one in 5 young people uninsured

[J.D.]

i really did open a can of worms diddnt i  :-#

should have kept my mouth shut! - i dont think im like'd  8-[

to JD - NFU FULLY COMP inc:

Roll Cage
sus. lift,
Non Standard engine,
non standard bodywork
winch
winch bumper
oversize tyres

20 yrs old!!  :shock:

Why insure it fully comp though? The inurnace company is just going to wrote the car off in the event of a prang, so  its pointless. Just insure it TPFT, which is cheaper and still legal.

[dxmedia]

im of the opinion that if the gov say we need Insurance, then why dont they provide it?
instead we have to buy it from another profit making company who can only see ££££££££££
instead why not just have all new/young drivers restricted to engine size for the first year for a fixed cost?

Because we don't live in a communist state.

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

im of the opinion that if the gov say we need Insurance, then why dont they provide it?
instead we have to buy it from another profit making company who can only see ££££££££££
instead why not just have all new/young drivers restricted to engine size for the first year for a fixed cost?

Because we don't live in a communist state.

Are you sure about that? The current regime seem to be doing a pretty good job of taking us that way.

[CHIPFAT]

im of the opinion that if the gov say we need Insurance, then why dont they provide it?
instead we have to buy it from another profit making company who can only see ££££££££££
instead why not just have all new/young drivers restricted to engine size for the first year for a fixed cost?

Because we don't live in a communist state.

Are you sure about that? The current regime seem to be doing a pretty good job of taking us that way.

I seem to agree a little, whats the phrase ... Born free taxed to death
and when it comes to modding your motor ....Dont bother

[Sider]

Insurance.Pay it or we cube the car, and give you a nice piece of paper with £200 fine on it and six points.

As for younger people being bad drivers, some are. But the older generations are just as bad. It is said that with age comes experience. Arrogance more like.

Hear, hear. Had a chappie, mid fifties, pull in front of me yesterday when I was (admitedly) tanking it round a roundabout. Obvious blast on the horn, slam on the brakes, cursing and swearing galore, laughing at the poor idiot soiling his underwear, step out of the lorry to see if he's okay and to explain some of the facts of life, yadda yadda....

To cut it short, little idiot was chatting away on the phone, and when I pointed out that he shouldn't be doing that, he turned around and asked me if I was gonna teach him to drive, 30 years experience, and all the usual rubbish. Wasn't very pleased when I told him that at his age, either he should know better, or he should surrender his licence for incompetence :D

As for uninsured drivers, surely it wouldn't be to difficult to pull the insurance history for both vehicle/driver, and if it is a regular habit (the uninsured driving) crush the vehicle, no option for redemption.

If the insurance has lapsed for a couple of days or a week, it could well be a genuine mistake, if the car hasn't been insured for the last 3 months, you are taking the mickey.

[hrh_dave]

The insurance companies are cashing in, there was a day when being a named driver counted towards no claim discount - not now. Why - because the insurance companies can earn more.

Erm..... I think you are putting the cart before the horse.... As most insurance companies market themselves on the fact that they can offer NCD to company car drivers and named drivers....


[/quote]

Why insure it fully comp though? The inurnace company is just going to wrote the car off in the event of a prang, so  its pointless. Just insure it TPFT, which is cheaper and still legal.
[/quote]

Third Party Fire and theft is often more expensive than fully comp.....

[bastynitch]

im looking for a reasonable quote for my seventeen year old - soon to do his test, i dont know weather to try and put him on my insurance,or take out his own policy--any ideas !  its on a 1.4 vauxhall corsair

[mike142sl]

im looking for a reasonable quote for my seventeen year old - soon to do his test, i dont know weather to try and put him on my insurance,or take out his own policy--any ideas !  its on a 1.4 vauxhall corsair

Let us know if you find a company that will rack up no claims discount for him as a named driver then. Also I think you will find that once the vehicle goes above 1L the price hikes considerably. I've been told that this company http://www.quinn-direct.com/uk/ are good for learner drivers but not had to get a quote yet - that all hits me next year!

[Red Defender]

Got a quote of £1900 from nfu for my p38 !!! went to Lancaster and pay £410 Fully comp. and pay £250 fully comp with my 90 through swinton. and for reference sake i'm 29 with 3 points and 10 years no claims.

when i was 17 though it was £1900 for a mk 1 fiesta 950cc job third party fire and theft !!!! mind you the bank of mum and dad picked that bill up for some time. whent down to £1700 when i got a diesel Renault 9 at 19 and then at 21 i got a 2 litre primera and it cost me £450 fully comp - doesnt make sense to me !

 i suggest you take some time and really ring round the insurance company's it took me 2 days of hagling to get the £450 on the primera and that was from abbey back in the day

[boss]

im 20 and im not apart of the average.

my car(and myself) are 100% road legal. it does cost alot but thats the price of driving so i got to lump it. i dont agree with some of the prices for insurance though.

i ask why it was going to be £1400 for me to be insured(at 17) on a 1.4clio RT and £900 on a 3.5 V8 90!!!!!! the only reason i diddnt buy the 90 was becasue i would quickly spend the money i saved on insurance on fuel.

you have to ask 90% of younger drivers who whant a landrover "why" why does a 17 year old need a landy, becasue they dont. there bad ass....oh yes and it nice to be able to go greenlaining in your own vehicle but there big, expencive to run and not the safest things. before i bought my astra i was going to buy a TD5 90, still wish i did but the astra has done evereything i ask of it, i got 10 BMXs in it and crused down the motorway in comfort at 70. i got a mog axle in the back and drove it back to my workshop no problem i can get my mates in the back and still hear them when they talk.

im not saying that younger drivers shouldnt have 4x4s or fast cars if your willing to pay the price, go for it. but whats wrong with learning to drive "properley" in a car thats cheap to run and fix and building up a no-claims?


my 2p worth anyway

[mike142sl]

I suspect the 'assumption' is that young male drivers are more likely to drive too fast and crash - an asumption that is probaly backed up with some stats. I would also suspect most of those involve having like minded 'friends' in the car encouraging him to drive faster etc. So perhaps we should look at restricting passenger carrying as a newly qualified driver, in much the same way as not being able to carry passengers in an aircraft of any sort until several hours of solo have been achieved. Or perhaps not allowed to carry passengers under a set age.
Just a thought.

[Red Defender]

quote "expencive to run and not the safest things"

what makes you think landies are less safe - i seem to recall a couple of years ago insurance companys or was it the aa released stats saying that more people walk away alive from a landie than from any other vehicle !

[mike142sl]

quote "expencive to run and not the safest things"

what makes you think landies are less safe - i seem to recall a couple of years ago insurance companys or was it the aa released stats saying that more people walk away alive from a landie than from any other vehicle !

Does that include the people they hit :-#

[dxmedia]

quote "expencive to run and not the safest things"

what makes you think landies are less safe - i seem to recall a couple of years ago insurance companys or was it the aa released stats saying that more people walk away alive from a landie than from any other vehicle !

Stats please?

Because they are in the crash in the first place.

In a crash your more likely to be seriously injured in a 4x4 than a modern vehicle, unless the other vehicle is lower than a 4x4 (car) in which case the 4x4 is more likely to cause serious injury to the passengers of the other vehicel, whilst also causing serious injury to the 4x4 passengers.

Quick vid to demonstrate modern 4x4 v modern people carrier (Landrover v espace)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzZakGhkxkI

and 4x4 v car (Pajero v civic)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zc0SDq-skA

4x4's are more dangeous to other road users than normal cars, and to learn to drive after a test, a smaller lower COG, less powerful engine, lighter, more maneuverable, better braking, less mass, road bias tyres and make a safer vehicle.

THAT's why premiums are higher for drivers who have little experience in 4x4's. The cost of mopping up after a car with 3 people in which has just been run over by a landy driven by a 17 yr old isn't cheap. Especially when the artic that the landrover was over taking on a blind corner tried to pull out of the way, straight into a ditch and puts the driver in intensive care for a week. Oh the car was a metro, had 3 17 yr old girls in it, they kid that drove over the top of the metro went to the same school as them.

That's a true story, happened in a sleepy little town called Oundle in Nothamptonshire, and I only quote it as an example since I went to school with them all. The kid in the landy thought it would accelerate like the car he learnt to drive in. It didn't, he killed 3 people and massively injured another. ALL due to inexperience.

[Red Defender]

my office is messy enough without leaving magazine articles around just in case !

however and not wishing to offend if the said child thought a landie would accelerate like a car doesn't that show a lack of intelligence ? :-k

and to raise another point in the 13 years off driving and an average 50,000 miles a year, i have seen more small engined carts driven by 17 year old overtaking lorries or me on blind bends, junctions, cross roads than any other car and it has been my experience that drivers of large 4x4s are more inclined to wait, give way and not take risks . X5 however are another matter but that's something to do with the badge on the front i feel !

quote "4x4's are more dangerous to other road users than normal cars, and to learn to drive after a test, "

i drive a land rover for my safety not other peoples if i spent my time worrying about that id go mad!!

quote "a smaller lower COG, less powerful engine, lighter, more maneuverable, better braking, less mass, road bias tyres and make a safer vehicle."

but only in the hands of someone with experience i feel and the occupants of said small car are more likely to end up injured! - i would rather a child of mine rolled a land rover and walked away than drove a small car and died - harsh maybe but that's how i feel

[dxmedia]

however and not wishing to offend if the said child thought a landie would accelerate like a car doesn't that show a lack of intelligence ? :-k

It was a spoilt rich kid, hence passing his test and getting straight into a couple of year old 90. But still experience counts for a lot.

and to raise another point in the 13 years off driving and an average 50,000 miles a year, i have seen more small engined carts driven by 17 year old overtaking lorries or me on blind bends, junctions, cross roads than any other car

That's because people who have just passed their test who are inexperience tend to drive small cars, so you'll see more small cars doing silly things till they gain the experience not to

and it has been my experience that drivers of large 4x4s are more inclined to wait, give way and not take risks .

Because experienced drivers tend to go for larger cars (since they can afford the poor fuel economy and higher running costs). 4x4 drivers are aware that they don't have the 'oomph' of a lighter car so understand that they need longer straights to overtake. Again, experience gives you an indication of what size of gap is needed to overtake a truck in front.

X5 however are another matter but that's something to do with the badge on the front i feel !

 :lol:

quote "4x4's are more dangerous to other road users than normal cars, and to learn to drive after a test, "

i drive a land rover for my safety not other peoples if i spent my time worrying about that id go mad!!

really, you drive a landrover because they are safe?  Sorry mate, ladder chassis and lack of crumple zones don't make a safe car. Anything which causes sudden declaration rather than absorb the impact is going to cause your body more damage not less.

Now landrovers specifically, bit of a reputation for rot havn't they. If I was going to pick a 4x4 for saftey, I'd make it something monoquoce with impact zones all round, galvanized chassis and front and curtain airbags.  Personally I don't drive a 4x4 for saftey though, I fully appreciate that a truck 6 1/2 " over stock with an arb winch bumper isn't as safe as it left the factory, so I drive accordingly. I  have a 4x4 to go green laning, tow some heavy trailers (often 3 tonne), but horses for courses, we all have the ability to choose what cars we drive, just pay the money and drive the motor

quote "a smaller lower COG, less powerful engine, lighter, more maneuverable, better braking, less mass, road bias tyres and make a safer vehicle."

but only in the hands of someone with experience

Exactly. Experience.

i feel and the occupants of said small car are more likely to end up injured! - i would rather a child of mine rolled a land rover and walked away than drove a small car and died - harsh maybe but that's how i feel

The smaller lighter car wouldn't have been in the accident in the first place.

Go get some bollards on a private stretch of road, swerve your 4x4 around them. Then go get a mini and do the same, at the same speed.

4x4's are inherently unstable. It makes them less safe not more safe than a normal car.

If I was going to get a car for saftey, I'd go on ncap rating.

Disco 3.

Crash Star Rating      Crash Rating 4 Stars
Front-impact score      11 (69.0%)
Side-impact score       18 (100.0%)
Seat belt reminder      2
Total score                 31
   



Pedestrian Star Rating    Pedestrian Rating 1 Star
Pedestrian-test score    8 (22.0%)


VW Golf (2004)

Crash Star Rating      Crash Rating 5 Stars
Front-impact score   13 (81.0%)
Side-impact score      18 (100.0%)
Seat belt reminder     2
Total score                33




Pedestrian Star Rating    Pedestrian Rating 3 Stars
Pedestrian-test score    19 (53.0%)


That small car - a golf, safer than a brand new landrover, both for occupants and pedestrians.

I would rather a child of mine was in the small car, less likely to get into an accident, and more likely to walk away unharmed than if they were in a brand new 4x4.

[V8MoneyPit]

But, with all due respect, you are contradicting yourself a little there dx. NCAP ratings only allow for how well a car performs in a crash and surely the best way to not get injured or to injure others is to avoid the crash in the first place as you previously pointed out.

Personally, I think the more vulnerable you feel in a vehicle, the more aware you are of your surroundings and this is likely to make you a more aware/cautious driver. On that basis, the NCAP ratings should be reversed! They are really there to protect those who cannot be bothered to drive safely and avoid crashes in the first place. Wouldn't you agree?

[dxmedia]

Exactly, how well you you come out of a crash.

The myth that 4x4's are safer in a crash, is just that. In the example above the golf is safer to be in than a disco 3, both for the occupents and the pedestrian.

4x4's are also unstable, so if driven by an inexperienced driver they are more likely to be in a crash, this is reflected in the higher premium from insurance companies.

Insurance companies don't look at kids (which is what they are) who have 4x4's and go, they must be posh to have a 4x4 lets up the premiums because they can afford it. The premiums are high since young people in large engined cars are a high risk.

Oh and I wasn't contradicting myself either ;)

The original point of this thread was the amount on uninsured young drivers because of the very high premiums. The premiums are high for young drivers in 4x4's because of all of the reasons I've tried to list above.

[carbore]

Id rather barrel roll my soft top Elise than my Series thats for sure!

[squaddie_fox]

im 21, never driven a car without insurance since i passed my test. i pay more for my fiesta than i do the range rover, 600 for a v8 rangie and double that for a 1.4 fiesta (05 plate though).

i think all young drivers should be restricted, similar to those who ride motorbikes, to a series with a 2.25/2.5 NA diesel!

at least then they cant go fast enough to cause themselves or others too much damage, and they will learn how to actually READ a road, predict what other motorists are going to do and act accordingly! my second car was a series 3, after someone decided that they had right of way on a roundabout and went into the passenger wing of my renault 19, which i paid 2100 pound to insure!!

i have a slight advantage over most due to  the fact i learnt to drive HGV's at 17 and i now drive a foden recovery vehicle daily!

now, i would love to see the pedestrian friendly stats on that!

i haven't watched your videos but i presume the top one was the disco and the espace head on?
have a look for an engine, gearbox and a front crossmember..............

i believe the test was doctored, do you think they would get given a brand new car, to crash, if the company wasn't going to be made to look good? doubt it very much!

[horsethief]

This myth that 4x4's are safer than cars in acrash,only comes about if you have a direct crash with another car.When you see the the state of the walls and tress around this area,I'd prefer a car  with crumple zones any day.I drive a Zafria and a Sportrak,my driving styles completly differ for both,I go into corners faster and brake later with the  deisel Zaf to keep the speed,but my sporti I plan ahead as the handling and brakes are no where near the Zafs.The only times the 4x4 myth comes in,when I got a little towrag in a corsa/saxo big exhaust spoilers tries to play chicken on narrow street,comes toward an old brick s**t house with full bullbar and ton of steel behind it,and large areas of rock and mud with big hills.You drive to suit the conditions not how fast you can go.All drivers should spend at least 2 years on a motorbike,before cars,this teaches you the roadcraft needed to survive.

[CaptainColourful]

Any vehicle is only as safe as it's driver.
Ratings only tell you what may happen in a particular type of crash. A safe driver would probably not put him/herself in a situation that would lead to an accident in the first place.

Young (or old) inexperienced drivers are an easy target for insurance companies but they are the ones most likely to cause an accident so the prices reflect the risk.

The police now have the power to cube any uninsured vehicle....  What a wonderful piece of legislation !     

[lambert]

the problem with ncap ratings is the test; 30 mph 3/4 impact into  solid block may be fine but what bout combind speeds of 2 cars? head on at 40 mph each equals a massive increase in kinetic energy to be absorbed. hence not trusting my life to ncap ratings nd choosing to plod about in a slow old disco with good visibility to see my surroundings.

as for the cost of insurance  if you can't afford it don't drive, it is a privalidge after all not a right.

[dxmedia]

This myth that 4x4's are safer than cars in acrash,only comes about if you have a direct crash with another car.When you see the the state of the walls and tress around this area,I'd prefer a car  with crumple zones any day.I drive a Zafria and a Sportrak,my driving styles completly differ for both,I go into corners faster and brake later with the  deisel Zaf to keep the speed,but my sporti I plan ahead as the handling and brakes are no where near the Zafs.The only times the 4x4 myth comes in,when I got a little towrag in a corsa/saxo big exhaust spoilers tries to play chicken on narrow street,comes toward an old brick s**t house with full bullbar and ton of steel behind it,and large areas of rock and mud with big hills.You drive to suit the conditions not how fast you can go.All drivers should spend at least 2 years on a motorbike,before cars,this teaches you the roadcraft needed to survive.

 :clap:

Exactly.


TOO many people don't understand that solid metal isn't good in a crash.

[boss]

getting a little O/T here :lol:

[dxmedia]

Staying OT ;)

The IIHS in the states have just had their 50th anniversary. To celebrate they crashed a 1959 bel air into a 2009 malibu.

It's probably quite reflective of a heavy ladder chassied 4x4 being driven into a modern car.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/26/pics-aplenty-iihs-reveals-before-and-after-of-malibu-bel-air-cr/

Watch the vid, have a look at the pics and make your own minds up. I'm in the 2009 camp myself ;)

[dxmedia]

Just a quick link in case anyone shouts that the bel air had no engine / rusted chassis....

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/