BBC1 Traffic Cops 45

were saying :

Yes, we did - you claimed that it was unfair that 17yos had such high premiums and that they were all lumped together because they had no driving record to fall back on.

And, if you recall, I questioned how many of them have *valid* insurance, with them listed as the main driver and all modifications declared. And, of those who do, how many pay for it themselves, instead of their parents paying it?

He does "nowadays"? So - what's his driving record like? Some points for bald tyres, no mot, perhaps a few no-insurance convictions, maybe a ban or two on there? Plenty of claims? If not, he should have a very low premium. Hell, that's the same age as me, and I insure a group 15 car, fully comp, with business use, for about a quid a day. But then, I've got plenty of NCB and a clean licence.

If he can't afford to insure a group 11 car, perhaps he should get a smaller, lower group car. It'll cost him less to run, too.

Yes, I understand perfectly why people don't pay insurance - because they're arrogant enough to think that the law doesn't apply to them, and they'll get away with it. Unfortunately, they're right too often.

Put those goalposts back. They were *precisely* the demographic we started off talking about. So who IS the demographic we're now talking about? Middle-aged people? Old people? With a decent driving record and a low group car, they'll have dirt cheap insurance, because they're a low risk. People with a poo driving record? They pay more because they've proved they're a high risk.

So - you think that high-risk drivers shouldn't have to pay more for their insurance? OK, so where do the insurers make the shortfall up? By charging low-risk drivers more? Is that fair? Will that help to keep the roads safe by providing an incentive to keep your nose clean?