Do you think car insurance is expensive for young people?

Marvel1

They cap them (inexperienced) and will go up for experienced drivers.

Capping at £1200, does this mean they can have any car? What about when they add mods?

Joe_Horner

As almillar suggested, a policy which gives benefit of the doubt but penalises claims heavily could not only minimise the impact on other premiums but also actively encourage more careful and good defensive driving.

As a suggested outline:

• Third party only cover.
  
• Earns normal NCD for if / when you move on from the scheme to the open insurance market.
  
• No restriction on the car insured - it makes little difference if you hit someone using a Suzuki Swift or a Ferrari and, if you don't hit them then it makes even less difference what you didn't hit them in.
  
• Policy lasts for one year or until first claim. So, you crash, you have to take out a new policy.
  
• Minimum, standardised, premium for those with zero claims - let's say £250 for arguments sake - regardless of lack of history.
  
• Policy expires and premium trebles on first claim. So, if you have a fault (full OR partial) accident you have to pay £750 (using above example) - on top of the cost of repairing / replacing your own car - to continue for another year.
  
• Eligibility is removed after second claim so you have to take your chances on the open market and will be facing premiums the same or higher as now.

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

Yeh, you're right. Increase the fines to take account of typical premiums.

Soooo many problems with that.

(1) you can't physically extract a fine from someone who has no means of paying it. Unless you're suggesting compulsory live organ donations, which might be seen as a tad extreme.

(2) the habitual cases won't care about the fines any more than they care about the insurance - they think differently to you or me.

(3) if you can't physically extract the new super-fines from people then you're going to have to build a of a lot of new prisons to hold the defaulters if you're to have any chance of tackling (2) above.

(4) by implementing (3) above all you're doing is creating an increased pool of ex-cons who ARE going to have increased problems getting gainful employment to avoid entering a vicious circle.

EdGasket

Don't think any idea of having a maximum premium is going to work in a free market. The Gov. can't force insurers to take on risk on uneconomic terms. It would only work if underwritten by the gov. themselves and they won't do that either.

EdGasket

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Soooo many problems with that.

(1) you can't physically extract a fine from someone who has no means of paying it. Unless you're suggesting compulsory live organ donations, which might be seen as a tad extreme.

(2) the habitual cases won't care about the fines any more than they care about the insurance - they think differently to you or me.

(3) if you can't physically extract the new super-fines from people then you're going to have to build a of a lot of new prisons to hold the defaulters if you're to have any chance of tackling (2) above.

(4) by implementing (3) above all you're doing is creating an increased pool of ex-cons who ARE going to have increased problems getting gainful employment to avoid entering a vicious circle.

There must be some borderline cases that would and could afford to be legal if the premiums were more reasonable.

Ref 3 & 4 you could:
1) Keep existing jail capacity
2) When they get full up send those with the longest sentences down to Wembly for a public hanging
3) Charge admittance to Wembley and repay the national debt with the proceeds.

^^^ Many problems solved in one go.

AdrianC

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Soooo many problems with that.

(1) you can't physically extract a fine from someone who has no means of paying it. Unless you're suggesting compulsory live organ donations, which might be seen as a tad extreme.

(2) the habitual cases won't care about the fines any more than they care about the insurance - they think differently to you or me.

(3) if you can't physically extract the new super-fines from people then you're going to have to build a of a lot of new prisons to hold the defaulters if you're to have any chance of tackling (2) above.

(4) by implementing (3) above all you're doing is creating an increased pool of ex-cons who ARE going to have increased problems getting gainful employment to avoid entering a vicious circle.

You seem to be suggesting that no fine has any point at all, so it's all just a free-for-all, and we might as well give up completely.

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting that no fine has any point at all, so it's all just a free-for-all, and we might as well give up completely.

Not at all.

A fine that's payable but hurts - as we in theory have at the moment with income related calculations - can be effective. It tends not to be for the very poor (who genuinely can't pay more than pence a week) or the moderate-to-very rich (who can afford the maximum levels from pocket change).

But fines as a means of tackling non-payment of unaffordable costs are entirely counter productive and a very regressive approach.

Joe_Horner

EdGasket wrote: »

There must be some borderline cases that would and could afford to be legal if the premiums were more reasonable.

Ref 3 & 4 you could:
1) Keep existing jail capacity
2) When they get full up send those with the longest sentences down to Wembly for a public hanging
3) Charge admittance to Wembley and repay the national debt with the proceeds.

^^^ Many problems solved in one go.

Please be careful - the way things are going (and this thread WAS started by parliament) Mrs Mayhem could be bringing a system like that to a speed camera near you any day now :eek:

AdrianC

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Not at all.

A fine that's payable but hurts - as we in theory have at the moment with income related calculations - can be effective. It tends not to be for the very poor (who genuinely can't pay more than pence a week) or the moderate-to-very rich (who can afford the maximum levels from pocket change).

But fines as a means of tackling non-payment of unaffordable costs are entirely counter productive and a very regressive approach.

So when an insurance premium is "unaffordable", what DO you suggest as a solution?

The premium can't be reduced, because insurers will simply refuse to provide cover at all.
The fine can't be increased, because it's "unaffordable".
Prison isn't an option, because it turns people into the Krays.

So...?

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

So when an insurance premium is "unaffordable", what DO you suggest as a solution?

Already posted one suggestion above

Joe_Horner wrote: »

As almillar suggested, a policy which gives benefit of the doubt but penalises claims heavily could not only minimise the impact on other premiums but also actively encourage more careful and good defensive driving.

As a suggested outline:

• Third party only cover.
  
• Earns normal NCD for if / when you move on from the scheme to the open insurance market.
  
• No restriction on the car insured - it makes little difference if you hit someone using a Suzuki Swift or a Ferrari and, if you don't hit them then it makes even less difference what you didn't hit them in.
  
• Policy lasts for one year or until first claim. So, you crash, you have to take out a new policy.
  
• Minimum, standardised, premium for those with zero claims - let's say £250 for arguments sake - regardless of lack of history.
  
• Policy expires and premium trebles on first claim. So, if you have a fault (full OR partial) accident you have to pay £750 (using above example) - on top of the cost of repairing / replacing your own car - to continue for another year.
  
• Eligibility is removed after second claim so you have to take your chances on the open market and will be facing premiums the same or higher as now.