What happens when parents criminal coddle their children

>
>>There is a reason that insurance companies charge higher rates
>>for the first several years.
>
>>They don't tie those rates to AGE, by the way.
>
> I don't know where you get your information, but you appear to be
> misinformed.
>
> http://www.insurance.com/Article.asp...Rates/artid/22
>
> Age is the very first factor they mention.
>

I'm not misinformed. Your information does not disagree with me. It states
that the youngest drivers (and the oldest) are far more likely to have
accidents. What it fails to mention though, is that the reason the youngest
drivers are far more likely to have accidents is inexperience. That is,
there are very few young drivers who are experienced operators. So OF
COURSE the youngest drivers are far more likely to have accidents. But the
insurance companies don't tie their rates for newer drivers to age, they tie
them to experience*. COINCIDENTALLY, this means that car insurance is
typically pretty expensive until you reach your mid-twenties, as most
drivers first get their license in their late teens. Thus, they are
considered "inexperienced" until they reach their mid-twenties, as it
coincidentally takes that long to become experienced operators. The major
insurance carriers consider someone with ~6 years or longer (varies) behind
the wheel to be an "experienced" operator, eligible for cheaper
tes. -Dave

*Again, if you are 31 and got your first driver's license at 30, you are
paying a ****load of money for car insurance, just like the 17-year-olds
are. The rates aren't based on age, they are based on experience.

>>I'm not misinformed. Your information does not disagree with me.
>
> Sure it does. So does this online auto insurance quote request form:
>
> https://www.insurancetracker.com/app.../app_auto.html
>
> You'll notice it asks for your date of birth, not the date you first
> began driving. If the number of years you have been driving were the
> primary factor in determining rates, as you suggest, then they would
> ask for that information on the quote form.


They don't have to, as the first thing they do is pull an abstract of your
driving record. Do you REALLY think the insurance companies would be stupid
enough to ask you how long you've been licensed, how many accidents and
tickets you've had, etc., AND TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT???? Sheesh. -Dave

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 16:47:17 GMT, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>>
>>>>I'm not misinformed. Your information does not disagree with me.
>>>
>>> Sure it does. So does this online auto insurance quote request form:
>>>
>>> https://www.insurancetracker.com/app.../app_auto.html
>>>
>>> You'll notice it asks for your date of birth, not the date you first
>>> began driving. If the number of years you have been driving were the
>>> primary factor in determining rates, as you suggest, then they would
>>> ask for that information on the quote form.
>>
>>They don't have to, as the first thing they do is pull an abstract of your
>>driving record. Do you REALLY think the insurance companies would be stupid
>>enough to ask you how long you've been licensed, how many accidents and
>>tickets you've had, etc., AND TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT????
>
>Nice try, but if your theory had any merit they wouldn't ask you for
>anything except your driver's license number. Your driving record
>already contains your full name, date of birth, current address, which
>vehicles are currently registered in your name, tickets, accidents,
>and everything else they want to know.

It does, and they look it up, but they ask you anyway. Presumably
they want to cross-check, as their databases may be inaccurate or
imprecise; when they looked up my driving record they found a number
of accidents related to _other_ Russotto's, for instance. (they
didn't look it up at the DMV, but in some insurance industry claims
database)

Anyway, whether or not years of driving or age or both affect rates
depends on the state.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

> Face it, you're wrong on this one.

No, I'm not. I was paying experienced operator rates for insurance at age
20. If I'm wrong, HOW THE HELL DID THAT HAPPEN??? Face it, you're wrong on
this one. -Dave

>>I was paying experienced operator rates for insurance at age
>>20.
>
> But you couldn't rent a car - at least not without paying a hefty
> premium to compensate for the increased risk.
>
> Ignoring data that disproves your theory is not quite the same as your
> theory being correct.

OK, I see that went right over your head. If insurance rates were based on
age, it would not be possible for me to have paid the lowest insurance rates
of anyone in the state when I was 20 years old. Yet my insurance was
significantly lower than most drivers in the same state who were my age, and
even a few years older. The way that happened was, I was originally
licensed in a state where I could legally get a FULL, unrestricted
operator's license at the age of 14. At age 20, I moved to another state
where people weren't allowed to get even a learner's permit until age 17.
Thus, most people my age (20 or so) had only been driving a few years, at
most. My insurance agent was going to charge me very high rates for
insurance because he made the mistake of assuming (based on my age) that I
was an inexperienced operator. That was a natural assumption for him to
make, as 99.9% of the drivers in that state WOULD be inexperienced at age
20. So I asked him how he defined "inexperienced". He explained to me that
(major insurance carrier, probably covered at least 10% of drivers in the
U.S. at the time) considered someone who had been licensed for 6 or more
years to be experienced. I was able to prove that I was experienced, so I
got the experienced operator rates.

If the rates were based on age, I would have been ****ed.

It's easy to jump to the conclusion that they are based on age though.
Every state has a certain age where they allow you to first get your
license. If that age is 17, then everyone below the age of 24 would be an
inexperienced operator, if the insurance company considers "experienced" to
be licensed for 6 years or longer. So in actual practice, people refer to
age and comment that (so and so) is an inexperienced operator. Therefore it
SEEMS like the rates are based on age. But they aren't. -Dave