to expect insurance companies to have any social community minded policies?
oddjobgirl · 29/07/2007 09:26
We all know that boys aged 17 to 19 have the most car accidents but the result of asking for insurance premiums at £1,500 or £2,000 each year is just going to make even more teenage boys drive without insurance. Every man has to be a boy sometimes and we don't all live near public Transport. It's got to the point where only girls can drive legally under 20 - equal rights? I don't think so.
oddjobgirl · 29/07/2007 12:01
but the consequence of them putting premiums out of reach of normal parents (who let's face it are the ones who have to pay) will be boys just won''t be insured. They won't stop driving; at 18 car equals freedom. I'll pay it but most won't. This is so short sighted, we are just going to increase the number of boys starting their adulthood with a criminal record... and the results will be over crowded prisons where young men get a RL life education! I see a frightening future when insurance companies don't see the bigger picture and mum's don't tell them they need to have some community responsibility. Uninsured drivers are the riskiest most dangerous drivers of all.
lulumama · 29/07/2007 12:02
if they can't afford insurance, they cannot drive, and their parents have a responsibility to make sure it doesn;t happen
making driving without insurance the fault of insurance companies rather than the fault of people driving without it, is shortsighted IMO
also, you don;t buy a car if you cannot afford to tax and insure it and fill it with petrol
driving at 17 is a privilege !
meowmix · 29/07/2007 12:12
driving is a privelege not a right. The reasons the premiums are higher is the crashed tend to be worse. Also lets face it, most teenage lads can live without a car whereas the elderly and child-bound would struggle.
frankly I'd consider it socially/community irresponsible if they did make it cheaper for the group most statistically likely to crash to drive. It doesn't give the message that safe driving is to be rewarded.
oddjobgirl · 29/07/2007 12:20
spend a few years working at a college and you really find out what's going on. The only place that this image of british teenagers conforming to that world is Cloud Cuckoo Land. Here's hoping the insurance companies don't have the same attitude towards all the people who have flooded this summer. I hear those that flooded last year are being refused insurance.
JudgeyMcJudgeson · 29/07/2007 12:21
insurance companies are a business so yes YABU to think they should have 'socially minded policies'. They are there first and foremost to make money.
Secondly I think most drivers have insurance. Those wihtout are a minority.
It is the police and government responsibility to make sure drivers have insurance and to punish those who don't, not the insurance company.
Why should other people fork out for hte irresponsible few? If premiums went up then more would be unable to afford them, and these maybe those who need a car (isolated rural families among others). SUrely that would lead to a rise in uninsured drivers?
And finally I agree with Meowmix last statement "frankly I'd consider it socially/community irresponsible if they did make it cheaper for the group most statistically likely to crash to drive. It doesn't give the message that safe driving is to be rewarded. "
Uninsured drivers are not the responsibilty of the insurance companies.
JeremyVile · 29/07/2007 12:35
Your attitude is bizarre.
If you cant afford the premiums then the next logical step is to drive without insurance?
That is not the attitude of anyone i know.
So, i dont think its us who are wearing rose tinted glasses, but you may be wearing shit tainted ones.
Anyone who drives without insurance because they believe it is their right, whether they can afford it or not is complretely irresponsible.
.....and fully deserves to enter adult-hood with a criminal record.
wannaBe · 29/07/2007 12:40
what planet do you live on? Most parents would rather pay the insurance - if you believe that most parents would buy their teenage son a car and then not insure it because the premiums are too high you have no idea what you're talking about. The kinds of parents who would happily see their teenage sons without insurance are probably the same types who wouldn't bother to have insurance themselves.
Insurance premiums reflect risk. 17-19 yo's are considered a higher risk, then coupled with the type of car they drive, ie if a teen drives a flashy sports car then the premium will be higher than if they cdive a fiat brava (which was one of the lowest grouped cars when I worked for an insurance company).
It's like everything in life, if you can't afford it, then you should go without until you can.
Driving is a privilage not a right, and not everyone has the right to drive - I can't see anyone giving me a licence or insurance either somehow but that's the way it is. I don't go out there bleeting about how I can't drive here and there and how the insurance companies are discriminating against me - and in actual fact they are, but with good reason.
When I worked for an insurance company a lady rang up once wanting to know what kind of car would be the best for her son, for safety/premium etc. She then went on to say "4 of his friends were given very flashy sports cars for their 18th birthdays,within six months he went to three of their funerals.".
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.