I am 21 years old, have had 4 years of driving under my mums name on all different cars. The reason of so many cars is because i could never afford to insure anything new so had to buy older cars which have always broke down on me.

I have recently purchased a Mazda MX5, it is a 1.6, 18 years old and needs alot of tidying up, I have made this my project but have now found out that I cannot get insured on this £1000 car for less than £3500 under my mums name. This car may be a convertible and classed as a sports car, but it's top speed is less than my 1.2 Fiat Punto and is worth £1000 less than it too. How can this sort of money be justified!? I understand that younger drivers are a higher risk but this is ridiculous!! I have not modified the car in anyway and apparently because it's been imported from japan, even though it is completely English to drive, it has added an extra £2500 to the quote, why is this!!??

I am not a "boy racer" and I havn't had any accidents. I have drove Aston Martins and Ferrari's on track days and my mum is a trainee driving instructor who has never said a bad word about my driving skills.

Every car i seem to buy the insurance seems to cost more than the car itself does! And people are surprised that there are so many uninsured drivers! Its not down to the recession, it's the insurance companies being greedy sods!

All i want to do is enjoy the wind in my hair, a little fun, in an old classic car that I can work on. Is that really so much to ask!?

Joe.

Hi,

Hi I don't seem to comprehend why drivers are allowed to hold a full UK licence at 17 years of age, when insurance companies screw them for ridiculous amounts of money to insure cars which generally are second or third owner vehicles

Clearly you don't understand much at all. It's not ridiculous amounts of money. It is proportionate and very well calculated. They pay the same proportion for the risk that they pose in exactly the same way as you. Owning second or third owner vehicles is not relevant at all. It's not only the Insured's damaged vehicle to account for... it's also the damage which could be caused to third parties.

Surely, it would be more sensible to either treat them like everyone else or raise the age at which you're able to take the driving test.

That would have very little impact. They would still be a new driver although the 'moral hazard' may diminish.

I actually wrote to my local MP and suggested that young drivers should not have high powered engines say greater than 1.0 litre. Consequently, they were not interested saying it would not have any impact at all.

LOL. You have far too much time on your hands. Good response though !

For me 0-60 in 15 seconds is better than giving a 17 year old a 4x4 1.8 litre engine of which was given to one young driver who killed a toddler cos he couldn't control it.

You can kill a person by not going to 60. You can kill a person by rolling a vehicle over them at next to no speed. It's not pertinent here. It's not just the speed it's the maturity, the concentration (or lack of).

NOT all young male drivers are the same.

Experience and records dating back several years would agree with you... but the ones that are causing the problems cause higher payouts to be made and therefore that category suffers.

As for the Pass plus??? I never did that it was part of learning to drive in the first instance and now my son is 19 it doesn't seem to have any impact on his insurance.

Correct. Almost a waste of time other than the experience benefited from taking the extension.

Hi I don't seem to comprehend why drivers are allowed to hold a full UK licence at 17 years of age, when insurance companies screw them for ridiculous amounts of money to insure cars which generally are second or third owner vehicles.Surely, it would be more sensible to either treat them like everyone else or raise the age at which you're able to take the driving test. I actually wrote to my local MP and suggested that young drivers should not have high powered engines say greater than 1.0 litre. Consequently, they were not interested saying it would not have any impact at all. For me 0-60 in 15 seconds is better than giving a 17 year old a 4x4 1.8 litre engine of which was given to one young driver who killed a toddler cos he couldn't control it. NOT all young male drivers are the same. Guidance and responsibility are key factors when undertaking the driving test and I've always enforced this on both my teenagers. As for the Pass plus??? I never did that it was part of learning to drive in the first instance and now my son is 19 it doesn't seem to have any impact on his insurance. Advice try Churchill insurance very good quote for a Pergeout 1.1 Zest 2 under a grand and monthly payments.

I am a parent of 3 teenage sons, two already driving and one looking forward to it so I understand the nightmare of the Young Male Drivers. We have not fronted any policies for our boys. We have encouraged them to buy their own cars as soon as they are 17 and to insure them in their own names on a Provisional Licence. This insurance is generally cheaper as they are never driving the car unsupervised and in the period up until they have passed their test they are already on the way to achieving the 1st year's no claims discount. Try and get the Pass Pluss done before the renewal as will probably bring about an extra discount too.

One in five young drivers would consider illegally “fronting” their car insurance in a bid to save cash even though breaking the law could backfire if they’re caught out. However, there are many legal ways to keep insurance costs in check. Head of motor and home insurance, Steve Sweeney, shows you how…

Click here to read this article