Why are motor insurers reluctant to identify a drivers obvious skills?

coachman12

Like many newcomers who come to these Forums for help and comment, you have been given a fairly hard welcome ( though not half as bad as some poor souls). But , if I were you, I'd be thankful to still be driving if your age is in your MSE username and even more thankful for your excellent record on the road. But it's just a fact of life, sir, that concentration and reflexes do decline , even if only slightly in some cases, after 70 (earlier sometimes). I'm sure your excellent record will be taken into account when taking out new car insurance rather than any form of ageism . But be sure to shop around ----companies out there vary wildly in their costs, and some actually appreciate age , experience and great driving history. Good luck. 

MalMonroe

Deleted_User said:

Not directed at you OP, but just a theoretical pondering...

I suspect there are plenty of drivers who should honestly say "I've never been in an accident, but I've seen a fair few in my rear view mirror" i.e. they think they are great drivers but caused many accidents. In the modern age of dash cams, bad drivers causing accidents and leaving the scene because they weren't directly involved are more likely to get caught, so someone with 50 years no claims isn't given £1 a year insurance because the insurer can't be sure.

I was once driving and an old man with 3 other oldies in the car pulled out from a side road in front of me and was lucky I was alert enough to brake and not hit him. However, if someone had gone into the back of me, yes they would get the blame but they might drag it out for ages arguing I braked randomly and the old guy who just disappears into the distance gets no blame at all even though his actions caused the braking through his bad driving - the dashcam would hold him to account

"an old man with 3 other oldies in the car" - that's more than a bit ageist. I've also been driving when others have pulled out from side roads in front of me, I wish I had a fiver for every time it happens. Most of us are alert on the roads, it's the nature of driving. As my very excellent driving instructor told me, many moons ago, "you have to think for everyone else on the road, and not just drivers". People also pull out when they've been parked, in front of me, sometimes I feel totally invisible. I guess I'm an oldie myself now but I still have quick reflexes. And I have to say that the most reckless drivers on UK roads today appear to be men in the age range 20-50 (approximately).

If someone went in the back of you that'd be their fault for not being alert. Surely. And it's all hypothetical anyway. All you need do is take note of the person who pulled out of the side street's registration number. 

[Deleted User]

MalMonroe said:

Deleted_User said:

Not directed at you OP, but just a theoretical pondering...

I suspect there are plenty of drivers who should honestly say "I've never been in an accident, but I've seen a fair few in my rear view mirror" i.e. they think they are great drivers but caused many accidents. In the modern age of dash cams, bad drivers causing accidents and leaving the scene because they weren't directly involved are more likely to get caught, so someone with 50 years no claims isn't given £1 a year insurance because the insurer can't be sure.

I was once driving and an old man with 3 other oldies in the car pulled out from a side road in front of me and was lucky I was alert enough to brake and not hit him. However, if someone had gone into the back of me, yes they would get the blame but they might drag it out for ages arguing I braked randomly and the old guy who just disappears into the distance gets no blame at all even though his actions caused the braking through his bad driving - the dashcam would hold him to account

"an old man with 3 other oldies in the car" - that's more than a bit ageist. I've also been driving when others have pulled out from side roads in front of me, I wish I had a fiver for every time it happens. Most of us are alert on the roads, it's the nature of driving. As my very excellent driving instructor told me, many moons ago, "you have to think for everyone else on the road, and not just drivers". People also pull out when they've been parked, in front of me, sometimes I feel totally invisible. I guess I'm an oldie myself now but I still have quick reflexes. And I have to say that the most reckless drivers on UK roads today appear to be men in the age range 20-50 (approximately).

If someone went in the back of you that'd be their fault for not being alert. Surely. And it's all hypothetical anyway. All you need do is take note of the person who pulled out of the side street's registration number. 

It's ageist to describe the people in the car accurately? OK.

As I said, someone who goes into the back of you will get the blame, yes, but in the era of brake checking etc, if they wanted to be difficult, they could argue it was just a random brake and continue to argue it for months, or longer, that you were dangerously driving and on a 60mph road, it was your fault, even in part. Watch dash cam clips, brake checking someone who beeped at you (as a warning) for your dangerous driving is very common.

Taking note of the reg plate - sure, if you can grab it while dealing with the aftermath of an accident. Then how do you prove they were there? Sorry guv, I was at home all day, must have misread the plate. Do you honestly believe people will just straight up admit they were the cause for the accident when there is no evidence beyond trying to remember a plate in the middle of an accident?

The point here is that plenty of people, whether 1 year or 50 years driving, can cause accidents and not directly be involved in them and leave the scene. I didn't say old people were more or less likely to be involved, just that it happens. That's why 50 years of accident free driving doesn't mean someone should get £1 a year insurance, someone who causes accidents but isn't involved in the crash is now more likely to get caught. I wonder if a theoretical film of every drive you have ever done in all your driving career would show you that you, or I or OP or anyone was responsible for an accident that we didn't know about or just saw in the rear view mirror?

coachman12

Farfetch----the wording, tone and manner of your post was offensive. In my own post, I warned about diminishing concentration and reflexes in SOME people over 70, but you can't go around talking of "oldies", "the old guy", even "the old man"-----they are ageist words. And those on the receiving end would be in their rights to call you a "young upstart" or a "spoilt brat" or "a yob with no driving experience" -----would you like that, of course not !
QUOTE >>>>According to Department for Transport statistics * older drivers have been in fewer reported accidents than younger ones. The report from 2015 states that 15.36% of reported accidents were involving drivers aged under 24 compared to only 5.95% involving drivers aged over 70.  UNQUOTE<<<<<<<
Whilst people over 70 need to apply for a new license and must be sure of their eyesight, the diminishing reflexes and related matters do not cove all over -70s.
There is a fine balance but , if the driver is responsible, there is no doubt in my mind that the figures quoted above by DoT are absolutely what we road-users know to be the truth. I'd rather be driving with a Senior Citizen than an inexperienced teenage lout showing off for his girlfriend.

[Deleted User]

coachman12 said:

Farfetch----the wording, tone and manner of your post was offensive. In my own post, I warned about diminishing concentration and reflexes in SOME people over 70, but you can't go around talking of "oldies", "the old guy", even "the old man"-----they are ageist words. And those on the receiving end would be in their rights to call you a "young upstart" or a "spoilt brat" or "a yob with no driving experience" -----would you like that, of course not !
QUOTE >>>>According to Department for Transport statistics * older drivers have been in fewer reported accidents than younger ones. The report from 2015 states that 15.36% of reported accidents were involving drivers aged under 24 compared to only 5.95% involving drivers aged over 70.  UNQUOTE<<<<<<<
Whilst people over 70 need to apply for a new license and must be sure of their eyesight, the diminishing reflexes and related matters do not cove all over -70s.
There is a fine balance but , if the driver is responsible, there is no doubt in my mind that the figures quoted above by DoT are absolutely what we road-users know to be the truth. I'd rather be driving with a Senior Citizen than an inexperienced teenage lout showing off for his girlfriend.

Nothing in my post was offensive, unless you choose to take offence over an accurate description of events.

If I said a car full of women pulled out, would that be sexist? A car full of black people, would that be racist?

NO!

Your examples "young upstart" or a "spoilt brat" or "a yob with no driving experience" - all contain additional words which you added to make a strawman argument. I did not say "typical old driver" for example, I simply stated the driver was old. Your examples, based on my post would be "young driver", "young driver", "driver with limited experience". You have insinuated I was discriminating against the driver because of their age, when in fact I simply stated a fact, the driver was old. Ageism, sexism, racism - these are things where a person is promoting hate or fear of others based on their characteristics. Simply describing an event without any comment on the people, beyond a description is not ageism, it's simply a fact. Nowhere did I say they pulled out because they were old, or that the age of the driver was a factor in the incident, it's simply describing a person.

Deliberately looking to take offence to start an argument is pointless, indeed, posting to cause disputes is specifically banned under forum rules, which is what you are doing now - creating an argument over something that wasn't posted

Norman_Castle

coachman12 said:

 I'd rather be driving with a Senior Citizen than an inexperienced teenage lout showing off for his girlfriend.

Does being a teenager makes someone a lout who shows off, isn't that ageist?  My 70+ year dad used to show off when driving. At least the teenager can work their phone when an ambulance is needed.

Sandtree

MalMonroe said:

Sandtree said:

If they had a question "are you a good driver" what proportion of people do you think would tick that box? How difficult, against such an ambiguous statement, do you think it would be to argue someone isnt "a good driver"?

Insurers do consider your history in that they ask how long you've had your license, what motoring convictions you have, how many years have you been claim free and from that they measure your risk (or how good a driver you are) and set the premiums.

There is an element of luck however, the best driver in the world can park their car at Tesco and find someone has driven into it when they get back and not left a note/not on CCTV and so have to make a fault claim.

No that's not true. You can make a no fault claim if you've been hit and the other motorist has left. Or vandals have departed, or whoever has done the damage has scarpered. Or is that just me, and/or the insurance policies I've paid for?!

Some insurance companies have things like a "Vandalism" or "Uninsured Driver" "promise" where they may treat these claims differently to the industry norm but as always there are T&Cs to the matter. Direct Line for example state that they will waive your excess and not impact your NCD if your car is hit when parked however there is a disclaimer there that other insurers may not recognise your NCD after such a claim.

If I were a betting person I'd predict that they are trying to create lock in and your renewal notice would have something that makes it unlikely that others will accept it. Plus they do not say that they will count it as a non-fault claim so premiums could still go up despite you still having maximum NCD.

Takmon

boba1947 said:

I have been driving for 50+ years, accident free, I have driven over 1.3 million miles, day/night motorway/town, I have driven Vans, Mini-busses (not commercially) petrol/diesel powered, large cars small cars, spent time as a driving instructor, yet when it comes to getting a quote for car insurance I find that there is no category, tick box or proviso that identifies a 'good driver'. When I point out my driving record or evidence of personal skills, I am told that I have been lucky! 50 years lucky? Where does one find an insurer that is prepared to accept that, its not luck that keeps people safe, its skill! Over the years I have paid 10's of thousands of pounds for insurance, for nothing. How do you find a fare insurer?    boba1947

The mistake that a lot of people make is that just because you have 50 years of experience doesn't make you better than someone who has 20 years of experience of driving. Just look at any competitive driving and the age of the winners, using your logic they should all be in their 70's after a lifetime of experience making them the best but this certainly isn't the case.
In almost all areas of life it only takes so many years for someone to get to their peak and then after that there is a much slower improvement with time and then eventually a start of decline in skills due to age related issues that effects everyone. That's why insurers only look at the last 5 years for accidents because after that the data isn't really very useful to determine someone's current skill level. 

Takmon

coachman12 said:

Farfetch----the wording, tone and manner of your post was offensive. In my own post, I warned about diminishing concentration and reflexes in SOME people over 70, but you can't go around talking of "oldies", "the old guy", even "the old man"-----they are ageist words. And those on the receiving end would be in their rights to call you a "young upstart" or a "spoilt brat" or "a yob with no driving experience" -----would you like that, of course not !
QUOTE >>>>According to Department for Transport statistics * older drivers have been in fewer reported accidents than younger ones. The report from 2015 states that 15.36% of reported accidents were involving drivers aged under 24 compared to only 5.95% involving drivers aged over 70.  UNQUOTE<<<<<<<
Whilst people over 70 need to apply for a new license and must be sure of their eyesight, the diminishing reflexes and related matters do not cove all over -70s.
There is a fine balance but , if the driver is responsible, there is no doubt in my mind that the figures quoted above by DoT are absolutely what we road-users know to be the truth. I'd rather be driving with a Senior Citizen than an inexperienced teenage lout showing off for his girlfriend.

The problem is that generally drivers under the age of 24 with less experience are more likely to be in situations beyond their skill level and more likely to take risks which causes more accidents. Drivers over the age of 70 generally are trying their best to drive sensibly and with a lifetime of driving experience accidents are caused due to issues with their ageing bodies rather which will only get worse.
So i personally would rather be in the car with a young driver who i can tell to drive sensibly and tell them how to behave on the road than an older driver who could have an accident that is beyond their conscious control. 

ALL people over 70 have diminished concentration and reflexes than when they were in their prime, anyone who says they are as physically fit at 70 than they were at 20 is either lying or had an extremely poor fitness level at 20 that they were able to change as they got older. 

Also saying someone is "old" at 70 should not offend someone unless they are in denial about being old. The UK life expectancy is 81.16 years so at 70 years old someone is 86% through their life on average so if that's not old then i can't see what is?.