How do you insure a 16 year old driver?

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <1118572918.1182b10505c966cca00c08c2ef302468@teran ews>,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>>Additionally, most policies now are written so that any household
>>members under 25 either must be specifically excluded from driving your
>>vehicles or else your rates go through the roof. Additionally, many
>>policies now prohibit you from lending your car to ANYONE under 25.
>>
>>Pretty soon it will be effectively impossible for a young person to
>>drive due to financial reasons.
>
>
> No, it won't. The insurance companies will make sure the rates are
> not quite painful enough to make it impossible for the middle-class
> suburban teenager to drive.

it's difficult enough for this 31 year old with clean driving record to
afford insurance. I'm paying over $2K a year and that's with two of my
three cars at the cheap historic rates. I only paid $4K for my damn car!

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

In article >,
John David Galt > wrote:
>> " wrote:
>>> What risks does one take when they get insurance to cover anyone
>>> driving the vehicle and a 16 year old household member wrecks the car?
>
>What part of the world are you in? Around here, all car insurance
>covers anyone who drives the car with the owner's permission. You can
>sometimes get an exclusion for a specific person but companies don't
>like to write those, because the courts often make them pay out anyway.

As I understand the law in Massachusetts the company can not refuse
to pay the mandatory coverage ($20,000 bodily injury and $5,000
property damage) but can refuse payment beyond those limits if a
"household member" was driving the car and the premium would have
been higher if the household member had been listed as a driver.

--
John Carr )

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Pretty soon it will be effectively impossible for a young person to
> drive due to financial reasons.

Pretty soon, inflation will have so destroyed the value of California's
ridiculously low 15/30/5 minimum coverage that most parents will just
deposit $35k as a bond with DMV and not bother with insurance at all.
(The main reason people aren't already doing this in large numbers is
that enforcement is such a joke, many people simply ignore the law
requiring insurance or a bond, and go on driving.)

Nate Nagel wrote:
> it's difficult enough for this 31 year old with clean driving record to
> afford insurance. I'm paying over $2K a year and that's with two of my
> three cars at the cheap historic rates. I only paid $4K for my damn car!

That may be why your insurance costs so much. People who drive beaters
are more likely than the rest of us to have the attitude, "who cares if
I clobber someone?" and rates reflect that.

John David Galt wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> it's difficult enough for this 31 year old with clean driving record
>> to afford insurance. I'm paying over $2K a year and that's with two
>> of my three cars at the cheap historic rates. I only paid $4K for my
>> damn car!
>
>
> That may be why your insurance costs so much. People who drive beaters
> are more likely than the rest of us to have the attitude, "who cares if
> I clobber someone?" and rates reflect that.

I disagree... my car is far from a beater, although sometimes I refer
to it as such; it's merely 17 years old and fully depreciated. My
insurance company thinks it's worth about $7K anyway (not through any
prompting from me; that's what their tables say) In any case, the
sanitary state of my driving record ought to disabuse them of that
notion. I hate doing bodywork on *any* car, whether it be new or old.

For reference, for a while I was driving an '02 GTI - and my rates were
even *higher.*

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

John David Galt wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > it's difficult enough for this 31 year old with clean driving record to
> > afford insurance. I'm paying over $2K a year and that's with two of my
> > three cars at the cheap historic rates. I only paid $4K for my damn car!
>
> That may be why your insurance costs so much. People who drive beaters
> are more likely than the rest of us to have the attitude, "who cares if
> I clobber someone?" and rates reflect that.

That's a surprisingly stupid thing for you to say, and you don't usually say
stupid things. Any sane insurance company would total out my 1970 banged-up
formerly-owned-by-Caltrans pickup if I had a flat tire and I'd have to be
insane to carry collision on it, but I do carry 100-300-5 on it.

--
Cheers,
Bev
---------------------------------------------------------
If I know that chaining yourself to a dead cow is stupid,
how come Carly makes so much more money than I do?

>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> it's difficult enough for this 31 year old with clean driving record to
>>> afford insurance. I'm paying over $2K a year and that's with two of my
>>> three cars at the cheap historic rates. I only paid $4K for my damn car!

> John David Galt wrote:
>> That may be why your insurance costs so much. People who drive beaters
>> are more likely than the rest of us to have the attitude, "who cares if
>> I clobber someone?" and rates reflect that.

The Real Bev wrote:
> That's a surprisingly stupid thing for you to say, and you don't usually say
> stupid things. Any sane insurance company would total out my 1970 banged-up
> formerly-owned-by-Caltrans pickup if I had a flat tire and I'd have to be
> insane to carry collision on it, but I do carry 100-300-5 on it.

How does that make anything I said less likely to be true?

Insurance rates are set statistically. Even if the underwriter knows you,
that's only anecdotal evidence, which is unreliable mathematically.

John David Galt wrote:
>
> >> Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>> it's difficult enough for this 31 year old with clean driving record to
> >>> afford insurance. I'm paying over $2K a year and that's with two of my
> >>> three cars at the cheap historic rates. I only paid $4K for my damn car!
>
> > John David Galt wrote:
> >> That may be why your insurance costs so much. People who drive beaters
> >> are more likely than the rest of us to have the attitude, "who cares if
> >> I clobber someone?" and rates reflect that.
>
> The Real Bev wrote:
> > That's a surprisingly stupid thing for you to say, and you don't usually say
> > stupid things. Any sane insurance company would total out my 1970 banged-up
> > formerly-owned-by-Caltrans pickup if I had a flat tire and I'd have to be
> > insane to carry collision on it, but I do carry 100-300-5 on it.
>
> How does that make anything I said less likely to be true?
>
> Insurance rates are set statistically. Even if the underwriter knows you,
> that's only anecdotal evidence, which is unreliable mathematically.

The fact that somebody drives a beater doesn't necessarily mean that he
doesn't care who he hits. It does mean that he can't or won't buy a more
expensive car, but you have no way of knowing whether or not the person has
insurance. Unlike the difference in cost between beaters and expensive cars,
the difference in cost between minimum and maximum liability insurance really
isn't all that much.

--
Cheers,
Bev
*******************************************
My computer doesn't have to be friendly;
civil is entirely sufficient.