drivers like making a thing they legally need to have unaffordably expensive.

The cost represents the risk. I paid it.

ETA: pretty sure I was paying £200-250 a month after first passing in the late 2000s.

Edited by Dingu on Monday 4th March 11:31

[ZedLeg]

Dingu said:

The cost represents the risk. I paid it.

Ah, the old "I had to put up with bullst so the kids should too".

I think pretty much everyone has bemoaned the death of our hobby at some point, do you not think that aggressively gouging young drivers might play into it a bit?

[Dingu]

ZedLeg said:

Ah, the old "I had to put up with bullst so the kids should too".

I think pretty much everyone has bemoaned the death of our hobby at some point, do you not think that aggressively gouging young drivers might play into it a bit?

What part of the cost accurately affects the risk aren’t you getting?

[ZedLeg]

My point is that if the cost of insurance is higher than the value of the car then the insurance is mostly worthless. All you’re paying for is a bit of paper to be legal.

Max insurance quotes should be pegged as a percentage of car value imo.

[MikeM6]

ZedLeg said:

My point is that if the cost of insurance is higher than the value of the car then the insurance is mostly worthless. All you’re paying for is a bit of paper to be legal.

Max insurance quotes should be pegged as a percentage of car value imo.

No, you are paying for cover against the damage you may cause to others.

[ZedLeg]

That’s why I said mostly, that’s the only part that’s still relevant.

It’s amazing that people can simultaneously bemoan the youths lack of interest in motoring, yet say it’s fine that it’s made prohibitively expensive to protect insurance company profits.

[ingenieur]

Just to chuck in a curve ball here... when I was young (and I once paid £3000 to insure a car) I always wistfully longed for an insurance regime where you insured your own property if you wanted to but if you didn't think your car was worth anything you wouldn't bother. The onus would be on whoever to insure whatever if they wanted to. For instance, if someone knocks down your garden wall after mounting the pavement in their uninsured jalopy you would claim off your home insurance if you wanted to.

Of course this made sense to a 17 year old but the obstacles to moving to a system like that in a very mature insurance market are insurmountable.

I imagine there are a great many countries in the world where it is up to you to insure against risk rather than it being a legal requirement for everyone to hold insurance.