In my experience buying a car with the smallest engine is not the best way to get cheap insurance, this is because more have been crashed by younger drivers simply because they are the most common cars owned by our group, my first car 3 years ago at 17 was a Land Rover Defender which was 2.5tdi which i insured for £1200, my freinds at the time had 1.1polos and 106's and were paying more for their insurance than me, i now have a renault laguna 2.0 16v which i insured at 19 with 1 years NCB for £710 which was still less than a 1.1 106, a friend of mine at the time had a 3.2 Jaguar XJ6 insured for £800 (with 2 previous claims and 3 points for speeding on his licence) which was less than the 1.1 polo he had eventually got rid of, the key is to get a car not commonly crashed by someone your age, i.e. old mans saloons. Also quote many different cars online, for example a 1.6 rover 200 is cheaper to insure than a 1.4..weird i know but it is, because its based on statistics and the 1.4 is crashed more often. Also you should check out www.parkers.com , on the reviews section you can check out most cars, it'll tell you top speed, BHP, 0-60, MPG and insurance group, which can vary within an engine size by 2-3 points, for example a ford focus 2.0 zetec ESP is group 8, but a 2.0 Ghia is group 10 (same BHP etc) ...so by choosing your car carefully you can save alot of money and end up with a better car!

In respect to AK88 who aparently isn't a boy racer or show off yet owns a civic type R (possibly the wankest & most expesive car to insure in the world, i have quoted a toyota supra twin turbo for less than those!) with exhaust and other mods!?! Its all very well to lie to get your premiums down, and you will get away with most crashes, except for if you ran someone over, killed them and get made to pay £3,000,000 in damages (a normal amount) with invalid insurance, you could be finacially crippled for the rest of your life!!

So in summary dont assume that becuase a car is small with a tiny engine or even becuase it has a low insurance group that the insurace will be cheap, because it probably wont be, research lots before you buy, keep notes of exact model names inc. letters i.e LX or Ghia and their cost to insure. If you fell you must lie to lower your quote do it on things that you couldn't have forseen like you annual mileage! So buy a car that isnt commonly claimed on by someone of your age and not commonly stolen in your area i.e. not Civic TypeR  : P

Good Luck!

Dear RGB

I deal with young drivers on a daily basis and wish to pass on my views on Pass Plus to members of the public reading this.

It is satisfying to know that the Government are putting monies to good use in subsidising the Pass Plus.  Anything that makes our roads a safer place to be is welcomed.  There are now more cars on the road than ever and cars have become more powerful.

Any time spent on the roads is going to be beneficial to the driver in gaining experience.  Airline pilots have to complete 'x' number of hours in the air to qualify.  The basis of this being that the more time spent flying, the more experienced one becomes.  This principle applies the same on the roads.  Country driving, night driving and motorway driving are all aspects which are not covered during routine driving lessons but are covered under the Pass Plus Scheme.

I think this is money well spent.  I agree that some companies accept Pass Plus and some don't.  With the companies that do, a minimum of  £200  off the total premium on his/her first insurance in his/her name can often be saved, thus more than justifying the cost of the Pass Plus.  Companies offering the discount are, in the main, competitive on young driver premiums.

Kind regards

paduthie:

hi RGB

I have to say Pass Plus is not a rip off at all my daughter did hers 3 years ago and my son 5 months ago i think it should be made compulsory for all young drivers you cant drive on motorways until you pass your test Pass plus supplys a good few hours experience on them i know i have helped to make sure my kids are as safe as they can be on our busy roads.

The other main point i wanted to say was that pass plus is subsidised by the local councils my son had 3 hours country and night driving and 6 hours motorway driving plus a theory lesson very very useful all for £20 yes £20 dont tell me pass plus is a rip off

Pass plus is a rip off... (there, I told you again!)

However, my stance on Pass Plus has changed somewhat since the above posts and I have expressed my change in opinion on another thread.

It's good to see the government subsidising something useful, oppsed to another Mosque for all the UK and US hating 'citizens'... so, there's another bonus.

However, it may give a few hours experience on the road, but it does not make them a safer driver nor a more 'experienced' one. For insurance purposes, some companies will accept this form of qualification upto 2 years. Some wont.

All the best.

hi RGB

I have to say Pass Plus is not a rip off at all my daughter did hers 3 years ago and my son 5 months ago i think it should be made compulsory for all young drivers you cant drive on motorways until you pass your test Pass plus supplys a good few hours experience on them i know i have helped to make sure my kids are as safe as they can be on our busy roads.

The other main point i wanted to say was that pass plus is subsidised by the local councils my son had 3 hours country and night driving and 6 hours motorway driving plus a theory lesson very very useful all for £20 yes £20 dont tell me pass plus is a rip off

sam_sgs:

I'm 18 now and I've been looking for cheap insurance for several months now. I've learn that it's non-existant for new drivers.

It's not non-existant at all. Insurance is never cheap for young drivers, and with good reason. I am a young driver myself but I appreciate that I have to pay more because 'our kind' make higher and more frequent claims.

I have a car but no insurance. Why? Insurance in this country is DAYLIGHT ROBBERY, subsidised by the government! 

That comment can only be described as 'nobbish'.

A nissan micra 1.0l. Probably the smallest engine you can find. Yet the insurance for it costs over £3000! Seven times as much as the cost of the car itself. I really need a car to get around, NOT to "pimp" it up and drive at rediculous speeds. Insurance should depend on the car not the driver, in my opinion. If you're going to assess the driver's ability to drive, don't stereotype! I passed my driving test first time with NO minor faults. I'm a safe and sensible driver, and I don't even drink, let alone drink and drive.

You're either severely over-exaggerating, have a 'hidden past', live in an undesirable insurance area or you're looking in the wrong places.

I know for a fact that most of my friends who are new drivers either drive without insurance or give the insurance people false information. I prefer not to do that as it's against the law, but I don't blame them.

The sad fact is, even if they have given false information, the insurance company will still pay out a claim, and it's difficult to prosecute. However, the ones that drive with no insurance will soon pay the price when they are caught. 6 points on their licence and then when they do try and insure a car and do it 'legit', they will have to pay even more as they will have an IN10... one of the codes that produce a high loading on to the insurance. Bit of a vicious circle but please come back to let us know when one is caught.

I'm waiting till I'm 21 to drive my car. Because hey! If you don't drive for 3 years, we'll make your insurance lower because you're older! Experience? Pshh, who needs experience? As long as youre not 17-18, therby excluding the fact that you are a drunken yob who only wants a car as a fashion accessory and roll round pumping your crappy music through the neighbourhood.

You're waiting til you're 21 for what? To drive, or actually insure the car you currently drive without insurance? As a young driver, you are more likely to be 'pulled' by the police. When you do, and get prosecuted for no insurance (and the car may be crushed), by the time you are 21... you will still be paying the same (or higher) than now because of the conviction. I wouldn't bother not declaring the conviction either, because the insurance company has access to this information and your policy will be void.

Boy racer? What!? Since when did a nissan micra constitute a race car?

No-one said it did.

Insurance brokers rob you.

Crap and ill-educated comment!

The government helps them out by ordering you to either get robbed or use public transport (which by the way is robbery aswell).

Another crap and ill-educated comment!

The statistians also help them out by giving them all the excuses they need in the form of rediculous "statistics".

Oh; and another one please, Carol!

The yobs help them out by giving them yet more excuses to rob you. And the older drivers have absolutely no sympathy for you because you're just another little kid whos mission in life is to put them in danger.

You are putting them in danger, by not taking out the insurance you fool.

"Guilty until proven innocent".

Judging by your comments... quite rightly so!

Here is a quote from a website

The worst age group statistically are for the male teenagers. This group not only have a higher claims frequency but also have more expensive claims. Average loss ratios for insurers writing this business is 120%, which makes them a highly unattractive risk prospect.

The loss ratio means that for every £100 insurers take in premiums they have to pay out £120 in claims.

Yes it is highway robbery - the young male drivers are paying substantially LESS than they should and are ripping off the insurance companies.

I'm 18 now and I've been looking for cheap insurance for several months now. I've learn that it's non-existant for new drivers.

I have a car but no insurance. Why? Insurance in this country is DAYLIGHT ROBBERY, subsidised by the government! 

A nissan micra 1.0l. Probably the smallest engine you can find. Yet the insurance for it costs over £3000! Seven times as much as the cost of the car itself. I really need a car to get around, NOT to "pimp" it up and drive at rediculous speeds. Insurance should depend on the car not the driver, in my opinion. If you're going to assess the driver's ability to drive, don't stereotype! I passed my driving test first time with NO minor faults. I'm a safe and sensible driver, and I don't even drink, let alone drink and drive.

I know for a fact that most of my friends who are new drivers either drive without insurance or give the insurance people false information. I prefer not to do that as it's against the law, but I don't blame them.

I'm waiting till I'm 21 to drive my car. Because hey! If you don't drive for 3 years, we'll make your insurance lower because you're older! Experience? Pshh, who needs experience? As long as youre not 17-18, therby excluding the fact that you are a drunken yob who only wants a car as a fashion accessory and roll round pumping your crappy music through the neighbourhood.

Boy racer? What!? Since when did a nissan micra constitute a race car?

Insurance brokers rob you. The government helps them out by ordering you to either get robbed or use public transport (which by the way is robbery aswell). The statistians also help them out by giving them all the excuses they need in the form of rediculous "statistics". The yobs help them out by giving them yet more excuses to rob you. And the older drivers have absolutely no sympathy for you because you're just another little kid whos mission in life is to put them in danger.

"Guilty until proven innocent".

Indispensable:

RGB:

Agreed.

However, this is going to sound morally wrong and I would never get in the car with somebody drunk... but I'd rather be in a car driven by a drunk 18 year old than a sober 'Senior Citizen'.

Hey RGB

Think of it this way.  If you're in a car driven by a drunken 18 year old you can bet he'll be maxing it out, trying to take bends at 80 mph.  If you're in a car driven by a sober senior citizen you'll be driving at around 20 mph, even if you're on the motorway LOL, thus more likely to survive - surely. 

However, not sure I'd get in with any.  Not been on one in years but - I think I'd prefer to take the bus!!!

Indi,

LOL... you've just answered that yourself... "... senior citizen... driving at around 20 mph, even if you're on the motorway... thus more likely to survive"

No Indi, the senior citizen is more likely to be the cause of, and be involved in a major accident! The 18 year old would still be more alert even after 10 pints.

RGB:

Agreed.

However, this is going to sound morally wrong and I would never get in the car with somebody drunk... but I'd rather be in a car driven by a drunk 18 year old than a sober 'Senior Citizen'.

Hey RGB

Think of it this way.  If you're in a car driven by a drunken 18 year old you can bet he'll be maxing it out, trying to take bends at 80 mph.  If you're in a car driven by a sober senior citizen you'll be driving at around 20 mph, even if you're on the motorway LOL, thus more likely to survive - surely. 

However, not sure I'd get in with any.  Not been on one in years but - I think I'd prefer to take the bus!!!

Agreed.

However, this is going to sound morally wrong and I would never get in the car with somebody drunk... but I'd rather be in a car driven by a drunk 18 year old than a sober 'Senior Citizen'.

There's a reason they get a bus pass!

if you are breathalyised the following day and the alcohol level in ur blood in over the 80 limit, then you will be guilty of drink driving, even if you don't feel drunk. and quite correctly. driving hung over is hardly driving with full concentration levels!

whether or not it's 20% of teenagers driving when drunk, sensationalism aside, it's still a fact that teenagers drink more, have less experience, lack maturirty, and take far more risks. not all do, but insurance is risk assessment at the end of the day. i'm 25, and at 18-21 i'd probably be arguing how unfair it is etc, but hindsight is a beauitful thing! at 25 i'm far safer than if i had passed at 18

Yeah true, can't see too many teenagers exercising restraint when it comes to alcohol, but thats not the point. I was pointing out the sensationalism in the article. It's leading people to think "OMG 20% of teenagers drive drunk". Not true at all.  

And as the "quote" on the right side of the BBC page says it's not just 'the youth of today' who are guilty of driving under the influence. If anything, i feel it's become more of a stigma? I personally don't drive after any alcohol now, let alone when i was a teenager (i'm only 21 though LOL), just because of the the way i feel it impairs my driving.

What do we feel the way forward is? Zero tolerence for anyone under the age of 21 with regards to alcohol? What happens if you've been out the night before and still have some in your blood the next day, then?

JonnyAllen:

NO, NO, NO.

I can see why you have got confused, i think the BBC are too. It says  1 in 5 "under the influence of alcohol". This could be one pint, one shot, one sip, one alco pop (or more of course). It doesn't necessarily mean drunk, or over the limit.

Hi Jonny

Looking at it realistically, how many teenagers do you know who have just ONE pint, ONE shot, ONE sip, ONE alcopop?   LOL.  I was there once myself and could never have gone out to drink ONE (legless every time)! LOL.  But I always took a taxi.  Certainly, I'm sure a very small percentage of the survey of teenagers had maybe only had ONE. 

I have a twin brother/sister, both aged 18 and when they go out and are driving, I'm very pleased to say they abstain totally and I would like to think that there are many other teenagers who do so.

To quote Jools Townsend, head of education at Brake, from the aforementioned,  "Every day young drivers kill and seriously injure themselves and others through a deadly combination of inexperience and taking risks like drink and drug driving."  Young drivers need 100% concentration on the roads due to their lack of experience.  It has been proven that just one drink can adversely affect concentration and really, teenagers should not drink or take any drugs at all when driving.

NO, NO, NO.

I can see why you have got confused, i think the BBC are too. It says  1 in 5 "under the influence of alcohol". This could be one pint, one shot, one sip, one alco pop (or more of course). It doesn't necessarily mean drunk, or over the limit.

Typical media sensationalism, and people fall for it.

northern:

just copy and paste and delete the gaps!

Hi Shark

Thought you'd have known that!  LOL.  MS don't allow links or strings of text so you have to put gaps in for them to appear on the forum. 

I've just had a look and it does exist and makes interesting reading.