"Holding" an M2 license = lower insurance?

[slkrqkr]

Hi, I've been browsing these boards for a while, and I was just wondering, if I got my M2 this year (then followed up with the M), and didn't purchase a bike/insurance for 5 years, would my rates be lower than if I had gotten then M2/M 5 years later? i.e. get M at 20 years old, and buy insurance at 25, versus get M and insurance at 25?

Would I have a "clean" record if it showed that I held the M license for X amount of years, since I'd have never made a claim or anything, even though I don't have a bike?

Thanks!

[VifferFun]

Hi, I've been browsing these boards for a while, and I was just wondering, if I got my M2 this year (then followed up with the M), and didn't purchase a bike/insurance for 5 years, would my rates be lower than if I had gotten then M2/M 5 years later? i.e. get M at 20 years old, and buy insurance at 25, versus get M and insurance at 25?

Would I have a "clean" record if it showed that I held the M license for X amount of years, since I'd have never made a claim or anything, even though I don't have a bike?

Thanks!

This depends on the company, but in general it will make a bit of a difference (but not a whole lot).

Your Motorcycle Driving Record is the number of years that you have been continously insured without making any at-fault claims. This plays a big part in determining the premium you pay. The driving record usually maxes out at 6 for Cars and at 3 for Motorcycles (depending on the company). State Farm is unique, because they will treat your experience in a car as experience on a motorcycle.

Another factor used to calculate your rate with most companies is "Years Licensed". This factor does not affect your rate as much as the driving record mentioned above.

By getting your license now but not insuring a bike, you will be increasing your "Years Licensed" but your Driving Record will remain at 0 until you get a bike and have it insured.

[slkrqkr]

Okay thanks for the clarification!

[torch]

Your Motorcycle Driving Record is the number of years that you have been continously insured without making any at-fault claims.

That's actually illegal:

(4.1) No element of a risk classification system shall use a lapse in automobile insurance coverage unless,

(a) the insured person contravened section 2 of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act during the lapse in coverage; or

(b) the lapse of coverage resulted directly or indirectly from,

(i) the termination of a policy of automobile insurance as a result of the insured person's failure to pay the premiums due under the policy,

(ii) the suspension of the insured person's driver's licence as a result of a conviction for an offence related to the use or operation of an automobile, or

(iii) an accident or a conviction for an offence related to the use or operation of an automobile, if the insured person did not inform the insurer of the accident or conviction and the accident or conviction would likely have led to the insured person being charged a higher premium. O. Reg. 464/96, s. 7 (2).