Gareth wrote:MGF wrote:Gareth wrote:By someone being willing to pay for it? The control is more obvious when it is the young driver that has to pay for the insurance, (assuming it is a typical young driver that has the typical lack of wealth).
So the insurance system doesn't effectively control what cars young people drive. Parents do. I remember a 19 year old being quoted £3000 to insure an Escort RS Turbo nearly twenty years ago. Father insured it with him as a named driver.
That's a rather absolutist point of view, effectively ignoring how the situation is for most young drivers. Are you really saying that because a small minority have direct or indirect access to sufficient wealth then the general point is of no value?
ROG wrote:Why bother reducing the engine size for new passes - a 1000cc can be just as dangerous as a 3000cc in the wrong hands.
MGF wrote:You must be aware that if a young person's car is insured in their parent's name and they are added as a named driver the cost will be considerably less than if the young person is the policyholder.
martine wrote:TripleS wrote:ESP: a system for reducing your risk of a shunt, but ensuring that those you do have will be nastier than they might otherwise have been.
Explain?
waremark wrote:....I think low powered cars are in many ways more difficult to drive than more powerful ones.
Gareth wrote:MGF wrote:You must be aware that if a young person's car is insured in their parent's name and they are added as a named driver the cost will be considerably less than if the young person is the policyholder.
If the young person is declared to be the main driver, the cost is no less and probably more if a parent is also covered. If the young person is actually the main driver but it is not declared then that's fraud, and the insurance companies are particularly hot on that these days.
waremark wrote:The insurance system effectively controls what cars young people can drive.
daz6215 wrote:Im sure we'll see an introduction of this in the near future!
http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=232411
zadocbrown wrote:daz6215 wrote:Im sure we'll see an introduction of this in the near future!
http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=232411
I'm not sure we will, and I don't think we should. Such measures are just politicaly expedient meddling which will be of limited effectiveness, and which fail to address the root of the issue.
They are also discriminatory; and they reinforce the damaging view that young people are inherently bad drivers whereas older drivers magically become 'good' drivers, without making any constructive suggestions as to how people can achieve this transition more successfully.
Q: When are they going to grown up?
A: When we stop treating them as children.
zadocbrown wrote:daz6215 wrote:Im sure we'll see an introduction of this in the near future!
http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=232411
I'm not sure we will, and I don't think we should. Such measures are just politicaly expedient meddling which will be of limited effectiveness, and which fail to address the root of the issue.
zadocbrown wrote:They are also discriminatory; and they reinforce the damaging view that young people are inherently bad drivers whereas older drivers magically become 'good' drivers, without making any constructive suggestions as to how people can achieve this transition more successfully.
MGF wrote:zadocbrown wrote:daz6215 wrote:Im sure we'll see an introduction of this in the near future!
http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=232411
I'm not sure we will, and I don't think we should. Such measures are just politicaly expedient meddling which will be of limited effectiveness, and which fail to address the root of the issue.
What do you mean by 'politically expedient meddling'? What is the root of the issue and why should the root be addressed rather than other aspects of the issue?
MGF wrote:Older drivers don't 'magically become 'good drivers''. They gain experience which makes them safer. Younger drivers will become safer with experience. What do you think we could substitute experience with?
MGF wrote:The article refers to 'novice' drivers not necessarily young drivers so I am not sure why restrictions would be discriminatory.
Do you think discrimination based on age and gender by insurane comanies should be made illegal as well? Or is discrimination by private companies acceptable and discrimination by parliament wrong?
MGF wrote:Older drivers don't 'magically become 'good drivers''. They gain experience which makes them safer. Younger drivers will become safer with experience. What do you think we could substitute experience with?
jbsportstech wrote:Yes and as far back 1966 when Tom Wisdom wrote high performance driving he discussed drivers and types of driver and his view of them..
He makes the statement that a slow driver who is not concetrating and thinks they safe because of their lack of speed can very dangerous.
I was talking to someone with reference to roadcraft 2007 working party and there was a lady who has doctorates coming out of her ears in physcology etc and she was asked to write a chapter on physcology of driving. She spent months and put her work in front of the working party. It was so far off the mark it was thrown out, so I am told.
Its this type of person who comes up with these rediculous ideas! lower speedlimits do not make up for poor concentration and observation in my mind.
I know someone who has attended these roadsafety commity meetings where people decided how the masses should drive. The key thing that stuck in this persons mind was watching them drive out of the carpark. It was clear to them these people didn't have the first idea about advanced driving and had higher than normal risk profiles to use their termanology. Effectively they are legislating against their own poor driving habits and behavour
vonhosen wrote:
Dr Lisa Dorn was credited (in the 2007 edition) for her adaption of Chapter 1.
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests