The report, Show the Data, by Marc Fels of Fueler Consulting, argues that the insurance barrier has been formally identified in parliamentary evidence, government research or regulatory processes nine times since 2016, yet no dedicated intervention has followed.
At the heart of the report is a simple question: if newly qualified HGV drivers are being excluded from work on risk grounds, where is the published claims data that proves the rule is justified?
The report follows Fels’ earlier analysis, The Broken Transition, which examined why newly qualified HGV drivers often struggle to move from training into paid work. According to the new report, the two-year insurance rule was first raised in parliamentary evidence to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee in 2016. Since then, it has appeared repeatedly in discussions about the HGV driver shortage, including the 2022 road freight inquiry, the Department for Transport’s 2023 research on HGV recruitment and retention, and the 2023 evaluation of post-shortage government measures.
One of the report’s central claims is that the UK spent heavily on training new drivers after the 2021 shortage, while leaving the employment barrier untouched. It notes that the DfT/UWE evaluation of 33 measures introduced after the shortage found that none directly addressed insurance.
Trained, but difficult to employ
The report argues that the problem is not simply whether new drivers have passed their test. The question is whether operators can affordably employ them once they have done so.
According to the report, newly qualified drivers are often blocked by a combination of fleet insurance restrictions, agency driver negligence cover requirements and operator caution at renewal time. Even where a policy technically allows a new driver, operators may still avoid taking the risk if one claim could affect the whole fleet’s premium.
Fels argues that this has created a structural gap between qualification and employability.
The report cites comments from drivers and operators responding to the previous Trans.INFO article. One operator said a driver could pass a test, not drive for two years, and then become acceptable for insurance purposes. Another newly qualified driver said they had Class 2 experience but still could not get work after gaining Class 1.
The report also points to a live advert on the UK Government’s Find a Job platform from March 2025, which stated: “Must have 2 years experience, 25+ for insurance purposes.”
The safety question
The report does not claim that newly qualified HGV drivers carry no additional risk. Instead, it argues that the public evidence does not currently prove that a fixed two-year rule is the correct way to price that risk.
It cites SambaSafety’s 2025 UK Driver Risk Report, which found that crash risk among commercial drivers peaked at months 24 to 36 in role. The report says this raises an actuarial contradiction: the common two-year restriction often lifts at the point when this wider commercial-driver dataset suggests risk is highest.
However, Fels also acknowledges an important limitation: the SambaSafety data is based on commercial fleet telematics and is not a UK HGV-specific claims dataset.
That is the report’s point. It says there is no publicly available UK dataset showing whether newly qualified HGV drivers are more likely to crash, claim or cost more than experienced drivers.
The report also cites DfT road casualty figures showing that casualties in collisions involving HGVs in Great Britain fell from 8,350 in 2015 to 4,290 in 2023, a 49% reduction. Fatalities fell from 282 to 188 over the same period.
Fels argues that the wider safety trend has improved sharply while the two-year rule has remained unchanged.
Insurers asked to publish the evidence
The report says questions have been submitted to Admiral Group, Aviva, Allianz UK, Direct Commercial Insurance and RHA Insurance Services. The key question put to insurers is whether they will provide the actuarial basis for the two-year threshold, including claims frequency, severity and cost data for newly qualified drivers compared with experienced drivers in their commercial fleet books.
If that data does not exist in a form that supports the threshold, the report asks insurers whether they will commit to collecting and publishing it. The report also puts a question to the Department for Transport, the Financial Conduct Authority and HM Treasury, asking what they will do differently after a decade in which the issue has been identified but not resolved.
Calls for a route into work
The report proposes three actions, none of which it says would require new legislation.
- First, it calls for the scope of the Motor Insurance Taskforce to be extended to commercial fleet insurance, arguing that the FCA has already compelled claims data disclosure in the personal motor market.
- Second, it suggests formalising a 180-day onboarding pathway, where newly qualified drivers could build verifiable tachograph hours through yard, shunting or supervised work before moving into standard agency placement.
- Third, it calls for specialist, newly qualified driver cover to be communicated more clearly to operators, including through RHA Insurance Services, Direct Commercial and telematics-based providers.
Fels also raises the idea of a Flood Re-style risk-pooling bridge, using telematics during an initial supervised period, to help newly qualified drivers enter the market while risk is monitored.
The next driver shortage may arrive with less slack
The report warns that the issue could become more urgent if the labour market tightens again.
It says Q3 2026 will be the first summer peak with no HGV Skills Bootcamp pipeline entering the market, while the workforce is older and transport and storage self-employment has fallen. The report also links the issue to the Government’s forthcoming NEET strategy, arguing that young people directed towards logistics may face the same insurance barrier once they qualify.
The central question, Fels argues, is no longer whether the industry can train drivers. It is whether it can employ them afterwards.
As the report puts it, every fleet insurer holds the claims data that could prove whether the two-year rule is justified. The challenge now is whether that data will be shown.
