A young person's frustration with car hire age restrictions

[Tom87]

As part of my degree (French, German and Italian), I am required to spend 6 months each in a country where each of the languages is spoken. Moving all my belongings, in effect relocating my whole life for a period of time, involves considerable moving of many heavy suitcases. This in turn leads to colossal excess bagage fees at airports - and on international coaches, there is often a stringent limit on the amount of bags you have.

What I mean to say is that, as a result, hiring a car to move my suitcases is the easiest, least stressful and cheapest option.

But there is one big problem: I'm 20 years old and so there are barely any companies that would let me hire a car. In Germany, I was able to find a company - Sixt - they were absolutely fantastic and didn't even charge a young driver surchage; but in France and Italy I couldn't find a single company that would let someone under 21 hire a car - and often the minimum age was either 23 or 25.

My "campaign" is that all age boundaries for car hire should be scrapped. This includes the maximum age limit as well as the minimum age limit.

The companies cite risk of accident as the reason why they refuse to hire to young and elderly drivers. But - let's be honest - they are in the business for making money, and they would not suffer financially at all if there was an accident. You don't think so? Well:

(i) If the driver had purchased the maximum comprehensive insurance on top of the standard compulsory insurance for the hire car, then in the event of an accident, the insurance company would pay the claim in full to the company;

(ii) If the driver had declined to purchase the maximum comprehensive insurance, they will have to pay a large excess in the event of any accident, or even minor scrape. The excess is often of a value higher than that of the car itself.

So: the company will never lose money because of an accident!

Therefore, citing potential damage costs as a reason for refusing to let certain agegroups hire a car is NOT a valid reason, because the company will always be covered in the event of an accident, regardless of whether or not the driver has chosen to be fully insured.

If you think I have a good point and you agree with me, feel free to write below. Also, if you disagree, it would be interesting to hear why. Thanks for reading!

[rory32]

My "campaign" is that all age boundaries for car hire should be scrapped.

So you think that someone 100+ should be able to hire a car?

The companies cite risk of accident as the reason why they refuse to hire to young and elderly drivers.

Well both ages do cause or are involved in the majority of accidents.

So: the company will never lose money because of an accident!

You don't appear to have grasped how insurance works.

[rory32]

I should point out that I do understand your frustration, but as you are aware they are a business and they hire according to business risk.

[Tom87]

Originally Posted by rory32

I should point out that I do understand your frustration, but as you are aware they are a business and they hire according to business risk.

Agreed, but I don't think a car hire company would ever be found guilty if a client has an accident driving one of their cars (provided it was not a mechanical fault, and that the client had a full and legal driving licence). So I don't see what they've got to worry about. As far as I see it, they're losing custom.

[rory32]

The 18-25 range of clients are the highest risk in terms of their insurance premiums. So they have obviously made a business decision in certain countries that this is not a client base that they want (certainly not the younger part of it anyway). The car hire is normally offered at a flat rate for all customers so to remain competitive the easy step is to get rid of the highest risk. It's not fair but it is a business decision and no petition is going to effect that business decision because they can and do choose who they wish to offer their services too.

[Tom87]

Again I agree with and understand your valid point.

But if a car hire company decided it would not hire to black drivers or Jewish drivers or Chinese drivers, would it be allowed? I see no difference between ageism, sexism and racism, they're all just as abhorrent as each other.

[indebtstudent]

I understant your frustration, I think there should be some flexibility. I remember seeing one company where you had to be 21 to hire a van but 25 to hire a car. I would've thought any driver is more likely to make a mistake in a van as it is much larger than a car.

I have a relative who drives for a living but to these companies his experience and skills did not matter. Same with some insurance companies, they ask if he has any advanced driving skills but don't see a HGV licence in this light. Surely if he can drive a lorry competantly he's a lower risk???

But I digress...

[noomill060]

Its the insurance risk that puts up their premiums.

Being young makes you a statisically bad risk for bumps.

Being black or Jewish doesnt.

Its a bummer I know, but its the price you pay for being young, Im afraid.

Enjoy it while you can, it wont last long, I assure you!

[Tom87]

Originally Posted by indebtstudent

I understant your frustration, I think there should be some flexibility. I remember seeing one company where you had to be 21 to hire a van but 25 to hire a car. I would've thought any driver is more likely to make a mistake in a van as it is much larger than a car.

That really is bizarre!

A few years ago a friend of mine was moving out of home for the first time to a flat about 40 miles away. He did had his own car, but it was very small and he wanted to hire a van to move everything all at once because it would have been cheaper than all the petrol from the car. But he couldn't find anyone that would let someone under 23 drive a van so he had to drive to his flat and back 8 times, costing him a fortune in petrol, more than if he'd just hired a van and done it all once.

Originally Posted by indebtstudent

I have a relative who drives for a living but to these companies his experience and skills did not matter. Same with some insurance companies, they ask if he has any advanced driving skills but don't see a HGV licence in this light. Surely if he can drive a lorry competantly he's a lower risk???

That had never come to my mind before but yes it seems unfair, because after all, experience (and especially the diversity of experience) is the number one thing (not age) that makes you a better driver. Nowadays it seems that a piece of paper like an exam certificate is more important than life experience, it's depressing.

Getting back to car hire, I am hiring a car in Canada in June and I have found a company that hires to under-25s for an extra £7.50 surcharge per day. Most of them charge about £20 or £30 per day so it's a pretty good deal, I feel. Still, in the ideal world there would be no such ageist surcharges at all.

[noomill060]

The answer, my lad, is to a get a rucksack and get used to climbing on and off buses and trains.

(Sh1t, Ive just turned into my Dad!)

[Tom87]

Originally Posted by noomill060

The answer, my lad, is to a get a rucksack and get used to climbing on and off buses and trains.

LOL! I've spend my whole life doing that and I'm bl**dy sick of it!

I am a full adult in all legal aspects and I am frustrated with being treated like some kind of half-person in that I am not allowed to have very basic things that most adults can, such as national minimum wage and car hire!

[ginger head]

I shared your frustration until very recently (Ie before my birthday). I got hire cars only when my work wanted me to drive for them; through a contract they had with National. Under it I was insured through the employer's policy rather than the insurers.

I also, living up to the statistics, caused a moderate amount of damage to a hire car the very first time I drove one; nothing to do speed or anything like that - just pure inexperience.

If I was a car hire company I wouldn't have rented to people my age...

[Weird Al Yankovic]

It's a business and they choose to do what they want.

When I was a courier driver for a couple of years I averaged some 120k miles a year yet my insurance increased in both those years, despite no accidents or convictions, because Norwich Union told me that 'they had paid out a lot of money for the flooding and bad weather' of those two particular years as a business!

Fair? I had driven in one year what a 'regular' driver would drive in ten. How was I anything other than a good risk?

You have my sympathy but there are loads of us who are ripped off/not treated well by insurance.