4 ms·

if the elderly cause more accidents, then why are their insurance rates lower than for young people?

• spamizbad 7y ago
  My guess: they account for miles driven. If the elderly are driving less frequently and for shorter distances you can probably assume no long daily commutes during rush hour, and less driving during evenings and inclement weather when accidents are likely to occur. Here's some data on the subject matter: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm 65+ drive roughly the same amount as 16-19 year olds. Driving peaks in the 35-54 cohort and drops sharply from there. I imagine drivers who are pushing 80 are driving significantly less than their cohort overall.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • filoleg 7y ago
    I agree with your reasoning, but the comparison to 16-19 year olds in the last paragraph doesn't really make sense to me. If both groups are equally dangerous on the road and drive about the same amount, why are insurance rates for 16-19 year olds (talking about the US, because that's what I have the context for) are through the roof, unlike the elderly?
• avar 7y ago
  For a start being at fault for an accident doesn't automatically translate into car insurance liability. Secondly the liability rate is only going to be loosely correlated with the insurance liability rate. If you cause 10x more accidents than the next guy, but you mainly do so by crashing into pedestrians at low speeds you're not going to damage the car a lot, whereas someone with 1/10 of that accident rate that's more likely to total the car is a larger liability in terms of auto insurance.