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

sleep2much

djohn2002uk wrote: »

sleep2much and jamieukonline, thought my post was clear enough but if you want it in Mickey Mouse language.
If you list a parent as a main driver and then the young son/daughter acts as the main driver, you will have lied on the application and the insurance then becomes null and void. You are therefore driving uninsured. Driving uninsured is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.
I hope that is now clear to you both and if you don't believe me phone up any insurance company and ask.

What an old stick in the mud.:rotfl:

lisyloo

What an old stick in the mud.

You mean a law abiding citizen !!

bunnymad

My child has just started driving and I want to get insurance for them. What is the best way to insure them?
It is always best to insure young drivers on their own policies. This way they will collect their own no-claim bonus which will help lower their insurance premiums. Often parents insure their children as secondary drivers on a policy with themselves as a main driver when actually the child is the main driver of the car. Parents often think this is the cheapest way to get their children on the road, however, often this isn't the cheapest way and if we find out that the young driver is the true main driver we may not pay out on a claim. This is because the information you have provided is incorrect and the insurance becomes invalid.

This is taken from the RAC website hth

lisyloo

What an old stick in the mud.:rotfl:

I realise from your smiley that you were joking, but driving without insurance is not a joking matter for either the driver or the victim.

We may be talking about people loosing their livihood or even their life so please don't joke about it.

Maybe I'm an old stick in the mud too but I don't find criminal acts that can cause a lot of misery to others as very funny.

I really hope that some people have received some education from these boards that will prevent others suffering misery>

darich

for info i just found this link on the BBC website

More likely to interest those who advocate using a parent as a main driver so a son/daugher can get cheaper insurance.
Otherwise known as "fraud"

sleep2much

I guess ticking non-smoker if you do smoke on a life insurance application is illegal too?
We all know that insurers will go through every letter of the fine print to get out of paying, I'm sure an insurance company who found out that on the 11th month of a policy that the insured had not actually been insured because of a technicality would not give a refund, funny that, the insurance business is nothing more than lottery, for them, RBS who own Churchill and Direct line amongst others plus banking earn £10billion profit per year, I don't think they care who crashes into who, or if anybody dies, whether a new driver in his 10 year old banger or some middle aged maniac in his company BMW chewing up the motorways living his second youth, they want as much cash as they can get, and if that means that an 18 year old girl can get on her mothers policy and save £2500 I'm all for it, fraud my !!!!, if the parents think their child is a terrible driver then don't do it, if you think your kid is a good driver, why not, the asumption in this thread seems to have been all under 25's cannot drive and all will all have a crash, how about a rise in premiums after 65? no more wifes on husbands policy, ever?

lisyloo

the asumption in this thread seems to have been all under 25's cannot drive

The accident stastitics show that young drivers are much more likely to be involved in an accident.
Insurance companies work on statitstics.
A while ago I suggested a tailored system where every individual was assesed by a driving instructor, medical examiner and pschologist. It would cost about £400 per quotation. That's why it's done on a statistical basis rather than an individual detailed assement.

if the parents think their child is a terrible driver then don't do it, if you think your kid is a good driver, why not

My own experience is that parents are very un objective about their own children.

how about a rise in premiums after 65?

After a certain age premiums do go up but also remember that many retired people do a lot less mileage than younger commuters.
The insurers again use statistics and base it on statistical experience.

no more wifes on husbands policy, ever?

I'm not quite sure what you point is here.
Why shouldn't I be on my husbands policy to drive his car occassionally?
(I have my own car & motorcycle insurance).

hullight

Sorry to resurrect an ancient thread but it strikes a chord with me.

I'm a 17 year old who is being quoted £1600 insurance for a Matiz and £1800 for a Micra. Alternative? Get a bike. I got my 50cc moped just after I turned 17 and the insurance is less than £280 a year. Coupled with the low purchase cost, cheap repairs and good fuel consumption it is a good alternative to a car.

And just to add my opinion, most people who tailgate me are middle aged men in average cars and most people who pull out in front without looking are women. Young people drive the way they were taught in their lessons, then learn bad habits from older people.

olly300

Hulllight your last sentence should read:
"Young people drive the way they were taught in their lessons, then learn bad habits as they get older"

hullight

olly300 wrote: »

Hulllight your last sentence should read:
"Young people drive the way they were taught in their lessons, then learn bad habits as they get older"

Yes, as drivers get older they realise what they can get away with. 90mph on the motorway is OK because everybody else does it. I think this is one reason that technology works - it eliminates the 'safety in numbers' mentality that many drivers have.

I think that it is we, the money savers, who should change driving attitudes by reducing the risk of fines to near zero.