The Kid: Car Insurance

As you may or may not have noticed (to be honest, I don't care either way, except that I'll kill your children and eat your pet hamster if you didn't notice) I turned 17 this week. I've had my provisional driving license for a month, ready for last Tuesday when I'd finally be able to put it into practice. I got some L-plates for my birthday, and have been promised lessons by various relatives (Dad's probably the best bet, he can actually reverse park).

And then the problem arose.

The car that I was intending to use to learn how to drive is my mother's Ford Fiesta, circa 2003. It's not exactly an Enzo, let's put it that way. The amount required to get insurance to learn to drive said car? About £4,000. £4,000. Seriously.

Pictured: The car I wish I was learning to drive.

Now, the average 17-year-old is either in college, working part-time, or has a job at entry level or an apprenticeship. I don't think that they have £4,000 just lying around to pay for insurance just to learn how to drive (David Cameron probably did when he was this age, but anyway). That is, of course, on top of the cost of the car, road tax, fuel, fuel duty, and the myriad other charges levied on every other driver in the land. Even a provisional license costs £50 that I don't have, and had to ask for as a birthday present. (On top of the aforementioned L-plates. I had to sacrifice Mass Effect 2. You have no idea of the anguish that that caused me.)

Now, I understand that the insurance companies need to make money. They wouldn't exist otherwise. They do, however, have something of a captive audience, in that it is illegal to drive anything without insurance.

Can they not give learners a break though? Of course we are logically quite likely to have an accident (as in a car crash, not what you were thinking). But then, are we not the most careful, the most tentative, the most cautious drivers, simply because we have to concentrate so hard on the road? It's because young drivers, particularly teenage boys, break the law so often in cars, is what the statisticians will tell you. Idiot boy racers ruining it for everybody. Except...

The majority of lads I know wouldn't bother trying to do handbrake turns or be first off the mark at the traffic lights. We don't have the cars to do it, and are conscientious enough to know that we have to pay for any damage. The Insurance companies will say that we need a no-claims bonus, to prove that we are good drivers. Yep, we have to pay through the nose for the privilege of proving that we shouldn't have to pay so much. That makes perfect sense.

My more conspiratorial side, however, suspects something more sinister is afoot here. Everybody is quick to point the finger at the corporations being the obvious bad guys again. But what if there is something deeper going on, something with a little more meaning. Tinfoil hat time, people.

The penalty for driving without insurance does not come from the insurance company. The real penalty is not in what you have to pay to have your own car fixed, or that of the other party. No, the real penalty is the maximum £5,000 fine that can be levied on you just for driving without insurance, as well as anything between 3-8 points on your license.

Let's put that into perspective. The fine is the same as Drink Driving, (although you don't have to go to jail for driving without insurance), twice that of Driving Without Due Care, and five times the amount for driving without a license.

Hmmm, so I pay £4,000 for learner's insurance, or risk a £5,000 fine. The choice seems pretty obvious, little more than basic maths. But why is the fine for driving without insurance so high? It's like fining people for not having a bank account (Watch this space) . Even after learning, the premiums drop to an altogether more manageable £1,500 per annum.

Are the government up to something here? Obviously they rake in a couple of billion a year through taxing insurance companies, but why go so hard on young drivers? Surely they want us to grow up, drive safely, and pay our car tax, fuel duty, road tax, MOT, and all the rest of it.

The only conclusion that I can come to is that they are playing a long, green game(no, not golf). By making it so hard financially to learn to drive, at the same time as introducing University fees, they must be trying to stop people learning to drive. It makes sense. They can charge quite a bit for public transport, and appease the green lobby at the same time. They continue making money off of people who continue to drive, while the NHS gets a bit of relief from the lack of road traffic incidents. Surely though, they are better going after public drunkenness than kids wanting to get behind the wheel? (That might have to wait for next month, though).

It's just a bit crap for the victims of such a system. Ah well, looks like I'll have to not bother with the Enzo. Pity.