Are older drivers being unfairly penalised on car insurance?

This situation is appropriate to all forms of insurance. On several occasions I have had a renewal request for both car and house insurance with increased premiums and have found lower cost alternatives. Invariably when I ‘phone the old company to cancel the policy, I am offered a more competitive price. If they had offered this in the first place, I wouldn’t have changed! They seem to operate on the ‘captive audience’ basis where the renewals requests are simply accepted without question.

Thanks for your comment Anthony – as you’ll see we’ve just removed some of the data from your post as we wouldn’t want others getting hold of it. Thanks

Sadly, Daniel, the accident statistics prove the opposite. Young (below 25) people cause or are involved in most accidents.

Daniel have you heard the modern expression -ageism ?
“Old persons a nightmare on the road ” – not according to insurance companies where the vast majority of accidents are caused by —-young people especially -yes another modern expression -“boy racers ” showing off to their girlfriends and pals .
Dont take my word for that ask the Police.
This business of “anti old people ” is hyped up nonsense it doesn’t bear checking with reality .

The very reason you pay a high insurance premium is because your age group is the most accident prone , this is one area where growing older makes you wiser .

When I started out at your age I had a motorbike I had to pay more to earn a NCB that increased year by year . Insurance companies arent fools they deal with reality not conjecture –
Read-

https://www.brake.org.uk/news/15-facts-a-resources/facts/488-young-drivers-the-hard-facts

I feel sorry for those who pay high premiums when they are young and never have an accident. They are victims of statistics.

When they don’t make a claim they can build up a decent discount. Obtaining an advanced driving certificate from schemes like Pass Plus (still around?) can give a discount, as can a black box. Insurers work on risk assessment and, until you demonstrate you are a better risk they will use data for your age group, occupation, area you live, car type etc. Risks are assessed from “statistics” and you will benefit from statistics if you live in a lower-risk area, have a better-risk occupation and a lower-risk car. And when you have no accidents you will also benefit.

Young drivers are still being hit with higher premiums irrespective of whether they are good drivers, simply because young drivers on average have more claims. When I was young I drove my fathers car for years before taking out my own insurance, but not having made claims did not give me any discount on my insurance, and having taken over my father’s three year old car I was even driving the same car, living at the same address and doing the same job. I wonder if experience gained by driving a car on someone else’s insurance is taken into account these days.

Both of our two took the IAM Advanced Driving Test within a few months of passing the normal test. Their insurance plummeted. Pass Plus was a bit of a joke; when we investigated it seemed that the discounts were not very good from the very few companies that offered it, and as there was no pass or fail component in it it seemed a bit of a waste.

“irrespective of whether they are good drivers” . I’d suggest the way to assess a good driver is by more advanced tests, that are open to them,with reductions in premiums as Ian has pointed out, and by having an accident free record, also resulting in lower premiums. Black boxes seem a good way to monitor driving style and times when you are out and about; these also, I believe, keep premiums down. Any other ways an insurer can identify “good” – lower risk – drivers?

“because young drivers on average have more claims.“. Which is why they require higher premiums.

The present situation is akin to being assumed guilty until proved innocent. Why not take into account experience driving on someone else’s insurance without having an accident or incurring other claims?

I have nothing against people taking an advanced driving test and maybe we should all do this fairly soon after passing the driving test.

In terms of the risk factor of older versus younger drivers I would suggest that older drivers are much less likely to be driving in the dark which significantly reduces their risk of a collision.

It also seems from incidents reported in the press that more young drivers than older drivers are involved in single-vehicle collisions with trees or other solid objects off the highway. A tree is actually the worst thing to hit – a wall or post will usually give way and absorb some of the impact.

Young drivers should take especial care around Sandringham, however, where some older drivers can be back behind the wheel in a new car within hours of a write-off. I don’t think the insurance industry has an answer for that situation.

I wonder if those older drivers are insured, and if so perhaps with Royal and Son Alliance? Pulling out when you can’t see because of the sun is careless driving.

I realised after this post that the accident was actually the result of a Royal and Sun Alliance. 🙁

Ooooh, that’s truly groanworthy.

I think the information the insurance companies have on collisions and risks enables them to make fair judgments on the levels of premium. Most of the elderly people I know do very little driving these days, rarely drive at night, tend to abstain from drugs and excess alcohol, and have many years of driving experience behind them. Some have given up altogether. Sure, some elderly drivers do make mistakes and lose control but they are not the only drivers who do so by a long way.

2017-UK- young drivers > 32,810 accidents of which 39 % were drivers –
Old drivers-UK-2017>559 due in large part to old people being knocked down-186 werepedestrians.
Government publishing services .

Insurance companies aren’t daft they go on cold hard facts not political dogma.