New research: More youngsters riding rather than driving

daviesee

Kieran_Burns wrote:

but most accidents happen in the home.

Stand in the open doorway. It's the only way to be sure.

We're doomed. Doomed I tell you!

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It has been know for fights and other things to happen on public transport. Sometimes the journey home is more dangerous than the club/party/thing you attend.

Really?
It has been known for people to get hurt in car accidents.
If you/they are that concerned, stay indoors for the rest of your/their life. It's a bad world out there.....

Indeed, this is why some parents go as far as buying their children younger cars with better safety features as oppose to the £500 banger that barely passed the Euro ncap tests. Yes some parents buy into that as well. Some parents buy their kids mobile phones so that (i) the child is contactable and (ii) the parents are contactable. Yes there is a risk of carrying a mobile phone but, I dunno, I suppose the assumed risk is outweighed by the assumed benefit. The same logic would apply to providing a car whatever side of the line a persons thoughts may fall. With that in mind your "there's risks no matter what, so why bother" point above is largely an erroneous one (it also really gets on my wick).

Look there are some who have been affected by, lived near and/or know the area where there has been a terrible life taking or threatening crime.

And while those parents may not want to deny their child the joys of living life they want to feel secure in knowing that they have done what they feasibly and realistically can to ensure the safety of their child without stifling the joys of living as forcing a teenager to stay at home would do.

Or so the rationale goes.

esspeebee

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sometimes the journey home is more dangerous than the club/party/thing you attend.

Particularly when you're 17 and driving home from a party where, being 17 and at a party, you've been drinking heavily.

DonDaddyD

esspeebee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sometimes the journey home is more dangerous than the club/party/thing you attend.

Particularly when you're 17 and driving home from a party where, being 17 and at a party, you've been drinking heavily.

Not all 17 year olds drink. Some that do are smart enough to not drink and drive. What's your point.

Aren't we just nitpicking now?

esspeebee

DonDaddyD wrote:

Not all 17 year olds drink. Some that do are smart enough to not drink and drive. What's your point.

That for what is I assume still the majority of late-teen children who do want to drink, a car is not a good way to get home from such events. My memories of that age are that when we went out, it was either to school, in which case there were plenty of safe transport options used by all the other people going to school (and there wasn't enough parking space near school to make driving viable anyway), or it was with friends in the evening and some amount of alcohol was more likely to be involved than not. Either way, having a car was not a large advantage most of the time.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

With that in mind your "there's risks no matter what, so why bother" point above is largely an erroneous one (it also really gets on my wick).

Great. Now I know how to get to you

DonDaddyD wrote:

Look there are some who have been affected by, lived near and/or know the area where there has been a terrible life taking or threatening crime.

And yet people keep going on about how that London is such a great place to live :twisted:

DonDaddyD

esspeebee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Not all 17 year olds drink. Some that do are smart enough to not drink and drive. What's your point.

That for what is I assume still the majority of late-teen children who do want to drink, a car is not a good way to get home from such events. My memories of that age are that when we went out, it was either to school, in which case there were plenty of safe transport options used by all the other people going to school (and there wasn't enough parking space near school to make driving viable anyway), or it was with friends in the evening and some amount of alcohol was more likely to be involved than not. Either way, having a car was not a large advantage most of the time.

Fair enough. Circumstances and social circles have different social habits. I had a group of friends who, from 15, spent Saturday in the pub. I had another group of friends, who spent Saturday raving in far far away places like NORTH LONDON and Camden, and they relied on a driver to get us back to the endz that was South London.

For what it's worth I was never the reliable driver, I was the drunk.

Each child is different and so are the places they would go to. I don't think their is a singular rule, but for those whose child wants a car or parents who want to provide their child a car I think I've clearly explained one of the plausible reasons for doing so.

phreak

Be cheaper to use a taxi than buy an expensive car just for getting you bak from dangerous places late at night wouldn't it? For everything else there's a bike or public transport?

DonDaddyD

phreak wrote:

Be cheaper to use a taxi than buy an expensive car just for getting you bak from dangerous places late at night wouldn't it? For everything else there's a bike or public transport?

I thought that too. But then the car has other uses and benefits and allows a measure of independence/responsibility that you don't get from getting taxi's everywhere.

Probably gonna fund my kids insurance after this thread is done.

Damn, thanks and damn.

daviesee

phreak wrote:

Be cheaper to use a taxi than buy an expensive car just for getting you bak from dangerous places late at night wouldn't it? For everything else there's a bike or public transport?

True.
I did a calculation once where I added up all the costs of buying and running a car.
As my work was within 5 miles I would have been cheaper getting a taxi everywhere.
The fact that I cycled made it even more so.

Don't do the sums unless you are prepared for a large number :shock:
A car costs a scary amount and that's without young driver/expensive insurance.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

phreak wrote:

Be cheaper to use a taxi than buy an expensive car just for getting you bak from dangerous places late at night wouldn't it? For everything else there's a bike or public transport?

I thought that too. But then the car has other uses and benefits and allows a measure of independence/responsibility that you don't get from getting taxi's everywhere.

Dogging.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

phreak wrote:

Be cheaper to use a taxi than buy an expensive car just for getting you bak from dangerous places late at night wouldn't it? For everything else there's a bike or public transport?

I thought that too. But then the car has other uses and benefits and allows a measure of independence/responsibility that you don't get from getting taxi's everywhere.

Dogging.

Never tried, I here it's all the rage with the Dutch. What's it like Rick?

merkin

Perhaps some youngsters need a car to get to work. My firm insists that any new employees, including apprentices, hold a full clean licence and have independent transport. I imagine many parents of teenagers would be more than happy to help with transport costs for a few years to support them.

daviesee

merkin wrote:

Perhaps some youngsters need a car to get to work. My firm insists that any new employees, including apprentices, hold a full clean licence and have independent transport. I imagine many parents of teenagers would be more than happy to help with transport costs for a few years to support them.

I wonder if said company also highlights it's green credentials? :roll:
Perspective is required. What is the company business and why do employees need a clean license and independent transport?
Does a bicycle constitute as independent transport?

roger_merriman

daviesee wrote:

merkin wrote:

Perhaps some youngsters need a car to get to work. My firm insists that any new employees, including apprentices, hold a full clean licence and have independent transport. I imagine many parents of teenagers would be more than happy to help with transport costs for a few years to support them.

I wonder if said company also highlights it's green credentials? :roll:
Perspective is required. What is the company business and why do employees need a clean license and independent transport?
Does a bicycle constitute as independent transport?

Unless it's very urban, a car will start to become faster,

and not every one goes to a office maybe working at several places on the same day, may need to take stuff with you.

not all jobs are suitable by bike.

EKE_38BPM

When I was 15 I got a job and began saving because I wanted a car and I knew I wouldn't get any money from my parents. I passed my driving test two years later (after paying for all of my lessons myself) and bought, taxed and insured my first car. Freedom!
I then crashed it (write off) and started saving again. I eventually got another car and taxed and insured that.
I then crashed it (write off) and started saving again. I eventually got another car and taxed and insured that.
I then crashed it (write off).
I spent a lot of money on cars in my early motoring years.

I then went to uni and when I finished I saved and bought another car, drove sensibly and sold it. I then bought the car I own now and I've had it for over 10 years (because I like it).

What I have learnt from this is that youngsters should earn their own money to pay for their car. Even the crashes were good as my parents couldn't say anything to me as it was my money I was wasting. A different kind of freedom.
Anyone paying ~£4k for insurance is an idiot. Get an old car that is falling to bits, learn how to maintain it, pay less insurance and still have fun as you've never had that degree of freedom before.


Oh yeah, I should tell you all that I am a MUCH more sensible driver these days!

daviesee

roger merriman wrote:

Unless it's very urban, a car will start to become faster,

and not every one goes to a office maybe working at several places on the same day, may need to take stuff with you.

not all jobs are suitable by bike.

Which is why I asked for perspective. My wife is a community nurse for example. Travelling many miles per day and carrying a lot of gear. Nurse Gladys wouldn't cope with todays situation
For the vast majority though, public transport or a bicycle can suffice. If they can be bothered.

A car being faster is a poor excuse to blow 4k per annum on insurance.

Stag on

In the period 1960-2007/8 we saw the largest increase in living standards in history within the Western world. In the UK people's incomes rose to the extent that most could afford to run several cars per household. Let's ignore for now the fact that in the last few years of that increase in living standards the improvement was funded by unsustainable levels of credit.

Being honest, the convenience provided by the motor vehicle is generally second to none, large cities aside, and people's behaviour has reflected getting used to this. No need to plan journeys in advance or leave early, the car will get you there quickly. This expectation of convenience is probably now largely 'hard wired' in the majority of the population.

More concerningly, the UK transport infrastructure became increasingly 'car centric' as more and more people took up this mode of transport, bus links to small villages were reduced as no one used them any more, leading in a circular fashion to greater car use. Ironically this was counter productive as increasingly gridlocked roads meant that journey times by car were extended.

Since 2007/8 motoring costs have risen significantly and for most wages have flatlined, but the fact is that most people choose to afford to run a car. They have gotten used to it and the expense of several grand a year is justified as for many it saves them several hours of time in their 'busy' lives a day.

What we might begin to see as this evidences is that 'The bank of mum and dad' fuelled by increases in property prices over the last few decades, is now beginning to run dry and the days when a middle class teenagers 17th birthday was greeted by a shiny new Golf GTI on the drive are probably over. This is arguably not a bad thing, as young people will have to learn to save and find other ways of getting around.

The current generation of young people will be the first in several decades not to see a significant increase in living standards in their youth. They will pay for the excesses of the last generation. Whether this is a bad thing or not in the long run is open to debate, people will need to learn to live more sustainably and adapt their behaviour to squeeze more out of their wages per month, which is perfectly achievable with a bit of innovation and hard work. Cycling ticks a number of boxes in this regard and the average commute in the UK (9 miles) is perfectly achievable on a bicycle. Plus it will help deal with a number of society's other 'ills' such as incidence of obesity and heart disease amongst our increasingly idle and corpulent population.

I think we will continue to see an increase in cycling in the UK within this demographic for as long as this financial downturn lasts (at least another 5-10 years?). The main limiting factor is that UK transport infrastructure (see the 'car centric' point above) dissuades many potential cyclists from taking it up.

fossyant

My niece (20 years old) has recently started driving - an old little Lupo, £360 per month to insure TPF&T OMFG ! She spends most of her salary on the car !

I've got mine down to £250 a YEAR !

Her fiancé has a Corsa (yes it's a silly chaved up 1.2 TWINPORT) and they both must spend a fortune running them - what was the point of getting engaged if they'll never both save enough for a deposit. If they dumped the cars they could afford to rent a property or even save up. Both still at home.

mattwood

As a 22 year old male, The cost of driving has never been that cheap for me - so I decided to ride to work a year ago, and sold my car very shortly after.

When I was 17 I was "lucky" enough to be given my first car; my nan's old 1992 VW polo 1.3L (Value about £20). This cost £1419 to insure TPFT in year 1. Year 2 saw the cost down to £787 and by Year 3 it was down to £352 Fully Comp. 2 Months into year 3 I bought a newer, diesel car as I was now driving 30 miles a day to work and more for pleasure - so the oil burner made sense. That put my insurance up to £600 ish for year 4 and there was no real decrease in year 5.

When I sold the car it needed a bit of work, and tyres, discs and pads were going up in price too, as was the tax and fuel (about £130 tax and £30 per week fuel, not to mention MOT and servicing costs!).

Having been riding to work for a year, I have saved roughly £200-£250 PER MONTH by not having to shell out for maintainence and running costs of the car. I am somewhat less stressed without the car and my fitness has improved sharply.

However, and it is a big however for (m)any young person, mst of my friends live a fair distance from me these days, and while the distance is ride-able, I don't wish to arrive at my mates' houses sweating like a badger from the ride. The ability to ride is often affected by the weather and I have to plan time to actually get to where my friends are meeting, which isn't convenient at all. Alternatively, the PT from my sub-urban dwellings to my friends equally rural homes comes in the form of an hourly bus (until 7pm) at the cost of £3 each way.

Practically, I couldn't be worse off as I have lost the ability to carry larger/large quantites of goods when I have been shopping, for instance. I am learning to live without a car and I can rely on some friends and family to help me out when needed.

What I need to consider long term is that I am currently saving for a deposit for a house that I wish to buy with my current girlfriend, but that may not necessarily be close to my place of work, which may dictate needing a car.

The short point of this is really an echo of previous points that this country has lived on the 'car is king' mantra for too long to be able to forgo having a car and while the costs may be in line with inflation, my pay hasn't increased at the same rate, meaning the overall cost is still more.

SimonAH

The good news Matt is that once you pass 25 insurance costs will likely be much better.

Were I in your boots however (assuming that you are mechanically ept) I would buy something fun and old (like a classic mini, a moggy minor, a beetle etc) which if old enough will be tax exempt but most importantly can be put on classic car insurance with limited mileage.

Result - you get to keep racking up the bike miles and saving the dosh, but every now and then when you actually need to use the car you have one.

Additionally your mates will think it's cool (instead of tatty and old) and you are unlikely to lose cash on it come selling time.

DonDaddyD

Child wants/needs car.

Parent wants/needs/believes this will add to childs safety and independence.

Child is also studying.

Due to costs working Saturday and Sunday isn't going to cover the cost of running the car - insurance being the most prohibitive factor.

Due to parents own life and decisions, parent places extra value on needing the time to study and would prefer not to have their child working additional hours during the week to afford a car.

Parent is also reminded of how they slogged their guts out to get ahead, maybe in part because their own parents couldn't afford to or didn't understand the need and benefits of providing extra support, t'was a different time socially and economically after all. So imposing the Grandparents sense of parenting values onto their child, mostly and largely isn't going to work. Equally while they want to teach the child their own sense of hardworking values they also want the child to benefit from that hardwork.

So parent comes to an agreement to help towards the cost of buying and/or running a car providing the child gives 100% educationally or in whatever life building thing they are doing.

Some my not agree. But I don't think you can simply dismiss a parent using this logic or any other - that has an positive outlook should they choose to pay their childs insurance cost.

cyclingprop

Point taken DDD, but:

It is possible to work evenings, study, earn a degree (a good one, from a good university), buy a car and run/maintain it.

I would suggest it is more in the parent's interest to try and support the child having a decent standard of housing (I've seen some real pits), and maybe even making sure they eat decent food (the occasional delivery from a supermarket could make sure this didn't turn into booze).

Thats the priority in my view anyway.

merkin

daviesee wrote:

merkin wrote:

Perhaps some youngsters need a car to get to work. My firm insists that any new employees, including apprentices, hold a full clean licence and have independent transport. I imagine many parents of teenagers would be more than happy to help with transport costs for a few years to support them.

I wonder if said company also highlights it's green credentials? :roll:
Perspective is required. What is the company business and why do employees need a clean license and independent transport?
Does a bicycle constitute as independent transport?

I have never heard mention of green credentials. :roll:
Electrical contracting. Varies from new socket for Mrs Miggings to large offices, industrial contracts etc
Clean license wanted as it is currently an employers market so they can afford to be choosy and nobody wants to have boy racers running over potential customers and wrecking company vans.
Work is generally anywhere within a 70 mile radius with a 7.30 start on site. Sometimes further but fortunately not too often. Actual transport used varies wildy depending on location. mostly cars and vans. Very frequently cycles. (Oxford, London)and PT.
There seems to be an automatic assumption among many (not just on this forum) that we all live in London and work in an office of a large company with a HR dept, championing their green credentials. That is not always the case. There is a big world out there.

daviesee

merkin wrote:

I have never heard mention of green credentials. :roll:
Electrical contracting. Varies from new socket for Mrs Miggings to large offices, industrial contracts etc
Clean license wanted as it is currently an employers market so they can afford to be choosy and nobody wants to have boy racers running over potential customers and wrecking company vans.
Work is generally anywhere within a 70 mile radius with a 7.30 start on site. Sometimes further but fortunately not too often. Actual transport used varies wildy depending on location. mostly cars and vans. Very frequently cycles. (Oxford, London)and PT.
There seems to be an automatic assumption among many (not just on this forum) that we all live in London and work in an office of a large company with a HR dept, championing their green credentials. That is not always the case. There is a big world out there.

Fair enough.
Which ties in nicely with my other post from this morning.

daviesee wrote:

Which is why I asked for perspective. My wife is a community nurse for example. Travelling many miles per day and carrying a lot of gear. Nurse Gladys wouldn't cope with todays situation
For the vast majority though, public transport or a bicycle can suffice. If they can be bothered.

A car being faster is a poor excuse to blow 4k per annum on insurance.

We are generalising here and generally speaking most people don't need a car anywhere near as much as they want it.

DonDaddyD

cyclingprop wrote:

Point taken DDD, but:

It is possible to work evenings, study, earn a degree (a good one, from a good university), buy a car and run/maintain it.

Really? I wanted to double check this so I used Tesco Compare to list third party fire and threft car insurance for my mate Dewayne, 19, lives in Norbury and has my old W reg 1.4ltr Seat Ibiza (12 year old car - that's old).

Cheapest Insurance was elephant.co.uk: £3,318.86

£7 per hour (that's generous) x 8 hour shift = £56 a day. £112 a week. £428 a month. I think many have found that they could probably afford the insurance but not much else (petrol, car tax, service, parking costs, food, drink, clothes, mobile phone and other social cost).

Now I would like to think I could get that cheaper. So I went to Tesco thinking I could benefit from their Tesco Value insurance. It's what I did when I first passed my test and wanted my insurance to be less than £1000. Nope. Their cheapest insurance (fire and theft with a £350 excess) was: £9840.50 or just 10 monthly payments of £902.04 and a advance payment of £1640.14.

The ridiculousness of it.

And if got me thinking? Why the bloody hell is insurance so damn expensive anyway? Car's are safer, there are less accidents. These teenagers will, at some point, have to drive. If the premiums are set at such a high rate from the beginning are the insurance companies conditioning the market into being used to pay for car premiums at inflated or simply a higher rate. (If you originally paid £3,000 insurance when you are 17 then at 27 you'll be happy to pay £1000. Whereas for me I'd expect to pay less than £700).

cyclingprop wrote:

I would suggest it is more in the parent's interest to try and support the child having a decent standard of housing (I've seen some real pits), and maybe even making sure they eat decent food (the occasional delivery from a supermarket could make sure this didn't turn into booze).

Thats the priority in my view anyway.

I'd argue that if a parent is in the position to consider forking over the car insurance costs, then they have probably delivered on housing*, food etc.

*Student housing and the upkeep is usually down to the group of sudents though and how clean they are at that stage of their life. That's why I lived with girls though one of them turned out to be scummy.

SimonAH

The reason it's so high is that an insurance company DOES NOT WANT TO INSURE A TEENAGE LAD IN A CAR. I mean why would they? Much more lucrative in the long term to insure 1000 more mature drivers. Look at your own admitted crash record. Any ONE of those could have cost your insurer hundreds of grand depending on what you hit.

DonDaddyD

What crash record?

I've crashed once and neither I or the other driver made a claim. In fact I've never made an insurance claim on my car.

Touch wood.

cyclingprop

Good point reference the car coming after the housing. I do think that independence is something that has to be learned and earned. Can you really be independent if your independence is funded by your olds?

And yes, I managed to do it when I studied (contrary to popular opinion, quite recently), though I didn't study in London. First two years I walked/bussed, took a year out in employment in my third year and bought a car while doing it, then moved back with the car etc.

Finally (and I guess I can only really say this as someone who is not originally from London), public transport here is pretty good. The town I grew up in had one but a day to the town with the nearest cinema. The school bus was chartered by the council because there was no regular bus route. So cars were more often "necessities" because people needed to use them to get places. Of course, I didn't have the biking bug then (or a bike capable of 7-10 miles on the road each way every day) but I like to think that if I did...

But the most interesting thing I saw in your post is about the cost of insurance. Wow. The cost of my insurance always varied wildly depending on where I have lived which I guess is a composite of

Risk of driver having an accident
Number of other drivers on the road
Relative risk of other drivers having an accident
Risk of fire at storage location
Risk of theft at storage location
Some risk based on the car insured
Various other secret factors

I got rid of my car when I moved into London. All I could see I would use it for was the a weekly shop so couldn't justify it.

DonDaddyD

Good point reference the car coming after the housing. I do think that independence is something that has to be learned and earned. Can you really be independent if your independence is funded by your olds?

No, you can't. But that is the way society is heaading, I reckon people mature/age later in life in general now. I would argue that an average 25yr old (London) has about as much maturity/independence/responsibility as the average 18year old between 1975 - 1980.

Cyclingprop, How much was your insurance, how old were you when you were first insured/studying?

I do think that the cost of living (rent, house buying, education, insuring a car) is prohibitive to the point that it is a contributing factor in preventing adults (I'm talking 25 and older) from being truly independent in that they are still being or need to be supported, in some way, by their parents.