iansheff Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 It is no surprise that people are not getting insured after reading Quentin Wilsons column this morning. A parent wrote asking about insuring a 2003 punto valued at £1500 for his 17 year old son and all the quotes were over £4000. Wilson found him one cheaper but even that was £2,912, ridiculous that the insurance is almost twice the value of the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 It's always been expensive to directly insure a 17 year old, they're highly likely to go and crash into something. Maybe the answer is that a 17 year old doesn't need their own car and can use their parents car when allowed as a named driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 It is no surprise that people are not getting insured after reading Quentin Wilsons column this morning. A parent wrote asking about insuring a 2003 punto valued at £1500 for his 17 year old son and all the quotes were over £4000. Wilson found him one cheaper but even that was £2,912, ridiculous that the insurance is almost twice the value of the car. Once again, the cost of the car doesn't matter much, you are insuring the risk of the potential harm to others. Three more teenagers dead this weekend. The single most common cause of death for teenaged girls in this country is their boyfriend's driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike84 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 It is no surprise that people are not getting insured after reading Quentin Wilsons column this morning. A parent wrote asking about insuring a 2003 punto valued at £1500 for his 17 year old son and all the quotes were over £4000. Wilson found him one cheaper but even that was £2,912, ridiculous that the insurance is almost twice the value of the car. You are not insuring your own car though, in effect you are covering every other person on the road and the possibility of them crashing! A 17 year old male are the highest insurance risk on the road. The chances of them being involved in an accident is much higher than other groups. Insurance covers the risk, not the replacement value of your vehicle. People who are statistically more likely to have / cause or be involved in car accidents pay more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Three more teenagers dead this weekend. The single most common cause of death for teenaged girls in this country is their boyfriend's driving. People don’t think about the aftermath do they ……….. as bad as that story is imagine if it turns out that one of the cars wasn’t insured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbie Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 It's always been expensive to directly insure a 17 year old, they're highly likely to go and crash into something. Maybe the answer is that a 17 year old doesn't need their own car and can use their parents car when allowed as a named driver. So if he/she uses their parents car, then what car will the parent drive if the youth has used their car? In some instances, a car is essential. If a 17 year old was to get a job in a factory, and work funny shifts, punlic transport is not an option, simply because it does not operate to meet the needs of some shift workers. For some young people who choose to work, a car is a necesity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbie Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 So 90% of the people on this thread, will continue to pay insurance, regardless of how much the premiums will increase? I'll ask the question another way - what percentage of your anual net income are you prepared to pay, simply for legalised theft/car imsurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 . For some young people who choose to work, a car is a necesity. Strange that I worked shifts from the age of 16 and didn’t start driving until I was 20, kids want it all and they want it now that’s the trouble. Parents should stand their ground and make them go it alone, both my lads started driving at 17, they both had “suitable” cars with their own policy and now they are both in their 20’s they have plenty of no-claims bonus and can insure sporty cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbie Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 Strange that I worked shifts from the age of 16 and didn’t start driving until I was 20, kids want it all and they want it now that’s the trouble. Parents should stand their ground and make them go it alone, both my lads started driving at 17, they both had “suitable” cars with their own policy and now they are both in their 20’s they have plenty of no-claims bonus and can insure sporty cars. So of someone gets a job role, where public transport is simply not an option that makes then an "I want it all" person does it? I owned a car at 17, and some of the job roles I took I had to use a car, simply because there were no buses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike84 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 So of someone gets a job role, where public transport is simply not an option that makes then an "I want it all" person does it? I owned a car at 17, and some of the job roles I took I had to use a car, simply because there were no buses If you havent got a car or would need one for a job and you cant afford it why would you apply for the job? How would your employer feel about it finding out they are employing a criminal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.