Insurance vs. Age and Experience

[adri]

I might be late on this topic but here's what I can't figure out. I can understand putting a news rider into a statistical group. There is really no way else around that. Why must they continue to do so after the rider has done about 3 to 4 years of clean riding. If they have me and MY history on file why can't they just throw away the statistics and base the insurance solely on me and the value of my machine. To be honest I don't think the size or power of the bike should have much to do with it after a rider has started to prove themselves as a responsible rider/driver.

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

You're getting it. But a new rider who starts at 25 will save half a grand vs a 24 year old rider who's been insured and clean for 8 years.

These people mostly seem to think that makes sense. And the other guy is so far out of left field he makes this whole thread a joke instead of something that could open up a beneficial discussion.

[caboose483]

You're getting it. But a new rider who starts at 25 will save half a grand vs a 24 year old rider who's been insured and clean for 8 years.

These people mostly seem to think that makes sense. And the other guy is so far out of left field he makes this whole thread a joke instead of something that could open up a beneficial discussion.

Much more than $500 actually.

When i was 24 I had full coverage on my 10R and i was paying $229/moth or about $2800/year. Then, when i turned 25 my rate dropped to $96/month or about $1150/year. Just because i was one year older, nothing else changed.

Pretty dumb.

[Venom01]

You're getting it. But a new rider who starts at 25 will save half a grand vs a 24 year old rider who's been insured and clean for 8 years.

These people mostly seem to think that makes sense. And the other guy is so far out of left field he makes this whole thread a joke instead of something that could open up a beneficial discussion.

Well came to this quite recently when I got (quick online) quote the other day. I've been insured and riding from 19 years of age. So I have 10 years of claim free riding with 1 ticket for 10 over. I got quoted @ 3k full coverage for an RC51. Then I tried again raising my age from 29 to 30. My quote drooped by about 1k. How the hell does that make sense?


Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

[VifferFun]

I agree that it is stupid. The rates should be based a combination of age and experience, neither factor independantly indicates how competent a rider is.

And that is why the rates ARE based on a combination -- people just assume that they aren't because they have no idea how the rating algorithms work and how the relativities are set.

If the insurance companies assumed that we all do crash, we'd all be paying $10,000 a year for insurance. They don't. Why shouldn't careless driving or DUI convictions affect your rates? That's idiotic. A poor driving record is directly correlated to a higher chance of an accident, you can't argue this.

Precisely -- although we don't assume that everyone crashes, we do assign a higher probably of crashing to some groups than others, which is based completely on historical claims statistics.

[VifferFun]

State Farm lends no discount to the 21 yrs of insured motorcycle road experience I have. My wife is 3 yrs younger than I, just got her M1, and State Farm gives her the EXACT same rates they give to me. She is over 25, with a good driving recors (class G) so they give her their best rate.

Agreed -- State Farm is unique because they have a stupid rating algorithm that benefits those with no riding experience. People new to the sport love State Farm, because State Farm undercharges them.

[VifferFun]

[QUOTE=cbr125looksfun;1480005]Getting a DUI doesnt mean you will crash in the future anymore than me with a perfect driving record. If the DUI actually causes an accident, then that is grounds for a higher rate... as well as what ever consequences the law has established for that charge. Same thing can be said for all convictions... speeding, illegal U turns, running red lights... if it causes an accident rates go up (accordingly). But if it doesn't, this has no indication to the future of the driver.

I think you will attempt to argue things you don't even believe in, just for the sake of arguing. Let me guess that you want to be an overpaid and clueless career politician when you grow up? You will be a perfect fit in the House of Commons.

Am i the only one not brainwashed by the current system. Am i the only one who wants to solve the problems directly and reduce accidents?

You are the only one without the slightest idea of how statistical predictions work.

[VifferFun]

Hmmm politics in canada is very divided. There is no clear choice it seems. Minority government again anyone?

I agree with points 2 and possibly 3 (with a greatly improved mass public transit system). But point 1 still just assumes your risk is increased based on factors that dont cause accidents directly. Ill give you the DUI one. But only after the laws are changed to not allow any alcohol level driving at ALL!

It doesn't assume . . . it is PROVEN statistically. We look at the claims history of people with convictions, and they claim much, MUCH more than people with clean records.

[caboose483]

And that is why the rates ARE based on a combination -- people just assume that they aren't because they have no idea how the rating algorithms work and how the relativities are set.



Precisely -- although we don't assume that everyone crashes, we do assign a higher probably of crashing to some groups than others, which is based completely on historical claims statistics.

Perhaps the algorithm that is used should count experience more heavily than it currently does.

[VifferFun]

Because that person did not cause an incident, beyond speeding. I can atest to driving on the highway with the flow of traffic, going 130km/hr safely in the left lane, but technically that is a major infraction. If I was going 100km'hr in the left lane, i would be a threat to other drivers in most situations.

I suggest following German example and allow no limits on the highways.

130kph in a 100kph zone is not a major infraction . . . it's a minor. I usually do 20kph to 30kph over the limit myself, and the police never give me a problem. If I were to get a ticket for doing 20kph over the limit, it would be a very rare occurrence . . . I have had one in 10 years. If I were to get three in one year, then I'm REALLY unlucky.

If you are to get three convictions in one year, then chances are you are attracting the attention of the police for a reason (i.e. you are probably going much faster than 20kph over the limit).

Regarding the DUI's, I guess you think this guy should have been paying the same rate as you until he actually hurt someone?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1883055/

[VifferFun]

Let me guess, as a Canadian its too expensive to look into other options. Such a rich nation we have but so damn cheap. No wonder we are mocked left right and center on the world stage... well maybe not so much on the left... but still we could be doing alot better.

As you say, investment in proper high class training, would ensure safety on the roads. Can we adopt a similar system? Then just maybe, people will have the proper skills to drive in a safe manner, reducing preventable accidents, in turn reducing claims, and thus finally ending a regime of high premiums.

Or is that wishful thinking?

If you got everything you think we "deserve" as Canadians . . . free road training, free education, free insurance, free health care, blah blah blah . . . then we would be paying over an 80% tax rate. Money doesn't appear out of nowhere.

[VifferFun]

Getting speeding tickets doesnt mean you are going to crash anymore than anyone else, i hold my ground. Driving is a dynamic thing unlike sports or eating. One day you could be on a free open highway, the next you could be in a gridlock. The point is, the rules of the road are there to make sure everyone is going according to the same system to reduce the potential for chaos. That doesn't mean breaking away from the guideline will result in an accident.

Yes it does -- it is proven by claims statistics (and should be common sense).

[VifferFun]

I might be late on this topic but here's what I can't figure out. I can understand putting a news rider into a statistical group. There is really no way else around that. Why must they continue to do so after the rider has done about 3 to 4 years of clean riding. If they have me and MY history on file why can't they just throw away the statistics and base the insurance solely on me and the value of my machine. To be honest I don't think the size or power of the bike should have much to do with it after a rider has started to prove themselves as a responsible rider/driver.

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

Your rate will decrease with each year of clean riding that you have under your belt.

[VifferFun]

You're getting it. But a new rider who starts at 25 will save half a grand vs a 24 year old rider who's been insured and clean for 8 years.

These people mostly seem to think that makes sense. And the other guy is so far out of left field he makes this whole thread a joke instead of something that could open up a beneficial discussion.

Age is a strong statistical indicator, and unfortunately the "age effect" is stronger than the "experience effect" when you are comparing someone under 25yo versus someone over 25yo. Both are considered, it's just that one is stronger than the other. If that new 40yo rider was actually 24yo, their premium would be much higher than the experienced 24yo.

[VifferFun]

Much more than $500 actually.

When i was 24 I had full coverage on my 10R and i was paying $229/moth or about $2800/year. Then, when i turned 25 my rate dropped to $96/month or about $1150/year. Just because i was one year older, nothing else changed.

Pretty dumb.

It's because you are now grouped with the 25+ year olds, and not with the 17-24 year olds. There is a drastic difference in claim patterns between these two groups.

[VifferFun]

Well came to this quite recently when I got (quick online) quote the other day. I've been insured and riding from 19 years of age. So I have 10 years of claim free riding with 1 ticket for 10 over. I got quoted @ 3k full coverage for an RC51. Then I tried again raising my age from 29 to 30. My quote drooped by about 1k. How the hell does that make sense?


Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

It makes sense because you were probably quoting with TD, correct? TD has an age cutoff of 30yo as opposed to 25yo used by most other companies. As I suggested to you in another thread, quote with State Farm and your rate on the RC51 will be relatively cheap.

[VifferFun]

Perhaps the algorithm that is used should count experience more heavily than it currently does.

It counts experience as much as it is statistically warranted.

[adri]

It's because you are now grouped with the 25+ year olds, and not with the 17-24 year olds. There is a drastic difference in claim patterns between these two groups.

In other words:

If you were born 25 years ago from TODAY you would get a much better rate (with an M1 and no history), than if you were born 25 years ago from TOMORROW, but rode for almost a decade.

Being born one day earlier is worth more than 9 years riding experience according to the insurance industry's statistics. Don't blame them, blame your mother for not going into labour sooner. It's not their fault.

[Venom01]

Precisely -- although we don't assume that everyone crashes, we do assign a higher probably of crashing to some groups than others, which is based completely on historical claims statistics.

And there is the problem. I should NOT be a statistic at this point. If I have my own profile I should be this and this alone+ value of my machine. I'm NOT a statistic.

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

[HERBXX]

Viffer , any idea what the experience in Alberta is like with non dicrimatory rating ? Did that not take ages out of the equation and just use years liscenced/experience ? or did hear I wrong ?

[Venom01]

It makes sense because you were probably quoting with TD, correct? TD has an age cutoff of 30yo as opposed to 25yo used by most other companies. As I suggested to you in another thread, quote with State Farm and your rate on the RC51 will be relatively cheap.

Oh, I know. I was just using it as an example. Plus it was a flaky online quote not with an agent.

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk