$25 a day

[Mr. Pedantic]

So, as some of you know I was recently in California, and that I rented a car for the duration.

Well, during the same trip my parents took the opportunity to come up as well and we spent a bit of time together in Arizona and Utah going around looking at rocks.

The thing is that I'm 23, and when we rented the car the rental company wanted an additional $25 a day for me to be added as a driver, on top of the normal rate and insurance and what have you. In the end we ended up only having my parents as drivers. I asked the company about it, they said it was a California legislature issue.

The problem is that I'm more skilled as a driver than both my parents, I'd had more experience driving in California, I am much more used to driving for longer periods of time and at highway speeds, I have better hand-eye coordination, better situational awareness. I'm being charged $25 a day for being younger, even though I'm a better driver.

We have individual tests for people when they get a drivers license because of this precise issue - age is not correlated with skill. People have to renew their licenses for the same reason.

There is no charge for people coming from countries that drive on the left. There is no charge for people coming from countries where drivers commonly completely disregard road rules. There is no charge for people with poor eyesight. There is, more specifically, no charge for people aged 25 years and one day.

All there is, is a charge for people who are younger.

Can someone give me some background for this stupid legislative turd?

 

[Wingznut]

Seems odd that there's an actual law that states and rental car company must charge more, depending solely on your age...

Might want to check on that, before assuming it's true.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Insurance companies charge more for younger drivers. Because they get in more accidents. The rental companies are just passing that along to the customer. (Plus a little profit-taking, probably. But that's not the issue.)

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1114.pdf

Note the lower-right-hand table: "Accident rate per number of drivers." People 20-24 are 50% more likely to be in a fatal accident than the next age bracket up.

 

[brianmanahan]

People 20-24 are 50% more likely to be in a fatal accident than the next age bracket up.

precisely. the reason why they do this is because it is warranted by statistics.

 

[ultimatebob]

Statistically, people your age are probably twice as likely to get the rental car in an accident due to either carelessness or stupidity.

Hell, where I lived most car rental agencies wouldn't give you a car AT ALL if you were under 25 unless it was a corporate rental.

So, yeah, you can thank all of the morons in your age range for that surcharge.

 

[manly]

Auto insurance rates are also higher for young "adults," particularly for men. It's not age
discrimination. This demographic is inherently more risky to insure precisely because as a group, they get into proportionally more accidents.

Your diatribe about skill kinda misses the mark, are you suggesting they should administer a 15 minute driving test and then give you their best rate because you're an excellent driver?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Seems odd that there's an actual law that states and rental car company must charge more, depending solely on your age...

Might want to check on that, before assuming it's true.

It seems universal for rental car companies at least in California, but I can't find anything about it on the Internet, so that's why I'm asking.

Just to clarify, I don't really care who proposed the idea, it's a stupid idea and I want to know why.

Also, another reason I suspect it's a thing is that one of the companies advertises a promotion that will "waive" the underage fee - they don't advertise that they don't have a fee, they advertise they will waive it - which suggests that they "have" a fee.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Auto insurance rates are also higher for young "adults," particularly for men. It's not age
discrimination. This demographic is inherently more risky to insure precisely because as a group, they get into proportionally more accidents.

Your diatribe about skill kinda misses the mark, are you suggesting they should administer a 15 minute driving test and then give you their best rate because you're an excellent driver?

It's funny because in my experience, the people who think they're the best drivers... aren't.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks.)

 

[brianmanahan]

Just to clarify, I don't really care who proposed the idea, it's a stupid idea and I want to know why.

write a letter to ahnold and ask him

 

[dave_the_nerd]

It IS ALMOST universal for rental car companies IN THE UNITED STATES

FTFY.

Never been to California. Bought a junker at 23 because renting a car 3-4x a year to go one state over to see my relatives cost more than just buying one. The "young dumbass" surcharge didn't help the math.

 

[who?]

When I turned 25 my car insurance dropped by half. It had already dropped by half when I moved back to Arkansas from California.

 

[Wingznut]

Yeah, it's definitely not a California thing. Which is why I'm thinking it's just the corporate policy, and not legislation.

It's funny because in my experience, the people who think they're the best drivers... aren't.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks.)

Exactly. I think about when I was in my early 20's, I thought I was 10x the driver anyone else was, and that I could handle any situation. In short, I was a typical dumbass young man.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Yeah, it's definitely not a California thing. Which is why I'm thinking it's just the corporate policy, and not legislation.


Exactly. I think about when I was in my early 20's, I thought I was 10x the driver anyone else was, and that I could handle any situation. In short, I was a typical dumbass young man.

Yeah.

Don't get me wrong; I was guilty of the same hubris. And I'm not even saying OP isn't correct in his particular instance. Just that it's a common theme.

 

[Greenman]

It's corporate policy as far as I know, never heard of it being law. But all of the above answers apply. As a group, men under 25 are stupid. They frequently kill themselves and others when they get behind the wheel of a car. While you may be a skilled and safe driver, the insurance has no method, or desire, for testing that, so you pay.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Just to clarify - I'm not asking why there's an underage charge. I'm asking why there are no charges for other at-risk groups.

Auto insurance rates are also higher for young "adults," particularly for men. It's not age
discrimination. This demographic is inherently more risky to insure precisely because as a group, they get into proportionally more accidents.

Your diatribe about skill kinda misses the mark, are you suggesting they should administer a 15 minute driving test and then give you their best rate because you're an excellent driver?

Well, why do you have a driver's license? It's because someone thought it was reasonable to ensure that everyone on the road had a minimum level of skill and knowledge regarding road laws. We don't say "well, anyone is allowed to drive on the road as long as they cover the cost of their accidents". It's unsafe.

I'm not saying the rental company should have me do a test then and there. I'm saying a more reasonable way of doing it would be to do a background check based on my license.

Insurance companies charge more for younger drivers. Because they get in more accidents. The rental companies are just passing that along to the customer. (Plus a little profit-taking, probably. But that's not the issue.)

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1114.pdf

Note the lower-right-hand table: "Accident rate per number of drivers." People 20-24 are 50% more likely to be in a fatal accident than the next age bracket up.

So why don't they charge a lesser fee for over 75s, who are the next highest risk, and why don't they have charges for other at-risk groups?

And if it's an insurance issue, why isn't it counted as insurance? Because I actually had travel insurance that would cover the cost of car insurance excess in the event of an accident, but that apparently wasn't an option. Everything had to be paid up-front. It's like everyone's expecting me to crash, instead of the reality, which is that even for the highest-risk drivers the accident rate is still relatively low.

 

[MongGrel]

Statistically, people your age are probably twice as likely to get the rental car in an accident due to either carelessness or stupidity.

Hell, where I lived most car rental agencies wouldn't give you a car AT ALL if you were under 25 unless it was a corporate rental.

So, yeah, you can thank all of the morons in your age range for that surcharge.

What he said, it's been standard practice for over 50 years.

 

[Greenman]

Just to clarify - I'm not asking why there's an underage charge. I'm asking why there are no charges for other at-risk groups.

Because statistically the other groups aren't stupid. They may be slow, they may not be able to see well at night, but they don't go out and drive at 120 mph on city streets.

The numbers don't lie, men under 25 do stupid things, others don't do them as often.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Also, all of you guys mentioning high risk groups - the risk difference between male and female at all ages is at least as great as the risk difference between under 25s and over 25s.

So why is there no charge for males?

 

[manly]

I'm not saying the rental company should have me do a test then and there. I'm saying a more reasonable way of doing it would be to do a background check based on my license.

wait, now that's even more absurd.

There's some way for a U.S. rental agency to check your NZ license to determine how well you drive?

All they care is that you're in the wrong demographic and that you drive on the wrong side of the road (kidding). What else do they need to know?

 

[brianmanahan]

dont worry, you get that money back when you turn 60 and get %10 senior discounts everywhere

ITS CALLED PAY IT FROWARD

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

wait, now that's even more absurd.

There's some way for a U.S. rental agency to check your NZ license to determine how well you drive?

All they care is that you're in the wrong demographic and that you drive on the wrong side of the road (kidding). What else do they need to know?

I don't know what they do with my driver's license information, but from what I could see, it wouldn't really have mattered if I came from North Korea. Nothing in my license tells me that I drive on the left, and there was no difference in charge.

See, I don't mind the law, as long as it's sensible. If you have all the infrastructure, (i.e. for US drivers license holders) then why not do a license check? I'd wager the majority of vehicle rentals are for domestic customers anyway.

 

[herm0016]

bring a certificate from a good driving course and sometimes they will waive the fee. I have one from a 2 day long winter driving course in colorado that used to work when i had that problem. also, if you work for a major corp. book through them and you will probalby get the fee waived.

 

[IEC]

An actuary will tell you why.

Also, booking through corporate travel saved me a bundle before I turned 25. But your company has to have the group rate and be willing to let you book personal travel.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Also, all of you guys mentioning high risk groups - the risk difference between male and female at all ages is at least as great as the risk difference between under 25s and over 25s.

So why is there no charge for males?

You mean for females?

Because women shouldn't be driving anyway. :awe:

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You mean for females?

Because women shouldn't be driving anyway. :awe:

You mean unless they're in the army?