Not knocking the Young.

[TWR]

We all criticize their driving including myself, but is it right that the insurers charge disgusting premiums for the young? Yes I know all about the cost of repairs etc.

[237SJ]

Well, I`m paying more for burglaries, flooding and storm damage in other parts of the country for my home insurance so I`m not sure I`d have a huge problem with it to be honest. I was (presumably) subsidised by other motorists when I was enjoying reasonable car insurance premiums as a youngster so what goes around comes around. Maybe harsher penalties for boy racers would be more appropriate.

[Andyvon]

The government are trying to instil the same travel ideas on the next generation as people had up to the 1970s. Before then, if people wanted to travel they had to use railways, taxis, bicycles or walk. Only since the late 70s or early 80s has there been this idea that every driver should have their own car and that has to change. There are one million new drivers every year, the roads are becoming increasingly jammed, the planet is warming, oil is running out, the EU have set emissions targets for 2018 an 2021 or we pay huge fines - yet still youngsters want their own cars.

The government said last year that only the very wealthy will be able to afford their own vehicle soon. They have tried to encourage people off the roads with public transport, scrappage schemes etc. No one took any notice. Now the government has given insurers the wink to increase premiums by 30-40% per year to price youngsters off the road and onto trains and buses. My 4-year old niece will probably never drive - in 15 years time her generation will be completely used to public transport. Youngsters today have to realise that many will never own a car in the same way the government have said many will never own their own home or work all their life. That's Britain today. I'm pleased I never had kids.

[d9f1c7]

Andy has a point I mean if 100 years ago someone said that we'd all have personal transport, 2 tons of steel transporting 3 empty seats everywhere and even poor people could afford it, they'd get put in the looney bin!

[Andyvon]

d9f1c7 -

As I said, it's only since the early 1980s that everyone passing their test thinks they can go and get their own car. Before then most families had one car - THE car. It was usually used by Dad to go to work and everyone else walked to school or got the bus. Today, if there are four drivers in a house - there are four cars parked outside! That's ridiculous, especially in view of the state of the roads and the diminishing oil reserves not to mention global warming. Also, the EU have said we must reduce our emissions by half by 2021 - much of that must come from reduced traffic emissions.

People of our generation enjoyed the golden years of personal transport. That's over though and kids today will never own their own vehicle. Society now is being forced to revert to just one car per household - or less than that. Perhaps it's not a bad thing. Something must change. My suggestion is to limit the number of new driving licences to less than the number of drivers hanging up their keys for reasons such as age.

[d9f1c7]

So how is the governement going to get us back to one car per household? I mean the cost is high but people still manage one car each. So are they just going to get brutal with car tax/petrol etc or what? Perhaps some sort of private/commercial fuel differential. What legislation could realistically achieve this aim?

[Andyvon]

Pricing the new drivers out with insurance premiums d9. That's what's happening now. Central and local government are all improving their public transport 'hubs', cycleways, new rail lines etc. Already there are huge numbers of youngsters (like my 18-year neighbour who's just passed his test and who's lowest insurance quote is £5500!) who just don't drive now. That's the idea. We were lucky. The government realise they won't alter our driving habits but they are working on the new drivers to price them off the road.

[SpikeyBush]

Let's keep things in perspective here. My first car in 1991 cost me £50. The insurance TPO was over £250. That was a lot when my take home wage was £40 per week on a YTS scheme

[sophie_1003]

The difference between now and the 80s is that more families have two working parents; if neither parent can get a job in the area in which they live two cars are necessary. I looked for a job near me but none were to be had so had to go further afield; if I were to use public transport it would cost more than using the car, take twice as long to get to work and I probably wouldn't even be able to get to work on time!

[flip_flop]

The combined operating ratio of most motor insurers is in excess of 100%. Therefore, they are having to rely in investment income to turn a profit - if they couldn't rely on investment income, everybody's motor insurance premium would be more than it is now.

Insurance works on a common pool basis - the premiums of the many fund the claims of the few - and within the pool, certain sectors of society have to contribute more to the pool because they represent a greater risk.

Statistics prove that young people put more pressure on the pool than older drivers and therefore it is absolutely right that they should contribute more to the pool, which is why their premiums are so high - but not as high as they should be. In fact, if young drivers contributed to the pool correctly, their premiums would be at least 50% greater than they already are and therefore older drivers are subsidising young drivers (the theory being older drivers need to subsidise younger drivers otherwise there would be a detrimental effect on society as more young people would drive uninsured than already are).

Likewise, it is an absolute fact that women cost insurance companies less than men, and therefore, using the common pool principle, should contribute less to the pool than men. This is only fair.

We now have the farcical situation where insurers will not be able to discriminate on gender, despite perfectly valid statistical reasons for doing so, which in reality will mean that insurance costs for women are going to go up. This is not fair.

I'm all for anti-discrimnation laws, but they should not apply to insurance where, as is the case, it is proven women are the 'better risk'.

This is utterly utterly absurd and is, I believe, the thin end of the wedge - it will only be a number of years before age discrimination in insurance will also be illegal.

Bananas.

[rov1100]

TWR branding all women as bad drivers is a stereotype and does not fit in with reality. Men on the whole are more aggressive and so cause more accidents. The same will be true for young drivers and it wasn't a fluke that young males were charged more for insurancance than females. Equalizing the insurance rates does not do them justice. Older drivers are just as much as likely to be involved in crashes but because they tend to drive a lot slower there are less fatalities. Maybe drivers of cars should not be allowed on the roads until they are 21 at least.

[TWR]

Where did I write that Rov?

[top_driver]

simple as, men cause themselves to crash, women cause others to crash and some just drive off when they do so, that's why the stats are like that