UK vs. US Insurance Rates

[Brian]

Are insurance rates for youths in the UK astronomically higher than in the US? Kids in the off-forum thread where the genius paid ?10k for a ?3k Clio were tossing around yearly insurance quotes in the ?2500-?3500 range for cars like that awful 05 Clio and other relatively pedestrian machinery like various Fiestas. I've read on expat forums that adults in the UK tend to enjoy lower insurance rates than their American counterparts (makes sense, given the state of litigation in the US). So why do the youths seem to pay astronomically more than their young American counterparts? Surely British roads are statistically safer, and I'd imagine that an average American drives more miles in a year than the average Brit thanks to the car-centric culture.

 

[MattD1zzl3]

I dont have much to contribute on the US vs UK debate, but ill enter another interesting query:

For a 23 year old male living in a very bad insurance area (SoFla), a no bullshit, manual RWD v8 car from 1995 is 30-40 dollars a month CHEAPER to insure than a 90HP FWD toyota from 1997.

Why i have no idea, perhaps you all can fill me in. I can only imagine that the first car is older, and there is some arbitrary car value/age bracket that kicks in for cars older than 1996? In any case its very interesting.

[/thead hijack]

 

[Hidden_Hunter]

My accord euro costs me considerably less to ensure than my Integra did and it's ensured for several times what my Integra was.

 

[Brian]

I dont have much to contribute on the US vs UK debate, but ill enter another interesting query:

For a 23 year old male living in a very bad insurance area (SoFla), a no bullshit, manual RWD v8 car from 1995 is 30-40 dollars a month CHEAPER to insure than a 90HP FWD toyota from 1997.

Why i have no idea, perhaps you all can fill me in. I can only imagine that the first car is older, and there is some arbitrary car value/age bracket that kicks in for cars older than 1996? In any case its very interesting.

[/thead hijack]

Repair costs, maybe? Pretty surprising though, given how many teenagers write off similar machinery every year.

 

[Tadite]

My accord euro costs me considerably less to ensure than my Integra did and it's ensured for several times what my Integra was.

Isn't the Integra one of the top-5 most stolen cars in the US?

...

Also I don't think that the UK roads are safer. They are smaller, much more congested, and much of the UK seems to have a weekly habit of drinking and vandalism. All of that means more expensive.

 

[Dsemaj]

Isn't the Integra one of the top-5 most stolen cars in the US?

...

Also I don't think that the UK roads are safer. They are smaller, much more congested, and much of the UK seems to have a weekly habit of drinking and vandalism. All of that means more expensive.

Integras are considered to be a high insurance risk merely because it's a 'sports car', because it has 2 doors. That, and the stereotype of the Integra isn't an insurers dream...

 

[Hidden_Hunter]

Isn't the Integra one of the top-5 most stolen cars in the US?

...

Also I don't think that the UK roads are safer. They are smaller, much more congested, and much of the UK seems to have a weekly habit of drinking and vandalism. All of that means more expensive.

I don't live in the US, our theft lists are dominated by various vintage holden commodores (usually pre 2000 when they started to take security a little bit more seriously)

 

[Nocturnal]

It's too much of a grey area to pin it down to any one reason. I'm guessing the guy who paid ?10k to insure a Clio must have lived in a very bad area, hadn't been driving long, had a history of previous convictions, and had some kind of mental condition that bypasses common sense. I didn't pass my test until I was 19, and within 6 months I was driving a fairly-modified Nissan 200SX (UKDM version of your 240 but with a CA turbo engine, mine was putting out anywhere between 100-20bhp over stock). I paid ?1800 to insure that. While I've heard of 18yr old guys in the US driving 800bhp Supras (which would NEVER happen in the UK), the rates for more reasonable cars dont seem to differ that much.

Personally, I've never seen an insurance quote for ?10k, and I've had quotes for some ridiculous cars. At that price, it's too much of a liability, so they wouldn't insure you anyway.

 

[Dr_Q]

The insurance for young drivers is astronomically high in the UK. I think that it's a common misconception that everyone here wants to drive tiny Clios, Corsas and Saxos because they want to have a small care. The truth is that many are forced to get a the car that they can insure and no the car they they actually wanted. Insurance is dependant on age, where you live and the value of your vehicle.

Thankfully I'm now out of the first 'danger' band of 17-20 so my insurance has gone down a bit however it's still not at all low. It's also entirely sexist with some insurance companies that are women only. To put this into perspective my sister who managed to total her first car actually has a cheaper insurance policy that I did with no crash and 1 year of no claims bonus.

Interestingly, although it's not too relevant it apparently the average cost of the insurance premiums for Bugatti Veyrons here is approximately ?20-30000. This sounds a heck of a lot but when you take into consideration the value of that car, I'm currently paying more right now for my 1.6 Litre Honda Civic.

 

[AiR]

Credit shall be given where it's due, the fact is that the United Kingdom has very safe roads, second only to Malta and Sweden. Malta is by far the safest place going by dead per million but the tiny island also has very special properties and is not comparable to much bigger nations, as anyone who have been there will tell you (I remember nearly falling out of the self-opening emergency exit of a typical maltese Bedford ).

This years report from the European Transport Safety Council is fresh off the presses having been released just yesterday. You can read it in it's entirity here if you want too.
The top five european nations with the least road deaths per million population in 2008 are as follows:

1. Malta, 37*
2. Sweden, 43
3. United Kingdom, 44
4. The Netherlands, 46
5. Switzerland, 47

The bottom five european nations with the most road deaths per million population in 2008 are:

1. Lithuania, 148
2. Poland, 143
3. Romania, 142
4. Greece, 142
5. Latvia, 139

In total, the EU27 average lands at 79. For comparison, in the USA in 2008 122 people were killed on the roads per million inhabitants and 69 in Australia.

 

[Hidden_Hunter]

Credit shall be given where it's due, the fact is that the United Kingdom has very safe roads, second only to Malta and Sweden. Malta is by far the safest place going by dead per million but the tiny island also has very special properties and is not comparable to much bigger nations, as anyone who have been there will tell you (I remember nearly falling out of the self-opening emergency exit of a typical maltese Bedford ).

This years report from the European Transport Safety Council is fresh off the presses having been released just yesterday. You can read it in it's entirity here if you want too.
The top five european nations with the least road deaths per million population in 2008 are as follows:

1. Malta, 37*
2. Sweden, 43
3. United Kingdom, 44
4. The Netherlands, 46
5. Switzerland, 47

The bottom five european nations with the most road deaths per million population in 2008 are:

1. Lithuania, 148
2. Poland, 143
3. Romania, 142
4. Greece, 142
5. Latvia, 139

For comparison, in the USA in 2008 122 people were killed on the roads per million inhabitants and 69 in Australia.

Yeah but how much more do we drive

 

[AiR]

It's not a factor taken into account so I do not know. Distance is not very relevant in either case, just look at Latvia, a country which area accounts for 0.8% of the area and 10% of the population of Australia have more than double the casualty rate. Travelling up the length of the Stuart highway for example is the equivalent of going around Latvia more than two times over, and it's no stretch of the imagination to assume that you would come across more hazardous situations driving the latter.

 

[Twerp128]

^Exactly,

Countries where public transportation is rarely used and your spanning great distances at 70-80 MPH will always have more deaths. But I'll take the risk, it's worth being able to talk on the phone, not worry about speed cameras, and get it up the butt when I want a fun car. These things can be all used irresponsibly, but why should it be assumed if I'm buying a sporty car I'll kill someone. I'm all for strict laws after you've been caught out acting like a dick and endangering other drivers, I should not be considered dangerous because I talk on the phone or own a Miata. As far as I'm concerned people caught out with serious traffic violations, ie. not signaling, running/rolling through stops, weaving, they should be dealt with seriously if they're texting or talking on their cell. People who kill/injure people while intentionally distracted should be facing the same charges as people who drive drunk. Every time I see someone texting, or putting on their makeup, or reading, I wish I had a Dually with a cement filled tube for a rear bumper.

 

[Whappeh]

I dont have much to contribute on the US vs UK debate, but ill enter another interesting query:

For a 23 year old male living in a very bad insurance area (SoFla), a no bullshit, manual RWD v8 car from 1995 is 30-40 dollars a month CHEAPER to insure than a 90HP FWD toyota from 1997.

Why i have no idea, perhaps you all can fill me in. I can only imagine that the first car is older, and there is some arbitrary car value/age bracket that kicks in for cars older than 1996? In any case its very interesting.

[/thead hijack]

I live in FL too, and I was going to change my car to a 2005 GTO from a 2005 RX8 a while ago, and my insurgence (edit: whoops, insurance. never trust firefox spellcheck) was going to go down 90 dollars. I was confused as hell, going from 4 doors to 2 doors, and gaining like 150hp.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

I am also of the confused bunch.

Before I got the Volvo, I got quotes for Chrysler Sebring, BMW 5-series, Toyota Camry and they were all about the same rate of 100$ per month.
My Volvo - $85 per month, even if I had gone for the Turbo it would have been the same.

Even better - it just went down to $62 per month! I know Volvos are safe, but they are pretty much in the same class as the 5 series and yet are considerably cheaper to insure.

 

[Twerp128]

^ No offense dude, but think of the people who drive Volvos. . .

Sebrings cut you off, and you die when they flip, 5-series tailgate you, but Volvos just sit in the right hand land, always signal, and go the speed limit.

Not sure about the Camry, but when I owned mine I constantly had the urge to run it into oncoming traffic, it did the right thing though and died before I had to put it down. I guess the Camry is sort of the Golden Gate bridge of cars.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

I guess you're not familiar with the Volvospeed.com bunch

Volvo drivers are not what they used to be.

 

[Twerp128]

I guess you're not familiar with the Volvospeed.com bunch

Volvo drivers are not what they used to be.

Oh no, my friend has a 240 and another has 850 Turbo, they are great cars. Extremely fast, yet completely unassuming. But like most Miata drivers are women or geriatrics, most Volvo drivers are pretty unconcerned with going fast, it's too sensible of a car.

 

[Brian]

Credit shall be given where it's due, the fact is that the United Kingdom has very safe roads, second only to Malta and Sweden. Malta is by far the safest place going by dead per million but the tiny island also has very special properties and is not comparable to much bigger nations, as anyone who have been there will tell you (I remember nearly falling out of the self-opening emergency exit of a typical maltese Bedford ).

This years report from the European Transport Safety Council is fresh off the presses having been released just yesterday. You can read it in it's entirity here if you want too.
The top five european nations with the least road deaths per million population in 2008 are as follows:

1. Malta, 37*
2. Sweden, 43
3. United Kingdom, 44
4. The Netherlands, 46
5. Switzerland, 47

The bottom five european nations with the most road deaths per million population in 2008 are:

1. Lithuania, 148
2. Poland, 143
3. Romania, 142
4. Greece, 142
5. Latvia, 139

In total, the EU27 average lands at 79. For comparison, in the USA in 2008 122 people were killed on the roads per million inhabitants and 69 in Australia.

I'd argue that the average car in the UK is safer than the average car in Lithuania, which should account for part of the delta in deaths per million (clearly not all of it however).

 

[yeeha]

Thankfully I'm now out of the first 'danger' band of 17-20 so my insurance has gone down a bit however it's still not at all low. It's also entirely sexist with some insurance companies that are women only. To put this into perspective my sister who managed to total her first car actually has a cheaper insurance policy that I did with no crash and 1 year of no claims bonus.

Similar thing happened to me. My sister's insurance with an accident was still not up to where mine was without any tickets or accidents. I know it is all based on statistics but it is still ridiculous.

I don't know how insurance compares US to UK but there is quite a bit a variation in the US alone depending solely on where you live.