New Study Shows Poverty, Not Age, the Key Factor in Teen Crashes

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by notyoueither
We've recently banned that practice in Alberta, btw.

No more charging someone through the nose because they are 18. Charge them the same as any other new driver and then adjust based on their record, not a presumption of incompetence and carelessness.

The end result of which will be high premiums for every driver.

ACK!

[notyoueither]

And there are a lot of responsible teenage drivers.

Many of them have to drive for work, personally or as part of a family farm.

Assuming they are a greater risk based on urban myths of coddled children is bull****.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Do people who have never driven have to get the GL's when they are over a certain age?

Charging more for new drivers makes sense, why add to it because someone is a certain age?

Just a guess: because when you hold constant for inexperience, age still becomes a factor. I'd bet 17-year-olds who have been driving for a year have had more accidents than 30-year-olds who have been driving for a year.

But it's just a guess. How is it that we don't have any actuaries here?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tuberski


The end result of which will be high premiums for every driver.

ACK!

For every newer driver? Yes.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


No, our evil, evil society's response to this is to impose more and more restrictions on all teens, greatly distort the extent of the problem of teen driving leading to a lot of disrespect and bigotry, propose taking away their licenses altogether, and then do nothing at all about bad drivers who aren't teens.

Why don't we take away the licenses from men? Why not from the elderly? Why not from the poor?

Why don't we require that all poor drivers have a limit on how many passengers are in their cars? Or what hours they can drive? Or maybe we should put tracking devices in the cars of the poor so we know exactly where they go? Or black boxes that tell you exactly how fast they drive so if they go over the speed limit you can take the car away from them later?

Cause honestly its more justified to do all that stuff to the poor than it is to do it to teens.

Why limit it to teens? Why not let anyone old enough to walk and talk drive? Where does it end? Why would you discriminate against a child of 9 that wants to drive?

ACK!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Just a guess: because when you hold constant for inexperience, age still becomes a factor. I'd bet 17-year-olds who have been driving for a year have had more accidents than 30-year-olds who have been driving for a year.

But it's just a guess. How is it that we don't have any actuaries here?

A 17 year old who has been operating machinery and vehicles since he was 12, and has to get to work is probably a better driver than most 30 year olds in the city who just left the bar.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by notyoueither


For every newer driver? Yes.

Nah, everyone that, for any reason, has to have an adjustment to their premium will pay more.

ACK!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Why limit it to teens? Why not let anyone old enough to walk and talk drive? Where does it end? Why would you discriminate against a child of 9 that wants to drive?

You stole my argument Tub

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You stole my argument Tub

So, I was right, it is a silly argument...........

ACK!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Nah, everyone that, for any reason, has to have an adjustment to their premium will pay more.

ACK!

My rates have not gone up. In fact, I got a $13 cheque back for my last policy under the laisser faire system.

The gubmint merely told the insurance industry that they would no longer treat youth as a cash cow, among other things. They brought in a grid, and that is what the industry has to charge based on experience and convictions.

The insurance industry howled bloody blue murder. I have not heard of any companies withdrawing from the market.

Just don't get a DUI. Then you're figuratively dead. I think that is a fair alternative to assuming a 17yo has to be charged $3K per year for basic coverage.

[Urban Ranger]

Furthermore, how can it be discrimination when everybody is treated the same way? IOW, there are no teenagers that are exempt from the law. Black teenagers, Asian teenagers, and white teenagers are treated the same way. Rich teenagers and poor teenagers are treated the same way.

It's all fair and equal.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Furthermore, how can it be discrimination when everybody is treated the same way? IOW, there are no teenagers that are exempt from the law. Black teenagers, Asian teenagers, and white teenagers are treated the same way. Rich teenagers and poor teenagers are treated the same way.

It's all fair and equal.

It's not everyone being treated equally when people who are 16, 17, 18, and 19 may have to drive for a livelihood.

You're mistaking categories.

Compare the 28 year old college student entering the workforce with the 17 year old doing the same thing.

Not everyone is a pampered brat attached to mom by apron strings til they are 30.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


It's not everyone being treated equally when people who are 16, 17, 18, and 19 may have to drive for a livelihood.

You're mistaking categories.

Compare the 28 year old college student entering the workforce with the 17 year old doing the same thing.

Not everyone is a pampered brat attached to mom by apron strings til they are 30.

What 16 year olds need to drive for a living? 16 year olds are not cabbies, or truckers, and certainly not private contractors who would own their cars and thus bear the insurance burden.

As for kids an insurance, insurance companies are private for profit enterprises. If their actuaries have found that teen drivers are a bigger insurance risk, then they have every right to charge more for their services. What discrimination is afoot?

Teens are not adults. BY definition. Hence, the different treatment is not discriminatory, as discrimination assumes individuals in the same category being treated differently.

If Ozzy thinks that 15 year olds are adult, fine, he can argue that to his hearts content;. But at 16 you are not an adult, and have no expectation of being treated as such.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither


A 17 year old who has been operating machinery and vehicles since he was 12, and has to get to work is probably a better driver than most 30 year olds in the city who just left the bar.

Probably so. But insurers make the decision to extend insurance at all based on demographics and the statistical likelihood of certain types of behavior. That's how they choose to do business. I don't know enough about insurance to know whether or not it's a good business model, but I know enough about political theory to not call it "oppression."

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


What 16 year olds need to drive for a living? 16 year olds are not cabbies, or truckers, and certainly not private contractors who would own their cars and thus bear the insurance burden.

Ones that work in an rural environment, or in most cities west of the Mississippi?