Does buying a brand new first car for a 17-year-old make sense?

[TheAzurePeer]

This came up in conversation with DH and I’m interested in others opinions.

A family we know, grandparents have bought their 17 year old grandson a brand new small car to learn to drive in.

DH was saying how ridiculous this is. I initially agreed but thinking about it I’m not so sure. Logic seems to be he’ll bash/scrape it so no point buying new. But why does it matter if you bash a new or old car? End result is the same no? And 17 year olds (boys in particular) do tend to crash so surely want them in the newest car possible (if finances allow) because newer cars are safer?

And the parents drive larger cars (SUV) so he couldn’t learn in their car cause of insurance. It’s not as if grandparents can’t afford to buy the car.

Am I missing something or does this seem to make sense?

I’m showing my age here ( 47 ) but my parents bought me a brand new car not long after I passed my test , age 17 because some dealerships ( Citroen / Peugeot ) were offering 2 years free insurance and that was worth a considerable amount of money, I don’t suppose they still do similar deals now though .

Blimey, I think I probably got a box of chocolates and a card 😄

My parents bought me a brand new car when I passed my driving test at 17. Four years later it was handed on to my younger brother when he too passed his test. Throughout my ownership it was kept beautiful, regularly cleaned and looked after. My DB totalled it 10 days into his tenure.

My son is 24 and a safe driver. He passed his test at 17, misjudged a tight turn and dented his old, second hand car within two days of passing. He's now in a reasonably well paid job, got his premiums down to £400 ish and just about to lease a newer car (having driven a couple of much older cars which he didn't dent). I think this is the best way.

I live rurally so I do get it. Daughters car currently in garage so im doing 40mile a day round trips taking her again!

The cost of insurance for a young driver is loaded against third party claims for injuries or damage they may cause to other people, including passengers they carry. The cost of the car they drive is insignificant compared to possible third party claims, so insurance for a new car will probably not be a lot more than an older one, especially if the newer car has better safety features.

Makes sense if funds allow, car will be as safe as it can be, nice new tyres, no maintenance costs for ages etc.

I passed my test at 17 and never bashed or scraped my car, young folk can make better drivers as they haven't fallen into bad habits yet. I was probably 40 by the time i reversed into some pillock who had manoeuvred into my blind spot when I was looking over my other shoulder. That wouldn't have happened if I had a new car with parking sensors.

I think it's daft. Insurance is expensive and cars are really reliable now. You could easily buy something 5 years old and it would be perfectly safe and reliable to drive. And as a pp said, even something a few months old is a better option.

Back in the day you wouldn't have wanted an old banger but old bangers aren't really bangers anymore! (we have two cars which are 12 and 9 years old respectively).

Be a very small 2nd hand market if no one bought new 😉

I suppose a brand new car is going to be much safer in terms of having all the technology fitted to help prevent crashes and bumps (cameras, etc) than a twenty year old Micra. But it is going to cost a lot more to fix than a twenty year old Micra if a learner misjudges a hedge or gatepost.

I've never had a new car in my life and all my kids learned in and continued to drive rattly old rustbuckets, that being all I've ever been able to afford. It hasn't held them back in life.

I think you’ll find huge variation between city and rural dwellers.
We are rural and the kids having cars is not regarded as spoiling them, rather giving them independence.
I don’t know any in my son’s peer group who have brand new cars, but plenty have been bought 2nd hand ones.

Are you sure about that?

The value of the car isn’t the major factor in the price it’s the amount of damage you can cause it’s the risk which doesn’t decrease with older cars

I think this happens in the u.s. because most people drive and a new car is considered more reliable and under warranty.

It's not about the cost to repair it's about the loss in value and the increased risk that it won't last. Buying a new car is rarely a financially sensible choice unless you're going to keep the car for a decade (and even then it's really just a wash with buying a one year old car). If you're in a category of driver that's likely to total the car before you get to that decade, you're not likely to get the benefit. Insurance rarely actually gets you a car quite as good as the one you lost.

But I don't think that's the real issue that drives the instinctive feeling you shouldn't buy a 17 year old a brand new car - it's more that it's starting at the top of the pile when they're just 17 and there's nowhere for them to work up to. Possibly some jealousy, but also the idea that life should get better and that starting lower down the ladder when you're younger makes that more achievable (and also makes life getting worse for you as you get older less likely - and life getting worse is much harder to deal with).

Safety isn't just about age it's also about features. Spending the same amount on a car that's 12 months old would almost certainly give you the option of a safer car if that was your priority.

My DS2 reversed Into someone same dayhe passed his test! I work with lots of 17+ teenage lads ,every week there is someone crashing, writing off their car etc. So I don't think a brand new car is a good idea for a new driver. Also do they have the capacity at a young age to appreciate very generous gesture? I'm not convinced.

All very well if you live somewhere with public transport. Where we are it’s 20min to the train station and one bus a week. If we didn’t help out our kids with car/lessons/insurance they’d not be able to get the job in the first place…its our choice to live so rurally not theirs.

This totally. Taking DD to college is a 1.5 hour round trip for me. Then again at pick up too. Thank goodness she's only there 3 days a week! She passed in June, so from September will be able to drive herself 🎉.

I suppose it depends what you mean. Our car (brand new, PCP, we’ll sell it after 4 years) has a ding in the rear door and what looks like scratches from either a key or someone scraping a zip from a jacket or something along it. None of it done by us. We live in a city with on street parking tho so just accept that’s the nature of parking there. Minor damage doesn’t bother us and we don’t spend money getting it fixed.

I just spent £500 on a car for Ds17, it is safe but has a few bumps and bruises so the odd car park scrape (looking at you DD) isnt a big deal. he is still learning and we will review the situation when we know what he will be doing from September next year.
The Insurance on a more expensive car would be horrendous I imagine

This is very true but, to be honest, a twelve month old car is brand new as far as I am concerned (and I do know about depreciation). I think the newest car I ever owned was seven years old, which is the metric I judge by. 'Brand new' is a relative term to me...

I don’t know why anyone would buy a new car at all given the depreciation. Buy a one year old one, or lease one.

We bought daughter her first car last year ... it cost 3K.
Insurance was £400 as a learner with me and husband as named drivers.
It only went up £60 after she passed her test....we're still on as named/secondary drivers but we rarely use it.

Actually insurance on a new car can work out considerably less than an older car. Because new cars often have more safety features such as auto breaking and are in general in better mechanical condition ( breaks work, wheels aligned etc) they are often much safer to drive and less likely to cause accidents due to mechanical failure.

The overwhelming factor in car insurance is the statistic data used by the risk assessors within the insurance industry. They look at the make and model of the car and how many accidents occur in those cars when driven by each age group. So the most expensive cars to insure are the ones most commonly driven by young people. I think Fiestas are the most expensive.

My son drives a Polo 1L but because it is an automatic and very few 17//18 yr olds drive automatic Polos his insurance was less than £1k. He has ha a couple of accidents but two were not his fault, the third was caused by a deer jumping out in front of the car, he couldn’t avoid it. So the insurance has gone up a little , despite him not at fault, but we have had our moneys worth. The deer incident caused over £3k of damage, more than we’ve paid in insurance premiums.

Do a bit of research and get various quotes. Have a look at Marmalade who insure a learner driver for a car you already own and insure. It’s useful while they are learning. And you can get follow on insurance for them as a new driver.
Some insurance companies use black boxes but I have heard that the statistics re accident prevention are no different without a black box and since the policy holder is charged for any infringement it may not work out cheaper in the end. The feedback can also be confusing. In addition, if they are concentrating on not triggering the black boxes they may ultimately put themselves at risk.

DS’s car is on a multicar policy with our other family car but with him as main named driver. By the time he can afford his own car he will be over 25 so in a much better position. Because he’s on our “family” insurance he can also be insured on our bigger 2L car so when I take him back to uni he can drive there while I drive back. My DH had a stroke when DS was 17 so we needed a second driver, hence why we cover the insurance. DH can drive but had a knee replacement earlier this summer and it will be a while before he is fit to drive again. DH struggles with chronic fatigue post stroke so can’t do long distances.