Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: TDi90 on August 26, 2009, 07:44:14
-
you know why...
because its so ******* expensive. i dont blame them. im about to turn 21 and im paying £1300 to insure my land rover defender.
when i was 17 i was paying £2400 to insure my land rover defender. it ridiculous, of course they are not going to pay insurance if its this expensive.
R
-
you know why...
because its so ******* expensive. i dont blame them. im about to turn 21 and im paying £1300 to insure my land rover defender.
when i was 17 i was paying £2400 to insure my land rover defender. it ridiculous, of course they are not going to pay insurance if its this expensive.
R
Sorry mate... you're well off target with this one...
I shouldn't blame them if they hit another car... who pays..?
I shouldn't blame them if they hit a person... who pays..?
I shouldn't blame them if they embed they're vehicle in a house... demolishing the corner supporting structures... requiring a full demolish/rebuild... who pays?
Insurance aint an option, driving aint a right... if they aint insured... they shouldn't be driving... end of.
Most of the older driver on here (me included... :oops:) have in the past had to pay huge insurance premiums... we got on with it... or... in my case... took the bus/train etc!
Course... hopefully... we will start to see a fall in the whole un-insured/untaxed/un-MOT'd vehicles with the advent of the wonderful ANPR systems used on police vehicles. Course... the crowd that avoid getting the appropriate certificates... tend not to be the brightest bulbs in the chandelier....!
Skibum
-
If the cost of motoring cannot be afforded, it is no excuse to do it illegally at the expense of others. Driving is not a right, it's a privilege.
Don't get me wrong, I too think motor insurance for young drivers has got to crazy levels. But I couldn't believe my ears when the young chap, this morning, was saying he couldn't afford insurance, so he just drove without it :shock:
-
When I turned 17 I had a quote for £4k on an L reg Citroen ZX 1.9D...
The appalling part is that the fine for driving without insurance is often lower than the premium. It's as bad as jobs where people would be financially better off claiming benefits (but won't as they want to work). Not much of an incentive to those who want to do it by the rules.
-
The numbers are interesting. When I passed my test way back in the dark ages :roll: :lol:, I seem to remember paying someting like £400 a year to insure an MG Midget. I'm sure if a 17 year old tried to insure a modern equivalent, say a Mazda MX5, the insurance company would just laugh..... or rub their hands together with glee.
Have the driving standards of young people dropped? Or is it just the insurance companies cashing in?
-
Back in 1987 when i passed my test my dad gave me his motor........ a Morris Marina (dont laugh ) he put me as a named driver and it was great but in 1989 i brought my first car a Rover Montego GTI cost me £1400 a year to insure ouch i thought but it had to be done now im older and wiser (and with a clean driving licience) my premiums are very low so youngsters learn from this its a privillage to drive SO PAY UP and be legal and one day you will say to your selves im glad my premiums aint what they used to be
-
The numbers are interesting. When I passed my test way back in the dark ages :roll: :lol:, I seem to remember paying someting like £400 a year to insure an MG Midget. I'm sure if a 17 year old tried to insure a modern equivalent, say a Mazda MX5, the insurance company would just laugh..... or rub their hands together with glee.
Have the driving standards of young people dropped? Or is it just the insurance companies cashing in?
Course... £400 could buy you a whole lot more back in the dark ages than it does now. I've no doubt insurance companies are cashing in... but then again... all you have to do is look at the statistics to see that the majority of accidents involve new or young drivers.
Either way... it doesn't excuse those who choose to drive without insurance.
-
When I was 17 I couldn't afford the insurance on a landrover
I couldn't afford it on a renault turbo an escort GTi or a whole host of other cars which would have been fun.
I could afford it on a 998cc mini though at £400 a year third party fire and theft.
IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO DRIVE - DON'T !
Maybe you need to be more realistic about the type of vehicle you drive. If you want to drive a 4x4, how about a little sj?
-
......and one day you will say to your selves im glad my premiums aint what they used to be
Eee, when I were a lad...... :lol: Them were the days, eh?!
-
The insurance companies are cashing in, there was a day when being a named driver counted towards no claim discount - not now. Why - because the insurance companies can earn more.
-
The Good old days yeh lol
-
you know why...
because its so ******* expensive. i dont blame them. im about to turn 21 and im paying £1300 to insure my land rover defender.
when i was 17 i was paying £2400 to insure my land rover defender. it ridiculous, of course they are not going to pay insurance if its this expensive.
R
Rob, who the hell are you insured with? ASBO (totally modified and an insurance companies nightmare) was only £800 TPF+T for me (21, 3 points and a crash behind me at the time). I have trade insurance now, which is a lot easier with the amount of vehicles I drive., which costs me £700 a year and i can drive pretty much anything as long as I have the right tickets.
If you have insured it fully comp, don't bother, as you will only have to break a headlight and the insurance will write it off, and you would repair it yourself anyway.
Even my missus, (*22, only passed her test 8 months ago) is insured on Poppy for £1,000 a year fully comp, with no no claims.
-
Having been hit by an uninsured driver in the past, I have no sympathy what-so-ever. As has been said driving is an earned priviledge and not a right, but so many young people seem to think they have a God given right to do it.
Yes, prices are high, but they have always been for inexperienced drivers. Just now it shows even more. Insurance actuaries look at the risks and there is enough proof that a huge number of claims are made by the young and inexperienced. Therefore they pay more.
The fact that the fine is often less than the cost of the insurance is now being recognised. The Police are impounding and destroying cars more often, Courts are impossing further punishment and making people take an extended test, plus insurance premiums later are increased.
-
My first car aged 18 in 1983 cost £500 and cost £75 to insure and that was in Liverpool.
The companies are their own worse enemies regarding young and in some cases older premiums and as said there is no real incentive to comply
I don't condone the uninsured far from it.
-
My first car aged 18 in 1983 cost £500 and cost £75 to insure and that was in Liverpool.
The companies are their own worse enemies regarding young and in some cases older premiums and as said there is no real incentive to comply
I don't condone the uninsured far from it.
Working out the comulative interest on that it would mean that running at 5% inflation (which is a low figure due to the thatcher fulled run in the 80's and the major cockup in the 90's) that £75 in real money is about £280 now.
I presume that a £500 motor was a cheap car to 'get you going?'
Doesn't sound like the insurance companies are taking the [throw it] that much really.
If inflation averages out at 7% over that period then it would be about £460 in real money. Can't be jiggered working out the mean average base rate of inflation for the past 25 years though.
-
The cost of insurance is ridiculous, but as the others have said, if you can't afford it, don't drive.
the penalties for getting caught need to be higher, as it stands its usually cheaper for them to take the risk, and get caught, than it is to pay for insurance.
I bet the numbers of uninsured Yoofs would drop if they were made to do community service in pink overalls, every weekend for 3 years after being convicted??
...which i also believe should be the penalty for using a phone while driving, which most of the population still do...
-
...which i also believe should be the penalty for using a phone while driving, which most of the population still do...
I think 'many' of the population might have been a better phrase, but sometimes it seems like 'most' :roll:
-
...which i also believe should be the penalty for using a phone while driving, which most of the population still do...
Of the opion myself that if you can't hold a conversation whilst driving, then you shouldn't be driving.
-
My first car aged 18 in 1983 cost £500 and cost £75 to insure and that was in Liverpool.
The companies are their own worse enemies regarding young and in some cases older premiums and as said there is no real incentive to comply
I don't condone the uninsured far from it.
Working out the comulative interest on that it would mean that running at 5% inflation (which is a low figure due to the thatcher fulled run in the 80's and the major cockup in the 90's) that £75 in real money is about £280 now.
I presume that a £500 motor was a cheap car to 'get you going?'
Doesn't sound like the insurance companies are taking the [throw it] that much really.
If inflation averages out at 7% over that period then it would be about £460 in real money. Can't be jiggered working out the mean average base rate of inflation for the past 25 years though.
Point being as insurance is and was always inherently high in Liverpool what ever car you had, thats a good screw and if the rates where similar today it would be an even better screw :wink:
-
...which i also believe should be the penalty for using a phone while driving, which most of the population still do...
Of the opion myself that if you can't hold a conversation whilst driving, then you shouldn't be driving.
Surely it's not holding a conversation that's the problem, it's holding the phone!
-
because its so ******* expensive. i dont blame them
AND WE ALL PAY A PREMIUM ON OUR INSURANCE BECAUSE OF THIS :evil: :evil: :evil: do you blame them now ???
We have all been young and paid the prices ..... is it the insurance companies or the accident statistics of young/inexperienced drivers?? If you want cheaper insurance drive a smaller car... :-.
Watching police on telly last night they now take your car and give you a £200 fixed penalty and 6 points, you can collect your car when you prove it is insured...... for a fee :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Not paying is a gamble.... you may get away with it.... you may kill some innocent child/motorist/pedestrian, and you may just get a fine...
Just as an aside from not paying, I had a small bump in the van in November.... the bill was over £8000 without solicitors fees @ £219 per hour (none fault)
-
The problem is that alot of young drivers do drive like tools these days.
Its the chav culture!!
I think we should have the same system that they have in the states, where you buy your registration every year, or every other year or however long it is, and it comes with third party insurance built in, so if you have a crash the other persons car is sorted, and vice versa!!
-
you know why...
because its so ******* expensive. i dont blame them. im about to turn 21 and im paying £1300 to insure my land rover defender.
when i was 17 i was paying £2400 to insure my land rover defender. it ridiculous, of course they are not going to pay insurance if its this expensive.
R
Sorry mate... you're well off target with this one...
I shouldn't blame them if they hit another car... who pays..?
I shouldn't blame them if they hit a person... who pays..?
I shouldn't blame them if they embed they're vehicle in a house... demolishing the corner supporting structures... requiring a full demolish/rebuild... who pays?
Insurance aint an option, driving aint a right... if they aint insured... they shouldn't be driving... end of.
Most of the older driver on here (me included... :oops:) have in the past had to pay huge insurance premiums... we got on with it... or... in my case... took the bus/train etc!
Course... hopefully... we will start to see a fall in the whole un-insured/untaxed/un-MOT'd vehicles with the advent of the wonderful ANPR systems used on police vehicles. Course... the crowd that avoid getting the appropriate certificates... tend not to be the brightest bulbs in the chandelier....!
Skibum
oh no, i quite agree with what your saying 100%.
but they cant wonder why so many young people are uninsured its obvious!! it doesnt make it right, but surely the cost of it is where the problem lies?
-
i really did open a can of worms diddnt i :-#
should have kept my mouth shut! - i dont think im like'd 8-[
to JD - NFU FULLY COMP inc:
Roll Cage
sus. lift,
Non Standard engine,
non standard bodywork
winch
winch bumper
oversize tyres
20 yrs old!! :shock:
-
The problem is that alot of young drivers do drive like tools these days.
Its the chav culture!
:lol: :lol:
Rubbish.
I don't know anyone who didn't drive like an idiot when they were a lad. Be it power sliding mini's round roundabouts, thrashing montagoes, rolling across fields after cooking corners or trying to wind that 1.3 micra upto a ton on a motorway.
Nothing to do with chavs, if anything modern cars are far safer, and the amount ofcrap which they weight down the little corsa's with that little 1.0 lump dragging 1/2 a tonne of plastic and chrome isn't going to do much with increasing the top speed. The braker better, wider low profile tyres are more common. A lot of little chav mobiles handle like they are on rails. That's not something you can say about an austin allegro or a metro on hydroelastic suspension.
What it sounds more like is rose tinted specs of 'when I were a lad...'
Oh in victorian times, guess what, there was still problems with knife crime, people nicking stuff and arson.
-
i really did open a can of worms diddnt i :-#
should have kept my mouth shut! - i dont think im like'd 8-[
Nothing personal ;) ;)
but if everyone 'kept their mouth shut' all the problems in this world would all be swept under the carpet and ignored,
Well done for getting people thinking, maybe if feelings are this strong something could be done?? Even if it is just one person reporting an uninsured vehicle ;)
-
I don't know anyone who didn't drive like a tit when they were a lad. Be it power sliding mini's round roundabouts, thrashing montagoes, rolling across fields after cooking corners or trying to wind that 1.3 micra upto a ton on a motorway.
Must be the people you mixed with mate! ;)
Nothing to do with chavs, if anything modern cars are far safer, and the amount ofcrap which they weight down the little corsa's with that little 1.0 lump dragging 1/2 a tonne of plastic and chrome isn't going to do much with increasing the top speed. The braker better, wider low profile tyres are more common. A lot of little chav mobiles handle like they are on rails. That's not something you can say about an austin allegro or a metro on hydroelastic suspension.
Can't say I entirely agree, although I fully understand your logic. The fact that cars are quicker these days (old geezer speak!) means they can get into more trouble at higher speeds, so the damage done is far greater when it does all go pear shaped.
A 1000cc Mini is flat out at 80mph, I don't care what anyone claims at the bar! As it happens, I have been dealing with Mini's for many years professionally. A 1000cc Corsa is surely capable of more than that top speed? Although I stand to be corrected about the Corsa :D
The fact is that the Corsa produces far more power than the Mini. This alone allows people to get themselves into difficulties easier when they are inexperienced.
As for rose tinted glasses..... you may well be right. That is why I posed the question "are driving standard actually poorer now, or is it just insurance companies cashing in?"
-
Anyone remember when The cossies and RS turbos were being nicked - I had a quote on a £5000 car (rs Turbo) and the quote was £25,000 :shock:
I curently pay just over £300 for my transit, fully comp - protected no claims etc.
As stated before If you can afford it - dont buy it...Thet hjave regular clamp downs around here - and it great fun watching the police impound a car for no tax/insurance -then hearing the scrote complain about payiong the fine - only for the coppers to say " so you can t afford tax/insurance -BUT you can afford Alloys/Stereo and fuel??" great fun - especially when they sign the car over then ask about geting 'their ' alloys/stereo out of it :clap:
-
Insurance.Pay it or we cube the car, and give you a nice piece of paper with £200 fine on it and six points.
As for younger people being bad drivers, some are. But the older generations are just as bad. It is said that with age comes experience. Arrogance more like.
-
im of the opinion that if the gov say we need Insurance, then why dont they provide it?
instead we have to buy it from another profit making company who can only see ££££££££££
instead why not just have all new/young drivers restricted to engine size for the first year for a fixed cost?
-
i really did open a can of worms diddnt i :-#
should have kept my mouth shut! - i dont think im like'd 8-[
to JD - NFU FULLY COMP inc:
Roll Cage
sus. lift,
Non Standard engine,
non standard bodywork
winch
winch bumper
oversize tyres
20 yrs old!! :shock:
Why insure it fully comp though? The inurnace company is just going to wrote the car off in the event of a prang, so its pointless. Just insure it TPFT, which is cheaper and still legal.
-
im of the opinion that if the gov say we need Insurance, then why dont they provide it?
instead we have to buy it from another profit making company who can only see ££££££££££
instead why not just have all new/young drivers restricted to engine size for the first year for a fixed cost?
Because we don't live in a communist state.
-
im of the opinion that if the gov say we need Insurance, then why dont they provide it?
instead we have to buy it from another profit making company who can only see ££££££££££
instead why not just have all new/young drivers restricted to engine size for the first year for a fixed cost?
Because we don't live in a communist state.
Are you sure about that? The current regime seem to be doing a pretty good job of taking us that way.
-
im of the opinion that if the gov say we need Insurance, then why dont they provide it?
instead we have to buy it from another profit making company who can only see ££££££££££
instead why not just have all new/young drivers restricted to engine size for the first year for a fixed cost?
Because we don't live in a communist state.
Are you sure about that? The current regime seem to be doing a pretty good job of taking us that way.
I seem to agree a little, whats the phrase ... Born free taxed to death
and when it comes to modding your motor ....Dont bother
-
Insurance.Pay it or we cube the car, and give you a nice piece of paper with £200 fine on it and six points.
As for younger people being bad drivers, some are. But the older generations are just as bad. It is said that with age comes experience. Arrogance more like.
Hear, hear. Had a chappie, mid fifties, pull in front of me yesterday when I was (admitedly) tanking it round a roundabout. Obvious blast on the horn, slam on the brakes, cursing and swearing galore, laughing at the poor idiot soiling his underwear, step out of the lorry to see if he's okay and to explain some of the facts of life, yadda yadda....
To cut it short, little idiot was chatting away on the phone, and when I pointed out that he shouldn't be doing that, he turned around and asked me if I was gonna teach him to drive, 30 years experience, and all the usual rubbish. Wasn't very pleased when I told him that at his age, either he should know better, or he should surrender his licence for incompetence :D
As for uninsured drivers, surely it wouldn't be to difficult to pull the insurance history for both vehicle/driver, and if it is a regular habit (the uninsured driving) crush the vehicle, no option for redemption.
If the insurance has lapsed for a couple of days or a week, it could well be a genuine mistake, if the car hasn't been insured for the last 3 months, you are taking the mickey.
-
The insurance companies are cashing in, there was a day when being a named driver counted towards no claim discount - not now. Why - because the insurance companies can earn more.
Erm..... I think you are putting the cart before the horse.... As most insurance companies market themselves on the fact that they can offer NCD to company car drivers and named drivers....
[/quote]
Why insure it fully comp though? The inurnace company is just going to wrote the car off in the event of a prang, so its pointless. Just insure it TPFT, which is cheaper and still legal.
[/quote]
Third Party Fire and theft is often more expensive than fully comp.....
-
im looking for a reasonable quote for my seventeen year old - soon to do his test, i dont know weather to try and put him on my insurance,or take out his own policy--any ideas ! its on a 1.4 vauxhall corsair
-
im looking for a reasonable quote for my seventeen year old - soon to do his test, i dont know weather to try and put him on my insurance,or take out his own policy--any ideas ! its on a 1.4 vauxhall corsair
Let us know if you find a company that will rack up no claims discount for him as a named driver then. Also I think you will find that once the vehicle goes above 1L the price hikes considerably. I've been told that this company http://www.quinn-direct.com/uk/ are good for learner drivers but not had to get a quote yet - that all hits me next year!
-
Got a quote of £1900 from nfu for my p38 !!! went to Lancaster and pay £410 Fully comp. and pay £250 fully comp with my 90 through swinton. and for reference sake i'm 29 with 3 points and 10 years no claims.
when i was 17 though it was £1900 for a mk 1 fiesta 950cc job third party fire and theft !!!! mind you the bank of mum and dad picked that bill up for some time. whent down to £1700 when i got a diesel Renault 9 at 19 and then at 21 i got a 2 litre primera and it cost me £450 fully comp - doesnt make sense to me !
i suggest you take some time and really ring round the insurance company's it took me 2 days of hagling to get the £450 on the primera and that was from abbey back in the day
-
im 20 and im not apart of the average.
my car(and myself) are 100% road legal. it does cost alot but thats the price of driving so i got to lump it. i dont agree with some of the prices for insurance though.
i ask why it was going to be £1400 for me to be insured(at 17) on a 1.4clio RT and £900 on a 3.5 V8 90!!!!!! the only reason i diddnt buy the 90 was becasue i would quickly spend the money i saved on insurance on fuel.
you have to ask 90% of younger drivers who whant a landrover "why" why does a 17 year old need a landy, becasue they dont. there bad ass....oh yes and it nice to be able to go greenlaining in your own vehicle but there big, expencive to run and not the safest things. before i bought my astra i was going to buy a TD5 90, still wish i did but the astra has done evereything i ask of it, i got 10 BMXs in it and crused down the motorway in comfort at 70. i got a mog axle in the back and drove it back to my workshop no problem i can get my mates in the back and still hear them when they talk.
im not saying that younger drivers shouldnt have 4x4s or fast cars if your willing to pay the price, go for it. but whats wrong with learning to drive "properley" in a car thats cheap to run and fix and building up a no-claims?
my 2p worth anyway
-
I suspect the 'assumption' is that young male drivers are more likely to drive too fast and crash - an asumption that is probaly backed up with some stats. I would also suspect most of those involve having like minded 'friends' in the car encouraging him to drive faster etc. So perhaps we should look at restricting passenger carrying as a newly qualified driver, in much the same way as not being able to carry passengers in an aircraft of any sort until several hours of solo have been achieved. Or perhaps not allowed to carry passengers under a set age.
Just a thought.
-
quote "expencive to run and not the safest things"
what makes you think landies are less safe - i seem to recall a couple of years ago insurance companys or was it the aa released stats saying that more people walk away alive from a landie than from any other vehicle !
-
quote "expencive to run and not the safest things"
what makes you think landies are less safe - i seem to recall a couple of years ago insurance companys or was it the aa released stats saying that more people walk away alive from a landie than from any other vehicle !
Does that include the people they hit :-#
-
quote "expencive to run and not the safest things"
what makes you think landies are less safe - i seem to recall a couple of years ago insurance companys or was it the aa released stats saying that more people walk away alive from a landie than from any other vehicle !
Stats please?
Because they are in the crash in the first place.
In a crash your more likely to be seriously injured in a 4x4 than a modern vehicle, unless the other vehicle is lower than a 4x4 (car) in which case the 4x4 is more likely to cause serious injury to the passengers of the other vehicel, whilst also causing serious injury to the 4x4 passengers.
Quick vid to demonstrate modern 4x4 v modern people carrier (Landrover v espace)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzZakGhkxkI
and 4x4 v car (Pajero v civic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zc0SDq-skA
4x4's are more dangeous to other road users than normal cars, and to learn to drive after a test, a smaller lower COG, less powerful engine, lighter, more maneuverable, better braking, less mass, road bias tyres and make a safer vehicle.
THAT's why premiums are higher for drivers who have little experience in 4x4's. The cost of mopping up after a car with 3 people in which has just been run over by a landy driven by a 17 yr old isn't cheap. Especially when the artic that the landrover was over taking on a blind corner tried to pull out of the way, straight into a ditch and puts the driver in intensive care for a week. Oh the car was a metro, had 3 17 yr old girls in it, they kid that drove over the top of the metro went to the same school as them.
That's a true story, happened in a sleepy little town called Oundle in Nothamptonshire, and I only quote it as an example since I went to school with them all. The kid in the landy thought it would accelerate like the car he learnt to drive in. It didn't, he killed 3 people and massively injured another. ALL due to inexperience.
-
my office is messy enough without leaving magazine articles around just in case !
however and not wishing to offend if the said child thought a landie would accelerate like a car doesn't that show a lack of intelligence ? :-k
and to raise another point in the 13 years off driving and an average 50,000 miles a year, i have seen more small engined carts driven by 17 year old overtaking lorries or me on blind bends, junctions, cross roads than any other car and it has been my experience that drivers of large 4x4s are more inclined to wait, give way and not take risks . X5 however are another matter but that's something to do with the badge on the front i feel !
quote "4x4's are more dangerous to other road users than normal cars, and to learn to drive after a test, "
i drive a land rover for my safety not other peoples if i spent my time worrying about that id go mad!!
quote "a smaller lower COG, less powerful engine, lighter, more maneuverable, better braking, less mass, road bias tyres and make a safer vehicle."
but only in the hands of someone with experience i feel and the occupants of said small car are more likely to end up injured! - i would rather a child of mine rolled a land rover and walked away than drove a small car and died - harsh maybe but that's how i feel
-
however and not wishing to offend if the said child thought a landie would accelerate like a car doesn't that show a lack of intelligence ? :-k
It was a spoilt rich kid, hence passing his test and getting straight into a couple of year old 90. But still experience counts for a lot.
and to raise another point in the 13 years off driving and an average 50,000 miles a year, i have seen more small engined carts driven by 17 year old overtaking lorries or me on blind bends, junctions, cross roads than any other car
That's because people who have just passed their test who are inexperience tend to drive small cars, so you'll see more small cars doing silly things till they gain the experience not to
and it has been my experience that drivers of large 4x4s are more inclined to wait, give way and not take risks .
Because experienced drivers tend to go for larger cars (since they can afford the poor fuel economy and higher running costs). 4x4 drivers are aware that they don't have the 'oomph' of a lighter car so understand that they need longer straights to overtake. Again, experience gives you an indication of what size of gap is needed to overtake a truck in front.
X5 however are another matter but that's something to do with the badge on the front i feel !
:lol:
quote "4x4's are more dangerous to other road users than normal cars, and to learn to drive after a test, "
i drive a land rover for my safety not other peoples if i spent my time worrying about that id go mad!!
really, you drive a landrover because they are safe? Sorry mate, ladder chassis and lack of crumple zones don't make a safe car. Anything which causes sudden declaration rather than absorb the impact is going to cause your body more damage not less.
Now landrovers specifically, bit of a reputation for rot havn't they. If I was going to pick a 4x4 for saftey, I'd make it something monoquoce with impact zones all round, galvanized chassis and front and curtain airbags. Personally I don't drive a 4x4 for saftey though, I fully appreciate that a truck 6 1/2 " over stock with an arb winch bumper isn't as safe as it left the factory, so I drive accordingly. I have a 4x4 to go green laning, tow some heavy trailers (often 3 tonne), but horses for courses, we all have the ability to choose what cars we drive, just pay the money and drive the motor
quote "a smaller lower COG, less powerful engine, lighter, more maneuverable, better braking, less mass, road bias tyres and make a safer vehicle."
but only in the hands of someone with experience
Exactly. Experience.
i feel and the occupants of said small car are more likely to end up injured! - i would rather a child of mine rolled a land rover and walked away than drove a small car and died - harsh maybe but that's how i feel
The smaller lighter car wouldn't have been in the accident in the first place.
Go get some bollards on a private stretch of road, swerve your 4x4 around them. Then go get a mini and do the same, at the same speed.
4x4's are inherently unstable. It makes them less safe not more safe than a normal car.
If I was going to get a car for saftey, I'd go on ncap rating.
Disco 3.
Crash Star Rating Crash Rating 4 Stars
Front-impact score 11 (69.0%)
Side-impact score 18 (100.0%)
Seat belt reminder 2
Total score 31
Pedestrian Star Rating Pedestrian Rating 1 Star
Pedestrian-test score 8 (22.0%)
VW Golf (2004)
Crash Star Rating Crash Rating 5 Stars
Front-impact score 13 (81.0%)
Side-impact score 18 (100.0%)
Seat belt reminder 2
Total score 33
Pedestrian Star Rating Pedestrian Rating 3 Stars
Pedestrian-test score 19 (53.0%)
That small car - a golf, safer than a brand new landrover, both for occupants and pedestrians.
I would rather a child of mine was in the small car, less likely to get into an accident, and more likely to walk away unharmed than if they were in a brand new 4x4.
-
But, with all due respect, you are contradicting yourself a little there dx. NCAP ratings only allow for how well a car performs in a crash and surely the best way to not get injured or to injure others is to avoid the crash in the first place as you previously pointed out.
Personally, I think the more vulnerable you feel in a vehicle, the more aware you are of your surroundings and this is likely to make you a more aware/cautious driver. On that basis, the NCAP ratings should be reversed! They are really there to protect those who cannot be bothered to drive safely and avoid crashes in the first place. Wouldn't you agree?
-
Exactly, how well you you come out of a crash.
The myth that 4x4's are safer in a crash, is just that. In the example above the golf is safer to be in than a disco 3, both for the occupents and the pedestrian.
4x4's are also unstable, so if driven by an inexperienced driver they are more likely to be in a crash, this is reflected in the higher premium from insurance companies.
Insurance companies don't look at kids (which is what they are) who have 4x4's and go, they must be posh to have a 4x4 lets up the premiums because they can afford it. The premiums are high since young people in large engined cars are a high risk.
Oh and I wasn't contradicting myself either ;)
The original point of this thread was the amount on uninsured young drivers because of the very high premiums. The premiums are high for young drivers in 4x4's because of all of the reasons I've tried to list above.
-
Id rather barrel roll my soft top Elise than my Series thats for sure!
-
im 21, never driven a car without insurance since i passed my test. i pay more for my fiesta than i do the range rover, 600 for a v8 rangie and double that for a 1.4 fiesta (05 plate though).
i think all young drivers should be restricted, similar to those who ride motorbikes, to a series with a 2.25/2.5 NA diesel!
at least then they cant go fast enough to cause themselves or others too much damage, and they will learn how to actually READ a road, predict what other motorists are going to do and act accordingly! my second car was a series 3, after someone decided that they had right of way on a roundabout and went into the passenger wing of my renault 19, which i paid 2100 pound to insure!!
i have a slight advantage over most due to the fact i learnt to drive HGV's at 17 and i now drive a foden recovery vehicle daily!
now, i would love to see the pedestrian friendly stats on that!
i haven't watched your videos but i presume the top one was the disco and the espace head on?
have a look for an engine, gearbox and a front crossmember..............
i believe the test was doctored, do you think they would get given a brand new car, to crash, if the company wasn't going to be made to look good? doubt it very much!
-
This myth that 4x4's are safer than cars in acrash,only comes about if you have a direct crash with another car.When you see the the state of the walls and tress around this area,I'd prefer a car with crumple zones any day.I drive a Zafria and a Sportrak,my driving styles completly differ for both,I go into corners faster and brake later with the deisel Zaf to keep the speed,but my sporti I plan ahead as the handling and brakes are no where near the Zafs.The only times the 4x4 myth comes in,when I got a little towrag in a corsa/saxo big exhaust spoilers tries to play chicken on narrow street,comes toward an old brick s**t house with full bullbar and ton of steel behind it,and large areas of rock and mud with big hills.You drive to suit the conditions not how fast you can go.All drivers should spend at least 2 years on a motorbike,before cars,this teaches you the roadcraft needed to survive.
-
Any vehicle is only as safe as it's driver.
Ratings only tell you what may happen in a particular type of crash. A safe driver would probably not put him/herself in a situation that would lead to an accident in the first place.
Young (or old) inexperienced drivers are an easy target for insurance companies but they are the ones most likely to cause an accident so the prices reflect the risk.
The police now have the power to cube any uninsured vehicle.... What a wonderful piece of legislation !
-
the problem with ncap ratings is the test; 30 mph 3/4 impact into solid block may be fine but what bout combind speeds of 2 cars? head on at 40 mph each equals a massive increase in kinetic energy to be absorbed. hence not trusting my life to ncap ratings nd choosing to plod about in a slow old disco with good visibility to see my surroundings.
as for the cost of insurance if you can't afford it don't drive, it is a privalidge after all not a right.
-
This myth that 4x4's are safer than cars in acrash,only comes about if you have a direct crash with another car.When you see the the state of the walls and tress around this area,I'd prefer a car with crumple zones any day.I drive a Zafria and a Sportrak,my driving styles completly differ for both,I go into corners faster and brake later with the deisel Zaf to keep the speed,but my sporti I plan ahead as the handling and brakes are no where near the Zafs.The only times the 4x4 myth comes in,when I got a little towrag in a corsa/saxo big exhaust spoilers tries to play chicken on narrow street,comes toward an old brick s**t house with full bullbar and ton of steel behind it,and large areas of rock and mud with big hills.You drive to suit the conditions not how fast you can go.All drivers should spend at least 2 years on a motorbike,before cars,this teaches you the roadcraft needed to survive.
:clap:
Exactly.
TOO many people don't understand that solid metal isn't good in a crash.
-
getting a little O/T here :lol:
-
Staying OT ;)
The IIHS in the states have just had their 50th anniversary. To celebrate they crashed a 1959 bel air into a 2009 malibu.
It's probably quite reflective of a heavy ladder chassied 4x4 being driven into a modern car.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/26/pics-aplenty-iihs-reveals-before-and-after-of-malibu-bel-air-cr/
Watch the vid, have a look at the pics and make your own minds up. I'm in the 2009 camp myself ;)
-
Just a quick link in case anyone shouts that the bel air had no engine / rusted chassis....
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/