High insurance premiums - insurance companies own goal?

vaio

Dangermac wrote: »

That will be a brilliant idea. That way, young drivers will be easily be able to insure powerful and fast cars without having to wait until they are older.

DM

Age discrimination isn't allowed in many other fields, why should insurance be any different?

All it will mean is individual driving record will become more important in premium setting. So it will be assumed that you are safe until you prove otherwise rather than the other way round.

Also see raskazz's post above for another good solution

Dangermac

raskazz wrote: »

Or, alternatively, completely overhaul the system of driver tuition and licensing, as the current system is not properly equipping new young drivers with the right driving skills. Thus reducing risk, lowering premiums, and more importantly reducing the number of young people being killed on our roads as drivers and passengers.

If accidents could be reduced, the compensation culture reversed, and young drivers less likely to cause serious accidents, I agree that this would reduce premiums.

DM

thegirlintheattic

Young drivers cost the companies more on average so they don't want them. I doubt it will put off that many getting a car when they are older. You can usually do without for a few years but most eventually find the need one as they get older.

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

Age discrimination isn't allowed in many other fields, why should insurance be any different?

All it will mean is individual driving record will become more important in premium setting. So it will be assumed that you are safe until you prove otherwise rather than the other way round.

Also see raskazz's post above for another good solution

With the added bonus in increases in premiums for olders drivers premiums to subsidise the lower premiums for the younger drivers

vaio

Gets my vote if it means that youngsters get affordable insurance.

By all means cane people (of any age) that have accidents but to load premiums on the basis that they "might" due to race, gender or age seems unfair. The law has already sorted out the race & gender, age will be next.

thor

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

Young drivers cost the companies more on average so they don't want them. I doubt it will put off that many getting a car when they are older. You can usually do without for a few years but most eventually find the need one as they get older.

I should have stated that it was the number taking tests that has fallen and by 18% as well. What I am questioning is the assumption that they are just delaying taking up driving until they are older. Remember it is not just the young who have had their premiums hiked up. I have a feeling when they are older they will just decide to keep using public transport/bikes/foot etc thus reducing the number of customers available to car insurers. Dunstoh, maybe the rising population will counteract this reduction but then maybe it won't because we are apparently more populated today but the number taking tests has still gone done by a significant percentage.
Perhaps it's not what the insurers wanted but IF a consequence of slaughtering younger driver(both safe and unsafe) means there will be less cars on the road then I'm all for it as I think there are too many drivers about anyway.

vaio

and then you get into the question is it young drivers who have accidents or inexperienced drivers?

If people delay learning to drive until they are 23 are they going to have less accidents?