Young drivers looking for insurance.

[buffy500]

I can't get my head round the amount that some insurance is.

Some people appear to be paying half as much every month as my total insurance is for the year.

[andynwt]

More people need to own old, uncool cars. My L reg Polo is worthless, and insurance is minimal. It gets me from A to B (and if B is a long way away I'll take the train, which can work out as cheaper than petrol if you're smart) and with a service each year it keeps on going because there are virtually no complex parts in it and the friendly local garage know it inside out. I intend to never spend more than a grand on buying a car until inflation makes that impossible. I got my car for £675 in 2005 and hopefully it'll run for another half decade.

[lateagain]

More people need to own old, uncool cars. My L reg Polo is worthless, and insurance is minimal. It gets me from A to B (and if B is a long way away I'll take the train, which can work out as cheaper than petrol if you're smart) and with a service each year it keeps on going because there are virtually no complex parts in it and the friendly local garage know it inside out. I intend to never spend more than a grand on buying a car until inflation makes that impossible. I got my car for £675 in 2005 and hopefully it'll run for another half decade.

Indeed "uncool" could be called "boring" or "ordinary" but the fact is the flasher the car the higher the insurance group. Frankly those who want badges on everything, and then brag about their possessions pay through the nose for the privilege.

The fact is that even if you want to it's almost impossible to exceed the legal speed limit in the UK nowadays (for any significant distance) and if you look at economy as a deciding factor in the spec of your car rather than Top Gears obsession with BHP you'll get there just as fast and at a fraction of the price. Travelling in Europe on motorways it's really noticeable how "standard" the models of cars that most Europeans choose compared with Brits! Get off the main motorways and into country and mountain villages in Italy and you'll see they like the Fiat 500 because it's a small and easy to park car ......NOT a fashion accessory!

One thing about old cars though is that they do have a sting in the tail. For a start they attract maximum road tax. More modern small cars can cost from half to a third in road tax because of improved emissions. They also have far more economic engines, which for the main part are much more reliable than engines were 20 years ago.

You need to do your sums. If your mileage is high it might pay you to spend more on a slightly newer car with lower tax and consumption as the running cost plays more of a part in the total cost.

If your mileage is low you need to look at the cost of the vehicle, cost of Insurance, Tax and MOT and that’s what it costs before you move it. Guesstimate your annual mileage or number of journeys and then work out from the performance specs how much you’ll spend on gas. Add a figure for basic servicing parts and oil. If you feel that doing a basic service is beyond you add the labour costs for servicing. Total it all up and then work out what those journeys would cost by public transport. Cheap fares for long distance, season tickets for commuting, taxis for specials and socialising. Remember that if you travel with others they can help with costs in car and cab sharing (quite legally) and that the public transport options other than taxi means multiple tickets.

Once you’re over 25 you can factor in car hire for holidays as an alternative as well.

Look at the spreadsheet you’ve created and then decide which is the better option for your lifestyle.

Don’t forget to factor in fun and enjoyment.

DULL..... Well yes but then we’re all faced with rising costs, high inflation and small or NO pay rises... You can’t let “them” grind you down now can you? So just make it work as best it can for you. The flash car brigade can spend their pennies on higher insurance and car wax...... whilst you enjoy a more mobile life

I've never owned a new car, always kept cars until I've had my moneys worth and then given them away. Average length of ownership since 1979 about 10 years. Never had a flash car but all were good to drive and easy and cheap to maintain. BTW the longest owned was a Cavalier SRi 130 and the guy I gave it too ran it for 4 trouble free years after that before rust failed it's MOT.

[hertsbob]

The fact is that even if you want to it's almost impossible to exceed the legal speed limit in the UK nowadays (for any significant distance)

Eh? Whereabouts and what time of day are you driving then?

One thing about old cars though is that they do have a sting in the tail. For a start they attract maximum road tax.

That's just totally incorrect.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Ow ... G_10012524

I'd also like to counter your point about mileage vs. running costs as well - my rule of thumb is that the higher the mileage (assuming motorway miles) then in general the lower the running costs.

If you're running a car at it's optimal operating temperature for most of its life then things simply don't tend to wear out, and those consumables that do also tend to last for a far greater mileage - tracking doesn't get knocked out by kerbing so you can easily get 25-30,000 miles from a set of tyres, exhausts almost literally last forever, I can't remember the last time I had to replace a set of shocks and you get a far greater life out of brake pads & discs...

And don't forget that for the vast majority of the population public transport simply isn't an option, for whatever reason, whether we'd like it to be or not.

Before you accuse me of being a flash-Harry, I've never spent more than £3,300 on a car and have never had anything anyone could consider 'flash' and have been to the moon and back more than once.

Cheers

Bob

[lateagain]

The fact is that even if you want to it's almost impossible to exceed the legal speed limit in the UK nowadays (for any significant distance)

Eh? Whereabouts and what time of day are you driving then?Bob

London! Average speed in London 8 m.p.h. ....and they don't call the M25 the world's biggest car park for nothing BTW not ALL speed cameras are turned off and flaunt those enough and the subject of this thread can be answered by "Forget it!"

One thing about old cars though is that they do have a sting in the tail. For a start they attract maximum road tax.

That's just totally incorrect.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Ow ... G_10012524Bob

In respect of Andy's post no it isn't. Some newer small engined cars not only provide the same performance as larger engined older small cars but do so with greater economy and at lower tax rates. The tax rates are lower because of lower emmissions but these only kick in for newer cars. My old Mondeo would according to the latest figures you linked to cost me £215 wher my current car of a larger engine size costs £110.

On it's own that isn't a great deal. Factored into an overall costing it makes a difference. Take the diesel v petrol debate. Diesels have lower emmisions and therefore lower tax rates. Diesel is more expensive BUT gives better m.p.g.

There's no RIGHT or WRONG here. You have to factor in YOUR lifestyle, YOUR car, YOUR mileage and work out what gives you the best return.

I'd also like to counter your point about mileage vs. running costs as well - my rule of thumb is that the higher the mileage (assuming motorway miles) then in general the lower the running costs.Bob

??????? ...that's per mile I take it? In any case I didn't say mileage v running cost. What I said/meant was that the "so called" running cost was what it cost to own a car even if you never moved it! My point was that depending upon your lifestyle/journeys etc. it might be worth spending more on the BASIC cost to achieve lower mileage costs. e.g. buy a newer diesel if you have to do high mileage. Greater intitial cost but balance by lower mileage cost.

If you're running a car at it's optimal operating temperature for most of its life then things simply don't tend to wear out, and those consumables that do also tend to last for a far greater mileage - tracking doesn't get knocked out by kerbing so you can easily get 25-30,000 miles from a set of tyres, exhausts almost literally last forever, I can't remember the last time I had to replace a set of shocks and you get a far greater life out of brake pads & discs...

And don't forget that for the vast majority of the population public transport simply isn't an option, for whatever reason, whether we'd like it to be or not.Bob

Firstly not many people can achieve most of their mileage on Motorways and secondly whilst rural areas are badly served by public transport most larger conurbations do have various systems. Again my point is you need to do the sums for YOURSELF. What's right for me personaly, or for you Bob, may be only a good model for a tiny number of other folk! The point is that before you dash out and buy a car you need to be sure that it IS the best option. Us townies do realise that for many folk in RURAL areas it's the ONLY option

Before you accuse me of being a flash-Harry, I've never spent more than £3,300 on a car and have never had anything anyone could consider 'flash' and have been to the moon and back more than once. Bob

I tend to look at the initial price divided by the number of years owned as being the best measure of value. If you spend £8000 and it lasts ten years it's the same as buying one for £800 and having it last a year. £800 and it lasts two years your doing well. £800 and it lasts three years and you're really winning.... BUT remember that the insurance isn't going to pay you anything and that they will still be charging you for the damage that YOU might do to OTHER people with "nice shiny cars" ....with badges .

Geoff

[Kromaatikse]

If the choice is between an old car with £215 tax and £500 annual insurance, or a new car with £100 tax and £1500 insurance... I know which one I'd choose, especially if my annual mileage was low enough to make fuel economy and maintenance a non-issue.

I'm lucky enough to live in Helsinki though, where public transport decently covers the entire metropolitan area (and links to most of the rest of the country), and bicycles are actually welcomed and widely used. I literally don't need a car, except for moving house which I do as little as possible.

[lateagain]

If the choice is between an old car with £215 tax and £500 annual insurance, or a new car with £100 tax and £1500 insurance... I know which one I'd choose, especially if my annual mileage was low enough to make fuel economy and maintenance a non-issue.

It doesn't work like that. The cost of insurance in the UK is mainly based upon the liability of the driver if he were to damage other people or their property. The value of the actual car has only a small part in the cost. Reducing the value of your car each year yields hardly any reduction in premium.

New cars are for mugs . The depreciation curve on car values in the UK is so steep over the first two years and only starts to level out around four years. Buying a new car is like burning money.

If you explore the link above to the tax bands you'll see that a few years ago the UK govt. decided to band tax by emmissions levels. Unfortunately few cars older than the introduction of that banding came anywhere near the level that attracted lower tax and thus how ever well kept an older car is the tax burden is higher. BUT ....I'll say it again, this is only ONE factor that needs to be counted when deciding on the cheapset way to provide transport for yourself.

There's an old saying "Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves".

Given that half the population is struggling with debt maybe a bit more respect for this old wisdom would help? It's no surprise that a new initiative to sort out the awful numeracy levels and maths teaching in schools calls for a seperate curriculum subject specifically dealing with understanding basic knowledge of money and finance. IMHO that's an idea that should have been bought in years ago.

Geoff

[maddog989]

The tax bands of cars since 2001 are based purely on Carbon Dioxide emissions. Which seems fairly illogical. Cars that are inefficient are punished with the taxes on fuel, which is the source of the carbon for CO2, which importantly also takes into account how the car is driven and how often it's used, and can't be beaten by so called cycle busting to reduce the emissions rating, and that's before we get onto the other emissions from cars.

They should instead tax cars by weight, it'd encourage smaller, lighter and indirectly more fuel efficient cars. Although this may stifle some new "green" forms of propulsion, so different categories for cars that run on hydrogen for example. Also heavier cars are more likely to be more damaging to roads when using them so lighter cars could lead to less money spent on road maintenance.

[englishinnz]

Hi,
Car insurance is not compulsory in NZ,(how stupid can they get).

Terry.

[Kromaatikse]

Interesting statistic: apparently road damage goes up with the fourth power of axle load.

So if you have a 2-ton car (1-ton axle load) as your benchmark, a 24-ton 3-axle bus causes the equivalent damage of about 6000 cars. It gets worse than even that for HGVs.

That's not to say that road damage is the only public cost of running a car...

[rufuskins]

The one thing that appears to be agreed is that the basis for selecting a mode of transport varies for each person and their lifestyle.

In my case I need a car for work; i.e. getting to work. This involves a 40 miles trip there and a 40 miles trip back. To mitigate the petrol element of the cost I try to drive at an economic speed - achievable in the morning by driving early, but not in late afternoon when I am one amongst many and hence speed is very variable! This means a typical 10 hour day - 2.0 hours average driving each day and an 8 hour day.

The alternative is frightening to me comprising 15 minutes taxi trip to Rochdale, half hour train into Manchester Victoria, 15 minutes Metro to Manchester Piccadilly, half hour(?) train to Knutsford and 30 minutes walk to place of work. That's a minimum of two hours of travelling each way plus whatever waiting time is involved. Total time including work would be in excess of 12 hours!!!

I'm unclear how this would effect my "health" - tiredness from long day plus potential fitness improvement through walking compared to less tired from shorter day but highly stressed through driving!

I have never attempted to compare the costs of driving versus public transport but suspect that there may not be a great difference - especially bearing in mind the above inflation rail fares compared to my minimal potential for wage increase, but . . . .

What I do know is that when I retire in 2013 one of the first things to go will be the car as it simply will not be financially viable in relation to our pension income - government plus private combined. Had I planned better perhaps that would not be necessary but who thinks along those lines when you are much younger - mind you a failed first marriage definately did not help!!!!!

The bottom line at this time is that I expect my own car insurance costs to keep rising in order to "pay" for all those claims by the many A N OTHERS - whatever their vailidity!

Alec

PS Apologies if this keeps this thread off topic!