ChatterBank1 min ago
Insurance!! :-(
I can't stand insurance, i can completely see the point in it and it is a fantastic idea don't get me wrong, but for goodness sake, what a scam! these people charge you loads to insure your car and it is also really stereotypical, i.e. a new driver has to pay more because they are more likely to be reckless! a 45 year old bloke could be just as reckless if not more, and alot of 17 year olds will be perfectly sensible drivers! Also, i find it stupid how you can not carry over your no claims from bike to car or vice versa, yet they will still bump your car insurance up if you have had an accident in the last 5 years on a motorcycle whether it be your own fault or someone else's! anything to make money out of us sensible road users! Okay, Rant over! :-)
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by benny3008. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
benny3008, a reckless 45 year old bloke would have had an accident or two by now and his insurance would be sky-high too. You and your mum need to be careful you correctly state your circumstances and are not "fronting" as this is being cracked down on now and could come back to bite you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...business/10241769.stm
http://www.bewiser.co...-son-my-car-insurance
It's not only young drivers that suffer with insurance. I've been paying critical illness cover for the last 20 years, never made any kind of claim, and my renewal quote has just been tripled from £27 per month to £80 per month! I guess I've reached the age where people start claiming ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...business/10241769.stm
http://www.bewiser.co...-son-my-car-insurance
It's not only young drivers that suffer with insurance. I've been paying critical illness cover for the last 20 years, never made any kind of claim, and my renewal quote has just been tripled from £27 per month to £80 per month! I guess I've reached the age where people start claiming ...
Most 17 year old children, particularly boys, do not possess the mental maturity to be in control of a car. Obviously some are fine, but many aren't - and the actuarial statistics prove this which is why motor insurance for 17 years old is hellishly expensive.
17 years olds are significantly more likely to have an accident due to their immaturity and lack of experience of driving, and therefore it is only right and proper that they pay more into the insurance pot.
Personally, I think the age in which people are allowed to drive should be raised to 21 - especially for young men.
17 years olds are significantly more likely to have an accident due to their immaturity and lack of experience of driving, and therefore it is only right and proper that they pay more into the insurance pot.
Personally, I think the age in which people are allowed to drive should be raised to 21 - especially for young men.
Yes Benny, you need to be careful that you are not involved in “fronting” as mentioned by Ellipsis.
All may seem OK - the insurers will take your premiums without any quibble. Then you have an accident. The insurers (and this may be another angle to your rant) will then make exhaustive enquiries about the circumstances where your mother has insured the car but in fact it is yours.
You may find that they retrospectively cancel the policy because of the false proposal. This leaves you possibly facing a charge of driving with No Insurance (minimum six points). Any insurance you subsequently take out will have the premium loaded because of your conviction (another rant!) and your mother could be prosecuted too. And of course all the time you are doing this you are accumulating no No Claims Discount in your own right. Most important of all, you will be left facing a bill for any damage or injury you may have caused.
It simply is not worth it.
All may seem OK - the insurers will take your premiums without any quibble. Then you have an accident. The insurers (and this may be another angle to your rant) will then make exhaustive enquiries about the circumstances where your mother has insured the car but in fact it is yours.
You may find that they retrospectively cancel the policy because of the false proposal. This leaves you possibly facing a charge of driving with No Insurance (minimum six points). Any insurance you subsequently take out will have the premium loaded because of your conviction (another rant!) and your mother could be prosecuted too. And of course all the time you are doing this you are accumulating no No Claims Discount in your own right. Most important of all, you will be left facing a bill for any damage or injury you may have caused.
It simply is not worth it.
"Personally, I think the age in which people are allowed to drive should be raised to 21 - especially for young men."
Well, I don't think that would be a great ideaflip_flop. It's hard enough for a chap to have to fork out the insurance premium as it is. Increasing the age just for males would be gender discriminating, and make it so jobs involving the use of a vehicle of that kind harder to get for younger people. So many implications would arise from such a change.
Even though I am a young male who pays through the nose because I'm 24, I do understand why. I see stupid looking modded fiestas and saxos all the time. They're invariably driven by lunatic teenage boys who think that having an oversized exhaust is an extension to their manhood. Not everyone is the same, but it's about statistics.
Of course, I don't agree with the statistics when it comes to very elderly drivers. They are NOT the safest on the road. They might not have as many accidents, but that's because they don't drive over 30mph. That isn't safe on a motorway, but it doesn't stop them. They avoid accidents because their ignorance and crap driving is more predictable for other road users than that of a boy racer's. It's still dangerous, it's just that statistics don't measure it the same.
Well, I don't think that would be a great ideaflip_flop. It's hard enough for a chap to have to fork out the insurance premium as it is. Increasing the age just for males would be gender discriminating, and make it so jobs involving the use of a vehicle of that kind harder to get for younger people. So many implications would arise from such a change.
Even though I am a young male who pays through the nose because I'm 24, I do understand why. I see stupid looking modded fiestas and saxos all the time. They're invariably driven by lunatic teenage boys who think that having an oversized exhaust is an extension to their manhood. Not everyone is the same, but it's about statistics.
Of course, I don't agree with the statistics when it comes to very elderly drivers. They are NOT the safest on the road. They might not have as many accidents, but that's because they don't drive over 30mph. That isn't safe on a motorway, but it doesn't stop them. They avoid accidents because their ignorance and crap driving is more predictable for other road users than that of a boy racer's. It's still dangerous, it's just that statistics don't measure it the same.
It depends what you're defining as safe. It's safer than in the respect that other road users can react to it. But say, for instance, I'm driving in the left hand lane of a open motorway at 30mph with my right indicator stuck on and I have very slow reaction speed.
I'm not amazingly likely to cause an accident because I'm slow and very visible to other road users, but am I driving safely?
Likewise, if I sit at a roundabout for ages when it's clear and cause irritation to other drivers due to unjust hesitation. I'm not likely to cause an accident. But am I good driver? Not really.
It basically amounts to, you can be an old fuddy duddy and drive very poorly but not be penalised for it financially. It's perhaps safer in the context of the argument, but it's poor driving and not as "safe" as driving correctly.
I'm not amazingly likely to cause an accident because I'm slow and very visible to other road users, but am I driving safely?
Likewise, if I sit at a roundabout for ages when it's clear and cause irritation to other drivers due to unjust hesitation. I'm not likely to cause an accident. But am I good driver? Not really.
It basically amounts to, you can be an old fuddy duddy and drive very poorly but not be penalised for it financially. It's perhaps safer in the context of the argument, but it's poor driving and not as "safe" as driving correctly.
Hey benny, I know what you mean!
we are trying to sort out the best way to do the insurance for our 2 cars as my OH is to start using my car as a company car so needs it for business use, and I am going to be driving his Land Rover.
When he phoned for a quote on my car, he could be insured as main driver with business use for £325, to then add me as a named driver, it will cost another £600!
I'm yet to find out how much they will quote for me to be insured on his Land Rover, wonder what will be more actually!
2 Ltr '06 Megane, or a Diesel Automatic Land Rover Discovery!?
we are trying to sort out the best way to do the insurance for our 2 cars as my OH is to start using my car as a company car so needs it for business use, and I am going to be driving his Land Rover.
When he phoned for a quote on my car, he could be insured as main driver with business use for £325, to then add me as a named driver, it will cost another £600!
I'm yet to find out how much they will quote for me to be insured on his Land Rover, wonder what will be more actually!
2 Ltr '06 Megane, or a Diesel Automatic Land Rover Discovery!?
1 to 14 of 14
