My nephew has just passed his theory part of the driving test having turned 17 last September. Good going. Speaking to his dad over Christmas, he has looked at insuring a basic car. Anywhere between 3 and 4 thousand pounds.
What the insurance companies seem to be suggesting before he even takes to the road on his own, is that he is a giant risk, even though he might never have a recorded accident from day 1. As many on here have teenage kids who find it harder to insure their first vehicles, may I suggest an alternative.
How about they part with up to £800 a year, which is manageable for most, for the policy, then ramp up the 3-4 thousand pounds as an excess. This would hopefully prompt them to drive more safely and more dilligently if they know they would have to pay for their own repairs up to 4K. The £800 pounds used to pay third parties from the insurance coffers like any other policy. If they happen to have a claim against them then the policy is increased as usual.
Any other suggestions, as this is a real burden for some families. It was never as bad as this when I hit the road after my pass.
|
It is why I tell young people not to bother and get on with living youth without such financial burdens. Even £800 a year is a lot for most 17 year olds.
My 19 year old cousin was paying £300 a month for his 106 out of £800 wages but to be fair he managed to go an entire four months before he crashed it and no third party was involved so he just scrapped the car.
The problem with £4000 excess is insurance companies know a 17 year old could not pay that kind of sum in the even of an accident, it would only work if it was a secured debt againt their parents house - again that will never work!.
It is not only lack of experience and judement with teenage drivers but I think of the accidents are caused by lack of majority. I saw some statistcs which said that 25 is the best age to pass a driving test.
Now I am sure plenty of 17-18 year olds are perfectly mature but the insurance company has no way of knowing that until it is too late.
|
Trouble with youngsters is that their idea of a basic car isn't the same as ours.
Is 3 to 4K the going rate for a group 1 or 2 car or for the more likely contenders.
Do youngsters trump up for their own insurance these days or do over indulgent parents foot the bill every time...apart from me that is..;)
|
>> Do youngsters trump up for their own insurance these days or do over indulgent parents
>> foot the bill every time...apart from me that is..;)
>>
Or Indulge in fronting ?
I wonder if insurance companies will be looking closer at any claims when little laddie prangs it ? " Where do you work / where are you studying. and how do you commute there every day ? Can we see the MoT certs to verify mileage for dads/mums second little useage car?
|
Only in the event of the kid having a bad accident. Then would imagine come the fruad charges, the refusal to pay, parents loosing their 5 bedroom house in Surry to pay a weeks wages to the footballer the bratt called Wayne in his souped up Saxo crashed into.
I think these days though a lot of insurance companies automatically suspect fronting and even as a named driver the cost can often be very similar.
|
I don't think it's so bad for girls, but the reality is that teenage lads do have a lot of accidents - we know loads of them who have written off cars, one wrote off his Mums car twice in a few months. He seemed to find it impossible to control at 25MPH :rolleyes: in the rain.
As so many kids go to uni these days, they shouldn't need a car until they're 21 anyway.
|
On a third party fire and theft policy there is no excess. The idea fails straight away.
Maybe a real bond held by the insurance company might work. But one whip lash injury caused by the young driver (which may be fictitious but hard to prove) and the £8000 bond might just cover it.
|
I can think of a few fairly effective ways of minimising the risks from young drivers...
1) Ban them from carrying passengers until past 21 or until they've achieved 3 years of experience. The temptation to show off, along with the temptation to drink drive with passengers, is instantly curbed. This will also serve to drastically reduce the death rate among young drivers and their passengers, who typically are riding in small, old, unsafe cars without seatbelts.
2) Offer significant discounts (on the order of 50-70%) for drivers who take advanced driving qualifications. These aren't about driving fast; they're about identifying risks. The proper ones, not the pretend stuff that is pass plus.
3) Offer a big discount for driving a car fitted with ESP. I believe recent studies in the US identify it as more or less eliminating accidents caused by a loss of control in slippery conditions. Obviously, it can't defeat the laws of physics. But it can rescue a situation where an over-control or slightly excessive speed caused by inexperience would ordinarily lead to a loss of control.
I can't stress point (3) enough. It should be more cost effective to drive a slightly newer car with good safety protection than to save money on a cheaper car without. Load the insurance on the D-reg rust bucket Fiestas. Insurance companies and the government can work together on this.
4) Consider psychometric testing. Administered properly, even a computer generated test should be fairly difficult to defeat, and they're usually set to weight the score in the "lunatic" direction if they detect an attempt to fiddle the answers.
5) Prevent drivers who don't have insurance from getting on the road in the first place. I occasionally travel through the dodgier bits of Manchester. From the standard of driving and types of car, along with recent studies in the papers, I suspect that about 25% of motorists there are uninsured.
They're mostly Asian, which suggests that a combination of education and attitude change might be the solution. Having proper consequences for driving without insurance is a start (not the £150 fine etc which is 20 times cheaper than some quotes). Perhaps running a variant of the "speed awareness" courses in schools in this area might help? Drafting in police from around the country
A catch-all solution is better - a RFID chip on the filler cap which has to be scanned by the pump nozzle before it will fuel is an effective, if initially expensive, system to implement.
|
ESP is not going to make any difference to the accident rates of any young male driver.
And anyway, how many of them can afford to buy the cars with the newer ESP.
And its only the very recent ESP in cars that is effective.
|
>> ESP is not going to make any difference to the accident rates of any young
>> male driver.
>>
>> And anyway, how many of them can afford to buy the cars with the newer
>> ESP.
>>
>> And its only the very recent ESP in cars that is effective.
>>
If you think about it, most young male driver accidents are caused by loss of control... which you could rephrase as failure to react in an appropriate way, I suppose.
I'm a bit bemused at why you think that only new cars have effective ESP; it's all made by Bosch anyway and newer versions are simply refinements. The ESP in my eight-year-old Passat prevented me from going off the road where my sister, 20 minutes later, did.
I've only had it trigger once through a screw-up of my own making, and it felt like a giant hand grabbing the car and making it go, instinctively, where I wanted. THAT prevents accidents.
The cost factor is the point I'm making above. Suppose ESP loads the price of a car by £500 (second hand). The insurance should be roughly £500 cheaper, which from £3000 is a step in the right direction.
|
>> The cost factor is the point I'm making above. Suppose ESP loads the price of a car by £500
>> (second hand). The insurance should be roughly £500 cheaper, which from £3000 is a step
>> in the right direction.
So when ten year old cars with this ESP are available it might make a difference.
|
>> If you think about it, most young male driver accidents are caused by loss of
>> control... which you could rephrase as failure to react in an appropriate way, I suppose.
>>
Not the case i am afraid. Most accidents by young males are caused by wildly excessive speed, complete and utter stupidity and risk taking.
None of which would be alleviated by ESP
>> I'm a bit bemused at why you think that only new cars have effective ESP;
>> it's all made by Bosch anyway and newer versions are simply refinements. The ESP in
>> my eight-year-old Passat prevented me from going off the road where my sister, 20 minutes
>> later, did.
The ESP in your 8 year old Passat is NOT ESP, but merely a slightly beefed up traction control. Later of versions of ESP that can modulate brakes per wheel is much better.
>> The cost factor is the point I'm making above. Suppose ESP loads the price of
>> a car by £500 (second hand). The insurance should be roughly £500 cheaper, which from
>> £3000 is a step in the right direction.
No to get proper traction control that works you have to spend at least 12 grand on a car that has it, most young lads spend 2 - 5 grand on a car.
And give a young lad a car with traction control? what's that going to teach him? Nothing.
|
>>
>> >> If you think about it, most young male driver accidents are caused by loss
>> of
>> >> control... which you could rephrase as failure to react in an appropriate way, I
>> suppose.
>> >>
>>
>>
Regardless of how young drivers cause accidents, it's impossible to give credence to your argument because you clearly don't have a reasonable understanding of how the technology works.
It's not complicated, it only requires two additional parts in addition to a working 4-way ABS, and believe me, even on older cars it's much more than a "souped-up" traction control. Even the Passat came with a separate manual describing how it worked, presumably VW were quite proud of it.
|
Well put it like this, the ESP on my near top of the range Touran, which had a more modern system than your 8 year old Passat was nothing more than souped up Traction control.
But hey, if yours was special it was special. Oh and its vastly more complex than two extra parts, do you know what controls it? You know about yaw sensors and CPU's and feedback loops?
Oh BTW, I have a 21 year old son who is just coming out of his hooligan phase, Is yours more special than mine as well?
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 3 Jan 11 at 10:33
|
>> Well put it like this, the ESP on my near top of the range Touran,
>> which had a more modern system than your 8 year old Passat was nothing more
>> than souped up Traction control.
>>
>> But hey, if yours was special it was special. Oh and its vastly more complex
>> than two extra parts, do you know what controls it? You know about yaw sensors
>> and CPU's and feedback loops?
>>
I'm sorry, when I said "two extra parts", I meant a yaw-sensor and steering angle sensor. Every other required component is already part of the car's existing ABS system, with the consequential change here being software, and stretching it here, a slightly more powerful micro-processor. Something of which a parts bin will contain thousands and will be stamped into the modulator at manufacture.
I'm not disparaging the effort needed to create the system in the first place, but it is not - and never will be - a vastly expensive or complicated upgrade to a car. What's quite likely is that nearly every current ABS unit on the market is capable of ESP in some description, but is lacking either the correct software or the two sensors mentioned earlier.
Having a look at Bosch's website shows that the developments in recent years into their own ESP system have been directed towards finer brake control at lower pressures for ancillary functions such as brake drying, and integration with hybrid drive vehicles. The ESP concept is simple and sound, and their website references a study from 5 years ago showing an 80% drop in fatal accidents from - surprise, surprise, VW.
Is it possible that the ESP in your Touran didn't work properly, or was never triggered? The only time mine came on was when I thought I was about to leave the road.
|
>an 80% drop in fatal accidents
Yeah right. You would have thought that such a major advance in road safety, with results that far outweighs seat belts, airbags, safety cells, etc etc would have gained far more attention.
Its all crap. ESP does not prevent most accidents. Or even a significant proprtion of them.
Did I trigger the ESP on the Touran? the way I drive? Are you kidding - the ESP light worked harder than blackpool.
|
>>
>> Did I trigger the ESP on the Touran? the way I drive? Are you kidding
>> - the ESP light worked harder than blackpool.
>>
Congratulations, you managed to spin the wheels. That's not ESP, though they share the same light.
|
You have no idea under what circumstances I trigged the ESP.
|
...You have no idea under what circumstances I trigged the ESP...
I bet there wasn't much you didn't trigger when you hit the bus.
|
>> I occasionally travel through the dodgier bits of Manchester. From the standard of driving
>> and types of car, along with recent studies in the papers, I suspect that about 25% of
>> motorists there are uninsured.
Two examples of bad driving today:
1. Driving home this afternoon down the A6. The car behind clearly wanted me to accelerate.... but the lights were on red a few hundred yards head. So I slowed a little and they changed and I carried on. Why drive on my bumper.
2. Same driver behind then decided to cut down the left (two lanes of traffic).... but there's always parked cars ahead hence being in the other lane doing just over 30mph.
Now if I had the change I'd have got out of the way for them to speed past a camera.
There are stupid drivers about. Including 24 year olds let alone 17 year olds!
|
>> I can think of a few fairly effective ways of minimising the risks from young
>> drivers...
>>
>> 1) Ban them from carrying passengers until past 21 or until they've achieved 3 years
>> of experience. The temptation to show off, along with the temptation to drink drive with
>> passengers, is instantly curbed. This will also serve to drastically reduce the death rate among
>> young drivers and their passengers, who typically are riding in small, old, unsafe cars without
>> seatbelts.
I can see the rationale here with young males & their mates. But how do you fashion the rules to allow 'hours building' with parents or older siblings?
My daughter passed her test in July. She has driven several hundred miles over the last month gaining experience in a variety of weather & road conditions while at he helm of the family Xantia & with me or Mum talking her through bits.
As soon as you add times/age differences/numbers etc it risks getting too involved to adminster.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 2 Jan 11 at 23:59
|
|
And another difficult problem to spot.... a car is insured but driven by someone uninsured to do so. How do you spot then if they don't make a mistake? I am not just talking fronting.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 3 Jan 11 at 00:02
|
There should be some sort of government backed insurance scheme for new drivers. Not quite sure how it would run but something that would encourage young drivers to drive insured rather than uninsured.
Make it have loads of limitations, something like the international DSS Health Card thingy you get that gives you basic health cover abroad - a 3rd party car insurance, valid for carrying driver only for a maximum 6000 miles a year.
A sort of "Tesco Value " insurance?
|
>> There should be some sort of government backed insurance scheme for new drivers.
Shift the age of driving to 25 - sorted. Even back when I was younger I decided I'd not drive until it was necessary and affordable. My first policy on a Fiesta in 1995 was less tan £200 fully comp.
Young new drivers need to pay their way. If the risk is high the premium is high.... an alternative is everyone say pay £1500pa extra to cover younger drivers. Who's for that?
|
For most under 25s there is always a compulsery excess even on third party policies, there is no just no voluntery excess which is what most of us here will have.
RTJ has the right idea really and it is why I don't have that much sympathy. God knows it was very difficult at times doing my job on the bus, it took me an hour to get a university four miles down the road because there was no direct public transport.
Cars are not a right but a luxery.
It is different for people who live out in the sticks but then their insurance is usualy much much cheaper anyway even for 17 year olds.
|
>> For most under 25s there is always a compulsery excess even on third party policies,
Eh?
|
This is general as it does depend on company and other circumstances but:-
Under £25 you pay two different kinds of excess, one is voluntery the other is required. The required excess you have to pay no matter what and is a third party excess, the other is voluntery and the type most of us here have, e.g if the accident is our fault and we want them to repair our car we pay that excess.
|
>> Under £25 you pay two different kinds of excess, one is voluntery the other is
>> required. The required excess you have to pay no matter what and is a third
>> party excess, the other is voluntery and the type most of us here have, e.g
>> if the accident is our fault and we want them to repair our car we
>> pay that excess.
>>
I am completely bamboozled by all that rattlespeak. Third party excess does not compute.
Can you use your legendary IT skills to find an Insurance Industry webpage that makes your point clear. I rather suspect you will able to find NOT a single instance where a third party excess exists in real life.
|
...to find an Insurance Industry webpage that makes your point clear...
Not sure how authoritative this site is, but it suggests an excess may be applied to a third party policy.
Quoting:
"Third party car insurance covers the injury or death of a third party, and also covers damage to the property of the third party that is involved in an accident caused by you or by your vehicle.
"Most car insurance companies will place an excess amount on the policy."
www.moneypage.com/Insurance/Car_Insurance/Third_Party_Car_Insurance.html
Last edited by: Iffy on Mon 3 Jan 11 at 14:41
|
>> Not sure how authoritative this site is, but it suggests an excess may be applied
>> to a third party policy.
>>
www.moneypage.com/
What Is MoneyPage :
"It is a shopping news site dedicated to bringing you only the very best new deals on the web. "
Iffy, I am sure you know that 3rd party cover is required by Law, and therefore it seems incongruous to me that a high risk young driver (let alone a safe old driver) can find an insurance company which allows an "excess" applied to a legally required minimum cover.
|
I'm not sure I understand that at all... Our insurance policies have 'compulsory' excesses and 'voluntary' excesses. All the voluntary excess does is reduce the premium; the compulsory excesss is the minimum that the insurer demands to provide cover. On my partners car that's £0, for mine £150. We have chosen higher excesses to lower the premium, but we didn't have to
AFAIK the excesses do not apply to third party claims anyway; certainly when my partner's car 'rolled' into another causing damage to it, but not to his car, no excess was charged
Peter
|
|
PeterS, I agree there is not excess for Third Party claims. If you claim on your own insurance you have to pay the compulsory excess plus the voluntary one. If the accident was not your fault you should get this amount back from the third party insurance company.
|
It appears I have understood it wrong. So compulsory just means we won't insure you unless you pay it, where as voluntary is just that.
I don't have any compulsory but do have a £250 voluntery excess.
And yep I also noticed when doing mock quotes for my sister that a brand new car was cheaper to insure than a ten year old one.
|
Insurers are not allowed to imposes an excess on third party insurance. The RTA requires that such policies
"must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] in Great Britain"
Note use of "any"
Such insurance is required for a minimum of £1,000,000
|
|
They have but the issue if a 17 year old crashes into somebody and injures them for live no amount of value insurance would be cheap enough for that risk. This is not about damage to metal, it is about damage to people and that is why premiums are so high for risky people.
|
When I was at school someone I knew had recently passed their test. Went out with his mates and was driving too fast. Car crashed and one of his friends was killed (nearly decapitated) and others injured. He nearly went to prison but got lucky. It did have an impact.
Cause of accident - someone young and reckless showing off. And the car was fairly new as it belonged to the parents.
My step-sons first car was a Panda 4x4. Insurance was about £1800 TPFT. His dad paid.
|
It has gone for for years, the problem these days is with injury payouts and lawyers fees the payouts are probably far higher than they used to be.
I don't understand why attitude is not a big part of the driving test.
|
We insured my daughter at 17 on a C1 and the additional premium was £400.
She drove on our insurance for 2 years with a £500 excess.
at 19 she has now bought her own C1 new Group 1 ins & the premium was £523 fully comp but only £323 if she had mum & dad as named drivers.
So she has her own car , reg in her name and her own insurance through a well known company and just us as named additional drivers for £323.00 @19 years of age.
She has kept her licence clean & no accidents, so if your carefull & car expectations are not too high then you can insure at a reasoanble cost !
It also appeared that it was cheaper to insure a new car than an old one
|
>> It also appeared that it was cheaper to insure a new car than an old one
Are new cars easier to repair? I know BMW have redone their bumpers so impacts up to 2.5mph will only require painting, if anything.
My Octy for all it's bulges and swoopy bits looks like it'd be fairly easy to repair even moderate damage.
I guess it wouldn't be so much repair as replace with bolt on parts that are probably pretty easy / quick to paint.
There was a moan in A.N. Other magazine / newspaper a while back about insurance premiums and they quoted the cost to repair a 2004 E class 10mph rear end shunt at over £2k.
|
It is because new cars are more secure and safer. If you have a crash in a 13 year old Fiesta you will probably have more injury's than you would in a brand new one.
Repair costs also effects it slightly, the Panda was cheaper to insure than the i10 simply because the insurance companies percieve it has easier to repair (bolt on wings etc and most parts made in Europe not the far east).
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Mon 3 Jan 11 at 15:37
|
I must admit we did get a quote for a 4 year old VW and it was about £1800 so multiplied by three years & it was just under 6K just in insurance so the brand new C1 car at £323.00 a year was a no brainer, it made a new car very cheap to buy!
May be the insurance companies also think a new car will be treated with more care.
|
Car Insurance- Young Drivers - RattleandSmoke
