Teenagers Car Insurance

[British Bulldog]

Nice idea but there is not a class of insurance that operates like this anywhere as far as I know. Initial price is based on the real data that comes from years and years of providing this sort of cover and allows reasonable assumptions on risk to be assessed by age,gender, car, postcode etc. Its up to the driver to prove themselves by earning a NCB and of course those who do pick up points etc get higher premiums in year 2 and beyond. My young lad was in the same situation so I do understand but really the issue is less with the insurers and more with the claims managament companies plus the recklessness of many young drivers.

Whatever way you dress it up I still cant see how anybody can justify charging a young lad £3k a year to insure an £800 1.0 litre car on third party fire & theft?

 

[Since1982]

Whatever way you dress it up I still cant see how anybody can justify charging a young lad £3k a year to insure an £800 1.0 litre car on third party fire & theft?

because the actual experience says that if he crashes, and he is at very high risk of doing so, it is going to cost the insurance company a whole lot more than that. Its not just the price of the car that is relevant, its the personal injury claims, credit hire charges from the person he hits, referral fees from the accident management company. The car is probably the least expensive part of the claim I'm afraid.

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

I have two lads aged 22 and 19 on my insurance along with the Wife. Tried ComparetheMuskrat, Go Compare and Confused and they all wanted circa £2,500 for fully comp with a Glasgow postcode (car is a Peugeot 307 1.4 petrol). Then tried Direct Line and they are only £1500 (I say only but it is still £30pw). Worth looking at others such as Sheila's Wheels as well but definitely shop around.


TNBA

TTF

 

[Garage_Doors]

Whatever way you dress it up I still cant see how anybody can justify charging a young lad £3k a year to insure an £800 1.0 litre car on third party fire & theft?

This is a common misconception with insurance, the value of the car being driven on TPFT is very largely irrelevant, your insuring against the risk of damage the driver can cause with the vehicle, he can do the same damage to another car whether its worth £800 or £8000.

 

[Peever]

Whn I got my lisence at 18 If I wanted to go solo on it here in Ontario it was $5400 CAD a year. Ontario is all private and its a big buisness. I moved to Manitoba for school and was paying 1600 . In a two week span I got in 2 accidents, 1 was sliding on ice into a ditch (thank you winter) and then 2 weeks later sliding on ice into someone else. That put my insurance up to almost 7,000 in ontario! Fortunently, there are a few loopholes and im only on 1000 a year

 

[Barrel of Fun]

BBC News - Insurers set for sex discrimination ruling

 

[Cian]

Those specialists in low price motor cover for young drivers....Quinn?

No doubt insurance companies can be very profitable but not from selling motor.

Quinn are in trouble over selling below-cost commercial insurance in the GB market. Their GB motor and entire island-of-Ireland business was at least break-even, which is why the administrators are keeping that bit running. Looks as if it could be bought by a nationalised bank...

 

[BensGrandad]

I am sure it was on the radio earlier today that the EU are bringing in a law tomorrow or sometime this week, which makes it illegal to differentiate between male and female drivers of the same age. So a 17 year old will pay the same whether they be boy or girl.

 

[drew]

I am sure it was on the radio earlier today that the EU are bringing in a law tomorrow or sometime this week, which makes it illegal to differentiate between male and female drivers of the same age. So a 17 year old will pay the same whether they be boy or girl.

If it does, which would be a ludicrous decision, then you can see eventually we will all pay a flat fee because if you can't discriminate between sexes despite actuarial evidence then surely you cannot do the same in respect of age!

 

[beorhthelm]

If it does, which would be a ludicrous decision, then you can see eventually we will all pay a flat fee because if you can't discriminate between sexes despite actuarial evidence then surely you cannot do the same in respect of age!

quite, so expect to see a similar case for age brought very soon.

the issue with gender based pricing is far more important than car insurance, all males will see a reduction in pension payouts too as a result. thanks Belgium consumer group, you're a f***ing star i suspect they've been put up to it by insurance indsustry, who will be the real winners.

 

[MJsGhost]

Teenagers are rightly assessed as high risk and have to pay more for insurance. If they don't like it, they can get the bus - it's not a god-given right to be able to run a car cheaply.

Why moan about spending about £4k++ per year running a car (depreciation of the car, tax, insurance, petrol, servicing etc) when using public transport (including taxis - you can get a lot of taxis with £4k) will end up cheaper?

It's simple economics - if you don't like it, don't pay it. There are very few people who really can't get by without their own car.

 

[BensGrandad]

It was in the papers yesterday about the sex discrimination on car insurance and the general feeling is that the losers will be the females rather than the males premium coming down, the females going up, what a suprise!

 

[patchamalbion]

we now have a level playing field.......

 

[sten_super]

we now have a level playing field.......

If anyone thinks this is good news they are in for a massive shock. Male premiums may come down a bit (c10%) but female premiums could rise by 25%. That's without mentioning the fact that it also affects annuity payouts. A completely bizarre decision that really does make you wonder about the sanity of some people. So now any kind of 'discrimination', even based on actuarial evidence, is unacceptable?

 

[Simster]

If it does, which would be a ludicrous decision, then you can see eventually we will all pay a flat fee because if you can't discriminate between sexes despite actuarial evidence then surely you cannot do the same in respect of age!

You say that, but as a fairly safe male driver who hasn't had an accident in 22 years of driving, I was always somewhat pissed off that I was paying through the nose when I could least afford it because other young male drivers were such f***ing bellends.

 

[patchamalbion]

If anyone thinks this is good news they are in for a massive shock. Male premiums may come down a bit (c10%) but female premiums could rise by 25%. That's without mentioning the fact that it also affects annuity payouts. A completely bizarre decision that really does make you wonder about the sanity of some people. So now any kind of 'discrimination', even based on actuarial evidence, is unacceptable?

Oh i agree. If anyone thinks this means any premiums will decrease they are insane, all this means is that the insurance companies will all raise premiums to the level of the higher gender so car,life assurance,annuity rates and some income protection products will be affected. They have until December 2012 to change premiums.

 

[Simster]

Why is there this assumption that it will mean raised prices across the board? The insurance business is fairly competitive, afterall.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

So I don't get it...this case means that the insurance companies won't be able to discriminate against male drivers even though they are significantly more likely to be involved im an accident than females, and thus more likely to claim.

If the court has said that, then by the same logic, why should they be able to discriminate against all young drivers due to their age? Surely any insurance company has to base their premium on perceived risk, and if young men are statistically the most dangerous drivers, then they have to be the ones paying the price. That's how insurance works

 

[Simster]

So I don't get it...this case means that the insurance companies won't be able to discriminate against male drivers even though they are significantly more likely to be involved im an accident than females, and thus more likely to claim.

If the court has said that, then by the same logic, why should they be able to discriminate against all young drivers due to their age? Surely any insurance company has to base their premium on perceived risk, and if young men are statistically the most dangerous drivers, then they have to be the ones paying the price. That's how insurance works

Oh right. So presumably it would OK for insurance companies to charge more to black drivers or whatever if it is statistically proven that they are more likely to get broken into and have the contents of their cars nicked?

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the great sages of NSC to tell me why it will absolutely be the case that the cost of insurance will rise overall if this ruling takes place. Because that sounds like bollocks to me.

 

[drew]

we now have a level playing field.......

The playing field would be level if all those playing on it were the same, ie no one particular group are more or less likley to be involved in a loss whether it be due to age/gender/social background/location etc.

You say that, but as a fairly safe male driver who hasn't had an accident in 22 years of driving, I was always somewhat pissed off that I was paying through the nose when I could least afford it because other young male drivers were such f***ing bellends.

So, when you passed your test, how did you prove you were better than other drivers? The only way is through your year on year driving experience and as you got older your premiums should have got lower and your no claims discount higher. And what exactly do you mean by 'fairly' safe. Have you had a fault accident and if so was it in your earlier years as a motorist or more lately?

So I don't get it...this case means that the insurance companies won't be able to discriminate against male drivers even though they are significantly more likely to be involved im an accident than females, and thus more likely to claim.

If the court has said that, then by the same logic, why should they be able to discriminate against all young drivers due to their age? Surely any insurance company has to base their premium on perceived risk, and if young men are statistically the most dangerous drivers, then they have to be the ones paying the price. That's how insurance works

Unfortunately that appears to be the case. Where will they draw the line. Will we all be paying a flat rate to there is no reward for good safe driving. Will it be applied to life insurance? Will those that try and lead a relatively healthy life have to pay additionally for those that don't. What about business insurance. Will companies in low risk industries have to pay higher premiums to match those in high risk industry.

Unfortunately, there will be some on here that think it may mean extra cash in their pocket but what they won't appreciate is that the price of everything else will go up as it is the end consumer that pays for everything.