Ridiculous car insurance quotes!!

nathanbUk

Ok, really need some advice, i'm only 17, male, haven't started to learn to drive yet, but I though best see how much insurance is likely to cost, so I put in the details for a car roughly around £1500 and a 1.1, and what did the cheapest quote come up at (used comparison websites) £6000 a year ! I thought to myself who in the right mind is going to pay £600+ a month, I mean im in a low income family so theres just no way I or anyone in the family can afford this, why are the prices crazy! And before people say its to keep younger drivers off the road, then why is the minimum age still 17!!

Am I likely to find it any cheaper than this or is that what i'm expected to pay?

Thanks for any help!
Nathan.

Just thought i'll add that i'm not just learning for the sake of it, be extremely useful for me to get myself to work and college on time.

huckster

Hi

Unless you have several thousand put to one side don't bother. Leave it until you are a bit older, perhaps about 21. Spend the money on driving lessons and public transport instead.

Just watching Watchdog. Over a million uninsured drivers on our roads. I wonder why?

mikey72

It's a bit self defeating really.
Why are insurances so high?
"It's because of all the un-insured drivers"
Why are they not insured
"It's because the insurance costs are too high"

So the answer can't be keep putting up of costs of the ones that do pay forever, eventually no-one will be insured.

olly300

mikey72 wrote: »

It's a bit self defeating really.
Why are insurances so high?
"It's because of all the un-insured drivers"
Why are they not insured
"It's because the insurance costs are too high"

So the answer can't be keep putting up of costs of the ones that do pay forever, eventually no-one will be insured.

That's not the real answer with drivers under 21 though. The real answer is because of the third party risks they represent.

Statistically they are more likely to have accidents and if they have one where they kill a working adult with a family while destroying property the cost to the insurers is enormous.

So to ensure they don't get these sorts of drivers on their books they increase the price of the policy of those drivers so they go elsewhere. Unfortunately there is no where else for them to go unlike older drivers who have this with one insurer.

huckster

Mikey

Spot on. The government need to step in and have discussions with the industry about what could be done.

It can't go on like this. They need to address the role of accident management companies who are helping to drive up costs, by pursuing PI claims that are dubious.

dunstonh

The government need to step in and have discussions with the industry about what could be done.

Increase the minimum age of driving to 18 or even 21.

Not only would would insurance be cheaper when you do start but you reduce congestion on the roads as well.

mikey72

olly300 wrote: »

That's not the real answer with drivers under 21 though. The real answer is because of the third party risks they represent.

Statistically they are more likely to have accidents and if they have one where they kill a working adult with a family while destroying property the cost to the insurers is enormous.

So to ensure they don't get these sorts of drivers on their books they increase the price of the policy of those drivers so they go elsewhere. Unfortunately there is no where else for them to go unlike older drivers who have this with one insurer.

No offense, but that's rubbish. It's far too easy to point the finger at under 21's. Over 21's have far more accidents as an age group.

I could afford insurance as a young driver, so could you.
I wasn't any better or worse than a young driver now, but I had a much bigger, faster car than any young driver could afford to insure now.
(My first car was twin carb 1725cc Hillman Hunter, so the equivalent of a Vectra, not a Corsa, then I had a kit car with a declared supercharger when I was under 21 that had reasonable insurance costs as a student)
It doesn't explain the rising costs to mature drivers we're seeing posted more recently as well, they'll be driving un-insured shortly as well.

Harry_Flashman

Some of the differences are crazy though.

My renewal from Esure was over £1000, I've halved that with NFU - how can the differences be so huge or is someone simply profiteering because it's a captive market?

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

Increase the minimum age of driving to 18 or even 21.

Not only would would insurance be cheaper when you do start but you reduce congestion on the roads as well.

Are you prepared to subsidise a whole generation staying at home for another 4 years, and not getting employment unless it's on a bus route?
That's a lot of tax you'll be paying for their benefits.
edit-
Thinking about it, that's got to be the dumbest statement ever as well.
All the insurance companies will do it load the insurance at 21, as they're new drivers then instead of at 17.

Harry_Flashman

mikey72 wrote: »

Are you prepared to subsidise a whole generation staying at home for another 4 years, and not getting employment unless it's on a bus route?
That's a lot of tax you'll be paying for their benefits.
edit-
Thinking about it, that's got to be the dumbest statement ever as well.
All the insurance companies will do it load the insurance at 21, as they're new drivers then instead of at 17.

Probably true.

It would be much fairer if there was a national insurance scheme rahter than those driven by profit.

olly300

mikey72 wrote: »

No offense, but that's rubbish. It's far too easy to point the finger at under 21's. Over 21's have far more accidents as an age group.

There are more over 21s then under 21s so that isn't a fair comparison. You would have to take every age group as a 5 year cohort if you want to do a fair comparison. Then you have the issue of how long people have been driving for etc so you will never get a true comparison.

Insurance companies use statistics to determine which factors make someone likely to have a claim against them on their insurance. One of them is age, another is gender, another is postcode, another is occupation etc. Adding them all together determines that risk.

mikey72 wrote: »

I could afford insurance as a young driver, so could you.

I actually couldn't afford insurance so didn't drive. I lived in inner city London so also had no need.

Likewise my nephews and younger brothers can't and couldn't afford to so haven't bothered to get cars until they were over 21.

mikey72 wrote: »

I wasn't any better or worse than a young driver now, but I had a much bigger, faster car than any young driver could afford to insure now.
(My first car was twin carb 1725cc Hillman Hunter, so the equivalent of a Vectra, not a Corsa, then I had a kit car with a declared supercharger when I was under 21 that had reasonable insurance costs as a student)

I strongly doubt it.

Regardless of age you are statistically at a high risk of having accidents during your first year of driving. However other factors determine how that risk is priced for insurance purposes.

You don't seem to understand statistics. As a group those under 21 are more likely to have an accident. This doesn't mean they all will as a group but compared to a group of 25-30 year olds more of those under 21 will have an accident.

mikey72 wrote: »

It doesn't explain the rising costs to mature drivers we're seeing posted more recently as well, they'll be driving un-insured shortly as well.

This is been done before. If they do then their car will be crushed.