We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Age discrimination - young drivers
Comments
-
Realistically, "fair" isn't working.
The next generation can't afford to drive.0 -
Realistically, "fair" isn't working.
The next generation can't afford to drive.
I don't think that's really the case, it's never been easy. Driving's a privilege, not a right...The only thing that's changed is that people expect to be able to pass their test on their 17th birthday and have their own fully insured car to tank around in from day 1.
When I learnt to drive (10 years ago) I had to save up for lessons, then drive my parents' car occasionally for a couple of years before I could afford my own car and insurance...0 -
Idiophreak wrote: »I don't think that's really the case, it's never been easy. Driving's a privilege, not a right...The only thing that's changed is that people expect to be able to pass their test on their 17th birthday and have their own fully insured car to tank around in from day 1.
When I learnt to drive (10 years ago) I had to save up for lessons, then drive my parents' car occasionally for a couple of years before I could afford my own car and insurance...
I didn't (a lot longer ago), I was driving, and insuring my own car from day 1.
Driving is a neccesity, not a privilege.
It's ok saying use public transport, but we don't have any here.
So, if you want to work, you need to drive.
Next generation we'll have no one to drive the non existant public transport anyway, as the normal advice now is to not even bother taking a test, but to get a taxi or a bus.
It'll be quite funny really when it comes back to bite us, if driving will be a high paid exclusive job.
It probably won't be though, but there may be a good influx of foreign drivers filling the spaces left by us having a generation that can't drive.0 -
I didn't (a lot longer ago), I was driving, and insuring my own car from day 1.
Driving is a neccesity, not a privilege.
It's ok saying use public transport, but we don't have any here.
So, if you want to work, you need to drive.
Next generation we'll have no one to drive the non existant public transport anyway, as the normal advice now is to not even bother taking a test, but to get a taxi or a bus.
It'll be quite funny really when it comes back to bite us, if driving will be a high paid exclusive job.
It probably won't be though, but there may be a good influx of foreign drivers filling the spaces left by us having a generation that can't drive.
Driving isn't a necessity. There are very few people that live more than half hour's walk from a bus or train...and if they do, why do they live there? If they need to be near a town to work, why don't they just move there?...Or is it that they want to stay at home with their folks? In which case they'll have an income and small outgoings - so can afford to drive. Or is it that they've gone to uni? All uni's have good transport links...I think you're letting your personal circumstances skew your opinion on this one...0 -
Idiophreak wrote: »Driving isn't a necessity. There are very few people that live more than half hour's walk from a bus or train...and if they do, why do they live there? If they need to be near a town to work, why don't they just move there?...Or is it that they want to stay at home with their folks? In which case they'll have an income and small outgoings - so can afford to drive. Or is it that they've gone to uni? All uni's have good transport links...I think you're letting your personal circumstances skew your opinion on this one...
Most 17 years tend to live where their parents live, and I don't know many 17 years old that can just decide to move closer to work.
And despite the governments attempts, it they're working, they don't tend to go to university.
Round here, no car, no job.
But, if you see the future as either paying out grants, or paying out jobseekers allowce from your taxes, at least we're saving a few pound on insurance. And every tax payer is paying for our kids, not just those benefitting from cheaper insurance.
As to personal circumstances - isn't that what you what with "specific insurance"?
But actually, and ironically, we're personally ok. Rural insurance here for 17 year olds is between a quarter and a tenth of city insurance, my 18 year olds is actually cheap enough not to worry her when she goes to uni, and will leave it behind, sitting on the drive, not needing to cancel as she can't afford the monthly payments.
She was driving her car, her insurance, at midnight on her 17th birthday as well, paying about an equivalent price to me when I started driving.
So even between 17 year olds there is a great disparity.0 -
I have not had an accident in 22 years and dont want to subsidise inferior male drivers but I am going to have to!!!
if you are a woman you will be subsidising men who are statistically worse. My point is that if you can not discriminate between men and women even though statistics show that they should be assessed differenctly then surely to not do the same with age, disabilty, reace, religion etc etc. is equally wrong
If you are going to argue for this then are you also going to argue that people in high crime risk, inner city areas pay the same house contents insurance as people in low risk areas?
It's as fair as it can be because it's based on actuarial calculations - plus a weighting so the insurance companies can pay their staff and, they hope, make a profit.
Mind you IF the courts imposed bigger fines on uninsured drivers that might prompt them to get insurance in the first place. According to our local paper a typical DWI fine is around £100. I'm low risk and I pay more for my insurance than that!Don't put it DOWN; put it AWAY"I would like more sisters, that the taking out of one, might not leave such stillness" Emily Dickinson
Janice 1964-2016
Thank you Honey Bear0 -
If you are going to argue for this then are you also going to argue that people in high crime risk, inner city areas pay the same house contents insurance as people in low risk areas?
It's as fair as it can be because it's based on actuarial calculations - plus a weighting so the insurance companies can pay their staff and, they hope, make a profit.
But you're only allowed to use certain things for discrimination, at least in most things. The point being that you can't discriminate against an individual on the basis of things that aren't their fault.
Which is why employers can't discriminate against women, even though they're *statistically* far more likely to have time off both for child birth and subsequently for child care.
It's why you can't charge people council tax rates based on their ethnicity (*statistically* the police cost rather more to some than others)
Age discrimination is rather more tricky, though...as long as you treat everyone the same at the same age, you're not really discriminating against them as an individual...But actually, and ironically, we're personally ok. Rural insurance here for 17 year olds is between a quarter and a tenth of city insurance, my 18 year olds is actually cheap enough not to worry her when she goes to uni, and will leave it behind, sitting on the drive, not needing to cancel as she can't afford the monthly payments.
She was driving her car, her insurance, at midnight on her 17th birthday as well, paying about an equivalent price to me when I started driving.
So even between 17 year olds there is a great disparity.
So you concede that youngsters in places with the highest cost insurance will have access to public transport? So what's the problem?0 -
Men and women are different.
Young people have different behaviour profiles to older people.
Sometimes this should be accepted and appreciated for what it is. Without the lawmakers sticking their nose in.0 -
Statistically it's probably true women have the most accidents trying to get into or out of parking spaces, so can't actually go anywhere, or go fast enough to have expensive accidents?
Very true, women tend to have more low cost accidents, men have fewer very high cost accidents. It's called UNDERWRITING!
Saying that
after returning from a 260 mile business trip, the last 2mm got me when I grazed the wall whilst parking - even with parking sensors, as they start flatlining about a metre away from the object behind, so I don't really listen to them 
. Hubby (Mr 2 fault accidents) went ape at me; have decided next time I "want" to crash the car, I'll do it big time. And if I'm injured he'll have to cook his own bdooly tea!!! 0 -
ACTION : ASSESS INDIVIDUALS NOT STEREOTYPES
Sorry but what exactly do you mean by this?
People aren't priced on stereotypes but on statistical analysis based on the various demographic groups they fall into, their driving history and the vehicle they drive.
How would you "price as an individual" as per your proposal? How would it work?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards