Ceri JC

Just a little thought I had last night:

Both discounts from insurance companies and respect from peers seem to come from how long you've been riding/driving, rather than the time actually spent doing it. E.g. matters of age aside (I concede up to a certain point, when their reactions go down hill, older drivers tend to be safer), why is someone who has been riding for 10 years (but actually only clocked up 2000 dry miles a year), deemed to be more experienced than say, someone who has only been riding 2 years, but in all weathers and done 20,000 miles a year?

Not only does the latter individual have more total experience, but their experience is more recent (so more relevant to current road conditions, rules, etc.), and there are fewer "gaps" in their time spent riding, so their development has been constant (eg less time spent getting back to the level they were at, at the end of the last riding season)

Surely the latter's NCB should count for more, not less?

Admiteddly, the second rider does more miles, so is a bigger risk, but they already pay an extra premium for large miles to balance this. Similarly, what if that rider now stops riding as a courier and instead does 2000 recreational miles a year?

Please don't mistake this as the 'young versus old' argument. Imagine that the individuals in the above example are both 40, merely one has been riding since they were 30, the other since they were 38.

I've noticed this respect based on "time since you started", rather than "amount actually done" in other areas, too. E.g. someone proudly says, 'I've been playing guitar for 20 years', rather than 'I've racked up thousands of hours playing the guitar'.

Any comments?