Teenage car insurance

[beorhthelm]

You can earn NCB with Churchill as a named driver.

thats nice, but who round here would use Churchill insurers?


has anyone people looked at classic car insurance? not all beetles and mgb's, its surprising what counts, golf mkII (upto 1992) will qualify with some.

 

[Uwinsc]

In answer to the pass plus thing- I had to actually ring the companys to get the discount as most of them don't offer it on their websites. I went with tesco when I passed and it was pretty resonable.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Any suggestions. My 19 yo passed his test a couple of months ago and has come back to live at home b4 going to uni next year. Want to get him on car insurance - 1.3 Toyota - 7 years old and worth c £2,500. Premiums being quoted seem way above what we paid two years ago when he was learning on a 1.1 Peugeot (which we no longer have).

I'm trying to put him on my insurance as a second driver.

Anyone any ideas of the best comanes to try, esepcially if they are ones that are not on the price comparison websites ?

Just be a bit wary of what I've copied and pasted below, insurance companies don't often need an excuse to avoid paying out...

Named Driver Tricks to Lower the Cost of Car Insurance
Below are the two types of named drivers that are commonly used to reduce insurance costs. Each is fully explained and should clarify why you should or shouldn't do it.

Insuring a Car in your Parents Name and having you as a Named Driver
This is a common trick used among new and inexperienced drivers to bring down their insurance quotes. A few years back this was very popular, however nowadays the insurance companies have cottoned on and sometimes it doesn't work out as planned.

In this case you insure your car in your parents name so that the insurance policy isn't in your name. You then get them you add you as a named driver. Although technically this is legal, if you are the main driver of the car you could be found out and have your insurance voided.

The reason insurance works out cheaper this way is the main risk is based on your parent who is a lower risk to insurance companies than you are. We do not recommend this technique as you could end up having you insurance cancelled, the other downfall is that you don't accumulate any no claims bonus as it is in your parents name

 

[Lady Whistledown]

what i really do not understand is that, ok SOME youngsters are admittedly high risk - but so are the very old, in fact the very old are probably just as likely (if not more) to have an accident as young drivers but do their premiums increase? no, is that because "i've never had an accident but i've seen loads of them behind me"??

While I agree that there are some properly doddery old drivers about, the facts are that far more accidents are caused by young drivers, in particular males. And they are significantly more likely to be involved in serious or fatal collisions, whereas the old Driving Miss Daisy's of this world are more likely to reverse into your car in Tesco's car park, or accidentally drop their foot on Drive while at the wheel of an automatic. Minor damage type stuff.

Going to piss a few people off on here no doubt, but personally I'm quite liking the idea that they have in a lot of countries whereby evening curfews are imposed on drivers with limited experience. Either that or they have legislation that prohibits you from carrying passengers (in some cases passengers aged under, say, 35) until you've held a licence for a certain period of time. Harsh, you might think, but how many examples have we all seen of shockingly aggressive driving from young lads with their mates in the passenger seats? It's all about showing off.

 

[drew]

Admiral was cheapest for me (18 and passed a few months ago) costing £1800 as a second driver! Thats with my 21 year old sister who only has a provisional as the main driver. On my own it was £4000!! Scandalous!!

Hope you have read Edna's comments below. If you are the main driver of the vehicle and insurers find out then the insurance could be voided. The only time they are likely to find out is if there is an accident and someone is hurt. They would be obliged to pay any third party claim but could then claim that back from yourself. You may then be on the fraud register which most insurers will check so could then end up not getting any insurance or at least have to pay considerably more.

most people i know who have renewed recently are finding premiums are on the increase, i'm glad we're getting a new car in dec on motability so i won't have to deal with the money grabbing arseholes again.

what i really do not understand is that, ok SOME youngsters are admittedly high risk - but so are the very old, in fact the very old are probably just as likely (if not more) to have an accident as young drivers but do their premiums increase? no, is that because "i've never had an accident but i've seen loads of them behind me"??

Do you have stats to show old people are more likely to have an accident. I don't think so. As painful as it is to get stuck behind an old driver, they are less likely to have an expensive accident than a young male driver. They drive slower so any accident will be smaller and they don't tend to drive at night or drink.

 

[Uwinsc]

While I agree that there are some properly doddery old drivers about, the facts are that far more accidents are caused by young drivers, in particular males. And they are significantly more likely to be involved in serious or fatal collisions, whereas the old Driving Miss Daisy's of this world are more likely to reverse into your car in Tesco's car park, or accidentally drop their foot on Drive while at the wheel of an automatic. Minor damage type stuff.

Going to piss a few people off on here no doubt, but personally I'm quite liking the idea that they have in a lot of countries whereby evening curfews are imposed on drivers with limited experience. Either that or they have legislation that prohibits you from carrying passengers (in some cases passengers aged under, say, 35) until you've held a licence for a certain period of time. Harsh, you might think, but how many examples have we all seen of shockingly aggressive driving from young lads with their mates in the passenger seats? It's all about showing off.

Only problem with the passengers thing is it may stop young parents carrying their children. I don't think the evening curfew thing is a bad idea but would cause diffciulties for people working late.

 

[manilaseagull]

Going to piss a few people off on here no doubt, but personally I'm quite liking the idea that they have in a lot of countries whereby evening curfews are imposed on drivers with limited experience. Either that or they have legislation that prohibits you from carrying passengers (in some cases passengers aged under, say, 35) until you've held a licence for a certain period of time. Harsh, you might think, but how many examples have we all seen of shockingly aggressive driving from young lads with their mates in the passenger seats? It's all about showing off.

There is a reason teenage insurance is so high and thats because of the amount of accidents now caused by young drivers, we have all seen it as soon as a teen passes his test he thinks he is Lewis Hamilton.

I know its not ALL YOUNGSTERS but again the majority suffer because of the minority.

What Edna says is applicable in the US, Aus and NZ I think...I agree it should be tried here.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

More on the subject of fronting: I did wonder how they'd find out, but I guess it would be one of the first things an insurance company would look at when trying to decide if they should pay out or not. Suppose they could look at whose name the car is registered in and whether you'd previously obtained a quote for yourself (as a young driver) alone. And check out the car itself to see if it's a pimped up Citroen Saxo with nothing in the boot but a massive sub, full body kit, tinted windows and racing seat belts

Another common technique employed to cheat the system is when the drivers parents put themselves as the main driver on their children's cars, which is against the law.

Direct line car insurance told him that all quotes generated by customers are stored - so if a potential customer is given a quote but later realised it was too expensive and repeated the process but adding a parent as the main driver instead, the insurer would not pay out as the system would recognise that it was obviously fronted.

 

[Spun Cuppa]

With the amount of computer technology in this day and age, it shouldn't be beyond insurance firms to know when something dubious is happening, but they are happy to take the large premiums generated by young drivers, THEN decide they have been 'duped' if a claim is made and not pay out

 

[bhaexpress]

While I agree that there are some properly doddery old drivers about, the facts are that far more accidents are caused by young drivers, in particular males. And they are significantly more likely to be involved in serious or fatal collisions, whereas the old Driving Miss Daisy's of this world are more likely to reverse into your car in Tesco's car park, or accidentally drop their foot on Drive while at the wheel of an automatic. Minor damage type stuff.

Going to piss a few people off on here no doubt, but personally I'm quite liking the idea that they have in a lot of countries whereby evening curfews are imposed on drivers with limited experience. Either that or they have legislation that prohibits you from carrying passengers (in some cases passengers aged under, say, 35) until you've held a licence for a certain period of time. Harsh, you might think, but how many examples have we all seen of shockingly aggressive driving from young lads with their mates in the passenger seats? It's all about showing off.

The facts and figures don't lie and I'm sure that you see it uncomfortably up close and personal. I passed my test at 17 along with five good friends. Within four months I was the only one who hadn't had an accident. Fortunately they all waked away but we all thought we knew how to drive, I was just luckier. Young men showing off really is a killer.

 

[Since1982]

I don't want to sound like an apologist for insurers and I have a young son who is having to grin and bear high premiums but...motor insurance companies are losing money at the moment and have been for some time. Premiums are not high enough to reflect the cost of claims - particularly I said before the bodily injury claims. Young drivers crash more and when they do they cause more damage and injure more people - fact. Thats why their premiums are so high. if it were possible to make money and offer young driver insurance cheaper then somebody would be doing it - we have one of the most competitive insurance markets in the world and that will always drive down price yet nobody can do it because of the cost of claims. Stop the practice of claiming £2k for whiplash and £1k for time off work and all the rest of the dodgy practices that are encouraged and then we might get back some pricing. My view though is that we need to find another solution - raise the age limit, curfews, no passengers, no driving in peak hours, pass plus etc etc all have a role to play as does the police coming down heavy on speeding and irresponsible driving by young people.

 

[beorhthelm]

Going to piss a few people off on here no doubt, but personally I'm quite liking the idea that they have in a lot of countries whereby evening curfews are imposed on drivers with limited experience. Either that or they have legislation that prohibits you from carrying passengers (in some cases passengers aged under, say, 35) until you've held a licence for a certain period of time. Harsh, you might think, but how many examples have we all seen of shockingly aggressive driving from young lads with their mates in the passenger seats? It's all about showing off.

its a debate to be had. there's long been a somewhat stupid suggestion that engine size should be limted - stupid because a 1.1l is just as capable of being lost control of at speed as a 2.5l. the insurance industry seems to deal with this weel enough anyway. the curfew seems ok until you consider that it prohbits young drivers from using a car to go to/from work. the occupancy thing might work though, i think by far the worse influence on driving is peers and showing off. difficult to police, but no more so than speeding, dodgy tyres, no MOT, no insurance etc etc.

The facts and figures don't lie .

no but they do exagerate or say what the storyteller wants them to say. going by my earlier comments on premiums of yestur-year, have claims or accident rates really trippled? how many write-offs of young drivers are down to shitty cars rather than reckless driving? i've always been suspicious of the portral of statistics on this issue as they didnt seem to add up cross refenceing between different numbers. that and an insurance acturary told me theres a alot of spin and profiteering in those numbers.

 

[drew]

The curfew is not a ban on driving when it is dark, just between certain hours such as 9pm to 5am.

 

[beorhthelm]

The curfew is not a ban on driving when it is dark, just between certain hours such as 9pm to 5am.

well some do suggest a curfew should be hours of darkness - its more dangerous innit (no doubt a stat somewhere too). but besides that, what time do colleges and supermarkets, large employers of the young, close? how about the many working late/early factory shift jobs? farm labourers? bar staff? those jobs affect by the curfew idea are those where there is least/no public transport alternative.

 

[Garage_Doors]

The curfew is not a ban on driving when it is dark, just between certain hours such as 9pm to 5am.

Its not a ban, you can drive outside the agreed hours, but if you do you get "fined" by the insurance company, this it about £30 an hour.

But from a legal prospective, you are still insured.
You also have to pay for the data box to be fitted to the car which is around £260.

 

[BigGully]

I think car insurance companies are mostly shysters .......

They accept most drivers proposal and payment knowing that most major claims will not be covered ..... due to a technically ....... lovely jubbly for them !

Most of us drive around assuming the cover is as stated and pay our annual fee, comfortable in the ignorance, that we really are not insured !! ... but hey ho, we got our Car Tax !!!

Most of us these days will swallow any claim even if over our allotted excess ........ we all love our NCD.

By the way the Government enjoys a little earner of any increased premiums by receiving their 7% .......

Its generally a scam .....

Most Insurance Companies take our inflated premiums for a risk they will not ever cover, the 'holier than though' brigade will bleat about safety and responsibility whilst they slavishly pay their overinflated direct debit payment, whilst never ever making a claim or even travelling very far in their car anyway !!!

Its useless and totally unacceptable.

I would never condone bad behaviour of course, however, if you accept driving aint a luxury, how can a kid from the estate that wishes to drive but will never ever have the means to do so, might be tempted to drive with a permission a car without the necessary insurance cover.

After all most of us are doing this already ...... !!!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Young drivers don't have the experience to anticipate any changes to their normal driving status. They just assume that, whatever happens, they will hit the brakes and they will be able to stop. They don't anticipate the parked car round the blind bend, or the horse and rider on the country lane. Once you've had that kind of experience, of a terrifying near miss (I did, a while after passing my test), it shakes you up sufficiently to make you think about things a bit more. But most get away, somehow, without that, until it's too late. There HAS to be some way to make people think a bit more about what they do, whether that's high insurance prices or some other tactic.

Knocking on the door of a family home at some godforsaken hour of the morning to tell them their son or daughter has been killed in a car accident is, without a doubt, the worst thing I ever have to do. Nothing else even comes close. You know that you're about to utterly shatter someone's life forever, and there's realistically not a thing you can do or say to make it any better. The fear on their face when they open the front door and it's the police, and they're holding their breath hoping you're going to say "Nothing to worry about but...", and you just look at them and ask to come in. And knowing that split second when they realise what you're actually saying will be frozen into their memory as long as they live

Yes, I know anyone can have a road accident. But I think it's reasonable for those who are statistically far more likely to become (or create) victims to be targeted by those who have a vested interest in safety.

 

[Seecider]

Thanks for your help guys. Gone the Direct Line route and they confirm that he will accumulate named driver NCD. Interesting thing was that having committed myself to £1500 for the two of us I could add the older one for another £20 pa and he'll build up named driver NCD as well, though I'm pretty unlikely to let him loose on the car.

 

[beorhthelm]

Young drivers don't have the experience to anticipate any changes to their normal driving status.

its interesting you use "young drivers" rather than "new" or "inexperienced" drivers.

as a tactic, high insurance doesn't seem to be doing anything, unless accidents and claims are coming down. in which case, so should the premiums. doesnt make sence does it

unfortunatly no, i dont have an alternative solution.

 

[Since1982]

I think car insurance companies are mostly shysters .......

Who are losing multi millions providing cover...so either they are not shyters or just not very good ones!