---

Quote: from prisoner of hss at 11:04 pm on Jan. 4, 2009

---

Quote: from okumsup at 11:03 pm on Jan. 4, 2009

---

it's gender, age, and history of accidents..
  can't really say it's unfair as new drivers, especially males, are more likely to drive carelessly

---

Why not just extend it to all new drivers regardless of age or gender? Or why not offer more ways to offset your premium just because everyone else drives stupid?

---

because younger drivers are more likely to want to impress people through their driving ability

however, i do think they should lower the prices exponentially through every year thats completely free of accidents..

---

---

not really. younger drivers are immature and reckless.

---

Yes, it's based on statistics. Younger drivers have more accidents and male younger drivers have more than female ones.

You could make it "seem" fairer" if the cost was spread over the entire base of insured drivers but that woudl be short-sighted. Basically it woudl mean that everyone over 25 (the usual line the insurance companies draw) would be paying more to cover the bad record of younger ones. The problem is that they- and you eventually, after age 25 - will be driving and paying higher premiums for 40 years, so that under-25's don't have to pay higher prices for a maximum of 9 years. Would that be fair to you on your 25th birthday?

-------
A Parent, old geezer, and occasionally right. Good judgment comes from bad
experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

it's never going to be perfect, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of fucking effort to make something fairer which is mandatory in this country, which should of course be a priority. Should start by not making the license acquisition system such a damn joke.

Post edited at 8:16 pm on Jan. 4, 2009 by iconoclast

-------
join this group only if youre a mod

---

.... And if you want to talk based on statistics, old people get into a ton of fucking crashes, but are given reduced rates and allowed to drive anyway, because its culturally acceptable.

...... Should start by not making the license acquisition system such a damn joke.

---

I don't think any insurance company would agree with you about older people, based on the statistics aka, the facts. And the accidents older people have tend to be less "bad", resulting in less damage and fewer paralysed or dead people. They're more likely the fender bender at an intersection than the drunk or stoned or jsut testosterone-pumped high speed, inexperienced driver crashes into poles, ditches and other cars on the high speed highways.

But I agree with you about the licence acquisition...but not for young people, for older. At least where I live, it's become difficult for young drivers to ge their full licence. Older drivers ... really old, like 80 + should, IMO, have to take more stringent testing.

-------
A Parent, old geezer, and occasionally right. Good judgment comes from bad
experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

Some old idiot pulled out into the left lane when I was going 65+ at a yellow light a few years back, I was stupid to jam it with someone at the intersection to turn right (however, it is something that is extremely common around here), but by god, that old guy almost got me killed...

Post edited at 8:31 pm on Jan. 4, 2009 by iconoclast

-------
join this group only if youre a mod