Car Insurance For Young Or Inexperienced Drivers

Drivers recognise that they now are more at risk on the roads with the ever increasing number of new drivers and careless ones, so driving without insurance really is unacceptable.  Whilst it is understandable that young and inexperienced drivers pay more for their premium, it doesn't seem fair that they are excluded from being able to apply for short term car insurance.

Many young people are not in a financial position to easily afford their annual car insurance, so temporary car insurance for when they need it could be a more accessible solution.  It seems unfair that a certain age group 17 – 21 year olds are discriminated as well as those with less than 12 months driving experience.

My idea would be to ensure that insurance companies offer short term car insurance deals to all ages of drivers regardless of experience.  Yes younger and inexperienced drivers will pay more, but they should at least have the opportunity to go down this route.

Why is this idea important?

Drivers recognise that they now are more at risk on the roads with the ever increasing number of new drivers and careless ones, so driving without insurance really is unacceptable.  Whilst it is understandable that young and inexperienced drivers pay more for their premium, it doesn't seem fair that they are excluded from being able to apply for short term car insurance.

Many young people are not in a financial position to easily afford their annual car insurance, so temporary car insurance for when they need it could be a more accessible solution.  It seems unfair that a certain age group 17 – 21 year olds are discriminated as well as those with less than 12 months driving experience.

My idea would be to ensure that insurance companies offer short term car insurance deals to all ages of drivers regardless of experience.  Yes younger and inexperienced drivers will pay more, but they should at least have the opportunity to go down this route.

Don’t loose NCD if hit by uninsured

If an uninsured driver hits you and the accident is entirely their fault, it should be illegal for an insurance company to charge you an excess, or remove your No Claims Discount.

Why is this idea important?

If an uninsured driver hits you and the accident is entirely their fault, it should be illegal for an insurance company to charge you an excess, or remove your No Claims Discount.

Fixed price Car Insurance as incentive for Teenagers

High School Children should be able to 'earn' reasonably priced basic car Insurance by being law abiding up to age 18. They may, say, earn by dint of thier good behavior, a couple of driving lessons a year if they succeed in gaining a 'clean sheet' that year. The lessons can be redeemed as a reward when the child gains thier learners licence.

If a young person keeps a completely clean record up to age 18 they would be entitled to basic third party Car Insurance (for a low power vehicle) at a reasonable fixed cost – say £500pa.

The Insurance would be cancelled immediately for any driving infringement (ie speeding).

I believe this could save insurers many millions in the long term as there wouldn't be as much call on the uninsured driver fund.

Why is this idea important?

High School Children should be able to 'earn' reasonably priced basic car Insurance by being law abiding up to age 18. They may, say, earn by dint of thier good behavior, a couple of driving lessons a year if they succeed in gaining a 'clean sheet' that year. The lessons can be redeemed as a reward when the child gains thier learners licence.

If a young person keeps a completely clean record up to age 18 they would be entitled to basic third party Car Insurance (for a low power vehicle) at a reasonable fixed cost – say £500pa.

The Insurance would be cancelled immediately for any driving infringement (ie speeding).

I believe this could save insurers many millions in the long term as there wouldn't be as much call on the uninsured driver fund.

Car insurance: third party risks: fixed price

Establish a fixed cost for third party insurance and link the cost to the annual road fund licence.  It means all drivers are automatically insured for the legal minimum, and it stops the insurance companies ripping drivers off for something they are legally obliged to buy.

Why is this idea important?

Establish a fixed cost for third party insurance and link the cost to the annual road fund licence.  It means all drivers are automatically insured for the legal minimum, and it stops the insurance companies ripping drivers off for something they are legally obliged to buy.

Uninsured Drivers and the chaos they cause

A real example

I write from bitter personal experience. Last year a 16 year old youth was permitted to drive a car by another slightly older qualified driver who was named on the insurance policy covering that vehicle. The 16 year old was over the limit and lost control of the car on a bend demolished a garden wall ending up in our front garden. The car was obviously written off and the total damage to our property and a car parked in the drive was in the region of £7 – £8K. Add the cost of writing of the third party car and its recovery and the time spent by the third party's insurer, our household insurer and our car insurer, the total costs exceed £10K. The wrangling is still going on as the third party insurer is considering action against the named driver and the youth but do not expect to make any significant recovery. Ultimately the claim will probably be met through the Uninsured Drivers Fund, something every insurer pays into and is obviously then included in the premiums that we all pay.

What would I do

Where  underage drivers cause accidents they should be made to pay. However young unisnsured drivers say aged 16  cannot be expected to have the money to pay. Why ultimately should everyone else?

I would therefore arrange for the Unisured Drivers Fund to loan the Uninsured driver the cost of the claim. If they were an adult and working then as part of the criminal court prosecution, I would through the court system set an attachment of earnings order to the uninsured driver, so they had to pay back the loan to the Uninsured driver fund together with interest and administration costs. If they could not pay then the normal recovery action should be carried out culminating in seizure of goods and ultimately bankruptcy.

For a young uninsured driver with no income, I would treat the loan from the Uninsured Drivers Fund similar to a Student loan except that once they were working the repayment would be made in the same way as an attachment of earnings order. Again interest and administration charges would be passed on until the loan was repaid.

Why is this idea important?

A real example

I write from bitter personal experience. Last year a 16 year old youth was permitted to drive a car by another slightly older qualified driver who was named on the insurance policy covering that vehicle. The 16 year old was over the limit and lost control of the car on a bend demolished a garden wall ending up in our front garden. The car was obviously written off and the total damage to our property and a car parked in the drive was in the region of £7 – £8K. Add the cost of writing of the third party car and its recovery and the time spent by the third party's insurer, our household insurer and our car insurer, the total costs exceed £10K. The wrangling is still going on as the third party insurer is considering action against the named driver and the youth but do not expect to make any significant recovery. Ultimately the claim will probably be met through the Uninsured Drivers Fund, something every insurer pays into and is obviously then included in the premiums that we all pay.

What would I do

Where  underage drivers cause accidents they should be made to pay. However young unisnsured drivers say aged 16  cannot be expected to have the money to pay. Why ultimately should everyone else?

I would therefore arrange for the Unisured Drivers Fund to loan the Uninsured driver the cost of the claim. If they were an adult and working then as part of the criminal court prosecution, I would through the court system set an attachment of earnings order to the uninsured driver, so they had to pay back the loan to the Uninsured driver fund together with interest and administration costs. If they could not pay then the normal recovery action should be carried out culminating in seizure of goods and ultimately bankruptcy.

For a young uninsured driver with no income, I would treat the loan from the Uninsured Drivers Fund similar to a Student loan except that once they were working the repayment would be made in the same way as an attachment of earnings order. Again interest and administration charges would be passed on until the loan was repaid.

unnecessary car insurance regulations

I've just been told that my no claims bonus on my second car will only be recognised for one car and not the second (company: 1st Quote) also that the no claims bonus is for the car and not the driver. 

Surely the fact that I have been driving without claims for over 30 years should be rewarded and incentivised and not penalised? My no claims record should be for me, and not just for a car. With the average car being owned for just a few years of its life, their is no reward for longevity in terms of safe driving.

Next the insurance industry will be charging me extra because I have blue eyes and/or blonde hair, or because the day of the week on which I am buying insurance begins with a 'T'.

I have also had a dreadful experience trying to insure my 22 year old son. The insurance costs three times as much as the car does!

 

Why is this idea important?

I've just been told that my no claims bonus on my second car will only be recognised for one car and not the second (company: 1st Quote) also that the no claims bonus is for the car and not the driver. 

Surely the fact that I have been driving without claims for over 30 years should be rewarded and incentivised and not penalised? My no claims record should be for me, and not just for a car. With the average car being owned for just a few years of its life, their is no reward for longevity in terms of safe driving.

Next the insurance industry will be charging me extra because I have blue eyes and/or blonde hair, or because the day of the week on which I am buying insurance begins with a 'T'.

I have also had a dreadful experience trying to insure my 22 year old son. The insurance costs three times as much as the car does!

 

ABOLISH ROAD TAX –

Road tax is expensive.

Tax on Petrol/diesel is a rip off and we pay more in tax than we do for the fuel

Insurance for cars is excessive, and young drivers can pay over £4,000 for insurance.

MOT is a legal requirement for vehicles over 3 years old.

 

MY PROPOSAL

SCARP Road Tax, Decrease fuel tax.  change insurance to be non-compulsary BUT

Introduce a new scheme – covering all vehicles over 1 year old by

Amending the MOT scheme – increase the cost to £150.00 per vehicle over 1 year old and this must be refreshed when the vehicle changes name.  This cost would include the MOT as it stands for vehicles over 3 years and a certificate of Road worthyness for vehicles over 1 year old, but included in the price includes a contribution towards road tax and minimum third party insurance.

Drivers can elect to carry their own insurance, but this eliminates all those drivers who don't have insurance.  A coloured disc will be displayed in the windscreen as it is now with the tax disc along with a document confirming name of owner, car details and covering thrid part insurance run by central governement.

This scheme is run in countries such a New Zealand.

The fuel duty should be cut and fall in light with the current VAT rate of 17.5% rather than the 60% or thereabout that it is at the moment.  This would encourange drivers to maintain their cars and elect for this scheme.

Young drivers cannot afford to insure their cars and don't this way all cars on the road are insured.

This scheme could also be extended to cover caravans

Why is this idea important?

Road tax is expensive.

Tax on Petrol/diesel is a rip off and we pay more in tax than we do for the fuel

Insurance for cars is excessive, and young drivers can pay over £4,000 for insurance.

MOT is a legal requirement for vehicles over 3 years old.

 

MY PROPOSAL

SCARP Road Tax, Decrease fuel tax.  change insurance to be non-compulsary BUT

Introduce a new scheme – covering all vehicles over 1 year old by

Amending the MOT scheme – increase the cost to £150.00 per vehicle over 1 year old and this must be refreshed when the vehicle changes name.  This cost would include the MOT as it stands for vehicles over 3 years and a certificate of Road worthyness for vehicles over 1 year old, but included in the price includes a contribution towards road tax and minimum third party insurance.

Drivers can elect to carry their own insurance, but this eliminates all those drivers who don't have insurance.  A coloured disc will be displayed in the windscreen as it is now with the tax disc along with a document confirming name of owner, car details and covering thrid part insurance run by central governement.

This scheme is run in countries such a New Zealand.

The fuel duty should be cut and fall in light with the current VAT rate of 17.5% rather than the 60% or thereabout that it is at the moment.  This would encourange drivers to maintain their cars and elect for this scheme.

Young drivers cannot afford to insure their cars and don't this way all cars on the road are insured.

This scheme could also be extended to cover caravans