Car insurance for 17 year olds

[Vipa]

So insurance companies charge the earth for 17 year boys car insurance, the insurance companies then loose out through their own greed as the parents add kids as named drivers, then the insurance companies try to frighten them with words like 'fraud' - tell me if I have missed a bit out

 

I don't think it's greed. Uninsured drivers cost the rest of us millions in hiked premiums each year and guess what age range most uninsured drivers are in? 17-21. Now before you respond with the 'catch 22' argument i.e. if the cost of insurance was reasonable for young drivers then there would be less uninsured drivers on the road, bear in mind that most (especially male) young drivers are unfit to be behind the wheel of a car, they tend to take stupid risks and have little concept of consequence, they are especially unconcerned about the police and the law in general but that seems to be the norm nowadays in society in general.

 

If you look at the accident statistics, the number of accidents involving/caused by drivers under the age of 21 is scary. My son passed his test at 17 is now 19 and has been in 3 accidents! the insurance companies certainly haven't made a profit out of him and to be honest I don't think he should be behind the wheel of a car! That's not a reflection on my son or his driving ability (he thinks he's the best driver in the world!!!! don't they all?!!!) but it's a reflection on how his brain works at his age. Looking back, I wouldn't have let me behind the wheel at 17/18, some of the things I did were stupid but that again was an age issue.

 

There is plenty of scientific evidence that shows the part of the brain that deals with consequence doesn't fully develop until the early twenties, a good example of this in action is with adrenaline sports. They are dominated by mid-late teens mainly because at that age the last thing on their mind is consequence of action.

 

I personally think the legal driving age should be increased to 21.

 

I am not tarring all under 21s with the same brush here and I know that there are plenty of conciencious, good, safe 17-21 yr old drivers out there but sadly they are in the minority!

 

I think you will also find that most of those 'greedy' insurance companies are struggling to make ends meet!

 

If you deliberately, with malice and aforethought, lie on an official document, i.e. an insurance application form, IT IS fraud, there is no other word for it, fraud is a criminal offence and is punishable by, at worst, a custodial sentence. The word is not used by insurance companies to scare people, they are stating a fact!

Edited April 6, 2010 by Vipa

[Dunkield]

If you deliberately, with malice and aforethought, lie on an official document, i.e. an insurance application form, IT IS fraud, there is no other word for it, fraud is a criminal offence and is punishable by, at worst, a custodial sentence. The word is not used by insurance companies to scare people, they are stating a fact!

Adding a named driver to a policy isn't lying as far as I know, no where on any document that I have seen <currently> does it ask how many miles the named driver will do etc, and how would those miles be calculated and proven anyway?? that is scaremongering..

 

Unfortunately it is the fault of some, like your son by the sounds of it, that means the rest of the kids (or more likely their parents) are expected to pay £2k+ a year for them to insure a group 2 banger for them to run about in to gain some experience and hopefully no claims.

 

As you are clearly involved in insurance can you answer a simple question for me? how can it be more expensive to insure a car TPF&T than Comprehensive? surely that would help focus young drivers on the results of their actions as it did when I was 17.

[Mungler]

Blimey, the numbers being quoted on this thread are astronomical.

 

I can only assume that you will have to go "off piste" for a car that's not black listed for 17 year olds e.g. Novas, Saxos, Clios, Puntos and Fiestas (or whatever they are called these days).

 

What about getting an old Datsun Cherry, insuring it on a 5000 miles classic car policy and then adding your son as a named driver. If that doesn't deliver the goods then I am fresh out.

 

What about an old London Taxi - they have very low incidences of accidents or theft and may have a low weighting with the insurers. Pretty nifty for driving his mates around as well and making sure they cough for the correct amount of "petrol money".

 

Mungler out.

[KPV4]

I have to be honest a lot of the statistics don't always weigh up :look:

 

I am a retained fire-fighter in an area well documented for its great driving roads we deal with RTC'S on a weekly basis. I see far more 30-50 somethings being involved in accidents on their large high powered motorbikes, and I see far more people killed and injured in that age group than those in the under 21 age group driving cars. I am not saying they are not involved in many minor incidents and some very serious ones, but no where near as much as the born again biker. I know many who ride large, fast motorbikes in the 30-50 age group and I am amazed that their insurance premiums are very very low for fully comp insurance, and when I say small as little as £100 - £150 for 12 months insurance on a very fast bike B)

 

I personally think the insurance companies are taking the mickey over charging all young drivers and branding them all the same

 

Maybe the best way forward for insurance companies is to not insure those youngsters who regularly make large claims, or are prosecuted for traffic violations. Sorry Vipa if my son were crashing cars as much as yours I would be seriously worried about the standard of his driving and who else he is likely to injure, it is always the Innocent party that comes worse off. I would seriously consider sending him on further training before it all goes wrong big time, he is lucky that after 3 accidents it hasn't already and he has not end up with a prosecution for careless or dangerous driving

 

We have all been there, but the idea is to learn from those mistakes very quickly before anyone is injured There is nothing more sobering than attending many of these incidents and seeing the consequences, on some occasions on my return to station I have wondered if there is any need for me to drive

[Dunkield]

Previous threads have claimed it is possible to insure a car for a 17 boy for peanuts, I asked for details but nothing was forthcoming.

The facts, not the word of a 17 year old boy with other things on his mind are.... Group 2 car, value £500, Comp (Third Party makes no odds) £2k+

He is doing Pass Plus as we speak, but how the hell do you explain to someone who has got of his backside to get a part time job that 75% of his annual income will be needed to insure a car?

If you have daughters, for once you can breathe a sigh of relief.

[Dunkield]

And to also pop the 'under 21 year old killing themselves' BS - one of the main reasons there is a shortage of decent organs available these days is the reducing numbers of in fatal RTA's for that age group.

[leeds chimp]

worked in insurance for the past 9 years.....

 

its hard with young drivers due to inexperiance so therefore they get a premium loaded plus have no bonus to use...hence pass plus..

 

my 1st policy was £600 when i was 21 ...

[al4x]

And to also pop the 'under 21 year old killing themselves' BS - one of the main reasons there is a shortage of decent organs available these days is the reducing numbers of in fatal RTA's for that age group.

 

 

thats more safer car design, Insurance works on a premium versus payout ratio and young drivers are most at risk of an accident as we all know. Most of us came out of our teen driving years with experience to look back on and think how did I get away with driving like that. I drove my 205gti generally slower than my first fiat panda

[Vipa]

Adding a named driver to a policy isn't lying as far as I know, no where on any document that I have seen <currently> does it ask how many miles the named driver will do etc, and how would those miles be calculated and proven anyway?? that is scaremongering..

 

Unfortunately it is the fault of some, like your son by the sounds of it, that means the rest of the kids (or more likely their parents) are expected to pay £2k+ a year for them to insure a group 2 banger for them to run about in to gain some experience and hopefully no claims.

 

As you are clearly involved in insurance can you answer a simple question for me? how can it be more expensive to insure a car TPF&T than Comprehensive? surely that would help focus young drivers on the results of their actions as it did when I was 17.

 

There are 2 types of driver on an insurance policy. 'Main' drivers and 'named' drivers.... please get your head round the fact that we are not talking about Mum or Dad putting little Johnny on their insurance so he can occasionally borrow the car. We are talking about the parent deliberately putting themselves down as the main driver of a vehicle and Johnny down as a named driver when little Johnny is to be the main driver (in most instances of fronting, the only driver!). If Johnny spends more time than Mum or Dad behind the wheel of the car in question then he should be listed as the MAIN driver and the premiums will increase respectively.

 

If the insurance documents are filled in showing that Mum or Dad are the main drivers and Johnny is a named driver IN FULL KNOWLEDGE that this isn't to be the case then that is lying and is FRAUD.

 

I do work in the insurance industry but have nothing to do with motor insurance. I specialise in life insurance and mortgages. Let me ask you this....

 

If someone put down on a life insurance application that they had never had cancer when in fact they had so as to keep the premiums low (obviously any insurance company would load the premiums or refuse cover completely in these circumstances) would you throw your arms in the air and cry UNFAIR when the insurance company refused to pay out? Unfortunately it's difficult to then persue someone for fraud in these circumstances as they are dead! but it's the same thing. Deliberately lying on an insurance application is fraudulent behaviou, in other words, an attempt has been made to defraud the company out of money by deliberately falsifying information that the company would normally use to make a reasonable decision as to what to charge for the insurance or offer cover in the first place.

 

Why don't you try putting a few 'untruths' on your next FAC renewal and see how plod views that, or is that different because it's something that could directly hurt you? You sound like the kind of person who doesn't mind a little dishonesty or bending of the law if it suits your circumstances and if that's the case I would argue as to your fitness to hold SGCs/FACs.

 

You asked a question about fully comp being cheaper than TPFT. Haven't got a clue, probably isolated in incidence between insurers and due to an actuarial anomoly. Similar thing happens with some life policies where occasionally 'reviewable' premiums are more expensive than 'guaranteed,' without going into detail, it should be the other way round, by some margin. The insurance companies aren't bothered about how much they are going to have to shell out for the insured's vehicle, they are worried about what they may (based on historical statistics) end up paying out for the damage caused to others property and health. That's why, with young drivers, it is the third party risk which is the greatest.

 

 

As for 'my son' being responsible for everyone elses premium hikes, yes, him and sadly rather a lot of others. Unfortunately young male drivers cause a wholly disproportionate amount of misery in cars and just so you have a few facts to ponder I have pasted some info from one of the charities. There is a very good reason 18 year olds insurance is so expensive!!!!

 

From BRAKE, the road safety charity:

 

Young drivers

There is a wealth of research and casualty data showing that young drivers - particularly young male drivers - are at a much higher risk of crashing than older drivers and are therefore at risk of losing their lives or being seriously injured on the road, often killing or injuring their young passengers or other road users too. For example, in the UK only one in eight driver licence holders is aged 25 or under, [3] yet one in three drivers who die is under 25.[4]

 

Other data from the UK shows that:

- An 18-year-old driver is more than three times as likely to be involved in a crash as a 48 year-old. [5]

- One in five new drivers has a crash within six months of passing their test. [6]

 

Young male drivers

Young male drivers have much higher crash rates than young female drivers due to higher risk taking. [7] In the UK, young male drivers aged 17-20 are seven times more at risk than all male drivers - but between the hours of 2am and 5am their risk is 17 times higher. [8]

 

Speed

Young drivers are more likely to seek thrills from driving fast and cornering at high speed than older drivers.[11] Even sticking to the speed limit can be too fast in the wrong conditions - such as on bendy country roads - but young driver, particularly male drivers, may be reluctant to drive under the speed limit for fear of ‘losing face’ in front of friends.

 

Alcohol

In the UK, male drivers under 25 have the highest incidence of failing a breath test after being involved in a road crash in which someone was injured. In 2004, 5.7% of male 20-24 year-old drivers and 4.2% of male 17-19 year-old drivers involved in injury crashes failed breath-tests, compared to 3.1% of drivers of all ages.[12] Any amount of alcohol can affect a person’s ability to drive safely as alcohol impairs reaction times and affects the ability to judge speed and distances accurately. Alcohol or drugs combined with a lack of experience on roads is a particularly dangerous combination.

[KPV4]

Very interesting read Vipa.

 

I like the paragraph regarding FAC's & SGC's, when I posted the other day regarding using these certs to verify someones integrity and honesty I was shot (excuse the pun) down in flames by quite a lot of people who said being issued one of these didn't reflect on whether they were suitable individuals to poses items which required honesty and integrity

Edited April 6, 2010 by KPV4

[Vipa]

I have to be honest a lot of the statistics don't always weigh up

 

I am a retained fire-fighter in an area well documented for its great driving roads we deal with RTC'S on a weekly basis. I see far more 30-50 somethings being involved in accidents on their large high powered motorbikes, and I see far more people killed and injured in that age group than those in the under 21 age group driving cars. I am not saying they are not involved in many minor incidents and some very serious ones, but no where near as much as the born again biker. I know many who ride large, fast motorbikes in the 30-50 age group and I am amazed that their insurance premiums are very very low for fully comp insurance, and when I say small as little as £100 - £150 for 12 months insurance on a very fast bike :blink: :blink:

 

I personally think the insurance companies are taking the mickey over charging all young drivers and branding them all the same

 

Maybe the best way forward for insurance companies is to not insure those youngsters who regularly make large claims, or are prosecuted for traffic violations. Sorry Vipa if my son were crashing cars as much as yours I would be seriously worried about the standard of his driving and who else he is likely to injure, it is always the Innocent party that comes worse off. I would seriously consider sending him on further training before it all goes wrong big time, he is lucky that after 3 accidents it hasn't already and he has not end up with a prosecution for careless or dangerous driving :blink:

 

We have all been there, but the idea is to learn from those mistakes very quickly before anyone is injured There is nothing more sobering than attending many of these incidents and seeing the consequences, on some occasions on my return to station I have wondered if there is any need for me to drive :(

 

 

Comparing middle aged bikers with young car drivers is like comparing apples with oranges. As a returning middle aged biker I am fully aware of the problems of guys who got their bike licences as young men, who now, with the purchasing power middle age brings, and unfortunately, the slowing of reflexes, lack of fitness and over estimating their long forgotten riding skills, decide to go out and buy a bike. I am also fully aware that riding a bike is inherently more dangerous than driving a car so again no real comparrison can be made. My bike insurance (when I returned to biking, have since left the field again) at age 38 was more expensive TPFT than my car insurance FC!

 

As I have said, statistics.... real statistics show that young male drivers are FAR more likely to be involved in an RTA, are FAR more likely to have caused said RTA than an older driver. The RTAs are FAR more likely to be serious and proportionately FAR more young male drivers (and sadly their passengers) are killed in RTAs.

 

I admire you for what you do in your spare time btw.... I couldn't do it!

Edited April 6, 2010 by Vipa

[Vipa]

Very interesting read Vipa.

 

I like the paragraph regarding FAC's & SGC's, when I posted the other day regarding using these certs to verify someones integrity and honesty I was shot (excuse the pun) down in flames by quite a lot of people who said being issued one of these didn't reflect on whether they were suitable individuals to poses items which required honesty and integrity

 

Unfortunately they are no indication of honesty and integtrity as they rely on the individual being totally honest in the first place and if not then Plod picking up on that fact. Although in reality the questions asked on a FAC don't leave much room for ommissions or embellishments. Being convicted in a court for some kind of dishonesty, unless that involved a custodial sentence, doesn't necessarily preclude one from obtaining a ticket.

[shot shot]

Just to turn this thing on it's head, before I had even passed my test, I as involved in two separate RTAs, and here's the kicker, in both instances, I was not at fault.

 

One fairly minor one with some guy not looking before pulling out of a junction (£1k in damage to the car I was in, mainly a new door, never did hear about the other guys car, but I'd guess a couple of hundred to get a new bonnet fitted)

 

The other one wasn't so minor, the older guy blacked out behind the wheel, and came across the lanes into the front of me. Both cars total write offs, hospitalised, x-rays, pain medication. I've had better days tbh

 

Put it this way, it's not an experience I'm in any rush to repeat

[Ozzy Fudd]

everything that can be said has been said i reckon (although stuartp, just to pull one of your earlier posts, insurance companies do ask how many miles a year the car will be driven, and we go into great detail when a young driver is mentioned - but then if i remember right you dont have a car, so how would you know??)

 

so we know (as statistics prove) young male drivers are more likely to have a crash, due to lack of experience/feeling of invincibility/being a general knobhead it all affects it. but one thing that everyone is forgetting here is that insurance works as a pool - everyone pays their money into it and all the claims that happen are covered by the money pooled in. now the thing is everyones premiums are worked out according to the risk of them having an accident, again backed up by statictics, and also no claims bonus is taken into consideration. if insurance prives for young drivers went down, but they were still having accidents at the rate they usually do, that money would have to come from somewhere else - namely everyone else who didnt have an accident!!

 

last time i saw figures nearly 90% of all money paid into car insurance was paid back out in claims - not bad considering insurance companies have to pay overheads the same as everyone else, ie, staff costs (you think i sit here for free? feels like it tho...) rates, rent, electric, etc. as has been stated insurance companies arent too worried about a young drivers own car, theyre more worried about the claim that will be put in when he smashes into a £40,000 bmw and all the occupants claim whiplash. incidentally i could also argue that the reason insurance premiums are so high is due to garages, solicitors, claims handlers, etc, claiming extortionate amounts for services provided after an accident - that money has to come from somewhere!

[Vipa]

so we know (as statistics prove) young male drivers are more likely to have a crash, due to lack of experience/feeling of invincibility/being a general knobhead

 

Ozzy...... I love you!

[Dunkield]

I love the pure science without a hint of generalisation used here

Young drivers are more likely to seek thrills from driving fast and cornering at high speed than older drivers.

So to answer the OP's question, no there isn't an answer, it's all your fault for being thrill seekers, get your wallet out and suck it up.

 

Unless of course anyone else thinks we should raise the minimum age tp 21

[Vipa]

I love the pure science without a hint of generalisation used here :blink:

 

So to answer the OP's question, no there isn't an answer, it's all your fault for being thrill seekers, get your wallet out and suck it up.

 

Unless of course anyone else thinks we should raise the minimum age tp 21 :(

 

Sadly, in answer to your first question.... yep

 

and as for the second bit.... It's easy for me to say, it's a long time since I was 17 but looking back, I did some things in my mums car that in my 20s I wouldn't have dreamed of and, just to fit nicely into the statistics, had my first crash 2 weeks after passing my test My eldest daughter, who will be driving this November (god help us all :blink: ) was going off on one when she thought they were going to raise the driving age to 18 before she turned 17! raising it to 21 now would cause an outcry... a little like trying to get people to quit ciggies by banning them but in the long run, it would save money and lives as well as reduce emmissions. It would also probably ingrain puplic transports in minds rather than all teenagers automatically assuming they will have a car and be driving as soon as they hit 17!

Edited April 6, 2010 by Vipa

[Mungler]

It is of course on par with the government's plans to get more cars off the road.

 

Why bother raising the driving test age from say 17 to 18 and above when you can just make it plain old unaffordable for the average 17 year old to drive a car.

 

Cunning eh?

[Vipa]

It is of course on par with the government's plans to get more cars off the road.

 

Why bother raising the driving test age from say 17 to 18 and above when you can just make it plain old unaffordable for the average 17 year old to drive a car.

 

Cunning eh?

 

I don't usually stick up for the establishment (well, not this one anyway!) but to be fair to them, they don't influence the cost of motor insurance. Insurance premium tax is a flat 5% no matter how old you are

[Fisherman Mike]

95% of young male drivers are total ********* when they get behind the wheel of a car as was I when I was 17.

 

Sadly this is the reason premiums are so high, that with all the low lifes which either flout the law or dont bother.

 

Only when the Driving test format is changed will there be an improvement in young drivers skills. We all know that you only really start to learn to Drive after you have passed your test so in my opinion the test should be in three parts. The theory, the practical (after which a preliminary licence is issued )and then 6 months later a final more onerous practical test, whereupon passing. the full licence is issued. traffic offences totalling 6 points or more in the first year should be dealt with by revoking of the licence for 12 months.

 

There should also be compulsory re-tests for every driver in the UK every 10 years. The Driving conditions are changing at such a pace the standard of driving in the UK is utterly dreadful and no where near keeping pace with it. Drivers reaching the retirement age should also be re-tested, and when you get to 80 years old licences should be revoked.

 

There should also be more stringent punishments applied to people who continue to commit driving offences. One chap I was listening to at the pub the other night was actually boasting that he had 9 points on his licence for speeding offences. there should be Licence plate checkers on the back of all major traffic lights and on all A roads leading into and out of every town in the UK. This will soon stop those who dont bother with Road Tax, Mot, or Insurance and are basically cocking it up for the rest of us.( including new drivers)

 

Speeding is the by far the worst offence with the majority of accidents, young or old, down to driving not just above the legal speed limit but by not limiting the speed of the vehicle to the conditions or type of road.

 

Britains drivers are terrible and getting worse, you and I included.

 

I post this after just being tail ended by some low life at the lights, who jumped out of his car and tried to make out it was my fault for stopping on an amber light when I should have run the gauntlet. I tried to explain to him that an amber light means Stop at the stop line unless you have already passed over it, or it could cause an accident to stop. I anticipated the light changing and altered my vehicle speed accordingly, wheras he did the same but was so bloody impatient he drove straight into the back of me.

 

After 20 minutes of ranting during which time he threatened to punch the lights out ( I assume he meant mine and not the traffic lights ) the Police arrived and took statements and he continued to rant. One of the nice young lady officers then alerted him to the nearby CCTV cameras on top of the traffic light pillar wherupon he suddenly lost the complete use of his vocal chords....how strange.

[Vipa]

After 20 minutes of ranting during which time he threatened to punch the lights out ( I assume he meant mine and not the traffic lights ) the Police arrived and took statements and he continued to rant. One of the nice young lady officers then alerted him to the nearby CCTV cameras on top of the traffic light pillar wherupon he suddenly lost the complete use of his vocal chords....how strange.

 

Fan bloody tastic :( :blink: :blink: :blink:

 

Do you know, I really detest the OVER use of surveilance in this country but sometimes.... just sometimes...

[Fisherman Mike]

Me too but in this instance...

 

Funny thing was I wasnt aware of it being there either.

 

If the guy had apologised to me and given me his details ( I also had a witness ) we could have been gone in 90 seconds.

 

Now his IC will have to stump up and he could well also be prosecuted by the CPS for a traffic offence.

 

Perhaps some people ought to take a pre-cursory intelligence test before they even apply for a provisional licence

[flexouk]

Bell insurance would well be worth a try. They deal with young drivers and people with no, no claims bonus. They are part of admiral.

[starlight32]

Previous threads have claimed it is possible to insure a car for a 17 boy for peanuts, I asked for details but nothing was forthcoming.

The facts, not the word of a 17 year old boy with other things on his mind are.... Group 2 car, value £500, Comp (Third Party makes no odds) £2k+

He is doing Pass Plus as we speak, but how the hell do you explain to someone who has got of his backside to get a part time job that 75% of his annual income will be needed to insure a car?

If you have daughters, for once you can breathe a sigh of relief.

 

 

And to also pop the 'under 21 year old killing themselves' BS - one of the main reasons there is a shortage of decent organs available these days is the reducing numbers of in fatal RTA's for that age group.

 

You have hit the nail completely on the head stuart, in fact no true a word said. While I was going through the difficult task of insuring my son nearly every insurer had to refer the request to insure him as a named driver to the 'underwriters'

 

Always the same question;

 

'Mr starlight you have a total of four cars in your household, three insured with yourself and 1 in with your partner, Why do you have three in your name? We think you are insuring this vehicle for your sons use'

 

Well excuse me, but I have a car for her, A 4x4 for recreational,A van for business (with a business use policy) and a another car which I use to take the pain out of everyday running about' Thats four cars which have been in ithe house for years all with a use, and all separately insured under the same insurance company.

 

All these motors have a legitimate use, my son is at college, will only use the vehicle more as a back up with occasional use so in essence, I am fulfilling the terms of the policy in him being a 'named driver'

 

Incidentally my missus is on all my other policies without question and has been for years do what's the problem?

 

I wonder how many parents are bullying into buying sole insurance for their children when in reality it is not needed, at great cost when most families are experiencing difficult times at present.

[starlight32]

95% of young male drivers are total ********* when they get behind the wheel of a car as was I when I was 17.

 

Sadly this is the reason premiums are so high, that with all the low lifes which either flout the law or dont bother.

 

Only when the Driving test format is changed will there be an improvement in young drivers skills. We all know that you only really start to learn to Drive after you have passed your test so in my opinion the test should be in three parts. The theory, the practical (after which a preliminary licence is issued )and then 6 months later a final more onerous practical test, whereupon passing. the full licence is issued. traffic offences totalling 6 points or more in the first year should be dealt with by revoking of the licence for 12 months.

 

There should also be compulsory re-tests for every driver in the UK every 10 years. The Driving conditions are changing at such a pace the standard of driving in the UK is utterly dreadful and no where near keeping pace with it. Drivers reaching the retirement age should also be re-tested, and when you get to 80 years old licences should be revoked.

 

There should also be more stringent punishments applied to people who continue to commit driving offences. One chap I was listening to at the pub the other night was actually boasting that he had 9 points on his licence for speeding offences. there should be Licence plate checkers on the back of all major traffic lights and on all A roads leading into and out of every town in the UK. This will soon stop those who dont bother with Road Tax, Mot, or Insurance and are basically cocking it up for the rest of us.( including new drivers)

 

Speeding is the by far the worst offence with the majority of accidents, young or old, down to driving not just above the legal speed limit but by not limiting the speed of the vehicle to the conditions or type of road.

 

Britains drivers are terrible and getting worse, you and I included.

 

I post this after just being tail ended by some low life at the lights, who jumped out of his car and tried to make out it was my fault for stopping on an amber light when I should have run the gauntlet. I tried to explain to him that an amber light means Stop at the stop line unless you have already passed over it, or it could cause an accident to stop. I anticipated the light changing and altered my vehicle speed accordingly, wheras he did the same but was so bloody impatient he drove straight into the back of me.

 

After 20 minutes of ranting during which time he threatened to punch the lights out ( I assume he meant mine and not the traffic lights ) the Police arrived and took statements and he continued to rant. One of the nice young lady officers then alerted him to the nearby CCTV cameras on top of the traffic light pillar wherupon he suddenly lost the complete use of his vocal chords....how strange.

 

 

Compulory testing every ten years? You think we should have more legislation? No way hosay that dont wash with me.

 

If you want to do something constructive about driving ban anyone over 70 from driving on a a sunday afternoon so that people like me after working a 12 hour shift dont get held up by an old duffer doing 30 in a national speed limit when I have done a days work and want to get home