Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think the Government should provide 3rd party insurance?

96 replies

CakeMeIAmYours · 21/09/2012 16:09

My nephew recently turned 17, so the family all put our heads together and found that we could just about afford to buy him a small used car and a course of driving lessons - all good so far!

That was until I checked the insurance costs - the cheapest I could fund was just short of £7,000 Shock

There's just no way we could afford that, and insuring him on his DMum's car wasn't that much cheaper either.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what the answer is here; his lack of driving experience means that he is basically unisurable, but without that experience, his insurance costs will never go down.

This seems monumentally unfair to me; the legal requirement to have insurance has basically given the private sector a license to print money. As it is mandatory to carry insurance, they can charge whatever they like.

I'm not a huge fan of 'Big Government' but I am increasingly thinking that if the state legislates that it is a requirement to carry insurance, then they should provide it themselves.

It would be an additional cost to the government, but without a driving license, employment opportunities are very limited. Surely it would be cheaper in the long run to have such a scheme rather than risk all the young people out there who are struggling to find jobs becoming long term NEETS?

OP posts:
Original poster
CakeMeIAmYours · 21/09/2012 16:10

fund = find

OP posts:
ENormaSnob · 21/09/2012 16:11

Yabu

THETrills · 21/09/2012 16:11

I think it would be better in the long run to have good public transport, not to subsidise people who can afford a car but can't afford insurance.

THETrills · 21/09/2012 16:12

Your suggestion would just increase the gap between the can-afford-a-car and the can't-afford-a-car.

FredFredGeorge · 21/09/2012 16:12

Most people in the country do not need a car to be employed. So providing state subsidised insurance to all for the few that did would be very wasteful.

THETrills · 21/09/2012 16:14

As it is mandatory to carry insurance, they can charge whatever they like.

Are you accusing all of the insurance companies in the country of price-fixing? They can't "charge what they like" because there is competition, any company that charged less would get much more business.

BarbarianMum · 21/09/2012 16:15
BarbarianMum · 21/09/2012 16:15
ReallyTired · 21/09/2012 16:16

No! The state cannot afford to pay for the costs of people driving, especially reckless 17 year olds.

"I'm at a bit of a loss as to what the answer is here; his lack of driving experience means that he is basically unisurable, but without that experience, his insurance costs will never go down. "

No, he is uninsurable because he is 17 years old. The cost of him getting insurance will go down as he gets older. He could also reduce the cost of insurance by passing an advanced driving test.

"
This seems monumentally unfair to me; the legal requirement to have insurance has basically given the private sector a license to print money. As it is mandatory to carry insurance, they can charge whatever they like. "

No insurance is very competitive and an actuary works out the risk of someone being in a serious accident. 50% of people have an accident of some sort during their first year of driving. The insurance companies also know that 17 year olds are reckless know it alls who think that speed limits don't apply to them.

Surely the money would be better invested in public transport.

tabulahrasa · 21/09/2012 16:16

He doesn't need more driving experience for the price to come down, just to be older

Original poster
CakeMeIAmYours · 21/09/2012 16:16

To a certain extent, yes.

There is a grey area between an actual cartel and carefully pricing your product so that it falls very close to the prices charged by your competitors.

I think part of the issue is that insurance companies don't want this business, so have no incentive to price themselves competitively.

OP posts:
Bananapickle · 21/09/2012 16:17

Unfortunately there is a reason it is so high for young drivers, so I think YABU. Insurance isn't entirely based on experience it's also on age so he could wait until he are in their twenties.

ExitPursuedByABear · 21/09/2012 16:17

Oh, good idea.

Reminds of the piece I read in the paper this morning about Petrol Stations wanting to stop people washing their cars at home and being forced to use the car wash at the Garage.

Get a grip - why on earth would the government provide insurance for people? You will be suggesting next that the government should insure people's houses for them if they cannot afford it.

threeOrangesocksmorgan · 21/09/2012 16:18

yabu
where do you think the money would come from to fund this?

MsRinky · 21/09/2012 16:18

His insurance costs will go down as he gets older, regardless of lack of driving experience. The odds are so high for young drivers, compared to even inexperienced older drivers.

The first car I was insured on was a fairly high powered sporty thing, and me being added as a driver actually brought the premium down, despite the fact that I only had a provisional licence. I was 30 though. So being older is clearly less risky, even if you can't actually drive.

Sabriel · 21/09/2012 16:19

I understand where you are coming from, but insurance is based on risk and therefore as a high risk, insurance will be high for a 17 yo. My DS1 didn't pass his test until he was 21 but his insurance was still £2k, and that was on a Fiat Panda so hardly racing car material.

Probably not a popular opinion but given the huge number of cars on the road now I do wonder why a 17 needs their own car. DS1 is now 25 and did get his licence because he went for a number of jobs that insisted on driving as you say, but my others are 26, 23 and 21, all work but none of them drive. It really isn't essential.

Anyway I agree with you that insuarance companies have a licence to print money - my renewal was £500 and I'm nearly 50. It's not as if you can choose not to have it. I do think that if it is too expensive people just won't bother getting insured, and that causes a whole load more problems. But I don't think the Govt should provide insurance themselves.

Original poster
CakeMeIAmYours · 21/09/2012 16:19

It isn't a legal requirement to insure your house though, that's they key difference.

OP posts:
Tuttutitlookslikerain · 21/09/2012 16:19

YABU.

Our DS is learning to drive. When he passes his test, should we choose to put him on DH's 1.4TDi Polo fully comp that is £2000.

His friend has a Fiat Punto that costs £1300 to insure. My niece lives in the middle of a city, her first year insurance was £1750. Yes, it is still expensive, but nowhere near £7000. You need to shop around more!

jkklpu · 21/09/2012 16:19

Govt certainly shouldn't fork out for this. Insurance is part of the cost of driving; if he can't afford the insurance, he should get a bike or moped, not moan that it stops him from driving a car. As others say, costs go down as he gets older.

Sabriel · 21/09/2012 16:20

Really must learn to type faster. There were no replies when I started typing Blush

Original poster
CakeMeIAmYours · 21/09/2012 16:20

I can see the point that driving isn't essential for employment, but faced with two candidates, one with a license, and one without, I know which one most employers would choose.

OP posts:
cozietoesie · 21/09/2012 16:23

CakeMe

Sorry that this isn't a direct contribution to the topic - but you can actually get hugely better deals than that. The youngsters in our family have been insured while learning (google 'insuring learner drivers') for only a few hundred pounds a month or less. Then when they pass (and the learner driver insurance stops then immediately) they move onto insurance which requires a fitment in the car to ensure that their pattern of driving is OK. (That's quite good because they know that if they do something wrong - speeding etc, the insurance is automatically cancelled.)

It's certainly not really cheap, but at least it's affordable. Nowhere near £7k a year.

iamamug · 21/09/2012 16:23

YABU - statistics show that young male drivers are at the most risk of having large accidents - often involving a car full of friends at high speeds. Think of the insurance (not to mention the human) costs of a car full of teenagers crippled for life. Forget the cost of the car - you are talking millions. £7000 won't go far will it? There are options - smart box type policies where you 'pay as you go' - if you only use the car in daylight hours the price is much less. Advanced test will also reduce the costs.
I have been in insurance all my working life and my 18 year old son will not be having a car for the next few years - he relies on public transport and will be at university for the next 4 years. he can manage without and it will be a lot cheaper when he is older.

Tuttutitlookslikerain · 21/09/2012 16:23

Oh, and for the moment while DS1 is learning, we have insured him on DH's car through Collingwood Learner Driver's insurance, which was £360 for 24 weeks. So that means he can have his weekly lessons and practice inbetween with either DH or I.

londonmackem · 21/09/2012 16:26

Yabu it is the same for them all. You can buy a 'black box' that tracks your driving and can reduce insurance premium as it records his driving (fast, slow, time of day, etc.). I can't remember the name but was on rip off Britain or similar (I am on maternity leave so some trashy daytime programme).