/ Money, Motoring

Young drivers still punished by car insurance prices

Young male driver in car

This past year has seen a record increase in the price of car insurance premiums, with young drivers the worst hit. What needs to be done to ensure that teenagers aren’t hit by unaffordable car insurance?

Many of you don’t appear to have much sympathy for the younger drivers among us. Our previous Conversation on the high cost of car insurance for teenagers prompted responses along the lines of ‘young drivers are their own worst enemies’.

The most common argument offered was that insurance premiums simply reflect the risk based on statistics and that if young drivers want cheaper car insurance, they’ve got to start driving safer.

Record rise in car insurance premiums

But it doesn’t look like that’s happened, with the AA reporting a record price rise due to a surge in accident claims. Young drivers have been especially hit. Premiums for 17-22-year-olds have risen by 47% in one year – the biggest rise since the AA started tracking car insurance in 1994.

Young men are worst off – with the average price of the three cheapest quotes starting from a hefty £2,457 a year. That’s almost double the premium offered to young women, but is apparently due to young men being twice as likely to be involved in an accident. Whatever the cause, it’s quite simply pricing these drivers out of the market.

Which? Convo commenter ‘Mother’ agrees:

“[Car insurance premiums] are quite clearly unaffordable to young people and even their long-suffering parents. Yes, there are bad young drivers and all need to gain experience of the roads, but don’t tar all with the same brush.”

What should be done for young drivers?

Isn’t the knock-on effect of these high cost premiums an increase in uninsured drivers on our roads? There are around 1.5 million uninsured drivers in the UK and most are under 25.

From our previous poll, over half of you think uninsured drivers’ cars should be sold, with this cash going to compensate crash victims. And then there’s 20% of you who think we should confiscate and crush their vehicles! Perhaps a bit harsh. But as ‘Mother’ points out, reducing premiums for young drivers would mean more would choose to be insured.

So what should be done to get these costs down? Perhaps the new and tougher driving licence that includes independent driving will reduce the amount of accidents among young drivers?

Convo commenter Jane Winfield thinks new drivers should only be able to drive cars with a small engine, which is actually one of our tips for young drivers trying to reduce their premium. What do you think should be done to reduce car insurance premiums for young drivers?

Ron Adams says:
15 October 2010

Young Car Drivers & high insurance premiums.
An appliance could be fitted to the car to restrict the maximum speed for 1 or 2 years or restrict them to day light driving for 1 or 2 years.
The main problem is that too many young drivers do not insure their vehicle because of the high cost. If young drivers premiums were reduced we may get most of them taking out insurance hence the total income to the Insurance Companies would be the same. It is a question of economics.


I like a US idea wear a young driver can have a black box in the cars that can record how a accdent has happed this gives them a discount on there insurance. At £275 maybe a good way to keep your NCD in a accedent that is not your fault. To restrict night driving will leave other problems like getting use to driving at night, wot will be counted as night and the rush home.
We also need to stop the use of parental insurance which means that a lot of young drivers are driving without proper insurance

Green Machine says:
16 October 2010

Here we go again, playing the “unfair to all” young motorists card again, what a load of rubbish. Sadly in todays way of life, there are so many issues that affect daily life, it is only sensible that we look at the overall average of issues. the insurance companies have looked at the issues across the board and reflect this in what we have to pay. I do not agree that were I live is a particular problem, but in reality my post code is rife with car crime, so it is only right that this causes a change in my premium, not that i like it, but this is reality. The same must apply to the higher risk accident groups also, and a sad fact is that it is in the younger age group that these accidents occur. Premiums will only come down if they either reduce their accident rates OR they have more severe restrictions on there insurance. for example, as in motorcycle legislation, there should be a restriction on engine capacity or BHP that limits new drivers to lower power engines, or even only allowing group 1 or 2 class vehicles to newly qualified drivers. there are already incentives to new drivers, ie the pass plus courses, but they don’t seem to take this up as options to reduce their premiums, as they say it is too expensive. I am sorry but if you don’t pay the insurance premium and drive, then when you are caught you shoould be forced to pay a monthly amount to the motor insurance bureau of at least twice the average of your expected premium, for the amount of time you are calculated as being uninsured. They days of the £350 fine and a 6 months ban are ridiculus, as it looks like a better option to go without insurance, and if you get caught, then the fine is way less than cost of having insurance. I find this anomaly so wierd. it looks cheaper to get caught than pay insurance. This may sound like a twisted argument, but sadly, this is how its seen by the drivers I have encountered over the years that have been to court for failure to have insurance. Many of whom weem to view the ban as just a piece of paper, yes this means that there future premiums will skyrocket, but many have no intentions of getting insurance in the future so this is of no deterent. Maybe a solution would bee to tag each insurance offender, and if the tag shows a movement in excess of 15 mph, they should be pulled, as it is unlikely they are on foot at the time.

Callum says:
21 April 2011

To ”Green Machine”, the reason not a lot of young drivers take up pass plus is that the insurance discount often doesn’t cover the cost of getting pass plus. Yes, a lot of young drivers are crashing, but the amount is still a minority, none of my friends have crashed, actually a old man crashed in to one of my friends, and he’s more than likely paying ten times less. I have a clean driving licence, I have no interest in modifying cars, or speeding, actually I’ve never speeded, I’ve passed the latest driving tests which recent research shows that most on the road wouldn’t even pass a driving test now (technically they are unsafe in the eyes of the DVLA) but it seems easier for insurance companies to brand me a boy racer. Oh and by the way, lower powered cars are now more expensive to insure in some cases, for example a 1.4 Golf is cheaper for me to insure than a 1.0 Vauxhall Corsa, but we both know the Golf is much more dangerous, it’s not only bigger but more powerful. For some reason my insurance will be about a £1000 cheaper when I’m 21, I haven’t driven since my test, and by the time I’m 21 I would’ve forgotten how to drive and all the safe driving I was taught when learning, how can I be more safe then, than now, when I can remember how to drive safely. And driving without insurance isn’t cheaper, as it’s a immediate 6 point penalty, and you would lose your licence, driving lessons to pass the driving test again would cost more, plus it’s illegal, which would surely go down on your criminal record. You would almost definitely get caught with the Police’s new ANPR car systems. I personally think that insurance providers should bring out more attitude tests, and systems like the co-op have introduced which judges your driving and lowers your premiums the safer you drive.

Robert Miles says:
18 October 2010

Perhaps a solution to the uninsured driver problem and perhaps the road tax licence is to incorporate this into the fuel cost at the pump. A basic 3rd party insurance could be had for all drivers and of course you could top this up under your own scheme. The RTL paid as part of the fuel you buy would be a much fairer scheme. The more you use, the more you pay.

Century Auto says:
1 February 2011

Does your car insurance drop when you turn 25? If that’s so, how much…?


It really depends on which car insurer you go with – If you’ve had no accidents or claims, then of course your insurance is going to reduce.

Insurers will often increase your premium in the second year of your policy, so it always pays to look around for a better deal. You can call up or go onto an insurer’s website to get quotes. Either way, you’ll be asked a series of questions about your age, address and occupation. Online quotes can often be cheaper than ones that are given over the phone.

P Smith says:
18 February 2011

Why is so much focus put on these young drivers. I passed my test at 17 and was competent to drive from day one..by the way i’m 38 and have been on the roads for 21 years. Yes you do get some who drive around as though they’re playing Grand Theft Auto..but then again i’ve witnessed so called grown men and WOMEN doing exactly that.
My nephew is 18 and has started to take driving lessons. He’s on a minimum wage but has managed to save £1000 towards buying his first car. I’ve been looking at Clio’s and Punto 1.2l engines as these are appropriate due to his age and experience. I then decided to search some quotes.. and you can imagine my shock when every quote was around the £6000 mark.
Like i said, he’s on minimum wage, he works hard and is a sensible lad. He doesn’t go into the towns wasting his money on a friday and saturday night..he saves what he earns and does worthwhile things with his money.
So, whats the point of bieng able to drive at 17 if you’ve not got a hope in **** of affording to drive on the roads..unless mummy and daddy are stupid enough to part with that kind of cash.
The reason premiums are so high is because of fraudulent claims..fraudulent suggesting the claims should never go through.
The insurance companies simply pay out without thoroughly investigating, then just add thier losses onto our premiums the following year.
Have you been involved in an accident that wasn’t your fault..thats whats splattered on the tv day in day out. So it comes to pass that even in a minor collision you can bet your life theres gonna be whiplash, hospital appointments, time off work etc etc.
These claims go into thousands and thousands..so i think its about time claims were investigated properly, so that the premiums can get back down to a respectable figure, and allow anyone whos of an age to drive..the opportunity to do just that.
The other thing thats crossed my mind is the thought that maybe the goverment is playing a part in the scandalous price rises. Prices so high in a bid to cut congestion..whereby young drivers are eliminated, others like myself decide to start using the bus..due to the fact that my renewal has rose by £350 even though its the same car, and i have 1 years extra no claims. They’ll also cut congestion because there is undoubtedly going to be an increase of uninsured drivers on the road..who without doubt will get caught and banned.
Anyway, whatever…its all gone to pot.


If you want to drive – pay the price – or wait until you are old enough for the premium to fall to your own affordable levels.

Reminds me of a friend – Bought a new very expensive Lamborghini Myura S – any form of normal car insurance was too expensive. It was the only one in the country.

So he opted to deposit £10,000 (this was in the 1970s) as third party insurance under the road traffic acts. Which meant if he had an accident the costs would be paid from that £10,000. He never had an accident involving a third person so “only” had to pay for damage to his own car in the two accidents he had..

As many have said we need a better system to ensure the 1.25 million uninsured drivers are charged for driving illegally – The new proposal of making it illegal to have a car without insurance anywhere – unless it is declared “off the road” – will make it easier to detect illegal drivers. Though I want “one strike and the car is crushed” rather than a fine for the first time caught.

In addition we do need better methods of ensuring spurious and fraudulent claims are exposed. At the moment the problem is insurance companies opt to pay out of court because it is cheaper. The onus should be on the defendants lawyers to pay up front for the case of personal injuries.

chris says:
17 August 2011

you do no insurance is the biggest scam off all don’t you? I am twenty one work full time mom-sat I only wanted a car to drive to and from work in the real early shifts so i can sleep for longer and i found out i have to wait till im forty to get a decent price? bull###t! believe it or not i have almost lost my life on the road through careless women drivers paying more attention to the txt than the road and they get off easy sexist f###ing government they are just as bad equal rights? they should have to pay high prices to.


It’s definitely a frustrating experience Chris. What do you think the solution should be? Charge everyone more to lower costs for young drivers?

P Smith says:
3 March 2011

If you want to drive – pay the price – or wait until you are old enough for the premium to fall to your own affordable levels.
These would be the words of somebody who i’d expect to be financially sound, or of an age where staggering insurance premiums do not apply.
So if premiums fall at say the age of 25, then this would suggest that a newly passed 25 year old is considered less of a risk than a newly passed 17 year old..c’mon who they trying to kid.
If it is considered that young drivers are such a high risk, then would it not be wise to adjust the age to drive to 25 if this is an age that is considered to show more competence.
Its a bit like saying you can have sex by law at 16, but are only allowed to kiss until you are 21.
The whole point that i am trying to make is this..people should be assessed individually and not as a group. Male drivers are hit harder than female drivers, young male drivers are hit harder than older male drivers..who is to say who possesses more of a risk than the next.
Everybody should have the option to drive upon Britains pot holed crumbling roads if they so desire, where insurance premiums are set at a rate that are affordable to the pocket, and not reflected by the insurance industries inconsistencies.
As i said in my last post..£6000 is a staggering amount to pay on a what if, i would even go as far to say that it is legal theft.


I’m sorry statistics say young male drivers are the riskiest drivers on the road – except those drivers who continually commit offences – That is the real world. It is impossible to decide a premium in advance on a driver without experience – except the statistics show the younger you are the greater risk you are to the insurance company.

Exactly how can you assess an individual inexperienced driver by letter or phone??

As I’ve said in another conversation – If you can’t afford the insurance – you can’t afford to drive.

I had exactly the same problems many years ago – so I drove a motorcycle carefully without incident or offence for five years until I was old enough to qualify for a no claims bonus and reduced premiums – Simple really/ .

mec says:
10 March 2011

not all people commit crimes not all people smoke drink or cause trouble but all new young drivers are penalized due to lack of experience so a kid ****** test at 17 cant insure car tooooo expensive waits couple of years yill older forgets how to drive safely and crashed due to no experience whats the sense in that


In all honesty – If someone “forgets” how to drive in a couple of years – they should not be driving in the first place. I passed my car test four years before I could afford a car – I did not “forget” how to drive in the mean-time.

Dave says:
24 May 2011

In the UK people who cannot drive are at a significant disadvantage economically, for example say a young male has found a job that would allow him to earn in actuality a nominal sum a week; and would gain him financial independence from his parents and allow him socio-economic wellbeing.
Thanks to the graduate problem in the UK he has had to search high and low to find this job; and it’s likely not close to where he lives. He would be earning about 200 a week, public transport is not particularly good where he lives and the necessity of driving is clearly evident, so his parents stump up the money for driving lessons and loan him the money for the car on the condition that he pays for the insurance.
So lessons cost him about 200 quid, the car, a mid 90’s vauxhall corsa about 900 quid, he then goes on the net and gets quoted 6 grand for insurance(Thanks to stock brokers and bankers). He then thinks well I can either keep driving and hope I can get enough money for 3rd party before getting the car crushed by old bill and fork over half my yearly earning, or I can give up trying to get a job and start scrounging off the dole until the price comes down when I’m 21.

Another tale from broken Britain (haw haw haw)


You could of course do what we had to do when we were young – and car insurance was comparatively as expensive – car insurance has ALWAYS been expensive for the yound and inexperienced (due to the high risk). First buy a moped – then a scooter – then a motorcycle – buy third party fire and theft insurance for each as the need arises keeps the price down.. Then after three years or so you will have the experience and the age to afford the insurance – AND – you able to travel all over the place.from day one.

If you can’t afford the insurance – you can’t afford to drive – it is that simple.


That though Richard would rule out most young people under 20 from driving. That’s the problem we’re facing – unless they have parents that can stump up the cash, it’s looking very difficult for young people to afford car insurance.. and as Dave says, without their ability to drive (and at least three years experience) their job opportunities are reduced, meaning they’ll find it hard to get a salary to fund their driving. Vicious circle?


Patrick – I am amazed you can say that.

There is no vicious circle – If you can’t afford the insurance – you can’t afford to drive – simple.

Idiots driving without insurance mean that pedestrians and cyclists and passengers are not covered for injury – and may spend the rest of their lives living on benefits – just because some idiot wants to drive without the responsibility of paying for their insurance,

If you can’t afford the insurance – you can’t afford to drive – simple

If you or your parents don’t want you to ride a two wheeled vehicle – which would mean you CAN drive to jobs at a very much cheaper affordable insurance and legally – There are only two legal answers – DON’T DRIVE OR PAY the insurance. Frankly I cannot see how it would rule out any people under 20 – they can ride motorcycles and build up their No Claims Discount with driving experience – and – ride around looking for jobs all at the same time – Parking motorcycles is easier and cheaper than parking a car.

If you can’t afford the insurance – you can’t afford to drive – simple

As I’ve said – the young have ALWAYS had comparatively expensive premiums – I had to pay more too – because of the increased risks. So I rode a cycle then a motorcycle because that was the only insurance that I could afford. Why should the young of today be treated as a special case?

If you can’t afford the insurance – you can’t afford to drive – simple


Richard, I would never suggest that young people should drive without insurance. Not only is that illegal, but it’s one of the main reasons why insurance prices are so high.

My suggestion of the vicious circle (and what I believe Dave is alluding to) goes something like this:

If you can’t afford the insurance – you can’t afford to drive – if you can’t afford to drive – your job opportunities are limited – so you can’t afford the insurance – and you can’t afford to drive.

This comes from a non-driver. It depends on where you live and I’m sure there are ways around it, but there is no doubt that job opportunities are limited if you can’t drive.

Cameron says:
18 July 2011

So if the reason for the high insurance prices is actually because they are a higher risk on the roads, why would you suggest to use a more dangerous mode of transport? All this argument about insurance prices for young drivers being down to how they drive, isn’t right. The simple fact is, if I was an 18 year old, with 1 years NCB for a motorcycle, and 1 NCD on a car, my insurance would still be more than say, a 34 year old with no NCB, and 2 previous accident in the last 3 years. Yet who is the bigger risk? In the real world, my manager is 24, has 2 years no claims, but 9 points. Yet his insurance is about £1200 pounds less than it would be for me on the same car. Justify that one.



Sorry – you’ve missed the point – What I said was I drove a motorcycle because it was the only affordable transport available. Incidentally I drove one for 15 years without problems – though several of my friends died.

Insurance premiums are set PRO actively – not RETRO actively – so are set according to statistics of what has happened BEFORE. They are set according to age groups (and used to be sex too)

Statistically if you are 18 you are more likely to have an accident than a person of 34 whatever you think – so premiums are raised – though the rise is mitigated by NCD.

In addition one can only truly compare premiums if all only one factor is different. – Age – Jobs – address – car – driving experience and convictions all adjust the premium. So if you have two males in the same job living next door to each other in similar houses – the only difference being age – comparisons can be made . If the age difference is large say 50 years the premiums will probably be the same (premiums rise as you get over 60 or so ) If the age difference is small say 5 years the premiums will probably be similar (premiums based on age group). If the age difference is medium say 25 years the premiums will probably be different (premiums based on experience and age).

In addition accidents and convictions bias the premium

As I said – I rode a bike – then a motorcycle (to gain NCD) then a car because car premiums were so high. I understood clearly why this was so (the risk factors)

What I don’t understand why so many now can’t or won’t understand that risk factors haven;t changed but want premiums artificially low for young drivers – though they are still the highest risk.


I rode a small motorcycle when I was a student because I could not afford the costs of buying and insuring a car. I was involved in an accident with a car driver who admitted responsibility. I received compensation but I was injured for life. Motorcycles and protective clothing have improved but being on two wheels is a risky business on today’s busy roads, though it is a lot safer on open roads and great fun in decent weather.

Anyone who drives without insurance deserves to have their vehicle crushed and be banned from driving. I think there is a case for insurers adjusting premiums so that third party insurance is more affordable for young drivers who have not had the opportunity to build up a no-claims bonus. After all, individuals and couples without children subsidise those with families.

diane936 says:
15 June 2011

I found it a massive pain when it came to locating low-cost insurance for my 17 year old daughter, If i recall rightly the very best quote i got was from swift cover also i found a few tips that might help you out at [URL=http://www.carinsurancefor17yearolds.me.uk/car-insurance-for-17-year-olds/]car insurance for 17 year olds[/URL] but im positive if you keep searching around you will come across a policy thats half reasonable.

luke says:
21 July 2011

F*****g b******s who drives like idiots, smoking drugs in the car and listening to crazy loud music, because of you i can’t insure my car!


Hello Luke, thanks for your comment – but please watch the language. Check out our Commenting Guidelines if you’re unsure.

Dave D says:
1 September 2011

To Richard.
I have no idea how old (or embittered) you are, but your arguments do not stand up to fair and reasonable scrutiny.
As a lad I did all the things you suggested as regards motorcycling before driving. But the step up in premium costs were then (about) three times from about £150 on to £450. I don’t know the equivalent in modern terms, but the £5000+ being asked is utterly ludicrous.
I still ride a motorcycle, but I promise you, it is a helluva lot more dangerous than when I rode 30 years ago… not through any lack of care on my part but inevitable careless drivers. I usually can count on 5, yes 5, near misses each time I have to ride through London.
I don’t know if you have any children, but I love mine far too much to want to them facing this option. It is not a risk. It is a virtual inevitability that they will have some form of accident.
I cannot believe that a more considered alternative, such as compulsory basic training certificates, speed restrictors and possible post-11pm curfews should become more relevant in tempering the risk to road user and insurance provider alike.


A fair and reasonable scrutiny? – Don;t make me laugh!!

Insurance companies have a duty to their shareholders to make a profit. So they make an assessment of the risk you present – then make an offer based on their assessment – you do not have to accept it – try someone else.

It is the reason why so many insurance companies either refuse to make any offer for young drivers – or make it so high that you have to refuse.. That is not utterly ludicrous – it is good business sense – they don’t want your “business”.

Finally if I don’t want my child to ride a motorcycle – I’d pay his car insurance premium for him – What I wouldn’t do is to consider an insurance company “utterly ludicrous” because it wants to charge a premium based on their previous experiences. Car driving is a privilege not a right.


Every case is different. But it’s unreasonable to allow someone onto the roads under supervision on a provisional licence (like my son at the moment) on an £800 a year premium, only then to ‘reward’ him when he passes his test with a £4000 premium (which is what;s being shown at the moment). He has built a small business while still at school (he’s in 6th Form) to fund the car purchase – a sub-1000cc Micra – and I fork out for the insurance. When he passes his test he wants to be able to visit his (local) clients (he builds websites) for face-to-face meetings, as is reasonable to expect. But he will have to earn a massive amount of money before that becomes even a possibility with the current premium hike. He has been driving off-road since he was 13, and can handle a vehicle (including quite large ones) exceptionally well, so ‘all’ he needs to do is learn to cope with other drivers on the road. He passed his theory without dropping a mark last week. Surely, when he has passed his test (which he hasn’t taken yet) he has ‘proved’ to the government’s satisfaction he has the ability to drive safely on our roads. If he’s then penalised so heavily by these insurance premiums he will never gain further experience to make him an experienced and good driver. The Co-Op (I think) has a scheme where they fit a black box into the car and it records driving styles. If this would keep his (when passed) premiums down I would happily fork out for one of those as the premiums would (should!) then reflect his driving style and not be affected by the driving styles of others. Would it also be an idea to consider limiting driving hours for youngsters? However, as one other correspondent has already commented, it’s not easy to get to a job without your own transport, and where we live, if my son got a job in the next town he could not get there by public transport, even for a 10am start – the public transport infrastructure does not provide a service in that direction. And to really put a spanner in the works, I have been in a number of towns round the UK (I travel quite a lot) where the ‘boy-racers’ are actually outdone in their antics and bravado by the ‘girl-racers’. I think the insurance companies are pulling a fast one when they say the statistics point to males. My experience is that it’s pretty even these days, but when there’s a crash the worst ones tend to be because females have ‘panicked’ rather than because the males are ‘showing off’.

Dave says:
5 October 2011

Richard. In an ideal world i would totally agree with you, but you also have to consider that even when commuting in a car you are putting your life at risk, and mopeds and small motorbikes are not safe at all. It makes you wonder – that for the sake of money, kids lives might potentiall be lost. In reality it´s big business- and that, in our society is more important then lives; sad but true.

Clare says:
16 November 2011

As a parent of a young male just about to embark on driving lessons, i have been looking and estimating the cost of car insurance for my son. I was staggered at the huge charges being requested by these companies. I know young in experinced drivers are a higher risk but they are certainly not the category that is causing death by dangerous driving or drink driving.

With Unemployment hitting the highest rates today of over 1 million people i think that some of this is due to the fact there is no enthusiasm in the young now. They have no motivation, they can learn to drive but then cannot afford to drive, They could have more job oppotunities open to them if they were able to drive and this having a car to pay for would provide some with the motivation they need to find work as they would have a car to pay for.

This issue is also causing a social seperation. It sends out a message to our young that you can only have insurance if you are priveledged enough to have wealthy parents. Out MP’s should be taking this on and working with insurnace companies to find a way to reduce insurance costs.

I am sure we could put strong enough deterants in place to keep the younger drivers at a slower and more careful pace in their cars.

Alison says:
1 December 2011

I think that starting with high premiums is saying guilty before proven innocent. Why not start out by having a limit on engine size to say 1.0 or 1.2 litre and more sensible premiums for men AND women. That way you stop the really rich youngsters jumping in a high powered car because they can afford the stupid premium and consequently crashing because they can’t control themselves or the car, as well as encouraging youngsters to drive safer to keep hold of the lower premium. BUT if they do have an accident that is proven to be their fault, then slap them with the higher premiums that the bad drivers deserve.


Sorry – it has been proved time and time and time again that young drivers are most likely to have and cause accidents costing the insurance companies money – Insurance companies are not charities they are businesses – They calculate premiums pro-actively not retroactively.so they look at various factors in your application and charge according to their previous experiences of the group you belong to. It is exactly the same for ALL types of insurance – whether car or house or whatever.

Hate to point out the discount is not a no blame discount – but a no CLAIM discount – So if you are involved in an accident and a claim is made – you will be charged. Insurance is now the same for men and women

Christian says:
3 January 2012

The price of car insurance for new drivers is a complete joke.
Unless you get your parents to pay your insurance or help you with the cost you cant drive its just too expensive. I learnt to drive at 17 but never took my test as insurance was so expensive so left it until later when a car was more of a necessity Im now 21 and on my first lesson after not driving for 4 years I was goo enough to book my test and just needed to brush up on a few things.
Although waiting for years car insurance has now gone up even more! and I am now paying more for insurance than what i would have at the age of 17 its madness.
Personally I think the driving age should be made to 18 as people are a little more level headed at that age. As for people on here saying restrict young drivers as to what time they can drive at night is ridiculous I am still young and with my job i finish at midnight or 3am so restricting times of driving is just the most stupid idea i could think of.

One last thing there is an insurance company called INTHEBOX the put a black box in your car and monitor your driving the safer you drive the lower your insurance

Dave says:
7 December 2012

Really, this is ridiculous
When my son turned 17, he took a part time job whilst still at school to help pay for his car, which he duly bought. As a provisional driver he insured his own car, fully comprehensive in his own name for £1400. He took lessons and drove his own car under supervision, gained 100% in his theory test, and passed his driving test first time with one minor fault. Now we come to insure his car for him with a full licence and are greeted with premiums going upwards from £8500! There are no negative aspects to his application other than he is 17 and just passed his test. How are any parents, let alone a student, trying to gain a better education for his future, expected to pay such amounts?

We have gone from elation at him passing his test to devastation at the fact we will now have to sell his car.

This is my third child to pass their driving test, the other two, whilst the premiums were not cheap, were at least manageable. Are our young drivers generally getting so much worse over the last five years that premiums have to rise so much? If so, someone needs to take a serious look at the we we instruct and examine them.

Whilst I accept there are those out there who flaunt the law and drive recklessly, young and old, but should the emphasis not be on rectifying that problem, rather than taking the easy way out and punishing the vast majority who drive safely and responsibly? My son loves driving, he loves his car, polishes it regularly, would never do anything that would risk damaging it and yet he is effectively barred from driving it.

I despair!

Lydia says:
6 August 2014

I’m not sure what I am supposed to do?

I work self employed and absolutely need transport.
I can’t afford to hire because i’m 23.
I can’t ride a scooter because often work is in other cities.
I can’t public transport because I need to be at obscure locations before 7am.
And I most CERTAINLY cannot buy … because my insurance quote is £4800-6000!

Its insane. I’m doing a job that is normally being done by 26-30 year olds, who can all afford car insurance. I’m going to be priced out of my career simply because of my age. Maybe I should have been a dropout for a few years first?

The other factor is that I live in Hackney. But if I’m working in a different part of the country everyday, I really can’t live outside of London. Plus I put my life first.

Please someone tell me what I’m supposed to do? I have 20 days until the next job starts, all in locations I can’t get to.

maureen Gee says:
24 November 2014

just to warn young drivers to watch car insurance my grandson passed his test and was running round in a oldest car was insured with Hasting direct he was insured as a student, he then with the help of his parents saved and bought a 2009 Ford Fiesta costing £6,400 he also got a job as a delivery man with a pizza company and left being a student, when he bought the new car he phoned Hasting insurance told them about all his circumstances that had changed payed the diffrents, on Saturday 25th Nov 2014 on a very foggy night I,m afraid to say he had a accident delivering pizza and the car is a write off, now HASTING DIRECT are refusing to pay any compensation saying he did not declare any of this information all this was done over the phone so he has not got any proof of what he said ,he now has ended up penniless with nothing, hope you can pass this on to all young driver’s when using the phone to do their insurance, he say’s the next time he does any business over the phone he’s going to record all THANK YOU HASTING INSURANCE FOR MY GRANDSON BEING PENNILESS

Nick Reeves says:
19 April 2015

One of the other factors to reduce insurance costs is how long you have had your licence, iv been driving for 11 years and my mother has had a licence for 25 years she hasnt driven in over 10 years and she gets an insurance quote on mu catr for 200.00 I have been driving for 11 years without fault and my insurance quote was 700.00 I agree smaller than some of the quotes talked about but this logic from the insurance company is flawed. How can young drivers obtain experience, gain no claims bonus, or build up time on there licence if its to expensive to drive in the first place. Older drivers in my area cause the most acidents not young people, older people drive far slower than speed limits resulting in ques, overtaking, slower reaction times and thier insurance is between 200 – 600 pounds also no logi. Insurance companies are a business but when the goverment make it illegal to drive without insurance there is an obligation to make sure the people are not ripped off or defrauded. There is something dodgy in the air and I smell money!