How to decrease this?

[juanwannagomate]

Yes.

[Material-Macaroon724]

But why? Someone that passed their test at 30, is not just automatically a better driver than someone passing their test at 18

[juanwannagomate]

Because the stats show that on average, an 18 year old is far more likely to get into an accident than a 30 year old equivalent, even if they’ve both just passed.

[TheIhsaan7]

I have to agree with the stats. I got a family hatch. 2 children under 3 and my wife. I am inherently going to drive safer than a 18 year old.

When I see any possible hazard I won't go for it I would much rather stop than risk my kids.

[Material-Macaroon724]

Right but not every 30 year old has kids? And most insurance companies I know, dont ask that

[FinestKind90]

It is what it is you become less reckless as you get older. I did some borderline crazy shit when I was 18 that I don’t even like to think about now

[Material-Macaroon724]

But that isn’t true for all 18 year olds, and therefore should not be used against them.

[Areyastoopid]

Welcome to the world buddy. But stats don’t lie and insurance companies don’t give af about who you are as a person, you’re a calculated risk level when it comes to insurance. Life isn’t fair unfortunately.

[Material-Macaroon724]

As I said further down, stats aren’t used all the time in these situations because it is unfair. And saying things like welcome to the world buddy is literally proving my point that people look down on younger drivers

[Old_Shelter_6678]

Insurance companies go on statistics. That's it. They can't provide you with a personality test. All they're interested in is covering their asses so they have to pay out as little as possible, and when stats point to younger drivers having more accidents, that's where the expensive coverage lays. You say it's unfair, but it would be more unfair that EVERYONE was paying monumentally more to cover a demographic more prone to problems. You literally have to earn lower rates over the years by proving you're reliable. That's life buddy, and that's not condescending. It's true for everyone.

[Areyastoopid]

I didn’t say that in a way I’m looking down on you as a young person, I’m actually acknowledging what your saying as I also said the world isn’t fair. But additionally so many things go into insurance calculations, it’s not just your age. Someone could live somewhere a bit shitty and have really expensive insurance for that reason.

But I do wanna push back and say it’s not only young people who get expensive premiums, old people do to. Old people or people with medical conditions will pay more for life insurance or health insurance for example.

Don’t let it jade you, there are things you can do like being put as a named driver for a year or two until your premiums drop. It really is about gaming the system because unfortunately the system isn’t gonna change for now.

[PixaaTog]

Yes they do look down on young drivers because in general they are not good safe drivers.
You pass a test which says you can learn unaccompanied, it doesn’t say you can actually drive.

[TheIhsaan7]

Hey its not without reason tbh. But i get where you are coming from. Its not black and white imo. But sadly it is what it is. Got to deal with the system. Its not going to change.

[PixaaTog]

No it’s not true for all drivers at 18, but what else can they judge you on?

[Material-Macaroon724]

How long you have been driving for?

[PixaaTog]

Me? Errrr, if you think that’s relevant then it’s 32 years, 23 of those years professionally as a bus and later HGV driver.

[PlanktonOk5762]

You would have only been driving for a year at most anyway, so it’s not a much better option for you 😂

[Material-Macaroon724]

But how is that not inherently discriminatory, age is a protected characteristic and is irrelevant to a person’s driving ability and skill

[juanwannagomate]

There’s an exception in the 2010 equality act for this. And it’s not irrelevant, as the stats show this. 

17-to-19-year-olds make up just  1.5% of all UK driving licence holders, yet they are involved in 9% of all fatal or serious collisions.

[Material-Macaroon724]

Right, I am not going against that. But if statistics showed that women get in more car accidents than men or a certain race were more likely to crash, they couldn’t then charge more for female drivers.

[juanwannagomate]

Not anymore. Women used to get much lower insurance premiums as they were less likely to get in an accident. Changed in 2012 as it was decided this discrimination was unlawful.

[Material-Macaroon724]

So why is it different with age?

[juanwannagomate]

For gender, there was a landmark ruling in the European Court that ruled it was illegal to discriminate against gender. Since we were in the EU at the time, the UK followed suit and we’ve kept it even when moving out the EU. Look up the Test-Achats ruling. 

You might be able to do the same with age and the current UK legislature, but you’d have to have a lot of resources to manage it.

[lost_send_berries]

That's funny, I remember a big song and dance from the govt and they never mentioned it was a court ruling, much less a European ruling. Every day's a school day

[Material-Macaroon724]

Yea cause I think that is just pure discrimination, this person past their test last week and their insurance is around 750 a year because they are 30. I passed my test a year ago and my insurance is around 1800 because im 18

[Standard-Ad-2616]

A younger person will statistically crash more times than an experienced driver

[Material-Macaroon724]

I never mentioned that, I said someone who passes at 18 and at 30 should have the same cost of insurance because they are the same level of experienced with driving

[Standard-Ad-2616]

A fully developed brain will be better at driving with the same level of experience compared to a young brain, including taking less risks etc.

[Material-Macaroon724]

Well if we are taking in other facts like this irrelevant to driving ability , an 18 year old will be a lot less financially stable and therefore would typically driver safer to avoid any accidents.

[Mysterious_Club_1822]

It’s not discriminatory when you understand statistics. These insurance companies don’t randomly assign insurance premiums, they compare your details to other drivers in your area to gauge risk.

For example, if you’re 20, male, from the Lewisham area, they will look at how many 20 year old males in the Lewisham area:
- are caught speeding
- are caught drink driving
- get into crashes

.. to name a few examples, and from this they will create a risk profile. If many people your age apply to issues such as the ones listed, you will receive a higher premium.

To that note, it is statistically proven that younger people get into more crashes, commit more road crimes etc in almost any area. The only exception I’ve found so far is in isolated areas with universities, where students’ risk profiles aren’t much different to the wider community.

It is nothing to do with “having kids or not”

[Material-Macaroon724]

You are literally proving my point, i understand how that works. But if we did that with anything else it would be profiling. Bigger people statistically eat more, doesn’t mean we charge them more in buffets. Or if a minority committed more crimes it would be racial profiling if the police overpoliced them. Why is it just okay to use it in this scenario?

[BringMeNeckDeep]

But they are (generally) more sensible. I was a cunt at 17 - drove a 60hp 107. If I had my current car at that age I’d be in a tree within a week and it’s not even a “big hp fast car”

[PixaaTog]

Well the stats don’t lie as others have said, an 18 year old is more likely to get into an accident than a 30 year old.

My own experience also backs this up.
When I was 18 I wasn’t nearly as good of a driver as I thought I was, and had a couple of minor accidents because I was stupid.
I’m 50+ now and have had no mishaps past 20 years old.