Statistics show that as of 2007, 18.1% of all FATAL collisions are caused by persons in the age group 25-34, while those in the 65+ age group are responsible for only 13.6%.
The same statistics show that 20.2% of all "serious injury" accidents are also caused by the 25-34 age group, and the 65+ crowd is only responsible for 9%.
I would think that there are many more people driving in the 25-34 group and that they are driving more kilometres than the 65+ group.
Given that, I would say that the data you've provided shows that the older people have a higher likelihood of being involved in a serious accident.
I spoke with my Insurance agent this morning. Cars that are financed MUST HAVE COLLISION insurance. Insurance companies must report any changes to policies to the lender.
Lender can call back the loan , making you find another lender, pay it off, or can sieze the vehicle (REPO) for not carrying proper insurance.
You would then have 30 days to put proper insurance on the vehicle and get it back.
Buying a car from a dealership. Proof of insurance is needed before they will release the vehicle, regardless of wether or not it is financed and you need this to get your plates.
Same as when you renew your plates.
You're right . This is a stupid arguement but very entertaining.
I would think that there are many more people driving in the 25-34 group and that they are driving more kilometres than the 65+ group.
Given that, I would say that the data you've provided shows that the older people have a higher likelihood of being involved in a serious accident.
I was waiting for someone to bring that up..
Further on that page it shows that there is 1,677,065 drivers 65+, however, there are 1,986,612 25-34y.o. drivers. This means that there's about a 15.6% difference in # of drivers.
However, the difference in accidents is 13.6 (65+ crowd) and 18.1, a difference of 24.9% in accident rates. This would actually suggest that there's a bigger gap in the accident causation rates than my initial stats suggest. However, there weren't any stats for distance / time spent driving.
I spoke with my Insurance agent this morning. Cars that are financed MUST HAVE COLLISION insurance.
I love how the guy selling the insurance tells you what you must have. Collision is a condition of your financing agreement, it is not mandatory. You can if you want tell the lender no (which is dumb, but within philli's right) and they can refuse to lend you the money.
Insurance companies must report any changes to policies to the lender.
Lender can call back the loan , making you find another lender, pay it off, or can sieze the vehicle (REPO) for not carrying proper insurance.
You would then have 30 days to put proper insurance on the vehicle and get it back.
Umm ya, if it's a condition of financing then yes.
Buying a car from a dealership. Proof of insurance is needed before they will release the vehicle, regardless of wether or not it is financed and you need this to get your plates.
Same as when you renew your plates.
You're right . This is a stupid arguement but very entertaining.
Yes, you need your binder slip from your insurance company to show that you have coverage. All it means is you have at least the minimum coverage as prescibed by law.
That said, to have a new vehicle with out collision (and esp the depreciation waiver) is not smart. Already got hit in a parking lot and rear ended in past 18 months. I was rear ended by a 30 something guy yacking on his cell.
We should ban all 30 somethings from driving!!! /sarcasm
Further on that page it shows that there is 1,677,065 drivers 65+, however, there are 1,986,612 25-34y.o. drivers. This means that there's about a 15.6% difference in # of drivers.
However, the difference in accidents is 13.6 (65+ crowd) and 18.1, a difference of 24.9% in accident rates. This would actually suggest that there's a bigger gap in the accident causation rates than my initial stats suggest. However, there weren't any stats for distance / time spent driving.
Think I will suggest bailing on everything but the Liability, and maybe some of the "extras" that may ease any accident process along (loss of use coverage, etc.). Also going to have him drop his km/year down to 5k.
Think I will suggest bailing on everything but the Liability, and maybe some of the "extras" that may ease any accident process along (loss of use coverage, etc.). Also going to have him drop his km/year down to 5k.
Has this thread now come full circle back to the original question? And why not invite your dad in on the discussion here... Bet he could tell a couple of the whippersnappers here a few things....
My Dad only got a touch tone line on his phone last year when he moved, comp . . . & getting him to use his DVD player for photographs was a chore.
Asking him to sit in front of a computer?
I'd sooner serve steak at a PETA gathering . . .
You wont find anything credible that for sure. Insurance companies (for obv reasons) cannot rate based on race, so they don't gather the stats.
That isn't entirely true. Insurance companies rate based (in part) on where you live. North Bay has lower rates than say, Milton. And Toronto will have higher rates than Milton. So what city you or part of the city you live/drive in does have an affect on rates.
The fact that most ethnic groups tend to live close to one another (See Markham / Brampton as examples) they do affect the rates charged in those cities. Not based on ethnicity but where they live and the frequency / severity of those accidents in that city.
Think I will suggest bailing on everything but the Liability, and maybe some of the "extras" that may ease any accident process along (loss of use coverage, etc.). Also going to have him drop his km/year down to 5k.
I would kepp the comprehensive coverage though. As it covers your Dad for theft, vandalism, hitting an animal, fire, flood, flying/falling objects. And usually has a $300-$500 deductible. Its not expensive per year, compared to collision coverage.
You cannot get the extras (loss of use coverage, coverage for non owned vehicles) without having collision/comprehensive coverage.
I agree with dropping collision, beacuse if he is in an accident in Ontario that he is not at fault for, it would be covered under his Direct Compensation/Property Damage coverage and has no deductible.
Comments
and it's all Milo's fault.... He started it!
You wont find anything credible that for sure. Insurance companies (for obv reasons) cannot rate based on race, so they don't gather the stats.
I would think that there are many more people driving in the 25-34 group and that they are driving more kilometres than the 65+ group.
Given that, I would say that the data you've provided shows that the older people have a higher likelihood of being involved in a serious accident.
Lender can call back the loan , making you find another lender, pay it off, or can sieze the vehicle (REPO) for not carrying proper insurance.
You would then have 30 days to put proper insurance on the vehicle and get it back.
Buying a car from a dealership. Proof of insurance is needed before they will release the vehicle, regardless of wether or not it is financed and you need this to get your plates.
Same as when you renew your plates.
You're right . This is a stupid arguement but very entertaining.
I was waiting for someone to bring that up..
Further on that page it shows that there is 1,677,065 drivers 65+, however, there are 1,986,612 25-34y.o. drivers. This means that there's about a 15.6% difference in # of drivers.
However, the difference in accidents is 13.6 (65+ crowd) and 18.1, a difference of 24.9% in accident rates. This would actually suggest that there's a bigger gap in the accident causation rates than my initial stats suggest. However, there weren't any stats for distance / time spent driving.
Mark
Buy or not buying insurance is *GAMBLING*
There is a huge house edge in insurance.
If you have the bankroll to not place this bet then you should never buy more than you legally have to.
I never buy collision insurance.
I love how the guy selling the insurance tells you what you must have. Collision is a condition of your financing agreement, it is not mandatory. You can if you want tell the lender no (which is dumb, but within philli's right) and they can refuse to lend you the money.
http://faqportal.fsco.gov.on.ca/al/12/1/article.asp?aid=1221&n=1&tab=search&bt=4&s=
Umm ya, if it's a condition of financing then yes.
Yes, you need your binder slip from your insurance company to show that you have coverage. All it means is you have at least the minimum coverage as prescibed by law.
That said, to have a new vehicle with out collision (and esp the depreciation waiver) is not smart. Already got hit in a parking lot and rear ended in past 18 months. I was rear ended by a 30 something guy yacking on his cell.
We should ban all 30 somethings from driving!!! /sarcasm
You sound like Richard and Blondefish:wink2:
Rational and able to provide actual evidence of my statements?
Forum could use more of that....
Mark
facts and rationale only get in the way.
Has this thread now come full circle back to the original question? And why not invite your dad in on the discussion here... Bet he could tell a couple of the whippersnappers here a few things....
Asking him to sit in front of a computer?
I'd sooner serve steak at a PETA gathering . . .
Yes, but people just ignore it anyway and continue to argue even though people are agreeing with them.:rolleyes2:
Gl Milo, hope everything works out.
That isn't entirely true. Insurance companies rate based (in part) on where you live. North Bay has lower rates than say, Milton. And Toronto will have higher rates than Milton. So what city you or part of the city you live/drive in does have an affect on rates.
The fact that most ethnic groups tend to live close to one another (See Markham / Brampton as examples) they do affect the rates charged in those cities. Not based on ethnicity but where they live and the frequency / severity of those accidents in that city.
I would kepp the comprehensive coverage though. As it covers your Dad for theft, vandalism, hitting an animal, fire, flood, flying/falling objects. And usually has a $300-$500 deductible. Its not expensive per year, compared to collision coverage.
You cannot get the extras (loss of use coverage, coverage for non owned vehicles) without having collision/comprehensive coverage.
I agree with dropping collision, beacuse if he is in an accident in Ontario that he is not at fault for, it would be covered under his Direct Compensation/Property Damage coverage and has no deductible.