Mileage vs Experience

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?

[BillyC]

I agree... nothing is better than miles earnt by sending them under your bum (preferably with a bike in between).

But it's very difficult to certify! We don't all keep personal log books that are checked and verified.

I could've been driving for 20 years, but the only journey may have been to Sainsbury's. Put me on a motorway junction and I'd fall apart.

Perhaps there's comfort in knowing that if you've not had a policy for 2 years, you lose your no claims bonus; or if you haven't passed a test beyond your provisional licence after 5 years, then many companies won't touch you!

Ceri Mate,

I think they just make the rules up as they go along.
Ask yourself this question, where do they get these rediculous overpriced figures from for insurance?
Someone must make this figure up from somewhere, but where? and how?
Considering that prices vary from one company to the next, what does the governing body or regulators think or do?

It's all me **** anyway, they'll add a tenner onto the price as soon as theh hear your accent, or your postcode, or the fact that Liverpool got through to the Champions League final, and they're a Man U fan???

Take it on the chin mate

It works the way it does because you take your insurance cover out for a fixed period of time.

Over a year, person A might be 5 times a greater risk (perhaps in terms of age, NCB, whatever) than person B, but person B might do 5 times the milage. They will pay the same premium because the risk the present to the insurance company is the same, and that's all their interested in. Making sure they've earnt enough money from you by the time you're expected to make a claim.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

It works the way it does because you take your insurance cover out for a fixed period of time.

Over a year, person A might be 5 times a greater risk (perhaps in terms of age, NCB, whatever) than person B, but person B might do 5 times the milage. They will pay the same premium because the risk the present to the insurance company is the same, and that's all their interested in. Making sure they've earnt enough money from you by the time you're expected to make a claim.

Not entirely true
You'll get a different quote if you tell the insurance company you're doing 8,000 miles a year, than if you tell 'em 4,000
well I did

[Balky001]

You have a good point but one person might do 90 miles a day on a dead straight road with light traffic, or you might ride only 20 miles a day but in central London and the 'burbs fast roads - who'd have the most experience?

Originally Posted by Mr Toad

Not entirely true
You'll get a different quote if you tell the insurance company you're doing 8,000 miles a year, than if you tell 'em 4,000
well I did

That's what I meant

Problem is it is hard to prove how many miles you have done and like someone said where they were done, I know I have done in excess of 20,000 since I have had my licence but that is about as accurate as I can get but I can tell you I have had my licence nearly five years, doesn’t sound like many miles per year but I didn’t have a bike for quite a while after passing my test. You could say I do 10,000 miles a year but could you prove it to an insurance company?

Yeah, they have their rules and they don't really account for people who are outside of their "typical" conditions.

I do 20,000 miles a year commuting and the premium is almost identical to putting in that I do 2000 a year... Maybe a balance of more riding experience vs more time at risk?

I'm a far better rider now, riding all week, than I was back when I was just riding at weekends... but I'm riding in much more traffic and I would say I'm more likely to be knocked off now...

Scary that there's nothing that says that you need to do minimum mileage per year. You could have a bike insured and in the garage unridden for 360 days a year, then go out a few times a year when it's sunny, ride like a complete twonk and nearly get yourself and others killed... oh, sorry, I just realised that's most 1000cc IL4 sportsbike riders...

...ducks...

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

It works the way it does because you take your insurance cover out for a fixed period of time.

Over a year, person A might be 5 times a greater risk (perhaps in terms of age, NCB, whatever) than person B, but person B might do 5 times the milage. They will pay the same premium because the risk the present to the insurance company is the same, and that's all their interested in. Making sure they've earnt enough money from you by the time you're expected to make a claim.

That's probably the most sensible justification for it, but what about the example I mentioned where rider B, drops his mileage significantly (his circumstances change, his bike becomes a weekend toy, rather than his sole transport), his ncb will still only be 2 years, so he will pay more than A, in spite of now being a significantly lower risk. Perhaps an ncb based on a combination of miles done and years, as well as current mileage, is the way forward? If that sounds a bit far fetched/hard to implement, bear in mind the talk of new GPS based "by the mile" insurance costs...

Mass, re: Plucking figures out of the air. Yep, considering they presumably have some sort of system based on stats/risk analysis, why on earth do they differ so much? I know some offer 'silly' quotes as a way of saying "no thanks" and similarly some save a bit by dragging their feet paying out/rubbish service etc., but even realistic quotes can differ by £500+ from company to company. Seems they're all either using different reports to get their figures from, or as you suggest, something like:

hitting a "random 3 digit number generation" button,
add 100,
roll a die, if it's six add 1000,
then, deduct (person's age*4) + (ncb*10) from this.
Total = TPFT quote