OK, I see that went right over your head. If insurance rates were based on age, it would not be possible for me to have paid the lowest insurance rates of anyone in the state when I was 20 years old. Yet my insurance was significantly lower than most drivers in the same state who were my age, and even a few years older. The way that happened was, I was originally licensed in a state where I could legally get a FULL, unrestricted operator's license at the age of 14. At age 20, I moved to another state where people weren't allowed to get even a learner's permit until age 17. Thus, most people my age (20 or so) had only been driving a few years, at most. My insurance agent was going to charge me very high rates for insurance because he made the mistake of buttuming (based on my age) that I was an inexperienced operator. That was a natural buttumption for him to make, as 99.9% of the drivers in that state WOULD be inexperienced at age 20. So I asked him how he defined "inexperienced". He explained to me that (major insurance carrier, probably covered at least 10% of drivers in the U.S. at the time) considered someone who had been licensed for 6 or more years to be experienced. I was able to prove that I was experienced, so I got the experienced operator rates.
If the rates were based on age, I would have been f***ed.
It's easy to jump to the conclusion that they are based on age though. Every state has a certain age where they allow you to first get your license. If that age is 17, then everyone below the age of 24 would be an inexperienced operator, if the insurance company considers "experienced" to be licensed for 6 years or longer. So in actual practice, people refer to age and comment that (so and so) is an inexperienced operator. Therefore it SEEMS like the rates are based on age. But they aren't. -Dave
