Ninehigh
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 08:09 AM |
|
|
"Sexist" insurance
Just heard on the news (less than a minute ago) that the fact that women pay less for car insurance (in some cases by half) than men, and this is
sexist and should be banned.
As a result of this women are looking at a massive increase in insurance prices.
Is there anywhere stupidity doesn't reign or am I confusing my total cynicism with genius?
|
|
|
|
|
Thinking about it
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 08:14 AM |
|
|
Linky
|
|
|
Daddylonglegs
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 08:23 AM |
|
|
I've often wondered about the 'truth' of the statistics which say women are safer than men. Not to stir up a sexist war, but there
used to be an awfl lot of women who were simply named drivers on their partner's insurance. The problem there is, if the woman has a prang, the
insurance simply puts in a statistic as a claim on the man's insurance, hence the numbers say that men make more claims than women, ipso facto
men are more risk and so policies are higher for men!
Might not be so true now, but I know for a fact that the female BMW driver that wrote off my son's car at a junction was on her husband's
insurance (bet she had fun explaining how she'd caused several £000s of damage to their nice new beemer  )
Anyway, just my tuppence worth 
It looks like the Midget is winning at the moment......
|
|
|
r1_pete
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 08:24 AM |
|
|
IF the evidence is there to support the FACT that women are safer drivers, then why shouldn't it be cheaper?? At 50 I dont expect to pay the
same as a 17 year old and don't, is that ageist?? where will it stop??
This is just another case of namby pamby political correctness over sound facts.
We will soon be going back to proclaiming the earth is flat, because there are a minority who cannot understand why half the globes population dont
fall off!!!!
|
|
|
karlak
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 08:26 AM |
|
|
Not sure why the insurance companies should make any more money out of this, but I guess they will.
What should happen if approved, is that the lads insurance should drop somewhat and the girls increase to make the gap less huge in what they pay.
Not a popular move I suppose, especially for the lass's, but the insurance company will just maximise their profits i guess.
Just really gets me how the Boys are presumed to be idiots and charged accordingly for accidents that they may well not have. I honestly find myself
avoiding incidents with both sets of young drivers, cant say girls are any better than boys. It should be an even playing field, but if you have a
self fault accident then you are hammered.
Does a 17 year old tw*t drive any differently having paid £3500 for insurance as opposed to £1500 ? I think not, in fact what is more likely is that
they will drive uninsured as they get truly priced out of the market.
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 08:32 AM |
|
|
Just saw this on the BEEB. An insurance bloke reckoned that the result would be more expensive premiums for women. ie they would not reduce blokes
insurances as they are the "problem" (my words not his)
Agree with comments above. As we are not allowed to be sexist, agesist or presumably disabilityist, wger-you-live-ist and all those other things, does
it ultimately mean everybody will pay the same premiums no matter what?
I wonder if they may make the NCD discount better as a result to reward non-claiming drivers and reduce their premiums. But as noted elsewhere, this
all makes not insuring a vehicle more worthwhile. Which is why I LIKE the ANPR cameras.
|
|
|
dogwood
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 09:03 AM |
|
|
On my insurance I went from just me driving to
me or my wife, and It went down.....
No complaints here..
My wife has just been telling me about the "Sexist" ruling
I would say what a load of bollox, but that's probably sexist as well
Insurance should be on risk assessment not if I have a "Lady garden" or "meat and 2 veg"
FREE THE ROADSTER ONE…!!
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 09:13 AM |
|
|
it wont get through. premiums are based on factual statistics. there is no prejudice involved.
the only way it would ever get through is if they can prove that the insurance statistics are wrong or flawed.
BUT! if they did it would only outcome in a change to how they are calculated and possibly more external regulation which will ultimately be funded
for by.................................. yep you guessed it............... US the average man/woman.
|
|
|
karlak
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 09:16 AM |
|
|
Seems like it has got through - hot off the press
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610
"Insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.
The decision means that women can no longer be charged lower car insurance premiums than men."
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 09:56 AM |
|
|
More profits for the insurance people!
Like the Poll tax the price will go to the maximum, with no thoughts of 'averaging' out.
|
|
|
RichieW
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 10:07 AM |
|
|
GET IN!! No more "Sheila's Wheels" adverts.
Thank god for the the EU.....
|
|
|
phelpsa
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 10:29 AM |
|
|
So does this mean i will no longer be able to get a sensible premium by adding my mother as a named driver? Thanks EU idiots....
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 10:33 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RichieW
GET IN!! No more "Sheila's Wheels" adverts.
Thank god for the the EU.....
Ha Ha... you beat me to it!
Small price to pay methinks!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 10:51 AM |
|
|
Ooooo very narrow minded ... of the 'powers that be' that is.......
So.....if it's true that younger/females in general have fewer insurance claims, then...why should it not be cheaper?
Oh...and statistics also show that more young women/girls actually do their 'pass plus' after passing their driving tests then then
lads........
Also....the insurance hikes that we have all faced over recent years, have been due...'they' say
to (mainly) young men not having insurance and pranging their cars........and excessive claims due to bad weather......
Is that not also victimisation on the older/no claims peeps?
So...you are happy to pay up to cover the costs on uninsured drivers/bad weather claims...but not to have a difference in cost if, statistics are
right, that younger men make the highest claims?
Oh...and there is many a man who is the named driver on the other half's policy to make it cheaper for them......
Having lads and lasses myself, there are good and bad in both.......sadly it is more often the lads who on the day they have pass their tests think
they are on par with Button, Hamilton et al, than the lasses 
Just my two penny worth and IMHO .....
Fozzie
Edit to add..........What would you guys think if the situation was reversed? .....
[Edited on 1-3-11 by Fozzie]
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 10:59 AM |
|
|
I once heard an "insurance industry expert" on the radio who said that 86% of drivers were average risk and that the median risk was the
same for men and women. The difference was that there is more spread of risk with men. The men who were not "average" is divided by
those who are excellent drivers and those who are high risk and that there were quite a lot in each group. There were few women in each group, so
fewer girl racers than boy racers.
|
|
|
Alfa145
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 11:02 AM |
|
|
Hopefully someone will tell the meddling EU arseh**es to Bog off and leave our laws alone. 
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 11:19 AM |
|
|
Or is it that they have realised that women drivers don't have accidents, they just cause them?
[Edited on 1/3/11 by Confused but excited.]
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 11:46 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alfa145
Hopefully someone will tell the meddling EU arseh**es to Bog off and leave our laws alone.
You realise it's thanks to the EC anti-ageism rulings that you now can't be forced to retire at 65. Oh, and can't be refused for a
job application because of your age.
There's good and bad from it!
Cheers,
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 11:48 AM |
|
|
At the end of the day, insurance is a product we buy and that product can be whatever price the seller chooses to set. If we had state-run, not for
profit, insurance like some countries we would pay notably less for plain old 3rd party cover and the only thing you'd be charged more for would
be fire and theft cover on top, meaning everyone can afford the basic insurance so no-one is left without recompense in a crash,but you pay on top if
you want to protect your pride and joy.
quote:
You realise it's thanks to the EC anti-ageism rulings that you now can't be forced to retire at 65. Oh, and can't be refused for a
job application because of your age.
Not really, it's a piece of cake to work around both of those "laws" if the employer wishes to, you'd find it virtually
impossible to prove them wrong.
[Edited on 1/3/11 by coyoteboy]
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 12:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by James
You realise it's thanks to the EC anti-ageism rulings that you now can't be forced to retire at 65. Oh, and can't be refused for a
job application because of your age.
There's good and bad from it!
Cheers,
James
So how long until the EC decides that basing your insurance premium on your age, location, type of car or any other possible risk factor is
discriminatory?
The EC appear to completely misunderstand the entire concept of insurance as a risk management tool. They are often blamed for ridiculous laws that
turn out to be urban legends, but for me they have completely blown any last shred of credibility they might have had with this fantastically stupid
ruling.
Maybe I should point the EC towards the Womens Institute, surely a hotbed of discrimination that should be disbanded immediately
[Edited on 1/3/11 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
Alfa145
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 12:35 PM |
|
|
Presumably you can join the Womens institue if you wish as they now can't say no to men as thats discrimination.....
...same goes for the women only swimming sessions at my local pool, I assume they're now illegal?
|
|
|
norfolkluego
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 12:38 PM |
|
|
It's not just the number of claims, the average cost of a claim made by a young female driver is around half that of those made by young male
drivers.
It's not sexist it's sensible.
|
|
|
norfolkluego
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 12:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
The EC appear to completely misunderstand the entire concept of insurance as a risk management tool. [Edited on 1/3/11 by MikeRJ]
Looks better as
The EC appear to completely misunderstand.
It doesn't need anything on the end of it
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 12:57 PM |
|
|
Where have they got the absurd idea from that discrimination is always bad? Have they never heard of indiscriminate bombings? Surely that alone should
show you need to discriminate occationally.
|
|
|
40inches
|
| posted on 1/3/11 at 01:05 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fozzie
Ooooo very narrow minded ... of the 'powers that be' that is.......
So.....if it's true that younger/females in general have fewer insurance claims, then...why should it not be cheaper?
Oh...and statistics also show that more young women/girls actually do their 'pass plus' after passing their driving tests then then
lads........
Also....the insurance hikes that we have all faced over recent years, have been due...'they' say
to (mainly) young men not having insurance and pranging their cars........and excessive claims due to bad weather......
Is that not also victimisation on the older/no claims peeps?
So...you are happy to pay up to cover the costs on uninsured drivers/bad weather claims...but not to have a difference in cost if, statistics are
right, that younger men make the highest claims?
Oh...and there is many a man that is the named driver on the other half's policy to make it cheaper for them......
Having lads and lasses myself, there are good and bad in both.......sadly it is more often the lads who on the day they have pass their tests think
they are on par with Button, Hamilton et al, than the lasses
Just my two penny worth and IMHO .....
Fozzie
Very true, there are some strange vagaries in insurance premiums i.e: I am 62 my other half is 44. When we renewed our respective insurances this year
I put my wife as a named driver on my insurance and got a £55 discount, she put me on her insurance as a named driver and got a £105 discount 
|
|
|
