Help! Horrendous quotes for car insurance for 17 yr old!

raskazz

Hang on - remind me who originally brought up the allegation that:

"the insurance companies are determined to make people drive without insurance by pricing young drivers out"

That would be you wouldn't it. You have not produced a shred of evidence to support this proposition - because there is no such evidence, because it does not happen.

And just to give you the opportunity to give your crazy theories some credibility, I'll post up a basic point for the fourth time, so you may at last address it:

No insurer can set prices artificially high for young drivers. Motor insurance is a highly competitive market. If any insurer rated premiums higher than the actual risk a competitor would undercut them and take the business away from them.

darich

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

So you penalise them the year after if they have an accident instead of penalising all young drivers for the next x years.

That's the way think it should work - but it's not the way it ACTUALLY works. Like i said, statistically (and realistically) speaking, younger drivers are more likely to be involved in an accident than an older driver - hence the increased premium for all drivers who are statistically more likely to have an accident.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

like i said, the jobs don't always match exactly so there may be one just as close to the one you've chosen that will bring the quote down slightly.
if you work as a, for example, invoice inputter in a finance department. Data inputter my come out cheaper than something around the finance area when its still a valid description of the work you do. The only identical job match i've ever found is 'retired'.

That's not what you said in your original post - you said and i quote "tweak his job title a bit" - that is completely different from pick one close to the title if nothing suits (paraphrased)

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

you don't have to install them to see how much your insurance would drop if you had them. if the saving is worth it then install them. Plus we're talking about a £2500 pug not a £500 corsa.

I totally agree - but i didn't say fit one - i was pointing out that depending on the car, a tracker adn/or cat 1 immobiliser may make little difference.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

i haven't given them one at all. If you read those wordy type things instead of seeing shapes and making your own words you'd see things clearly.

I'm sorry but i think you have - if you buy a car with a market value of 1000 and say it's worth 500, why should the insurance company pay you 1000 when you've said it's worth 500???
That's deception, fraud and, being extreme, since you've made a profit from the company are due to pay tax on that money.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

the words 'may have paid over the odds' appeared in there. Just because the car cost £2500 doesn't mean its worth £2500. If they paid over the odds the insurance company aren't going to pay out what they paid for it are they? no, exactly! so why say its worth £2500 if its only actually worth £2000.

So if you know it's worth 2000, why pay 2500 for it?

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

Again if you read everything i put you might have got to the line where i said:
When you calculate a lot of things the insurance might be cheaper than paying less and paying for the extras. or did you just want to go picking at everything?

I did read that - to be honest it didn't make a lot of sense at first - presumably you meant calculate the cost of additional security and higher excess and the premium may reduce by a larger amount resulting in a saving - except you didn't say it clearly.
I didn't "just want to go picking at everything" but some of what you said is wrong and ill informed.

To quote from another of your posts

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

To say a 1.1 Pug 106 is a higher risk is a joke.

I haven't read anywhere on this thread of someone suggesting a lower group car is a higher risk than a performance hot hatch.

As has been pointed out numerous times by raskazz and I - it's the young driver that's the cause of the high premium - not the car.

Finally - why shouldn't insurance companies make money? They exist because they can make money from people and not because they want to repair boy racer cars.

Your arguements seem to be based on how you feel the insurance companies should set their prices, not by how they actually do

scheming_gypsy

raskazz wrote: »

And just to give you the opportunity to give your crazy theories some credibility, I'll post up a basic point for the fourth time, so you may at last address it:

No insurer can set prices artificially high for young drivers. Motor insurance is a highly competitive market. If any insurer rated premiums higher than the actual risk a competitor would undercut them and take the business away from them.

ok, how much does it actually cost an insurance company to insure somebody? i mean the act of insuring them not paying out for an accident? exactly, peanuts so if 1million people took out a policy costing £200 we'll take £100 off each to cover paperwork, staff wages, office bills etc etc. So that's £100,000,000 of profit if none of those make a claim,.
The premium of car insurance isn't to guess how much they might have to pay out in case of an accident it's to cover what they think a person of that age with that much experience driving that car etc etc should pay. So YES all the prices can be set artificially high for ANY driver.
Motor insurance might be a highly competative market but like any business its all about profit and there are probably less underwriters than there are insurance companies so half the insurance companies will use the same underwriter.

Undercutting each other? that's why people use brokers. You can't go direct to an insurance company and get yourself x amount of years NCD as an introductary bonus but the broker will do it.

scheming_gypsy

darich wrote: »

That's the way think it should work - but it's not the way it ACTUALLY works. Like i said, statistically (and realistically) speaking, younger drivers are more likely to be involved in an accident than an older driver - hence the increased premium for all drivers who are statistically more likely to have an accident.

At least we're on the same hymn sheet with how it should work.
Although younger drivers may be statistically involved in an accident it doesn't say that they caused it and also doesn't state that ALL younger drivers were involved in them but they all get penalised with the same stupidly high charges.

That's not what you said in your original post - you said and i quote "tweak his job title a bit" - that is completely different from pick one close to the title if nothing suits (paraphrased)

No, what i actually said was

tweak his job title a bit. this can affect the cost, don't go picking something that is nothing like his job but they don't normally list every job so you go for one similar. They may be one just as close but will drop the insurance a bit.

It didn't stop at the full stop.

I'm sorry but i think you have - if you buy a car with a market value of 1000 and say it's worth 500, why should the insurance company pay you 1000 when you've said it's worth 500???
That's deception, fraud and, being extreme, since you've made a profit from the company are due to pay tax on that money.


So if you know it's worth 2000, why pay 2500 for it?

I think you've mis-read what i said / meant.
I didn't say to half the value of the car and i didn't say anybody knew the car wasn't worth what they paid for it,.

if you buy a car for £2500 because thats what it was offered at and you liked it but Parkers only says it's worth £2000 then the insurance company aren't going to pay the extra £500 just because you did.
Same with a new car. If you paid £15,000 for a brand new car how much would you insure it for? do you insure it for the £15,000 because thats what you paid or would you insure it for its second hand value as its dropped x amount the second you drove it off the forecourt?

I did read that - to be honest it didn't make a lot of sense at first - presumably you meant calculate the cost of additional security and higher excess and the premium may reduce by a larger amount resulting in a saving - except you didn't say it clearly.

it makes sense to me but then again i did write it but nope you got me wrong.
It's the opposite of what you said. The cost of additional security higher excess etc etc might be more than the saving you'd make.
IE £300 on an alarm, £200 on the pass plus and it only brings your insurance down by £250.

To quote from another of your posts
I haven't read anywhere on this thread of someone suggesting a lower group car is a higher risk than a performance hot hatch.

As has been pointed out numerous times by raskazz and I - it's the young driver that's the cause of the high premium - not the car.

Shouldn't the numerous times be pointed out before i made the comment?
What you seem to be missing on what you've quoted is i'm saying when i was 17 i could get insured on a 1.9 205 GTi for £1800 cheaper than somebody can get insured on a 106. Have times really changed that much in 13 years that a lower group car costs 3 times more to insure than a hot hatch? Have younger drivers really become that bad at driving they should be penalised so much?

Finally - why shouldn't insurance companies make money? They exist because they can make money from people and not because they want to repair boy racer cars.

Your arguements seem to be based on how you feel the insurance companies should set their prices, not by how they actually do

No! if you go back to what i originally said you've just (kind of) agreed.
Insurance companies are pricing young drivers out and making people drive without insurance.
Like you said, they exist because they can money from people. They all charge roughly the same so they can charge what they want. they don't want to pay to repair boy racers cars so they make it so expensive people drive without insurance.
That is the point i've been saying all along but you and raskazz decided to pick up on other points that i said because you didn't agree and it went on the slide from there.

insurance companies charge stupid amounts for insurance because they can. SOME people don't want to pay these stupid amounts and therefore they drive without it.

lisyloo

Insurance companies are pricing young drivers out and making people drive without insurance.

Are you saying that because they can't afford the insurance (for WHATEVER reason) then this justifies a totally reckless and criminal act of driving without insurance?

Sorry if I misunderstood but no one is MADE to drive without insurance or even MADE to drive at all.

If someon can't afford it then they need to either get more income or get the bus/train/cycle/walk.

I have a nephew who is 18, so far he has had 2 accidents, one causing serious injury and nearly death. Since then he has got 3 points for talking on the phone whilst driving (this is AFTER his near death experience).
I love my nephew but whilst 17 and 18 year old boys continue to act like idiots then their insurance will continue to be expensive.
Personally I think the penalties should be harsher as 3000 deaths a year just seems to be accepted as "collateral damage".

Standards should be higher (for people of all ages) and it should be forced through by the police.

In future I think we will have "big brother" i.e. cameras everywhere and people won't get away with speeding or driving without insurance.

scheming_gypsy

Not really because they can't afford it but the fact people think 'sod that' and will drive without bothering with insurance.

You misunderstood the term 'made'. They're not being forced to drive without insurance but because the prices are scandalously high and in this case the monthly payment being more than a weeks wages at minimum wage some people will and do drive without insurance.

get more income? it's that easy isn't it and getting the bus, train, cycling and walking? how old are you? getting your first car is a big deal and you want it as soon as possible so you don't have to walk, get the train, bus etc etc.
Still the fact is they can't afford to because it's so effin expensive.

Rikki

My sons 18, his first car is old, group 1 insurance and cost over £1000+ to insure . He's had to buy his own car and pay for his insurance himself.

I consider myself to be a sensible parent and there is now way I would allow him on the road without everything being in order. The same as I do myself.

Not all parents are that bothered and some adults too. They know their child, friend or just someone they know is driving around with no insurance and they do nothing.

High insurance prices are the knock on effect from insurance companies covering the costs of uninsured drivers.

Us the insured end up paying for the stupid and illegal uninsured drivers. :mad:

darich

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

At least we're on the same hymn sheet with how it should work.
Although younger drivers may be statistically involved in an accident it doesn't say that they caused it and also doesn't state that ALL younger drivers were involved in them but they all get penalised with the same stupidly high charges.

But insurance companies base their premiums on statistics so given that young males are in the highest risk, it makes sense that any driver in that category is charged a higher premium. I realise that not all young males cause all accidents or are involved but this is how IT ACTUALLY WORKS IN REAL LIFE. Like or lump it, all young drivers are tarred with the same brush.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

No, what i actually said was

It didn't stop at the full stop.

There is a full stop there - i can see it. Changing your job title can result in a lower premium so that could be taken as fraud. Whether you agree or not, this is what an insurance company would do.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

I think you've mis-read what i said / meant.
I didn't say to half the value of the car and i didn't say anybody knew the car wasn't worth what they paid for it,.

if you buy a car for £2500 because thats what it was offered at and you liked it but Parkers only says it's worth £2000 then the insurance company aren't going to pay the extra £500 just because you did.
Same with a new car. If you paid £15,000 for a brand new car how much would you insure it for? do you insure it for the £15,000 because thats what you paid or would you insure it for its second hand value as its dropped x amount the second you drove it off the forecourt?

I believe that the value of the car is important so that in the event of a claim, you have enough to buy a similar car. So ff I bought a brand new car for £15k then yes, i'd insure it for £15k because i'd like to have another one if mine gets written off in week. I'd never insure it for £11k as you suggest because then i'd be unable to replace my car.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

it makes sense to me but then again i did write it but nope you got me wrong.
It's the opposite of what you said. The cost of additional security higher excess etc etc might be more than the saving you'd make.
IE £300 on an alarm, £200 on the pass plus and it only brings your insurance down by £250.

As long as it makes sense to somone - I see that lisyloo "misunderstood" the word "made" in another of your posts. Can i suggest you be more clear?
Maybe explain what you meant that is different from what i said?

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

Shouldn't the numerous times be pointed out before i made the comment?
What you seem to be missing on what you've quoted is i'm saying when i was 17 i could get insured on a 1.9 205 GTi for £1800 cheaper than somebody can get insured on a 106. Have times really changed that much in 13 years that a lower group car costs 3 times more to insure than a hot hatch? Have younger drivers really become that bad at driving they should be penalised so much?

Times have changed so much - i could insure a Toyota Celica 2.0GT fully comp when i was 24 - it was under £500.
The big difference now is third party injuries - not the price of cars or repairs or worse driving - but people claiming for whiplash, back injuries, etc whether they're necessary or not is another debate - but the claims are made nonethless.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

No! if you go back to what i originally said you've just (kind of) agreed.
Insurance companies are pricing young drivers out and making people drive without insurance.
Like you said, they exist because they can money from people. They all charge roughly the same so they can charge what they want. they don't want to pay to repair boy racers cars so they make it so expensive people drive without insurance.

Wrong - they make it expensive because when anyone, but statiscally more likely to be a boy racer, makes a claim there is more often than not, an injury claim attached. Meaning that a claim is not merely a repaired door or wing - it's whiplash and sickleave - several thousand pounds quite easily.
That is the point i've been saying all along but you and raskazz decided to pick up on other points that i said because you didn't agree and it went on the slide from there. That's why their premiums are high - more likely to have to pay out several thousand on an injury claim.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

insurance companies charge stupid amounts for insurance because they can. SOME people don't want to pay these stupid amounts and therefore they drive without it.

They charge stupid amounts because they have to - see above.
I agree that some choose not to pay and therefore have no insurance however i'm really struggling to work out how this is the fault of insurance companies when the fault is clearly with the boy racers who cause the accidents and claims in the first place.

lisyloo

Not really because they can't afford it but the fact people think 'sod that' and will drive without bothering with insurance.

That's extremely reckless and in no way justifed in my opinion.
If anyone (regardless of age) stops someone from working for the rest of their life then the cost could be millions.
It's not just illegal but totally immoral and reckless towards third parties (which might mean YOU).
Criminal behaviour is in no way justifed by high prices.

but because the prices are scandalously high

I think the prices are justifiably high.
What evidence do you have for scandalously high?
And even if they are so what?
That doesn't justify criminal or immoral behaviour.

some people will and do drive without insurance.

I agree with you that some people will.
That is not in doubt.
However it's not justified by high prices in my opinion regardless or whether or not they are scandalous (and we are a long way from proving that).

get more income? it's that easy isn't it

Well aparently if you're asian or eastern european it seems to be quite easy to find work. 600,000 people from Poland seem to be able to do it (even when 2 million Brits can't find work).
The Brits seem to find it a little harder though :-)

how old are you?

I am now 39, but I was young once :-)
I would be delighted to tell you how things were when I was young (gawd do I sound old saying that :-)
When I was 16 I lived in a village and I absolutely HATED it with a passion as I went to private school so had few friends locally.
I started work at 13 doing a paper round and sticking up skittles and saved my money.
At 14 I got a Saturday job in a shoe shop.
Basically there was no credit in those days. If you wanted something you had to work, wait and save up.
By the time I was 16 I bought myself a 50cc moped (which was quite common in my village where there as little public transport). I think it cost about £100.
When I was 17 I started to learn to drive but because I went to college and then uni I did not get a car until 22.
Before 22 I would now and again be allowed to borrow my parents car but I had some experience from being on a motorbike.
I'm telling you all this because this is completely typical.
People HAD to wait and save up because credit was not common like it is now.

getting your first car is a big deal and you want it as soon as possible so you don't have to walk, get the train, bus etc etc.
Still the fact is they can't afford to because it's so effin expensive.

I totally agree with you that this is what everyone wants.
But if they can't afford it, it doesn't necessarily mean that someone else (a.k.a insurance companies) is to blame and it doesn't justify being totally reckless towards third parties and it certainly doesn't justify criminal behaviour.

As I said before my nephew has had 2 accidents (one near death experience) and 3 points in a short space of time.
I am 39 and don't have accidents or get points.

It's completely justifiable that he should have expensive insurance and mine should be cheap.

Don't you agree or would you like to pay more to subsidise the reckless?

raskazz

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

ok, how much does it actually cost an insurance company to insure somebody? i mean the act of insuring them not paying out for an accident? exactly, peanuts so if 1million people took out a policy costing £200 we'll take £100 off each to cover paperwork, staff wages, office bills etc etc. So that's £100,000,000 of profit if none of those make a claim,.
The premium of car insurance isn't to guess how much they might have to pay out in case of an accident it's to cover what they think a person of that age with that much experience driving that car etc etc should pay. So YES all the prices can be set artificially high for ANY driver.
Motor insurance might be a highly competative market but like any business its all about profit and there are probably less underwriters than there are insurance companies so half the insurance companies will use the same underwriter.

Undercutting each other? that's why people use brokers. You can't go direct to an insurance company and get yourself x amount of years NCD as an introductary bonus but the broker will do it.

Oh dear. This post is so garbled and incoherent it is almost impossible to begin rebutting it.

This part especially betrays the poster's almost total ignorance of how insurance actually functions:

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

The premium of car insurance isn't to guess how much they might have to pay out in case of an accident it's to cover what they think a person of that age with that much experience driving that car etc etc should pay. So YES all the prices can be set artificially high for ANY driver.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

P.S. - Still waiting for any proof whatsoever of your initial claim. I'm not holding my breath though. I find it absolutely hilarious that you are giving out 'advice' on insurance matters when you don't have even the slightest grasp of how insurance premiums are calculated.

Perhaps you could also explain why it would be in insurers' interests to increase the number of uninsured drivers, given that insurers, and ultimately honest policyholders, have to bear the cost of uninsured driving through the levies towards the MIB?