To think the Government should provide 3rd party insurance?

[CakeMeIAmYours]

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

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?

Oh, you mean you want the Gov to provide & PAY for it? So where do you think they will get the money to fund THAT?

It isn't a legal requirement to insure your house though

Probably because your house is unlikely to drive at speed into another house, or run a pedestrian over!

The 'government' doesn't have money of its own to fund anything. The only way they can raise funds is through taxation.

So what you are essentially asking for is that all the rest of the population fund your nephew's desire to drive. And you want to know if YABU?

It barely warrants a response actually.

The whole job scenario is not an argument. I worked for over 15years at various places before I learnt to drive. I walked, got a bus or train, or dh drove me.

No one actually NEEDS a car for work unless they are a delivery driver.

If your nephew cannot afford a car or the insurance how is he going to pay to run the car? Perhaps he needs to learn some financial responsibility.

I didn't get a car until I was 24 and my insurance was £1400, then £550 and now £300. I have managed to work since 16 without ever needing to drive and one job was 32 miles away. There's lots of options when you don't drive public transport (even when that means leaving the house 3 hours before work and a combination of transport), scooter, bike, walking, getting a lift. For some people it's just another excuse not to put any effort in to finding a job.

Also why not wait until he has passed to buy him a car. He might not like driving and it could take years to pass.

Don't even think about buying him a car until he has passed his test.

Oh and don't forget to ask him if he actually wants to drive.

So because he cant afford it you expect the state to pay it? Interesting theory!

Why doesn't he get a job, pay for driving lessons and then look into buying a car?

A fortnight ago, DH, DD1 (4 years old), DD2 (18 months) and I were very, very nearly killed by a 17-year-old driver. He was racing his shitty old Subaru, lost control on a bend, and flew (as in, was literally airborne) across the median into our lane. A witness used the word "miraculous" about our survival.

DH and I will be suing the murderous little shit precisely so his premiums DO increase, and when he gets his licence back, he won't be able to afford to insure anything more powerful than a shopping trolley. If the cost of his premiums keeps him off the road for a few more years, even better.

Insurance pricing is actually extremely efficient. There is an excellent reason that premiums for 17-year-old boys are massively more than premiums for 40-year-old women. Your nephew will just have to sit it out until he's an age that actuaries have worked out is less likely to cause carnage.

Do I want my tax to pay for insurance for the damage that testosterone-fuelled show-offs do? Absolutely not. The fewer of them on the roads, the better, in my experience.

Yabvu. Why doesn't he get a job? He should pay for his own insurance! Why should taxpayers fund him? I think expensive road tax and insurance is good, it helps keep the roads for those who need them as a necessity and makes public transport more viable.

Why doesn't he get a push bike? I used to cycle twelve miles each way to work as couldn't afford a car.

Here in new Zealand car insurance is not compulsory. The governement cover injury costs etc if you are in any kind if accident.

However, it does not cover damage to property so if you are cause an accident and damage to property you can find yourself owing thousands.

The driving age here is 16 (only just up from 15!) so the result is you get lots of youngsters in souped up powerful cars racing around. If third party insurance were compulsory here (and people call for it) it would certainly ameliorate the boy racer problem they have here.

On a practical note, moneysavingexpert.com has a good step-by-step guide to comparing insurance prices - which sites to check in what order and such.

AsparagusJones Sat 22-Sep-12 00:55:30
also very easy for people in urban areas to say you don't need a car...

I live rurally. I would have said that for a long time. Its surprised me since DH started cycling.

zonkedout - your friend who has bought his child a car, got insurance for himself and put his child on as a named driver is committing an offence. you are not allowed to do that, the policyholder has to be the main driver. it is insurance fraud as you are telling the insurance that the policyholder is the main driver - which he isnt, the named driver is for people that sometimes use the car.

the insurance companies (and the police) are not stupid. if he has an accident the insurance company will refuse to pay out and worst case scenario if it is a serious accident and police involved he could be charged with that offence.

it is not worth it. i see it every day i my job.

I don't understand why his insurance is so high. 6 years ago I was a newly qualified 17yr old driver. I went on my mums insurance and drove occasionally for £400. This was through Tesco and built up no claims with tesco for 3 years as I went to uni and didnt need a car most of the time. When I graduated I got a car and took out insurance with tesco for £700. Now I am 23, I have one small prang under my belt, and insurance is £500. It can be done!

Insurance companies make a loss on providing motor insurance. They do not make any profit on it. They don't break even. They make a loss. But as it's a legal requirement general insurers have to provide it in order to be able to transact insurance - and they can try and get additional business from their motor insurance customers.

Also agree with Purple - it's called 'fronting' and it's not worth it. You're insurance won't pay out in the event of a claim.

DD1 bought her own car out of savings and took out a learner policy (with black box) because she needed a car, to practise when she wasn't in lessons. So she learnt to drive in the dark, the wet, low sunlight, with the threat of black ice etc. over 7 months before passing her test. And because she had observed a certain period of time (imposed by the insurance company) before taking her test, the premium stayed the same once she passed, whereas normally it goes up.

Had she waited until she had passed her test to get her own car and insurance policy (as opposed to being a named driver on one of our cars, which we refused to consider!), we would have been looking at much more expensive premiums, according to the insurance advisers I spoke to.

I do think boys are a lot better at using their bikes as a means of transport than girls are, though. DD would wimp out of cycling if it rained, or was very windy, or was pitch black (said it terrified her, cycling home from work at 10.30pm in the dark on unlit country roads), which invariably meant muggins here had to give her a lift.

The thing is with the black box though, if a 17-year-old boy (or anyone else for that matter) wants to drive like a loon, he still can, it's just that it gets reported back to the insurance company and directly affects his premiums (I don't think they have the power to remove anyone's licence for irresponsible driving, but I may be wrong). And if he wants to break his curfew, he just gets fined. The responsible ones will want it, the irresponsible ones either won't want it at all (civil liberties and all that), or simply won't care. Or will drive uninsured.

yabu

It really truly isn't a licence to print money. It's a ruthlessly competitive business and with the advent of price comparisons websites the firm who "wins" the business is normally the one that's cocked up and priced it too cheap. Across the industry for every hundred quid the industry takes in in premiums they'll pay out about a hundred quid in claims. Some firms will make enough on the added extras to turn a decent profit, but others will haemorrhage cash.

It's unaffordably expensive because a) knocking a teenager off his bike can cost you ten million quid (24 hour care for 60 years) b) there's huge amounts of fraud out there c) insured drivers have to pay for the sins of uninsured drivers d) claims management companies are skimming off large percentages e) you can't put the premiums money in the bank and rake in the interest any more.

The government could address b) c) and d), which would help a bit - or they could make age-discrimination illegal and share the costs of teenaged drivers out amongst everyone, but if you put more teenaged boys on the road you will kill and maim more people, so that's not my preferred solution.

Charlearose- What does need addressing is the attitude of some of these young boys. I remember passing and suddenly being very afraid of all this responsibility to myself and other people.

The boys I knew however drove like absolute idiots. Speeding, dangerous overtaking, cramming too many people into a car. One had 3 accidents in less than a year. I told them to slow down but that's not very cool apparently so I refused to get in a car with any of them.