You're correct in that the age of the person doesnt mean anything however the age of the standards is very relevant.

30 year old driving standards are inferior and if you are driving only at the standard required 30 years ago then you shouldnt be on the road. Again if you can drive at TODAY'S standard then you should have nothing to worry about no matter what age you are.

<edited to add I mean nothing to worry about resitting a your test every so often>

Bigbananafeet wrote (see)

if you are driving only at the standard required 30 years ago then you shouldnt be on the road.

seeing as you're sooo well informed maybe you can tell us all why over 50's are offered lower insurance premiums?

That would be the boy racer element. A boy racer who writes a car off will cost more than a "bump" at a lower speed by the over 50.

Why then did adding my grandpa as a named driver cost me £25 quid but sticking my 27 year old girlfriend reduce my cost by £110? (Nov when I reinsured)

I have still to hear a valid argument against mandatory re testing.

Bigbananafeet wrote (see)

Why then did adding my grandpa as a named driver cost me £25 quid but sticking my 27 year old girlfriend reduce my cost by £110? (Nov when I reinsured)

adding a driver can't possibly reduce your premium (and certainly not by £110), the premium probably came down when you reinsured because you were a year older.

I'd check your policy.

Adding a driver can drop your price. I think that statisticly people who share cars with their other halfs are less likley to crash them.

One other fluke is that it can sometimes ( not always) be cheaper to get fuly comp insurance then third party, fire and theft because statisicly people who get fully comp are less likley to crash.

For that reason I once had fully comp on a motor bike that was worth less than the £250 exess on my policy.

Bigbananafeet wrote (see)

30 year old driving standards are inferior and if you are driving only at the standard required 30 years ago then you shouldnt be on the road.

Please specify how/ why 30 year old standards are inferior.  I don't think they are.

Ive just been to confused.com and ammended my last quote with the policy start date for today. I stuck it in twice once with me as the only driver and once with Claire on as a named driver.

With just me on my lonesome Kwik fit came out the cheapest at £416

With Claire on as a named driver Simple cover came out at £401

Incidentally Admiral aare unable to ive me a quote!

By the way anybody looking to reduce their premim should only use a comparison site as a start point, I have always managed to get my premium lower by speaking to a few companies on the phone using the cheapest comparison site quote as a start point.

Well if they arent inferior then why the need to change them and update them every so often?

Why cant I sit a test today that is the same as the test 30 years ago?

The answer is in the question Frum, 30 years ago means it would be 30 years out of date.

Frum wrote (see)

Bigbananafeet wrote (see)

30 year old driving standards are inferior and if you are driving only at the standard required 30 years ago then you shouldnt be on the road.

Please specify how/ why 30 year old standards are inferior.  I don't think they are.

The test was alot easyer to pass, thats all , they keep making it longer and adding new tasks.

When it comes to safety younger drivers can have risks assosiated with being young and daft. Older drivers can have risks assosiated wth declining heath/ reaction times.

But not all young drivers are daft and not all older drivers are losing it. By older I dont mean 65 I mean elderly.

My grandad would not stop driving when he was 78 despite having parkinsons so bad he could not hold the wheel steady, his GP kept OK ing his licence and we could not persuade him to sell his car but thats an extreme example. I dont think the woman who crashed into my parked car was aware of its presense and the way she had to peer closley to see the damage was very worrying, I am glad she hit my car and not a person.

We have all seen the 21 yr old nutter weaving in and out down the dual carrigeway at twice the speed limit or driving 3 inches off some ones bumper cos they are only doing the speed limit , which is too slow for racer boy.

The only decent drivers out there are you and me and I am not sure about you to be honest.

Bigbananafeet wrote (see)

Well if they arent inferior then why the need to change them and update them every so often?

heres a clue: ££££££

BBF, if you sat the test I sat many years ago, without some extra training first, you would almost certainly fail, whereas I would probably pass todays test.  The reason is that as the motoring environment has changed I have changed with it, while you have never experienced some of the conditions under which I was tested.

Just consider, when I was tested brakes, steering, road holding and tyre technology were all far more basic and inferior to today's.  There were no MOTs, so the standard of maintenance was, in many cases, extremely poor.  The requirements for thickness of tread on the tyre were much less - if you could still see the tread pattern that was generally regarded as good enough.  Cars had dynamos rather than alternators, and if you tried to drive with headlights, heater and windscreen wipers on at the same time you were probably taking more out of the battery than the dynamo was putting in, so there was a temptation to use sidelights and avoid using  wipers and demisters as much as possible in the dark and wet.

 We had to learn what is now called "defensive driving", making allowance for the other fellow doing something unexpected.  Apart from stupidity on his part there was the (unknown) state of his car to allow for. Good driving was regarded as the art of not being involved in a collision - whether or not it was our fault.  That level of skill, augmented by many years practical experience since,  makes a nonsense of your assumption that "older" means "lower standards". 

By the way, do you know the correst whip signal for a carter to give to the policeman on point duty to indicate that he wished to go straight ahead ?  No ?  FAILED.

I learn defensive driving and defensive riding. Standard stuff in todays tests.

As an ex biker it never mattered to me who was right and wrong if I was gonna end up dead or disabled I thought ahead, anticipated and if neccesary got out the way regardless of it being my right of way.

The theory test has lots of stuff like that on it driver attitude, defensive driving, how to react to agressive drivers etc, dont think it askes about carters signals though. It tends to stick to stuff thats more relevant on todays roads.

Jules aka Bat Girl wrote (see)

I learn defensive driving and defensive riding. Standard stuff in todays tests.

Yes I did cos I did my first test on a basic 100cc motor bike, I then went on to ride a 1970 250 cc bike for around 100 thousand miles, commuting into Leeds city centre and back on wet slimey diesel covered greasy roads

And I drove round in a Robin Reliant for a bit.

i wasn't winding you up at all. go on a driving course and learn how to drive safely - this involves not stopping at the traffic light line nor stopping at the wait line on a roundabout. most accidents are someone running into the back of someone else. if you are on the "line" you can be knocked into the traffic stream. stopping half a car length from a roundabout line means your car is moving when you decide to join the roundabout and the half car length gives you the option to abort if you wish. once you start moving from the line you are in the traffic flow. similarly at traffic lights, as the lights change you can be moving when the light turns green rather than a drag start. it's safer at the lights and you get away from the lights quicker.

your premium went down simply because your girlfriend is a better risk.

still no excuse for the bad driving of the other driver.

by the way, i have been knocked across four lanes by someone who didn't notice my car at all! fortunately it was at a junction with no traffic at the time. my seat belt paid for itself that day, as did the car which was written off.

30 years ago most people drove to and FROM the pub aswell, not that it's of any relevance, just occured to me.

Frum wrote (see)

Jules aka Bat Girl wrote (see)

I learn defensive driving and defensive riding. Standard stuff in todays tests.

But you didn't learn it to a standard which allowed for much poorer braking and more skidding than you wil probably meet today.

Jules aka Bat Girl wrote (see)

Yes I did cos I did my first test on a basic 100cc motor bike, I then went on to ride a 1970 250 cc bike for around 100 thousand miles, commuting into Leeds city centre and back on wet slimey diesel covered greasy roads

And I drove round in a Robin Reliant for a bit.

I was led to believe that Frum's first bike had a very small rear wheel & a very large front one.