chem1st Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 The police stopping these drivers are complicit in this class war. There is a need for insurance, but it shouldn't be prohibitive. People hurt in any accidents will be cared for by the NHS regardless. The legal-financial service sector is out of control. I think many Police would agree car insurance is too high for young drivers. On one of the TV shows I've seen Scothern nearly cry out, 'Arr much!'. In response to a youth stating his insurance was £3000 per annum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 The police stopping these drivers are complicit in this class war. There is a need for insurance, but it shouldn't be prohibitive. People hurt in any accidents will be cared for by the NHS regardless. The legal-financial service sector is out of control. I think many Police would agree car insurance is too high for young drivers. On one of the TV shows I've seen Scothern nearly cry out, 'Arr much!'. In response to a youth stating his insurance was £3000 per annum. Basically, insurance companies are just like bookies, taking bets on whether or not someone is going to cause an accident. in which case they will pay out. They will charge motorists based upon the the average payout for that type of motorist (based on age, sex, occupation, where they live, what car they drive etc). Its only prohibitive because their expected payout is high. If they charge less for young drivers they would need to charge more for older drivers, which would be unfair on them. If young drivers require bigger payouts to be made than older drivers do, then they should pay more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Basically, insurance companies are just like bookies, taking bets on whether or not someone is going to cause an accident. in which case they will pay out. They will charge motorists based upon the the average payout for that type of motorist (based on age, sex, occupation, where they live, what car they drive etc). Its only prohibitive because their expected payout is high. If they charge less for young drivers they would need to charge more for older drivers, which would be unfair on them. If young drivers require bigger payouts to be made than older drivers do, then they should pay more. The bookies will take bets on you having a fight. However you don't have to pay the bookies for the privilege of having a fight. To drive a car you require insurance. Without insurance you will be persecuted by the state. If there is an accident the state picks up the pieces. The insurance companies are taking the mick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 The bookies will take bets on you having a fight. However you don't have to pay the bookies for the privilege of having a fight. To drive a car you require insurance. Without insurance you will be persecuted by the state. If there is an accident the state picks up the pieces. The insurance companies are taking the mick. At present you are required to have the ability to pay for any damages you cause. As people usually do not have the means to do it themselves, they are required to take out insurance. You are advocating that the costs of crashes should be met by the state. These costs would therefore ultimately be met by everyone in the form of taxes. In effect, good and safe drivers and people who do not even drive would be required to pay for the damage caused by the bad drivers. Why should they? Also, there would be no incentive to drive safely if there was no penalty (loss of no claims bonus, payment of excess etc). btw, the word is "prosecuted", not "persecuted". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vwkittie Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 The bookies will take bets on you having a fight. However you don't have to pay the bookies for the privilege of having a fight. To drive a car you require insurance. Without insurance you will be persecuted by the state. If there is an accident the state picks up the pieces. The insurance companies are taking the mick. No, the state does not pick up all the pieces. Your insurance is needed to pay for things like damage to street furniture or to compensate someone for loss of earnings should they be unable to work due to injury, or to pay for the repairs to/replacement of another person's vehicle/home/garden wall etc. This is the second time you've tried to insinuate that because the NHS cover hospital treatment for victims it renders compulsory insurance somehow wrong, which is absolute total and utter rubbish. Insurance is absolutely vital and it's right that it is compulsory and right that people are punished for not having it. However I do agree the cost, especially for young drivers, is out of control. The ambulance chasers are to blame and that is what needs clamping down on. The insurance companies need to do more to fight this too though. My OH was involved in an absolutely tiny bump, he kissed the rear bumper of another vehicle, no damage done, I could barely feel the impact. The vehicle pulled away from a junction then suddenly braked for no reason whatsoever. He admitted this no problems. However of course the man got out of the vehicle rubbing his neck saying 'ow ow my neck!', even though it's medical fact that whiplash does NOT develop that fast. Anyway the insurance company informed us there is no time limit on the claiming party producing evidence!!! So this dirty scrounging get produced photos of damage to his van months after the incident which my OH hadn't even caused. You could tell the photo was taken months last as the van was covered in snow and the accident occurred months before any sign of snow. Despite us both giving witness statements to the investigator about the tiny impact and the fact that we felt he had braked deliberately to cause an accident, dodgy photos, and the fact that this dirty scrounger had already had a history of whiplash claims, it was no use. The little beggar got away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Most 18 year olds do not need to drive, it is a luxury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_rudeboy Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Don’t blame the insurance companies blame all the frivolous claims, there are too many no win no fee ambulance chasers about ………. We all end up paying for them, remember that next time someone is boasting about how much they got for their whiplash claim. Tbh I think it's more down to the standard of driving of young males these days. If they didn't drive like morons and be involved in so many accidents, the premiums wouldn't be so high for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Tbh I think it's more down to the standard of driving of young males these days. If they didn't drive like morons and be involved in so many accidents, the premiums wouldn't be so high for them. Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-1710841/Drivers-hit-by-38-insurance-rise-in-2010.html#ixzz1SM5USPU9 The upward trend continued however, with an increase in the amount of uninsured drivers on the road leading to a 'surcharge' of £30 added to most policies. Peter Lee, a partner at insurance consultancy firm, EMB, said: 'Insurers have been carefully managing a juggling act between the need to address underlying profitability and maintaining competitive prices which explains the trends we have seen, particularly in the second half of the year.' Other experts have suggested that the rise in no win no fee personal injury claims has led to a rise in insurance company payouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_rudeboy Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-1710841/Drivers-hit-by-38-insurance-rise-in-2010.html#ixzz1SM5USPU9 I'm not disputing that spurious claims have an impact on ALL motor insurance premiums, merely that I don't think that's the main reason premiums for young drivers are so high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barts96 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 my daughter is 18yr and a quote in my name with her as a named driver for 1.0cc car cheapest quote was £3600 going up to £ 13000 for a car at £500 its a joke so she,s sticking to the buses since feb this year . then they wonder why so many uninsured drivers around ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.