Demand Fair Treatment for Older Drivers!

NorbieG

"The persistent age discrimination in pay-as-you-go vehicle insurance deserves attention." 

"The exclusionary practices of these insurance companies highlight a broader problem of ageism." 

"The barriers faced by older drivers trying to access fair insurance options are unjust and need addressing." 

 

"As a 78-year-old retiree with minimal driving needs, pay-as-you-go insurance seemed perfect for me, yet I have encountered outright rejection." 

"Despite having my car SORN for three years due to low usage, I’ve faced discriminatory policies while trying to insure it again." 

"My clean driving record spanning 55 years should speak volumes about my responsibility as a driver, yet insurance companies refuse to consider it." 

 

"Age should not be the sole metric used to evaluate driving capability or insurance eligibility." 

"The criteria used by these companies ignore individual circumstances and perpetuate outdated stereotypes about older drivers." 

 "It's disheartening to see my strong driving history disregarded in favor of blanket assumptions about age." 

"I may be 78, but I have the appearance, health, and abilities of someone much younger, which demonstrates how misleading age-based discrimination can be." 

"Insurance companies are dismissing me based solely on my age, ignoring the reality of my impeccable driving record and active lifestyle." 

"By labeling me uninsurable, they are unjustly penalizing me for a factor entirely unrelated to my abilities as a driver." 

badmemory

I don't know much about this but it would seem to me that the problem is they are not going to make enough money out of you.  On pay as you go & not actually "going" much!  Just in case you think I am being ageist I should add that I am older than you & yes I do still drive thankfully.

400ixl

As per your other thread.

Statistically your age makes you a high risk driver
Low mileage means a higher risk, even more so with age
3 years of not driving makes you a higher risk

These all make you a high risk for pay as you go low mileage. Hence why you see the results you do.

There is no discrimination, just statistical risk. That is the way insurance works. You had years of being a lower statistical risk, you are no longer in that bracket.

NorbieG

badmemory said:

I don't know much about this but it would seem to me that the problem is they are not going to make enough money out of you.  On pay as you go & not actually "going" much!  Just in case you think I am being ageist I should add that I am older than you & yes I 

You've read my mind. 

For those younger drivers who are ageists, I wonder how they would feel if, or when, they get older and re-testing is introduced every 3 years, which has been talked about?

NorbieG

400ixl said:

As per your other thread.

Statistically your age makes you a high risk driver
Low mileage means a higher risk, even more so with age
3 years of not driving makes you a higher risk

These all make you a high risk for pay as you go low mileage. Hence why you see the results you do.

There is no discrimination, just statistical risk. That is the way insurance works. You had years of being a lower statistical risk, you are no longer in that bracket.

When challenging assumptions like these in insurance policies, the key is to focus on presenting credible evidence and alternative perspectives. Here's some advice on tackling each point:

1. **Age-related risk**: While age may statistically correlate with higher risks in driving, it's important to point out that these are averages, not absolutes. Advocate for insurers to consider individual driving records, accident history, and other metrics that reflect actual risk, rather than relying solely on age-based stereotypes.

2. **Low mileage and risk**: You can argue that low mileage often means less exposure to potential accidents, thereby reducing risk. Insurers may consider the frequency and type of trips (e.g., urban vs. rural driving) as a more nuanced factor rather than penalizing low mileage combined with age. Highlight studies or data that support the idea that less driving equates to lower risk.

3. **Driving hiatus**: Not driving for three years doesn't inherently make someone less skilled or more accident-prone, especially if they had a good record before stopping. It's reasonable to push for fairer assessments, like refresher courses or skill evaluations, rather than blanket assumptions about increased risk.

Framing your arguments with a focus on fairness and individual merit might resonate well with insurers and your audience. As someone invested in advocacy, your ability to communicate clearly and compellingly can be a real game-changer here! 

TheSpectator

NorbieG said:

400ixl said:

As per your other thread.

Statistically your age makes you a high risk driver
Low mileage means a higher risk, even more so with age
3 years of not driving makes you a higher risk

These all make you a high risk for pay as you go low mileage. Hence why you see the results you do.

There is no discrimination, just statistical risk. That is the way insurance works. You had years of being a lower statistical risk, you are no longer in that bracket.

When challenging assumptions like these in insurance policies, the key is to focus on presenting credible evidence and alternative perspectives. Here's some advice on tackling each point:

1. **Age-related risk**: While age may statistically correlate with higher risks in driving, it's important to point out that these are averages, not absolutes. Advocate for insurers to consider individual driving records, accident history, and other metrics that reflect actual risk, rather than relying solely on age-based stereotypes.

2. **Low mileage and risk**: You can argue that low mileage often means less exposure to potential accidents, thereby reducing risk. Insurers may consider the frequency and type of trips (e.g., urban vs. rural driving) as a more nuanced factor rather than penalizing low mileage combined with age. Highlight studies or data that support the idea that less driving equates to lower risk.

3. **Driving hiatus**: Not driving for three years doesn't inherently make someone less skilled or more accident-prone, especially if they had a good record before stopping. It's reasonable to push for fairer assessments, like refresher courses or skill evaluations, rather than blanket assumptions about increased risk.

Framing your arguments with a focus on fairness and individual merit might resonate well with insurers and your audience. As someone invested in advocacy, your ability to communicate clearly and compellingly can be a real game-changer here! 

1. They are not relying on stereotypes but facts. The facts are young drivers and old drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents. Whilst you were enjoying relatively cheap insurance up to now did you care one jot that 17-25 year olds were paying vastly more?

2. The stats won't support that view else insurers would quote less for 3000 miles pa vs 10,000.

3. As above. I really can't see how you can argue that someone who hadn't been behind a wheel for 3 years is as competent as a regular driver.

Ultimately, ranting on here won't change a thing but if it makes you feel better.....

NorbieG

TheSpectator said:

NorbieG said:

400ixl said:

As per your other thread.

Statistically your age makes you a high risk driver
Low mileage means a higher risk, even more so with age
3 years of not driving makes you a higher risk

These all make you a high risk for pay as you go low mileage. Hence why you see the results you do.

There is no discrimination, just statistical risk. That is the way insurance works. You had years of being a lower statistical risk, you are no longer in that bracket.

When challenging assumptions like these in insurance policies, the key is to focus on presenting credible evidence and alternative perspectives. Here's some advice on tackling each point:

1. **Age-related risk**: While age may statistically correlate with higher risks in driving, it's important to point out that these are averages, not absolutes. Advocate for insurers to consider individual driving records, accident history, and other metrics that reflect actual risk, rather than relying solely on age-based stereotypes.

2. **Low mileage and risk**: You can argue that low mileage often means less exposure to potential accidents, thereby reducing risk. Insurers may consider the frequency and type of trips (e.g., urban vs. rural driving) as a more nuanced factor rather than penalizing low mileage combined with age. Highlight studies or data that support the idea that less driving equates to lower risk.

3. **Driving hiatus**: Not driving for three years doesn't inherently make someone less skilled or more accident-prone, especially if they had a good record before stopping. It's reasonable to push for fairer assessments, like refresher courses or skill evaluations, rather than blanket assumptions about increased risk.

Framing your arguments with a focus on fairness and individual merit might resonate well with insurers and your audience. As someone invested in advocacy, your ability to communicate clearly and compellingly can be a real game-changer here! 

1. They are not relying on stereotypes but facts. The facts are young drivers and old drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents. Whilst you were enjoying relatively cheap insurance up to now did you care one jot that 17-25 year olds were paying vastly more?

2. The stats won't support that view else insurers would quote less for 3000 miles pa vs 10,000.

3. As above. I really can't see how you can argue that someone who hadn't been behind a wheel for 3 years is as competent as a regular driver.

Ultimately, ranting on here won't change a thing but if it makes you feel better.....

Label it as a rant if you must, but these points are grounded in my research.

Why is it that some insurance companies inquire about annual mileage when they don't offer lower rates for drivers with fewer miles?

I've been through the phase of paying higher premiums as a young driver. So frankly, I'm not concerned about the rates for 17-25-year-olds, because as they age and establish a solid driving record—like I have with over 55 years of no convictions and a full No Claims Discount—they'll reap the rewards in time.

MattMattMattUK

NorbieG said:

TheSpectator said:

NorbieG said:

400ixl said:

As per your other thread.

Statistically your age makes you a high risk driver
Low mileage means a higher risk, even more so with age
3 years of not driving makes you a higher risk

These all make you a high risk for pay as you go low mileage. Hence why you see the results you do.

There is no discrimination, just statistical risk. That is the way insurance works. You had years of being a lower statistical risk, you are no longer in that bracket.

When challenging assumptions like these in insurance policies, the key is to focus on presenting credible evidence and alternative perspectives. Here's some advice on tackling each point:

1. **Age-related risk**: While age may statistically correlate with higher risks in driving, it's important to point out that these are averages, not absolutes. Advocate for insurers to consider individual driving records, accident history, and other metrics that reflect actual risk, rather than relying solely on age-based stereotypes.

2. **Low mileage and risk**: You can argue that low mileage often means less exposure to potential accidents, thereby reducing risk. Insurers may consider the frequency and type of trips (e.g., urban vs. rural driving) as a more nuanced factor rather than penalizing low mileage combined with age. Highlight studies or data that support the idea that less driving equates to lower risk.

3. **Driving hiatus**: Not driving for three years doesn't inherently make someone less skilled or more accident-prone, especially if they had a good record before stopping. It's reasonable to push for fairer assessments, like refresher courses or skill evaluations, rather than blanket assumptions about increased risk.

Framing your arguments with a focus on fairness and individual merit might resonate well with insurers and your audience. As someone invested in advocacy, your ability to communicate clearly and compellingly can be a real game-changer here! 

1. They are not relying on stereotypes but facts. The facts are young drivers and old drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents. Whilst you were enjoying relatively cheap insurance up to now did you care one jot that 17-25 year olds were paying vastly more?

2. The stats won't support that view else insurers would quote less for 3000 miles pa vs 10,000.

3. As above. I really can't see how you can argue that someone who hadn't been behind a wheel for 3 years is as competent as a regular driver.

Ultimately, ranting on here won't change a thing but if it makes you feel better.....

Label it as a rant if you must, but these points are grounded in my research.

It is a rant and if your "research" had led you to the conclusions you have then it is fundamentally flawed. Remember that data is not the plural of anecdote.

NorbieG said:

Why is it that some insurance companies inquire about annual mileage when they don't offer lower rates for drivers with fewer miles?

They do offer rates for drivers with lower miles to a point. Statistically the accident rate decreases per miles driven to a point, then goes flat, the rises again slightly. As a factor of total miles driven those driving a lot with lower risk per mile generally still have a higher liklihood of having an accident. However those with very low miles, less than 5,000 and especially lower than 3,000 have a much much higher accident rate per mile, which us reflected in premiums. As such cost for insurance are actually higher for someone driving 3,000 miles a year than 8,000 miles a year and they do not increase much until one reaches 15,000-20,000 miles a year.

NorbieG said:
I've been through the phase of paying higher premiums as a young driver. So frankly, I'm not concerned about the rates for 17-25-year-olds, because as they age and establish a solid driving record—like I have with over 55 years of no convictions and a full No Claims Discount—they'll reap the rewards in time.

Insurance accounting for inflation is going to be at least ten times more expensive than you paid at ages 17-25, for young people insurance has increased between 10 and 20 times accounting for inflation over the last 50 years. If someone is under 20 and getting their first year's insurance it is likely to cost in excess of £3,000 on a £1,000 car with a black box, including curfews and restrictions.

You were rewarded over that fifty plus year period with lower premiums, now your risk profile is changing your premiums are rising. That is not a scandal, that is not a rip-off, that is not discrimination.

EnPointe

OP are you aware of the  concept of the 'bath tub curve'   , it applies ina  a variety of situatiosn and  driver;s mileage is  one of those, the very infrequent / low mileage drivers  have a  higher  rate of  icncidents thant the 'typical driver' and then as milegage increases  at the ihgher  end   the  number of incidents occuring increases again ... 

I agree with MattMattMatt

EnPointe

NorbieG said:

badmemory said:

I don't know much about this but it would seem to me that the problem is they are not going to make enough money out of you.  On pay as you go & not actually "going" much!  Just in case you think I am being ageist I should add that I am older than you & yes I 

You've read my mind. 

For those younger drivers who are ageists, I wonder how they would feel if, or when, they get older and re-testing is introduced every 3 years, which has been talked about?

you mean like the  advanced drivier tresting cycle under RoADA or the 5 year  cycle the 999 services are bringing in to support S19 ?  

try again