Young driver insurance

oldsmokey · 22-08-2014 5:04pm #1

Hi, am looking for affordable insurance for young female, passed test, 18, Corsa 1.2..have tried the usual suspects, all mad stuff 2500+...any suggestions?..it seems the car at 1200cc is too big-engined...would a sub 1 liter be a better bet?
thanks

Moneymaker · 22-08-2014 5:28pm

Go for a 1.0 but you'll still pay big insurance til you get a NCB. Shop around but it is what it is. Expect to pay big money for a while at least.

corktina · 22-08-2014 5:35pm

It's best to bite that bullet and get the NCB built up asap.

djimi · 22-08-2014 11:51pm

I wouldnt have thought that a 1.2 Corsa would be much worse than most 1Ls for insurance. Maybe try a few smaller cars for quotes and see what you get.

Sam Kade · 23-08-2014 1:04am

Why don't you go on as a named driver? My son passed his test last year €1200 to put him on insurance on a 1.8 l car. He'll be going to college next month so he'll have to be put on as the main driver through my insurance which will be €300 year extra. You won't build up ncb but it will be cheaper to get insurance in your own name after a few years driving.

Snake · 23-08-2014 1:07am

Sam Kade wrote: »

Why don't you go on as a named driver? My son passed his test last year €1200 to put him on insurance on a 1.8 l car. He'll be going to college next month so he'll have to be put on as the main driver through my insurance which will be €300 year extra. You won't build up ncb but it will be cheaper to get insurance in your own name after a few years driving.

They go by highest risk driver now. So premiums are basically the same. And that's not the case the NCB is what they want. Without your own one premium will still he high.

Toyotafanboi · 23-08-2014 1:29am

just got my sister her first time insurance there yesterday. she's 17 on a provisional with a 2000 1.0 yaris and aviva done it for 1300 3rd party fire and theft with my mother as a named driver on my sisters policy.

Snake · 23-08-2014 1:36am

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

just got my sister her first time insurance there yesterday. she's 17 on a provisional with a 2000 1.0 yaris and aviva done it for 1300 3rd party fire and theft with my mother as a named driver on my sisters policy.

Did you ring them or do it online?

Toyotafanboi · 23-08-2014 1:40am

GrayFox208 wrote: »

Did you ring them or do it online?

online. most quotes were coming in around €2k ish, so this was a tasty bit cheaper. it's a bare basics policy, but on a car like that, it's all she needs really.

Sam Kade · 23-08-2014 9:10am

GrayFox208 wrote: »

They go by highest risk driver now. So premiums are basically the same. And that's not the case the NCB is what they want. Without your own one premium will still he high.

So your're still considered a high risk driver if you have been driving 4-5 years as a named driver without any claims.

Sam Kade · 23-08-2014 9:13am

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

online. most quotes were coming in around €2k ish, so this was a tasty bit cheaper. it's a bare basics policy, but on a car like that, it's all she needs really.

Ring them, I checked online to put my son on his own policy €1200 for a mazda 6 when I rang them it was €2,500

quadrifoglio verde · 23-08-2014 9:22am

GrayFox208 wrote: »

They go by highest risk driver now. So premiums are basically the same. And that's not the case the NCB is what they want. Without your own one premium will still he high.

I've heard this said a good few times but is it true for all of them? Brother was insured last year as a names driver through aviva for about 4k less than what his lowest quote was if it was in his own name.
This year through a broker it's down to 950 as a named driver. Similar quotes in his own name on the same polo were coming in at around 3k

djimi · 23-08-2014 9:29am

Sam Kade wrote: »

So your're still considered a high risk driver if you have been driving 4-5 years as a named driver without any claims.

Named driving experience means nothing in fairness; by definition a named driver is (or should be) the secondary driver of the vehicle and as such its not possible to define how much they would actually driven. Insurers may offer a discount based on named driving experience as a way to drum up business, but either way it still means you are starting from the bottom with no NCB and no real insurance experience in your own name.

djimi · 23-08-2014 9:31am

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I've heard this said a good few times but is it true for all of them? Brother was insured last year as a names driver through aviva for about 4k less than what his lowest quote was if it was in his own name.
This year through a broker it's down to 950 as a named driver. Similar quotes in his own name on the same polo were coming in at around 3k

Probably not all of them. I asked the question of Liberty a while back (out of curiosity off the back of a thread on here); I actually asked do they have a criteria for the point at which a named driver much be declared the primary driver or does it matter, and the response that I got was that as far as they are concerned the highest risk driver on the policy forms the primary risk and the policy is priced accordingly. The girl I spoke to reckoned that it makes no odds who is named as the primary driver as the risk is taken into account either way in the price.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime · 23-08-2014 9:57am

Plus fronting is a form of fraud.

Whoever the main driver of the car is has to be the policy holder not a named driver.

Sam Kade · 23-08-2014 10:07am

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Plus fronting is a form of fraud.

Whoever the main driver of the car is has to be the policy holder not a named driver.

FBD said that my son wouldn't be covered if he was the main driver but they could put him on as the main driver through my insurance for an extra fee. You are saying this is fraud

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime · 23-08-2014 10:29am

Sam Kade wrote: »

FBD said that my son wouldn't be covered if he was the main driver but they could put him on as the main driver through my insurance for an extra fee. You are saying this is fraud

How could he be a main driver on your policy ?

that doesn't make sense.

djimi · 23-08-2014 12:53pm

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

How could he be a main driver on your policy ?

that doesn't make sense.

You can nominate any driver you like on the policy as the main driver. The insurer will just price the policy accordingly.

Bear in mind you cant insure a car that you dont own, so if Mammy is letting little Johnny driver her car all of the time but doesnt want to sign it over to him then he cannot take out a policy in his own name on said car. Allowing her to name him as the primary driver on the policy gets around this.

23-08-2014 1:10pm

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Plus fronting is a form of fraud.

Impossible to prove of course and hence most people aren't bothered how much they drive a car as a named driver.

I think most people started out driving as a named driver but basically driving the call all the time, I know I did.

Toyotafanboi · 23-08-2014 2:38pm

Sam Kade wrote: »

Ring them, I checked online to put my son on his own policy €1200 for a mazda 6 when I rang them it was €2,500

why would i do that :P

we bought the policy online with visa. seems legit. sister as the policy holder and mother as a named driver. competitive. i think it's all a bit of pot luck with insurance prices. aviva were well out of line when i went to renew my own policy.

oldsmokey · 23-08-2014 4:49pm

Looks like Boxymo are the lads for us, came in a good bit cheaper than the rest..Axa FBD, aviva, Bestquote, all a waste of time...funny enough, if a 1.0 Micra was entered as the car in question (rather than 1.2 Corsa), then the premium actually ROSE for some of the insurers.thanks all.

TheDoc · 23-08-2014 4:53pm

Tbh 2k at 18 is a good price.

I'm 26 provisional holder and my latest premium was 1200 after being 700 last year...even with another years no claims.

Must get my act sorted and get my full license. Have four years no claims built up now. Been eyeing a new car for a while and as a provisional driver nobody will insure me on anything over a 1.4

Can't wait for my Nonce plates

goz83 · 23-08-2014 5:05pm

Sam Kade wrote: »

Ring them, I checked online to put my son on his own policy €1200 for a mazda 6 when I rang them it was €2,500

If everything was done properly online, there is no need to ring. Just take the offered policy. But, I recall you mentioning in another thread that you would be the main driver on 2 vehicles under your policy, with your son being named driver.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Plus fronting is a form of fraud.

Whoever the main driver of the car is has to be the policy holder not a named driver.

Indeed, but some motorists, like the one quoted below seem to have no issue with fraud. Ah shure it's grand, coz ye won't be cot.

Except, it's not grand. People get seriously injured, or killed when certain drivers are fronted on cars they otherwise would find impossible to insure. I'm one of those injured people who was hit by a young driver on mammies policy in a high performance car. :mad:

Israel Muscular Sauna wrote: »

Impossible to prove of course and hence most people aren't bothered how much they drive a car as a named driver.

I think most people started out driving as a named driver but basically driving the call all the time, I know I did.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime · 23-08-2014 5:12pm

goz83 wrote: »

If everything was done properly online, there is no need to ring. Just take the offered policy. But, I recall you mentioning in another thread that you would be the main driver on 2 vehicles under your policy, with your son being named driver.

Indeed, but some motorists, like the one quoted below seem to have no issue with fraud. Ah shure it's grand, coz ye won't be cot.

Except, it's not grand. People get seriously injured, or killed when certain drivers are fronted on cars they otherwise would find impossible to insure. I'm one of those injured people who was hit by a young driver on mammies policy in a high performance car. :mad:

The reason being his price went up when he called was because they took thencb off the quote since the ncb is already being used elsewhere. Very simple and works well in these situations where deserved

Quite simply why should a driver who had never driven before be giving a discount for good driving from someone else ?

Very sorry to here of your misfortune. Hope it wasn't a case where you had to jump through hoops to get sorted or took longer because of that ?

The great thing to take away from it is because of that mammy lost all her ncb and will have to declare that claim when she goes looking for insurance. ... even on her own !

Bepolite · 23-08-2014 5:26pm

Give a good broker a call - there are some out there that will apply a massive excess (3K) to keep the premiums down.

goz83 · 23-08-2014 5:29pm

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

The reason being his price went up when he called was because they took thencb off the quote since the ncb is already being used elsewhere. Very simple and works well in these situations where deserved

As he was insuring a second vehicle, the ncb should have been 0 years for the online quote, but I suppose it is an easy mistake to make.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Quite simply why should a driver who had never driven before be giving a discount for good driving from someone else ?

They shouldn't. I think insurers are going the right way in marking the higher risk driver, but I do think they are scum most of the time and try worm their their way out of everything possible.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Very sorry to here of your misfortune. Hope it wasn't a case where you had to jump through hoops to get sorted or took longer because of that ?

Got compensated for my car (kind of. Book value, but not real value). PI takes much longer and I have yet to even put a claim in.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

The great thing to take away from it is because of that mammy lost all her ncb and will have to declare that claim when she goes looking for insurance. ... even on her own !

It's of little consolation that mammy lost her ncb, when I have lost my ability to drive and have to get spinal surgery. Too often, motorists have a lax attitude to things like putting little Johnny on mammies policy, because it'll save a few quid. The attitude starts on smaller things and is usually to save a few euro. It can escalate to downright fraud and lead to serious accidents. This isn't aimed at you by the way KS&L. I'm just adding to the thread. I'm feeling a bit pished off tbh, as I am laying on my bed, in fukin agony right now and would love nothing more than to be able to go walk the dogs with my wife and kids on this lovely Saturday.

goz83 · 23-08-2014 5:30pm

Bepolite wrote: »

Give a good broker a call - there are some out there that will apply a massive excess (3K) to keep the premiums down.

Xcess D don't give new quotes, if that's who you're talking about. They pulled out a couple of months ago.

23-08-2014 6:01pm

goz83 wrote: »

Except, it's not grand. People get seriously injured, or killed when certain drivers are fronted on cars they otherwise would find impossible to insure. I'm one of those injured people who was hit by a young driver on mammies policy in a high performance car. :mad:

I'm very sorry to hear you were badly injured but adding someone as a named driver and allowing them to drive your car is perfectly legitimate and very common (it's not fronting either). What you are tying to say is adding named driver shouldn't be allowed which is madness.

Most people couldn't afford to get on the road without getting added to a parents car, it was costing me about 2000 punts to be a named driver on my mothers insurance on a 1.3 litre car when I started out driving years ago, my own insurance would have been totally unattainable with the prices.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime · 23-08-2014 6:13pm

Israel Muscular Sauna wrote: »

I'm very sorry to hear you were badly injured but adding someone as a named driver and allowing them to drive your car is perfectly legitimate and very common (it's not fronting either). What you are tying to say is adding named driver shouldn't be allowed which is madness.

Most people couldn't afford to get on the road without getting added to a parents car, it was costing me about 2000 punts to be a named driver on my mothers insurance on a 1.3 litre car when I started out driving years ago, my own insurance would have been totally unattainable with the prices.

That's not what were saying.
It's perfectly fine to put little one onto mammies policy providing it is nammies car and mammy is the main driver

Not the young one buying a car and putting mammy as the main driver to get cheaper insurance when it's not the case ! And the young one is the main driver.

goz83 · 23-08-2014 6:22pm

Israel Muscular Sauna wrote: »

I'm very sorry to hear you were badly injured but adding someone as a named driver and allowing them to drive your car is perfectly legitimate and very common (it's not fronting either). What you are tying to say is adding named driver shouldn't be allowed which is madness.

Most people couldn't afford to get on the road without getting added to a parents car, it was costing me about 2000 punts to be a named driver on my mothers insurance on a 1.3 litre car when I started out driving years ago, my own insurance would have been totally unattainable with the prices.

As KS&L has said, it's not about adding ones children to a policy. It's when parents are on paper as the main driver of the car (especially high performance cars), but the policy holder will likely never sit behind the wheel of said car.

Its not easy getting first time insurance. I paid a hair shy of 5k on a 1.4 Astra 11 years ago, for TPFT. I can tell you that the very high cost of insurance made damn sure I drove more safely, if for nothing else, but to lower my premium the next year.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime · 23-08-2014 6:25pm

goz83 wrote: »

As he was insuring a second vehicle, the ncb should have been 0 years for the online quote, but I suppose it is an easy mistake to make.

They shouldn't. I think insurers are going the right way in marking the higher risk driver, but I do think they are scum most of the time and try worm their their way out of everything possible.

Got compensated for my car (kind of. Book value, but not real value). PI takes much longer and I have yet to even put a claim in.

It's of little consolation that mammy lost her ncb, when I have lost my ability to drive and have to get spinal surgery. Too often, motorists have a lax attitude to things like putting little Johnny on mammies policy, because it'll save a few quid. The attitude starts on smaller things and is usually to save a few euro. It can escalate to downright fraud and lead to serious accidents. This isn't aimed at you by the way KS&L. I'm just adding to the thread. I'm feeling a bit pished off tbh, as I am laying on my bed, in fukin agony right now and would love nothing more than to be able to go walk the dogs with my wife and kids on this lovely Saturday.

Very sorry to hear that. It sounds like a very serious accident.

Was there someone acting the bollox ?

piperh · 23-08-2014 6:36pm

djimi wrote: »

Bear in mind you cant insure a car that you dont own, so if Mammy is letting little Johnny driver her car all of the time but doesnt want to sign it over to him then he cannot take out a policy in his own name on said car. Allowing her to name him as the primary driver on the policy gets around this.

This is not true Djimi, we've had a car registered in my name since we bought it 3 yrs ago and originally it was insured in hubbys name with son as named driver and for the last 2yrs it's been in sons name with hubby as named driver. I've never been on either policy.

goz83 · 23-08-2014 6:40pm

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Very sorry to hear that. It sounds like a very serious accident.

Was there someone acting the bollox ?

Young, inexperienced driver in sports car on mammies policy. Left my car as a write-off, destroyed from behind. I will have to let you draw your own conclusions there.

23-08-2014 6:52pm

goz83 wrote: »

As KS&L has said, it's not about adding ones children to a policy. It's when parents are on paper as the main driver of the car (especially high performance cars), but the policy holder will likely never sit behind the wheel of said car.
.

It's fairly rare though for a person to drive a car 100% of the time as a named driver with a few exceptions, one being two people I know who swapped cars but just named each other on each other's insurance rather than change the names over as they are planning to swap back again.

In most cases it's more of a middle ground with the car being shared between the parent and their child maybe up to 50:50. In this instance I see it as being perfectly legitimate to have the parent down as the main driver.

That said with the extortionate price of insurance I would personally have no problem driving a car as the main driver but insured as a named driver in order to get a more reasonable quotes (in a small engined car) if I was getting started out in driving again. It's completely unfair the money being asked of young people starting out. I can see why you are against it as you were badly injured but the vast majority are safe drivers and just want to try get started driving at a semi-reasonable cost.

goz83 · 23-08-2014 8:01pm

Israel Muscular Sauna wrote: »

It's fairly rare though for a person to drive a car 100% of the time as a named driver with a few exceptions, one being two people I know who swapped cars but just named each other on each other's insurance rather than change the names over as they are planning to swap back again.

In most cases it's more of a middle ground with the car being shared between the parent and their child maybe up to 50:50. In this instance I see it as being perfectly legitimate to have the parent down as the main driver.

That said with the extortionate price of insurance I would personally have no problem driving a car as the main driver but insured as a named driver in order to get a more reasonable quotes (in a small engined car) if I was getting started out in driving again. It's completely unfair the money being asked of young people starting out. I can see why you are against it as you were badly injured but the vast majority are safe drivers and just want to try get started driving at a semi-reasonable cost.

I'm on my wifes policy as a named driver and she is on my policy as a named driver. That's the kind of thing named driving is really for. That, and a child going on a parents policy while they are learning how to drive, or if they genuinely only use the car sometimes. The person who uses the car 51% or greater is the person who should be marked as the main driver. It's pretty black and white.

Now, when you look at the under 21 and as far as the under 25 category, children are driving their own car, or their parents car in the vast majority of cases as the actual main driver, but tell the insurer otherwise. I don't agree with this and I never have. That's why I didn't go on mammies policy. It was a killer paying such a massive premium, but I paid it and thank god I never caused anything more serious than an accident at 5mp. In 3 years, I have been rear ended twice by young male drivers, who were named drivers on someone elses policy. The first time was a lad is his late twenties and the second time was a lad in his early twenties. I'm not against it just because I was the unfortunate guy who was injured. That just solidified my reasoning for being against insurance fraud.

oldyouth · 23-08-2014 8:05pm

piperh wrote: »

This is not true Djimi, we've had a car registered in my name since we bought it 3 yrs ago and originally it was insured in hubbys name with son as named driver and for the last 2yrs it's been in sons name with hubby as named driver. I've never been on either policy.

Sorry, are you saying the car is still registered in your name but your son has an insurance policy in his own name on this vehicle? Seriously, if that is the situation, get it sorted ASAP. A husband/wife thing is fine, but not a child

piperh · 23-08-2014 8:35pm

oldyouth wrote: »

Sorry, are you saying the car is still registered in your name but your son has an insurance policy in his own name on this vehicle? Seriously, if that is the situation, get it sorted ASAP. A husband/wife thing is fine, but not a child

Yes and the insurance companies have always known it was registered in my name. And when stopped and asked whose car it was and then to produce the gard didn't have an issue with it either.

Why are you saying to sort it, Is it illegal? I would have thought the insurance company would have picked it up when he claimed on the policy if it was and used it as an excuse not to pay out.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime · 23-08-2014 8:42pm

piperh wrote: »

Yes and the insurance companies have always known it was registered in my name. And when stopped and asked whose car it was and then to produce the gard didn't have an issue with it either.

Why are you saying to sort it, Is it illegal? I would have thought the insurance company would have picked it up when he claimed on the policy if it was and used it as an excuse not to pay out.

the definition of insurance is to protect the policy holder against financial loss of their property.

if they dont own the property then they wont have a financial interest in the property and therefore can't insure it.

so if your son goes and writes off the car tomorrow the insurance company do not have to pay out a cent.

Snake · 23-08-2014 8:45pm

Sam Kade wrote: »

So your're still considered a high risk driver if you have been driving 4-5 years as a named driver without any claims.

Yes.

piperh · 23-08-2014 8:49pm

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

the definition of insurance is to protect the policy holder against financial loss of their property.

if they dont own the property then they wont have a financial interest in the property and therefore can't insure it.

so if your son goes and writes off the car tomorrow the insurance company do not have to pay out a cent.

Ok that makes sense however they started and renewed the policy knowing he wasn't the registered keeper. And paid out a considerable amount to repair the car after an accident. Surely by accepting payment knowing the details they've entered into a contract based on them.

goz83 · 24-08-2014 12:42am

piperh wrote: »

Ok that makes sense however they started and renewed the policy knowing he wasn't the registered keeper. And paid out a considerable amount to repair the car after an accident. Surely by accepting payment knowing the details they've entered into a contract based on them.

I would second that. I have transferred my policy on many occasions to vehicles my insurers were aware they were not registered to me. Since I have had "drive other cars" on my policy in recent years, it hasn't been necessary to transfer insurance.

My sister transferred her policy to my dads car for a few weeks while hers was in getting work and was out of action. Insurers knew it was not in her name.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime · 24-08-2014 1:07am

goz83 wrote: »

I would second that. I have transferred my policy on many occasions to vehicles my insurers were aware they were not registered to me. Since I have had "drive other cars" on my policy in recent years, it hasn't been necessary to transfer insurance.

My sister transferred her policy to my dads car for a few weeks while hers was in getting work and was out of action. Insurers knew it was not in her name.

Temporary substitutes are very common when cars are getting worked on or when you need a replacement car as a result from an accident etc. hence why its always temporary and never permanent

oldyouth · 24-08-2014 8:05am

goz83 wrote: »

I would second that. I have transferred my policy on many occasions to vehicles my insurers were aware they were not registered to me. Since I have had "drive other cars" on my policy in recent years, it hasn't been necessary to transfer insurance.

My sister transferred her policy to my dads car for a few weeks while hers was in getting work and was out of action. Insurers knew it was not in her name.

Temporary transfers are never an issue and a standard facility offered by insurers.

oldyouth · 24-08-2014 8:12am

piperh wrote: »

Ok that makes sense however they started and renewed the policy knowing he wasn't the registered keeper. And paid out a considerable amount to repair the car after an accident. Surely by accepting payment knowing the details they've entered into a contract based on them.

I would get the situation corrected as soon as possible. When you say insurance companies, do you mean the insurers themselves or your broker? If you have a partial loss, insurers will rarely ask for proof of ownership or the log book, in the event of a total loss, they will and that's when you will have a problem. There are also technical insurance reasons when the registered owner needs to be the policyholder. Get a copy of the proposal form and see what was declared with regard to ownership

I'm not saying you have done anything sneaky here, quite the opposite, you seem to have been upfront in your dealings. However, your son should not be the policyholder on a car registered in your name

piperh · 24-08-2014 8:34am

oldyouth wrote: »

I would get the situation corrected as soon as possible. When you say insurance companies, do you mean the insurers themselves or your broker? If you have a partial loss, insurers will rarely ask for proof of ownership or the log book, in the event of a total loss, they will and that's when you will have a problem. There are also technical insurance reasons when the registered owner needs to be the policyholder. Get a copy of the proposal form and see what was declared with regard to ownership

I'm not saying you have done anything sneaky here, quite the opposite, you seem to have been upfront in your dealings. However, your son should not be the policyholder on a car registered in your name

Thanks, no it's always been Aviva. I checked the policy last night afterwards as I hated the idea of him being uninsured and there is no mention of registered owner. I will call them on Monday to see what they say.

djimi · 24-08-2014 9:52am

piperh wrote: »

Thanks, no it's always been Aviva. I checked the policy last night afterwards as I hated the idea of him being uninsured and there is no mention of registered owner. I will call them on Monday to see what they say.

If you check any online quote for example, the first assumption will usually be that you or your partner is the registered owner of the car. This may not apply to all insurers, but it has been the case for any that I have dealt with. Your son should not be able to take our a policy on a car that he does not own.

That said, if Aviva have sold such a policy, are aware of the situation and have paid out in the event of a claim then they obviously are not too bothered.

djimi · 24-08-2014 10:13am

goz83 wrote: »

Except, it's not grand. People get seriously injured, or killed when certain drivers are fronted on cars they otherwise would find impossible to insure. I'm one of those injured people who was hit by a young driver on mammies policy in a high performance car. :mad:

Fronting is (and always has been) an issue in this country, but in situations like yours it is only part of a bigger issue. The real issue is that young inexperienced drivers are able to get insured in any capacity on high performance cars. Fronting is bad enough, but if you change the situation around a bit, you could well have a situation where a teenage learner is insured on their fathers M3, and even though Daddy is the primary driver, you still have a learner driving around (perfectly legally) in an M3.

What needs to happen is a restriction needs to be put on the licensing system to limit what people can drive based on their experience. I know we dont use insurance groups in Ireland, but something like that would be a good benchmark; you can only drive up to say group 5 on a learners permit, up to group 10 while on a N plate, and then on an increasing scale based on experience built up (Im only using those groups as an example; I have no idea what cars are actually in each group). This would stop a 17 year old learner driving a type R Integra, because even if they could otherwise find an insurer who would offer them a policy (be it main driver or named), they would not be legally able to drive a group 35 car on a learners permit. Tie this back to insurers (ie make it impossible to insure a car that you are not licensed to drive) and it sorts the issue in a hurry.

Im sure that people will be on to bemoan the "nanny state" menality of such an idea, but something really has to be done to prevent people from driving cars that are beyond their ability and experience. Right now anybody in Ireland can drive the most powerful car that they are able to afford to insure, but and whether they are playing by the rules or not, the reality is that there are insured to drive the car and nobody is really stepping in any asking why teenagers and particularly leaners are (legally or otherwise) allowed to drive serious performance cars provided they can shell out what the insurance company wants from them. Its utter madness and badly needs to be looked at.

goz83 · 24-08-2014 11:38am

djimi wrote: »

Fronting is (and always has been) an issue in this country, but in situations like yours it is only part of a bigger issue. The real issue is that young inexperienced drivers are able to get insured in any capacity on high performance cars. Fronting is bad enough, but if you change the situation around a bit, you could well have a situation where a teenage learner is insured on their fathers M3, and even though Daddy is the primary driver, you still have a learner driving around (perfectly legally) in an M3.

What needs to happen is a restriction needs to be put on the licensing system to limit what people can drive based on their experience. I know we dont use insurance groups in Ireland, but something like that would be a good benchmark; you can only drive up to say group 5 on a learners permit, up to group 10 while on a N plate, and then on an increasing scale based on experience built up (Im only using those groups as an example; I have no idea what cars are actually in each group). This would stop a 17 year old learner driving a type R Integra, because even if they could otherwise find an insurer who would offer them a policy (be it main driver or named), they would not be legally able to drive a group 35 car on a learners permit. Tie this back to insurers (ie make it impossible to insure a car that you are not licensed to drive) and it sorts the issue in a hurry.

Im sure that people will be on to bemoan the "nanny state" menality of such an idea, but something really has to be done to prevent people from driving cars that are beyond their ability and experience. Right now anybody in Ireland can drive the most powerful car that they are able to afford to insure, but and whether they are playing by the rules or not, the reality is that there are insured to drive the car and nobody is really stepping in any asking why teenagers and particularly leaners are (legally or otherwise) allowed to drive serious performance cars provided they can shell out what the insurance company wants from them. Its utter madness and badly needs to be looked at.

This.

100% agree. They've done something like this with motorcycle licenses. Cars could be put into categories. The category could be printed on the motortax disc. Categories could be set by age and by license type. The license type being primary and age being secondary, so age of an inexperienced driver does not trump their license. This would also stop people insuring a micra and driving that type r integra in someone elses name, because their license and/or age would restrict them if they have "drive other cars" on their insurance policy. Could be teated as driving unlicensed if caught, just like a B license holder can't jump into an articulated lorry and go for a spin.

I think age 30 with full license and outside the Novice period of 2 years should be sufficient enough to remove all category restrictions. Kinda like Axa, the way they just wont touch some drivers on some cars until they are 30 with full license.

24-08-2014 12:22pm

djimi wrote: »

Fronting is (and always has been) an issue in this country, but in situations like yours it is only part of a bigger issue. The real issue is that young inexperienced drivers are able to get insured in any capacity on high performance cars. Fronting is bad enough, but if you change the situation around a bit, you could well have a situation where a teenage learner is insured on their fathers M3, and even though Daddy is the primary driver, you still have a learner driving around (perfectly legally) in an M3.

What needs to happen is a restriction needs to be put on the licensing system to limit what people can drive based on their experience. I know we dont use insurance groups in Ireland, but something like that would be a good benchmark; you can only drive up to say group 5 on a learners permit, up to group 10 while on a N plate, and then on an increasing scale based on experience built up (Im only using those groups as an example; I have no idea what cars are actually in each group). This would stop a 17 year old learner driving a type R Integra, because even if they could otherwise find an insurer who would offer them a policy (be it main driver or named), they would not be legally able to drive a group 35 car on a learners permit. Tie this back to insurers (ie make it impossible to insure a car that you are not licensed to drive) and it sorts the issue in a hurry.

Im sure that people will be on to bemoan the "nanny state" menality of such an idea, but something really has to be done to prevent people from driving cars that are beyond their ability and experience. Right now anybody in Ireland can drive the most powerful car that they are able to afford to insure, but and whether they are playing by the rules or not, the reality is that there are insured to drive the car and nobody is really stepping in any asking why teenagers and particularly leaners are (legally or otherwise) allowed to drive serious performance cars provided they can shell out what the insurance company wants from them. Its utter madness and badly needs to be looked at.

Is there any evidence that young drivers crash more often in more powerful cars than small engined cars. Anecdotally I would say most crashes I see ( in particular serious ones on the news etc) it's usually very normal cars being driven not anything performance related. I think people get too hung up on the type of car, you can crash at 100 mph in a micra and infact if you are driving fast you might as well be in something with the handling and brakes to deal with it. Even still when I drive other family members small cars (similar cars to which I started out in) I wonder how I drove like I did in such cars and managed to keep it between the ditches. I was driving nearly as hard on the back roads as I do in my GTI and there is a massive difference in capability.

I don't like the idea of restricting what fully licences driver can drive, similar to how I totally disagree with the N plate.

goz83 · 24-08-2014 3:45pm

Israel Muscular Sauna wrote: »

Is there any evidence that young drivers crash more often in more powerful cars than small engined cars. Anecdotally I would say most crashes I see ( in particular serious ones on the news etc) it's usually very normal cars being driven not anything performance related. I think people get too hung up on the type of car, you can crash at 100 mph in a micra and infact if you are driving fast you might as well be in something with the handling and brakes to deal with it. Even still when I drive other family members small cars (similar cars to which I started out in) I wonder how I drove like I did in such cars and managed to keep it between the ditches. I was driving nearly as hard on the back roads as I do in my GTI and there is a massive difference in capability.

I don't like the idea of restricting what fully licences driver can drive, similar to how I totally disagree with the N plate.

Well there are a lot less parents that will help little Johnny insure a pocket rocket than a "normal car". But I would bet my left testicle that the young motorist behind the wheel of lets say a Toyota MR2 is a tad bit more likely to rag it than the young motorist in a Toyota Yaris. It's like saying "Don't Push The RED Button". So, yeah, I would say they are more likely to crash, but that there are way more driving normal cars.

Why would it be a bad idea to keep an 18 year old (who just passed his test) out of a Nissan 350z or other powerful car? And why are you against the N plate? I think it makes absolute sense for a newly qualified driver to display this. They have just passed their test and have a lot of learning to do.

djimi · 24-08-2014 6:58pm

Israel Muscular Sauna wrote: »

Is there any evidence that young drivers crash more often in more powerful cars than small engined cars. Anecdotally I would say most crashes I see ( in particular serious ones on the news etc) it's usually very normal cars being driven not anything performance related. I think people get too hung up on the type of car, you can crash at 100 mph in a micra and infact if you are driving fast you might as well be in something with the handling and brakes to deal with it. Even still when I drive other family members small cars (similar cars to which I started out in) I wonder how I drove like I did in such cars and managed to keep it between the ditches. I was driving nearly as hard on the back roads as I do in my GTI and there is a massive difference in capability.

I don't like the idea of restricting what fully licences driver can drive, similar to how I totally disagree with the N plate.

Ever seen the cost for a teenager to take out policy in their own name on a performance car? Insurance companies dont pull those figures out of thin air...

Its all to do with risk. You stick an inexperienced driver in a 350bhp performance car and surely nobody in their right mind would argue that they are a massively increased risk compared to the same driver driving a 75bhp 1L car (or whatever those cars are)?

If you want to talk anecdotally, I know of plenty of young drivers who used to wreck all manner of performance cars by acting like morons or simply through pure inability to drive the car that is under their arse. Certainly far more than older/more experienced drivers driving similar cars.

Young driver insurance

Comments