Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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 17:16

It is not so much that The government should provide, rather that the overall cost to the public purse would be (possibly) less than that caused by the mass unemployment of young men and all the social problems that flow from that.

Of course I'm not suggesting that the taxpayer should subsidise drivers, rather that it might be a false economy for the government to ignore this problem.

If the cost to the taxpayer outweighed the benefit, it shouldn't go ahead. Even I'm not silly enough to suggest that.

The problem is how would you define and analyse that cost/benefit?

OP posts:
WelshMaenad · 21/09/2012 17:18

It was my understanding that insurance firms don't actually make a profit on car policies. Young driver policies are expensive because they cost firms a fecking fortune in claims. I'm not sure why the involvement of the government is required when that's just what the product COSTS. Don't want to pay it, don't have a car.

Original poster
CakeMeIAmYours · 21/09/2012 17:20

I'm sure there are individuals who are in employment and do not have cars/driving licenses.

I am looking at the overall picture here, and I think it is a valid point that on the whole, people (esp young ones) with cars are more employable.

OP posts:
Original poster
CakeMeIAmYours · 21/09/2012 17:21

Welsh My point is, I don't think that is actually what it does cost. I'm venturing the opinion that the costs have been distorted by the fact that it is a legal requirement to have the product.

OP posts:
Original poster
CakeMeIAmYours · 21/09/2012 17:22

Oh and thanks for all the suggestions re bringing the cost down, very much appreciated Smile

Have to go out now, not ignoring replies...

OP posts:
HmmThinkingAboutIt · 21/09/2012 17:24

My DH cycles 15-17 miles each way to work each day. He has a pretty serious high responsibility job.

Not having a car does not stop someone getting a job. A bad attitude does. And tbh, its probably the same attitude that makes people in that age group have more accidents in the first place.

I'm therefore not buying into the idea that high insurance causes mass unemployment of young men. It doesn't.

iamamug · 21/09/2012 17:27

Not true - sorry Cake.
As others have said - costs have been distorted by the increase of young drivers showing off and killing or maiming their friends.
Lots of people are telling you that not having a car is not a barrier to employment as a 17 year old - you seem to be ignoring them??
It's simple economics.
If you can't afford it - don't drive.
Frankly I don't think young men should drive until they're over 21 anyway - but that's just my opinion.

WhitesandsofLuskentyre · 21/09/2012 17:42

comparethebox.com will give you an overview of the various "black boxes" on the market. DD1 has had one since buying her own car (aged 17 and 2 weeks). She started off on limited mileage, but since then we have been able to buy more mileage for her at a very reasonable level (the second bundle of mileage was cheaper than the first, presumably because she used up that first mileage increase and still had a good black box score). She is not insured to drive either of our cars.

And living round here (in the sticks) you DO need a car to get to where the work is (her part-time job has unsociable hours when public transport does not operate). Unless you as a parent are willing to ferry them everywhere.

foreverondiet · 21/09/2012 17:44

YABVU.

Don't be totally ridic! Of course the state should not fund 3rd party insurance - although perhaps they should invest in public transport more.

The costs will come down as he is older and it might be cheaper for him to be a 2nd driver on a family car to get experience (assuming family car is in cheapest insurance group). Some people can't afford to drive.

Also I think if you look around (and choose car in lowest insurance group) you will find insurance for less than £7k!

CovMum · 21/09/2012 17:47

Insurance is a big rip-off. I have been driving 18 years and have never had an accident that was my fault. I kept being told my insurance would go down as I got older but it has only increased. I have an old car and have never paid less than £500 since I passed. I always shop around to get the best deal.

Regularly in the local paper they feature the court cases and the fines are usually around £100. They should make the fines the same cost as the insurance would be to stop people doing it.

Ithinkitsjustme · 21/09/2012 17:50

There certainly needs to be some way of preventing idiots driving without insurance. I wouldn't rule out having some basic level of cover through car tax, or even through petrol prices, but it would take a lot of working out. Tbh, £7k is astronomical and I don't know where you've looked, but my friend has just insured her 17 year old son for under £3, no idea who with I'm sorry, but she was moaning about how expensive that was - I think you need to keep looking.

ATruthUniversallyAcknowledged · 21/09/2012 17:52

people (esp young ones) with cars are more employable

I'm not sure this is particularly true. I can think of many, many more jobs that don't require cars than jobs that do.

Does he live somewhere with no public transport at all? Can he ride a bike? I mean, having a car might make life easier/more fun etc, but I just don't buy the idea that it is essential.

gordyslovesheep · 21/09/2012 17:53

yabu to even think about getting him a car before he can drive for starters

HarrietSchulenberg · 21/09/2012 17:58

Not having a car IS a barrier to employment, if you don't live in a town or somewhere with a bus service. I live in a small market town, population about 10,000. There are approx. 1,000 jobs here, the vast majority of which are minimum wage, or, if "self employed", less. Most people have to commute out to paid work.
There are 3 major towns nearby. There is not one single bus that can get you to any of those towns before 9.30am. The latest bus back from any of those towns leaves at 3.30pm. Two of them return at midday. They are, essentially, shoppers buses.
I have to drive to work and so will my children when they get jobs. Just how we're going to afford to insure all 3 of them is a mystery at the moment, but the other option is that they move away to be closer to employment.

Alarielle · 21/09/2012 18:07

He's 17, he doesn't actually need a car. If he can't afford the insurance then he should wait a year or so until it comes down to a more affordable level.

BarbarianMum · 21/09/2012 18:38
Tuttutitlookslikerain · 21/09/2012 18:43

Katie which company is your DD using and what sort of car is it please?

gordyslovesheep · 21/09/2012 18:45

mopeds get you to places quiet adequately as do buses and trains

aldiwhore · 21/09/2012 18:49

Whilst I think insurance is extortionate and unjustly so, I do not believe the gov should fund it.

£7k for a new driver is grossly unfair, unjust, gobsmackingly expensive and will only serve to ensure that many people don't bother insuring at all.

If the government should do anything they should make sure that compulsorary insurance is affordable.

procrastinor · 21/09/2012 18:50

YABU! I'm amazed this thought even crossed your mind! If it was a legal requirement to have a car then yes I could see where you're coming from. But its not. And I had a variety of jobs when I didn't know how to drive and managed just fine.

A car is a luxury, not a necessity. Most of the jobs he will be looking at don't need you to drive, they just need you to be punctual. Poor diddums will have to just wait it out until he's older to get his premiums to go down if he can't afford it now.

jkklpu · 21/09/2012 18:57

Oh come on, OP - "the mass employment of young men" and the "social problems". You really are talking nonsense now. It's totally unrealistic for a 17-year-old to expect his/her family to provide a car, as it would be unrealistic for most employers to expect a 17-year-old to have one.
You are connecting some unrelated things here.

AsparagusJones · 22/09/2012 00:51

I might be the one misunderstanding here... but I didn't think the OP was saying the government should PAY FOR insurance for young people, but that there should be a fairly priced policy available? I think this should be available for everyone! Is it really fair to punish all young men for the recklessness of a minority? Surely there are other ways to encourage safety- it's not like people who are reckless drivers at 17 suddenly turn 25? 30? and become responsible...
Anyone thinking insurance companies don't make a profit on car policies are a bit daft- they are in the business for the money and the money alone, and very very lucrative it is too.

AsparagusJones · 22/09/2012 00:55

also very easy for people in urban areas to say you don't need a car... for those that live rurally it's quite different- at my mum's, in a reasonable sized village (shop, post office, primary school, pub) it would be a 30 min walk involving crossing a dual carriageway to get to the nearest bus stop.... what do you expect people to do to get to work : S

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 22/09/2012 01:08

But asparagus that IS how insurance works. The company has no way of knowing which new 17 year old drivers are high risk so they must price on the risk of the group

. I think they are well aware that many in this group are priced out so the black box systems mentioned help them limit any recklessness and/or observe driving habits to have more sophisticated segmentation and pricing.

Cake what job is your son going at the moment for that requires both a license and access to a car?

differentnameforthis · 22/09/2012 01:28

We have compulsory 3rd party insurance here on our road tax. You HAVE to pay it even if you have your own insurance.

My car tax is $190 per quarter. The breakdown is as follows

$29 registration charge (that the road tax)
$7 admin fee
$6 emergency service levy
$122.11 insurance
$10.89 GST on insurance (GST is VAT)
$15.00 Stamp duty on insurance

That makes the insurance $148. I also have to have my own insurance as the insurance inc doesn't really cover that much, so that is about $240.00 per year. So in all I am paying $960.00 in insurance a year.

You cannot out of the Gov insurance (i.e prove you have your own & get that discounted) either.

Oh & for that, we don't even get a tax sticker. We are paperless!