Trend Change in Accidents for Young Men.

April 4, 2008 7:46 AM

Has there been any change in trend of accident rates for men under 25 since insurance companies have charge higher rates? Or has the trend been unaffected by this economic incentive?
posted by meta.mark to Law & Government (7 answers total)

The reason premiums are high for this demographic group is because the insurance companies fear they will have pay out more on those policies. It's not an economic incentive and I fail to see how one is provided—the only incentive is to not drive until you are 26 if you are a male.
posted by grouse at 8:01 AM on April 4, 2008

According the National Center for Health Statistics, deaths from Transport accidents among males aged 15-24 have been:

2004: 8113
2003: 8171
2002: 8471
2001: 8111
2000: 7890
1999: 7558

These are crude mortality figures, not rates, so its difficult to precisely answer your question. But there doesn't appear to have been a dramatic change.

Also, I agree with grouse: higher insurance rates do not provide an economic incentive to not get in accidents. If anything, they provide an incentive not to get insurance.
posted by googly at 8:24 AM on April 4, 2008

Oops. Forgot to include a link to the data.
posted by googly at 8:25 AM on April 4, 2008

Economic incentives are programs like the good student discount, where people who maintain a certain GPA get a bit of money off. Other than that, it's all based on actuarial tables.

From what I understand, young men don't get into more accidents, but the ones they are in tend to cost more. Hence, the higher rate. I don't think this has changed much over the years. In fact, I doubt most high school and college students pay their own insurance. Otherwise you'd probably have a lot fewer cars on campus!
posted by sbutler at 8:28 AM on April 4, 2008

Is that a long enough period? Higher rates for males under 25 was an issue when I got my license in 1994.

Also, the economic incentive is that the only car you can afford to insure is something that is not a flashy sports car.
posted by smackfu at 8:29 AM on April 4, 2008

I have to question two premises of the question:
1. Did higher rates for under-25s suddenly appear at some point? When was it?
2. If they did, why would the rates of accident decrease? The under-25s would still have insurance, it would just cost more. Do you mean to say that with more expensive insurance, fewer of them would drive at all?
posted by Dec One at 10:06 AM on April 4, 2008

If fewer drove, the accident rates (accidents per miles driven) would not be affected at all.

The only way I can see this making a difference is if rich <25 people had different accident rates than poor <25 people. Raising insurance rates would not keep the rich kids off the road, only the poor ones. If rich and poor kids had different accident rates and suddenly all the poor kids were off the road, the overall kids' accident rate would change.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:44 AM on April 5, 2008