Young Males, Unfair Blame!

conneem-TT

The 2002 E200 is a 1.8l supercharged and will do ~142mph according to carfolio.

A similar vinatge 1.4l Clio will do nearly 120mph.

Anan1

RoverJames wrote: »

True on both accounts but I can never comprehend how young students finance stuff so I though it no harm asking, sometimes they even admit that Daddy is financing stuff.

This is Motors, maybe try PI for that one.:)

dak

OP.. a quote from one of your other posts !

Quote
"It really gets to me everytime i'm on a motorway safetly cruising at 140-160kph and you spend more time looking out for guards and have to be prepared for the "are you crazy speech?"
End of Quote


If you think driving at 100mph or 25mph over the Motorway speed limit is safe then I don't think you can feel unfairly targeted by the Media. The limits are there for a reason. It might feel safe to speed in a good car but its the stopping bit that causes accidents .

The shortest stopping distance with a good car, good brakes , good tyres and an alert driver on a dry road at 75mph is approx 107 metres and at 100mph in the dry it is approx 136 metres approx 29 metres longer.

As the average length of a car is just over 4 metres your additional stopping distance is just over 7 an a half car lengths longer .

In the wet these distances increase dramatically with 75mph stopping distance going to 172 metres.

Theanswers

dak wrote: »

OP.. a quote from one of your other posts !

Quote
"It really gets to me everytime i'm on a motorway safetly cruising at 140-160kph and you spend more time looking out for guards and have to be prepared for the "are you crazy speech?"
End of Quote


If you think driving at 100mph or 25mph over the Motorway speed limit is safe then I don't think you can feel unfairly targeted by the Media. The limits are there for a reason. It might feel safe to speed in a good car but its the stopping bit that causes accidents .

The shortest stopping distance with a good car, good brakes , good tyres and an alert driver on a dry road at 75mph is approx 107 metres and at 100mph in the dry it is approx 136 metres approx 29 metres longer.

As the average length of a car is just over 4 metres your additional stopping distance is just over 7 an a half car lengths longer .

In the wet these distances increase dramatically with 75mph stopping distance going to 172 metres.

You may be right, but then more money should be spent trying to get people to slow down. Adults included!

But like I said earlier I dont speed.

dak

Theanswers wrote: »

You may be right, but then more money should be spent trying to get people to slow down. Adults included!

But like I said earlier I dont speed.

How can you say that when you admit to cruising at 160kph or 100mph on a motorway and looking out for guards rather than concentrating on traffic around you

Sorry that is speeding !

Theanswers

Theanswers wrote: »

You may be right, but then more money should be spent trying to get people to slow down. Adults included!

But like I said earlier I dont speed.

lol, either you speed or you post drivel ........

It really gets to me everytime i'm on a motorway safetly cruising at 140-160kph and you spend more time looking out for guards and have to be prepared for the "are you crazy speech?"

that must have been in Ireland if you were looking out for guards.

Here's the post fyi.......
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=67419740#post67419740

chops1990

Look - tarring any demographic of people with the same brush is always wrong, and will always happen. I'm 20 myself and even to be a named driver on 1 litre yaris under my mothers policy was costing 1400 and the insurance company said we'd even have to change company to get that cover.

So I got a bike instead as i've always wanted one since i can remember and the insurance will be around 800. Big difference.

This crack bout stats is stupid but its how the companies make money, over chargin the young learners. It's a wonder they don't just ban everyone under 25 drivin. Don't even get me started on the RSA, they must think people are made o money, cnuts!!! If they're that worried about peoples drivin skills, why don't they lobby for it to be taught in schools like america? There'll always be eejits and messers on the road, you can never change that!

Dave_The_Sheep

The more pertinent question in my mind (rather than "are all/most under 25 male drivers reckless and dangerours on the road?") is "Is it ok to say that 'since x% of under 25 male drivers are dangerous and reckless, we can charge them all much much higher fees'?".

Responsible male drivers who are under 25 are paying the price for something they haven't done. Sure, you could argue that having high insurance for under-25 males might keep a few irresponsible ones off the roads, thus saving lives, but you're also keeping responsible ones off the road too. Which isn't just - but it won't change because its quite the lucrative market, and insurance companies have no reason to change it.

Unless one company came in and said "Ok, we'll charge you the same as your female counterparts, but if you crash and claim, then your premium is going through the roof, don't say we didn't give you a chance". That perhaps, would be more fair (though it has the obvious disadvantage of having an accident/crash/payout before you can hike up the price).

Happily enough, I'm 27 now, and don't have to worry too much about it (I started driving late - 24 or s0), I just have to worry about not having named experience when getting my first car fully on my own.

djimi

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Unless one company came in and said "Ok, we'll charge you the same as your female counterparts, but if you crash and claim, then your premium is going through the roof, don't say we didn't give you a chance". That perhaps, would be more fair (though it has the obvious disadvantage of having an accident/crash/payout before you can hike up the price).

This would be the way to go. Everyone starts out with a clean slate, and the only thing that has effect on the initial premium is no claims bonus, experience and the class of car. So a 18 year old bloke and an 18 year old girl both with one years no claims bonus driving a 1.4l Focus both pay the same amount of money. If one then has a crash and the insurance company has to pay out, there is a loading the next year. If either gets penalty points over the course of the year there is a loading. But if both stay claim free and free of points they both continue to pay the same.

To me this is the fairest system we can have.

litmus paper

I totally agree with the op. I believe Not all young drivers are immature and irresponsible. I myself am a young male driver 18 yrs of age. I drive a 1.5 ltr car. I do break the speed limit, i will not hesitate in saying that, i drive at 110-115 kmh in a 100kmh zone, on a national road if only the road and weather conditions allow. on motorways i do max 125kmh if only road and weather conditions allow. the other day when drivin along a motorway a lady in a 1.2 car drivin at 140kmh, overtook me and she was not a young driver, now who is to blame?? btw i was doin 121 kmh. i mostly believe in drivin safely and comfortably. rather than all that speed and thrill. if given a option i would prefer a 4 door saloon car instead of a ferrari or other sports cars. as regards to experience there are many drivers out there who might have more experience than me but are not as safe and skilled drivers as many others. the RSA all the time blames young drivers that they kill and are reckless drivers, can i just ask one question are only young drivers invloved in crashes, what about the female drivers who do 140 km in 1.2 car, who break the law, ppl who do 160++++kmh in their bmw's or mercs. Can the so called road safety authority just target all the bad drivers rather than the young male drivers.

Anan1

djimi wrote: »

This would be the way to go. Everyone starts out with a clean slate, and the only thing that has effect on the initial premium is no claims bonus, experience and the class of car. So a 18 year old bloke and an 18 year old girl both with one years no claims bonus driving a 1.4l Focus both pay the same amount of money. If one then has a crash and the insurance company has to pay out, there is a loading the next year. If either gets penalty points over the course of the year there is a loading. But if both stay claim free and free of points they both continue to pay the same.

To me this is the fairest system we can have.

Not to the insurance companies - they'll have to issue policies where the premium doesn't justify the risk. At the end of the day lads, if there was money to be made in providing cheap cover to young males don't you think the ins cos would be all over it?:)

djimi

Anan1 wrote: »

Not to the insurance companies - they'll have to issue policies where the premium doesn't justify the risk. At the end of the day lads, if there was money to be made in providing cheap cover to young males don't you think the ins cos would be all over it?:)

Im not suggesting that they should be giving policies to young drivers for €500, Im happy enough to see a 17yo pay €1500-€2000 for their first years insurance, but so long as all 17 year olds pay the same...

Anan1

djimi wrote: »

Im not suggesting that they should be giving policies to young drivers for €500, Im happy enough to see a 17yo pay €1500-€2000 for their first years insurance, but so long as all 17 year olds pay the same...

But if the ins cos figure that the 17yo male represents a greater risk then how can they be expected to cover that risk FOC? Or do you mean that the shortfall should be made up from female drivers?

djimi

Anan1 wrote: »

But if the ins cos figure that the 17yo male represents a greater risk then how can they be expected to cover that risk FOC? Or do you mean that the shortfall should be made up from female drivers?

It would depend on the loading I suppose. My theory is based on the idea that if someone knew their insurance would double from €2k if they acted the mick and wrecked their car then they might think twice about it, therefore lowering the amount of claims and hopefully lowering the risk. And yes, some of the shortfall would be made up from lessening the gap between the genders.

I dunno, I suppose Im just thinking in terms of an ideal world. We all know its not an ideal world tho, and in this world insurance companies make a fortune charging high premiums to all young drivers, especially males, when the reality is the majority of them are not the cause of the problem. Would be nice if there was a system whereby only those who cause the problem suffer the consequences...

conneem-TT

High insurance is the only thing resricting inexperienced drivers running too powerful cars. However the situation like chops1990 is in, who was charged 1400 to be a named driver on 1L Yaris is taking undue advantage IMO.

A probation period for the first year or so should be introduced where there is limit to the power/weight of the car you can drive and a restriction on carrying other young passengers.

questionmark?

conneem-TT wrote: »

High insurance is the only thing resricting inexperienced drivers running too powerful cars. However the situation like chops1990 is in, who was charged 1400 to be a named driver on 1L Yaris is taking undue advantage IMO.

A probation period for the first year or so should be introduced where there is limit to the power/weight of the car you can drive and a restriction on carrying other young passengers.

This has to be seriously looked at. A 17 year old driving with his father and mother will drive ok take them out and replace with four mates and the situation changes.

Gophur

djimi wrote: »

This would be the way to go. Everyone starts out with a clean slate, and the only thing that has effect on the initial premium is no claims bonus, experience and the class of car. So a 18 year old bloke and an 18 year old girl both with one years no claims bonus driving a 1.4l Focus both pay the same amount of money. If one then has a crash and the insurance company has to pay out, there is a loading the next year. If either gets penalty points over the course of the year there is a loading. But if both stay claim free and free of points they both continue to pay the same.

To me this is the fairest system we can have.

Don't you realise that the system we have today is exactly that, a system which started with everyone on an equal footing. Time and history have led from there to here with those from the higher risk groups paying more than those from lesser risk groups. The system we have is fair, despite all posts to the contrary.

Did you know, for example, bar workers pay a higher premium because of their occupation? Is that fair or discriminatory?

Do you want to pay more when you are older, even though you will then be part of a lower risk group? Or do you want to subsidise a higher risk group?

djimi

questionmark? wrote: »

This has to be seriously looked at. A 17 year old driving with his father and mother will drive ok take them out and replace with four mates and the situation changes.

I agree. Again it comes down to an R license after passing the driving test and putting restrictions on newly qualified drivers. I wonder how many newly qualified drivers would be less inclined to act jack the lad if they werent allowed have their mates in the car with them until they were driving for 18 months?

Again it comes down to policing tho; no point in introducing new laws until the ones that exist are policed properly.