I have an idea
instead of charging young drivers 4000+ for the first years insurance why not just put it at 1500 quid with 3000 quid excess if they have an accident, that way most of them would drive with caution so as not to have to pay
I've always thought that the price for insurance should be the same for all drivers and the price reflects the car,
So a bit like what you said the excess should reflect the risk, not the car.
So say you have a brand new 20k quick sporty car, charge 400quid for the car then 3000 excess for a 17year old.
Same car with a 50 year old, 400quid for the car 100quid excess for the driver.
So in theory doesn't matter what your age, if your careful and don't drive like a cock then you can afford insurance.
Let the excess reflect the risk of the driver and the car having a set price based on say its value, age and performance ect...
Why should a 17yr old who is still wet behind the ears and buggers coming out there nose, that knows nothing about driving pay the same rate as someone you has not had a accident or ticket for 42yrs and over 1.5 million safe miles driven in all weather conditions. Fook them they are a hazard and danger to every driver on the road. And there are facts stating that.
Im 20 with two years no claims and i only pay 700 a year with flux direct. really reasonable!
i believe NEW licence drivers should be restricted to what they can drive, they should work their way up similar to bike categories, i.e 1st year limited to 1.2ltr or 80hp and then insurance should reflect that, that i think is fair
this approach would be problematic to business when newly qualified employees can no longer drive a works vehicles