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

raskazz

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

there you go. You attacked my argument instead of responding with an intelligent reply. You attacked my view on it without asking why i thought young people were being 'priced out'.


you've also still not denied that young people cannot afford the insurance for basic cars.

Attacking an argument is fundamental to lively debate, surely?

May I remind you where this began - you posted:

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

Many of the points you make are correct. Insurance for young drivers is high. But what is absolutely not correct is ascribing the high premiums that young drivers pay to a determination by insurers to 'price them out'.

By the way, found out what ad hominem means yet?

scheming_gypsy

raskazz wrote: »

You didn't look up the meaning of ad hominem then?

Post reported.

yes i did, maybe you should look it up..

at this point i'd like to apologise to the forum team. you have a difficult enough job as it is without idiots like raskazz reporting everything for the sake of it.

scheming_gypsy

raskazz wrote: »

Attacking an argument is fundamental to lively debate, surely?

By the way, found out what ad hominem means yet?

yep, seeing as you don't know i'll assist.

wikipedia wrote:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

raskazz

You'll notice that the definition is:

"attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim"

I.e. not simply attacking an argument, but attacking the person making the argument.

This is exactly what you did here earlier in the thread (and many times since then):

"are you just one of the mindless drones who doesn't have the mental capacity to think for yourself and realise that not everything we're told is the truth"

Oh and P.S. - you still haven't reminded me who first resorted to childish abuse?

scheming_gypsy

raskazz wrote: »

Attacking an argument is fundamental to lively debate, surely?

May I remind you wheer this began - you posted:

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

Many of the points you make are correct. Insurance for young drivers is high. But what is absolutely not correct is ascribing the high premiums that young drivers pay to a determination by insurers to 'price them out'.

ok.. back to the sensible side of this:
now you say i make correct points but have found everything i said either highly amusing or unintelligable?
As we now both agree the insurance is too high and if people want to drive they HAVE to pay it or wait till it drops. That is something we can't avoid agreeing on correct?

That's where my statement came from about being priced out, ok so it's not a pre-determined and pre-meditated rouse to stop young people from driving but it wasn't too hard to work out where i was coming from.

scheming_gypsy

raskazz wrote: »

You'll notice that the definition is:

"attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim"

I.e. not simply attacking an argument, but attacking the person making the argument.

This is exactly what you did here earlier in the thread (and many times since then):

"are you just one of the mindless drones who doesn't have the mental capacity to think for yourself and realise that not everything we're told is the truth"

Oh and P.S. - you still haven't reminded me who first resorted to childish abuse?

blah blah blah, screw the petty arguements about it because i'm gagging for a fag and losing my rag at it. We've found a common ground we agree on with regards to the insurance so can we just concentrate on that.

raskazz

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

ok.. back to the sensible side of this:
now you say i make correct points but have found everything i said either highly amusing or unintelligable?
As we now both agree the insurance is too high and if people want to drive they HAVE to pay it or wait till it drops. That is something we can't avoid agreeing on correct?

That's where my statement came from about being priced out, ok so it's not a pre-determined and pre-meditated rouse to stop young people from driving but it wasn't too hard to work out where i was coming from.

I never said I found 'everything' you posted amusing or inintelligible. Admittedly a substantial portion, especially after you lost your rag, but not all.

You were essentially arguing on two fronts on this thread; both you and darich made valid points on the topic of the debate between the two of you; but I only ever argued that the assertion you made above re: "a determination to price younger drivers out" was absolutely incorrect.

The high premiums youngsters pay derive purely from the fact that they are the most risky, not by any action of the insurers. Indeed, most insurer's websites have tips for young drivers to help keep their premiums down, and insurers are frequently lobbying Government on how to reduce uninsured driving.

The best action that could be taken to reduce young driver's premiums is totally outside insurer's control, and lies in the hands of the Government.

Firstly, it would help if they waived insurance premium tax (5% of the premium) for drivers, say, under 20. That's £50 on a £1000 premium.

Secondly, they should change the way tests are carried out; insist on a set number of hours of driving experience under qualified instruction and then restrict the hours that young drivers can drive. Too many young drivers kill themselves and their passengers at night.

scheming_gypsy

i agree with that but somebody has to decide on a way to calculate the premuim which will be the insurers and the underwriters.
Also (i think) the premiums we all pay are there to cover payouts from personal injury claims and payouts from accidents involving uninsured drivers. Some of the uninsured drivers will be banned drivers but some will be ones that can't afford to pay for the insurance where its a catch 22 situation. People can't afford the insurance, uninsured people have accidents and then the insurance premiums in general rise.
Maybe it was the wrong choice of words by saying the insurance companies are determined to price young people out but you know what i mean

This is the bit i like though:
insurance is too expensive so you drive without it. Police stop you, you produce and because you have no insurance you get 7 points.
Then what happens? you've got 7 points for driving without insurance so your insurance goes up!!

scheming_gypsy

raskazz wrote: »

The high premiums youngsters pay derive purely from the fact that they are the most risky, not by any action of the insurers. Indeed, most insurer's websites have tips for young drivers to help keep their premiums down, and insurers are frequently lobbying Government on how to reduce uninsured driving.

The best action that could be taken to reduce young driver's premiums is totally outside insurer's control, and lies in the hands of the Government.

Firstly, it would help if they waived insurance premium tax (5% of the premium) for drivers, say, under 20. That's £50 on a £1000 premium.

Secondly, they should change the way tests are carried out; insist on a set number of hours of driving experience under qualified instruction and then restrict the hours that young drivers can drive. Too many young drivers kill themselves and their passengers at night,

now you edited that when i was typing..

totally agree with the way the tests are carried out although you might not agree with what i think.
The test doesn't seem to teach people to drive properly. It teaches them to drive how the highway code would like them to drive and includes none of the day to day 'activities' people might come across.

Max Power did / do a pass plus type course in conjunction with Adrian Flux that seems to show people how to handle cars at higher speeds rather than being force fed that driving fast is dangerous.

raskazz

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

This is the bit i like though:
insurance is too expensive so you drive without it. Police stop you, you produce and because you have no insurance you get 7 points.
Then what happens? you've got 7 points for driving without insurance so your insurance goes up!!

Again, this is outside of what insurers should take responsibility for.

If you were an insurer, would you be queueing up to offer cover at low ratings to youngsters who had been caught being totally irresponsible and driving without cover?

The only action that can be taken is by the Government; and, to some extent, the parents of younger drivers.

I come from a family of 3 brothers - my parents agreed to pay for our lessons and test, but wouldn't do this until we were 20. Too often parents pander to their kids desires and get them taught just enough to pass the test at 17, but then let them loose on the road. Most 17 year old kids don't need a car.