Women to pay the same insurance as men- discussion.

[mike88]

I neither agree or disagree with this.

They claim its "sexist" to charge them less, which i agree with.

BUT

If its all about "discrimination" then isnt it just the same as old people charged less, or people who've had a crash/have points/convitions against those who havnt?

To charge men and women equal you should also charge old and young equally, crash and no crash equal, otherwise you're discrimating against the person whose crashed, no?

[bjrespect]

amen

[Chin.]

x2

Old people are a danger on the road , they drive with their wing mirrors folded ffs I've spotted the same car with the same driver driving about with its mirrors folded twice , the second time i stopped at the traffic lights and told him to get a grip and unfold them

[lennox1185]

I think it's a good thing.

Women fought for equal pay, so they should pay equal rates. I know more women that have crashed than men.

If you have a history of accidents at fault, you should pay more. I've you've been banned for points or drink driving, you deserve to pay more.

If you're a clean driver you deserve a discount.

It's simple!

[Chin.]

Insure the box comes to mind

[radddogg]

Hang on, aren't premiums based on risk? Why would insurers choose to give women cheaper prices if they weren't a lesser risk?

[Limecat]

Women cried for equal rights, now they have them.

Warning though lads... there is nothing like a Woman scorned so expect their bitterness to metamorphosise itself into an increase in accidents. Look at the bird next to you wrong and she will swerve into your car and blame it on you.

I think Women should pay more, they may not have as many big claims but that's only because they cause the blokes to swerve to avoid their random stupidity...

On a serious note the first post pretty much sums up my comments on the issue but they will get around the age thing, one would hope, by the older people having built a 'claims profile' so it would be unjust to charge someone who has driven 50 years with no accidents or points the same as someone who is 17 that passed today.

[peteT16]

This is a European directive is it not.

Lets ignore it, after all what are they going to do about it.

As Radders pointed out insurance is a risk based business, big risk=big premium.

iirc this all started because of companies like Sheilaswheels etc offering cheap insurance for women.

[jase]

insurance is a risk based business

No, its a profit based business. Ultimatly there is no risk to them as they will always make a profit out of you.

Also, if its 'risk' based why does a mainstream insurer that gives women a discount want say 1500 quid to insure me (If i remove all my mods) and AF will insure me for 500 with all the mods?
Surely me in my modded car will be high risk whatever?
Its perception and a marketing gimick. Women arent into cars and a great way to get money from them is to sucker them with discounts - and make the poor guys who want big/fast cars pay for it. Which we all do




J

[peteT16]

Of course it's profit based, nobody goes into business to make a loss.

But it is also risk based, if it was solely profit based every one would pay the highest possible premium

[jase]

ah but thats why women pay less Pete. One small advantage of a free market is competition. And that drives premiums more than - "your high risk coz your names fred".

I guess my beleif is insurance companies are using risk as an excuse. Men are an easy target, we cant claim discrimination, plus we are - if begrudgingly - willing to pay more to drive. Charge women or old people more and they wouldnt use a car, plus theyd take them for millions for discrimination.
Im suprised the goverment doesnt charge us more road tax coz we drive further on average....

Its why im such a fan of AF. Admitadly like all insurers I imagine come claim time they will a75e rape you but atleast they dont make up rubbish excuses about being high risk on your premium.

J

[mike88]

Example of age.

I passed my test at 18, first car was £1800 to insure.

I'm willing to bet a 40 year old who passed at 40 could insure a better/bigger car for half the price.


Ageism. Same ammount (lack) of experiance, so whats the difference?

[Din]

It sucks... apperently mine could come down 10% but Lisas could go up 25%... so we will be worse off again

[Limecat]

ah but thats why women pay less Pete. One small advantage of a free market is competition. And that drives premiums more than - "your high risk coz your names fred".

I guess my beleif is insurance companies are using risk as an excuse. Men are an easy target, we cant claim discrimination, plus we are - if begrudgingly - willing to pay more to drive. Charge women or old people more and they wouldnt use a car, plus theyd take them for millions for discrimination.
Im suprised the goverment doesnt charge us more road tax coz we drive further on average....

Its why im such a fan of AF. Admitadly like all insurers I imagine come claim time they will a75e rape you but atleast they dont make up rubbish excuses about being high risk on your premium.

J

That when added to your previous post paints a very ignorant portrait.

[roverturbo2007]

How many women actually drive high powered cars? not many ill bet, they all drive bl00dy spaxso's and clio's and beetles.
I being a woman think its taking the pi55 tbh, why should my premium rise, i encounter more retarded male drivers on the road daily than i do women, dont get me wrong,im not defending women drivers,coz tbh i hate them, they rarely pay attention,and think the rear view mirror is for make up . There is the small minority of women who CAN drive, myself for one.Insurance should be based on driving ability and risk, not gender!
So can you not tar us all with the same brush!
kthnxbye
lisa x

[Limecat]

There is the small minority of women who CAN drive, myself for one.

Guess who hasn't had their modest pills today?

The only thing that women are any good at driving is men around the sodding bend. Damn wenches should stick to what they are good at - cooking and cleaning.

[alexcornwall]

I think varying premiums for different age groups is an acceptable "discrimination", however different premiums between genders clearly is not in our day and age. Premiums should definitely take the hit. Pay rates have been/are being sorted out for women, despite obvious factors such as potential for maternity... sorry paternity leave etc etc. Everything has to be even nowadays, regardless of whether you have a Willy or a Mini. I'm pleased!

[rovermadman4825]

How many women actually drive high powered cars? not many ill bet, they all drive bl00dy spaxso's and clio's and beetles.
I being a woman think its taking the pi55 tbh, why should my premium rise, i encounter more retarded male drivers on the road daily than i do women, dont get me wrong,im not defending women drivers,coz tbh i hate them, they rarely pay attention,and think the rear view mirror is for make up . There is the small minority of women who CAN drive, myself for one.Insurance should be based on driving ability and risk, not gender!
So can you not tar us all with the same brush!
kthnxbye
lisa x

I agree with you, but why should all men be shat on everyone should pay the same $hit bust evan if they meet in the middle for men and women insurance prices so the cost doesnt go up to much for the women and the men can benifit off slighty cheaper prices

[thamestyres]

insurance should not be based on gender but when you think about it how many women do you know who have to be the "big man" or d##k depending on your point of view. women have (supposedly) better reactions than that of men (in general) however some of both genders can be better and worse than the average, which unfortunately "the average" is in reality below average. regards ricky

[Null_Byte]

Traditionally women have been a lower risk, so it makes sense that they pay less. There is not a gender issue here, it is simply a question of risk.

That isn't to say they have less accidents, or are somehow safer. I think you will find statistically they actually have more accidents, however they are mainly low speed low damage, and therefore low cost accident - whereas high/inappropriate speed or driving like an idiot, is typically a factor in men's accidents which equates to more damage and thus larger costs to the insurance company.

That said, I have a sneaking suspicion with the ladette culture may be naturally closing the gap between the sexes anyway.

Premiums actually start going up again when you get older (after a point), for exactly the same reason - older drivers are more risk.

Seems an odd sort of ruling really, but then when has anything Europe has come up with made sense.

[stefaclese]

Seems an odd sort of ruling really, but then when has anything Europe has come up with made sense.

Interesting how we pay massively more for car insurance than most of our European neighbours, not that theres necessarily a link between the two issues - point is we're generally paying faaaaar too much for insurance as it is! I don't understand why the insurers are whinging, they're using this as an excuse to raise prices on the whole (hike in womens insurance is greater than drop in mens insurance therefore more overall), at a time when they're raking prices up across the board anyway. They're as bad as the banks IMO.

[radddogg]

Example of age.

I passed my test at 18, first car was £1800 to insure.

I'm willing to bet a 40 year old who passed at 40 could insure a better/bigger car for half the price.


Ageism. Same ammount (lack) of experiance, so whats the difference?

A 40 year old won't do donuts on macdonalds carpark then total it into a ditch racing a saxo. FACT!

[stefaclese]

Example of age.

I passed my test at 18, first car was £1800 to insure.

I'm willing to bet a 40 year old who passed at 40 could insure a better/bigger car for half the price.


Ageism. Same ammount (lack) of experiance, so whats the difference?

A 40 year old won't do donuts on macdonalds carpark then total it into a ditch racing a saxo. FACT!

I can think of a number of middle-aged people who would do exactly that tbh.

[mike88]

[Stealth213S]

I have to say the gender thing seems to have been given alot more weight than would seem to be creditable.

For example, I know a female friend who's gone to insure the same car as me and has been quoted alot less. Now I wouldn't mind so much if everything else was equal and the woman had a lower premium; but, she had been driving only a few years, had 6 points for 2 separate speeding offences and 1 fault and 2 non-fault accidents against her where I had no accidents or offences, 6 years ncb and over 10 years of driving. Surely, by the time you have this kind of driving record to compare with, risk should be based more on this than on gender?

Jase probably struck upon an element of the truth, which is more down to economics rather than pure risk. I think the insurance companies have maybe played the gender thing too far and this is the result.

[Vard66]

[Punx0r]

As said it's all about statistics and risk, and this is harsh but fair IMO. The only question in my mind is how accurate are the statistics about women's accident rates.

I can think of a number of middle-aged people who would do exactly that tbh.

I think this says more about the people you hang about with than anything else!

[Pinkie15]

Example of age.

I passed my test at 18, first car was £1800 to insure.

I'm willing to bet a 40 year old who passed at 40 could insure a better/bigger car for half the price.


Ageism. Same ammount (lack) of experiance, so whats the difference?

A 40 year old won't do donuts on macdonalds carpark then total it into a ditch racing a saxo. FACT!

But this carries on into later life. My dad passed his test 1.5 years before I did. In our driving histories I've done way more mileage than he has, cos I've done nearly all my commuting by car, whereas he's done his by train. Even now I'm 40 and he's 63 if I spec up a quote on same car at same address his insurance is still nearly half that of mine.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't expect men's insurance to come down at all, just expecting women's insurance to increase to the same as that of men.

This did come from an EU directive on Gender, but originally insurance companies had an opt out from it's requirements. I think the case came from some men who complained it was unfair that women generally pay less for their car insurance and had some misguided belief that if they won it would bring men's premiums down to women's premium levels, see my comment above, but I seriously doubt that'll happen.

Also this has a knock on effect for pensions that leaves men worse off. Because statistically men die younger than women men usually got better annuity rates because they're not expected to live as long as women. Now this has to be equalised so men will get roughly same annuity rates as women, i.e. smaller annual pension, but are quite likely to be around for a lot shorter time to spend what little this amounts to.

Oddly enough whilst these changes are quite likely to leave the insurance companies quids in they strongly opposed this court case.

[Punx0r]

I suppose they like, and are used to, setting their own terms.

[stefaclese]

I can think of a number of middle-aged people who would do exactly that tbh.

I think this says more about the people you hang about with than anything else!

Who said they're people I associate with?! I was thinking more along the lines of past forum members (need I mention the 'G' word?!) and people I've had to work with, often management types.

[Punx0r]

G-man was early thirties AFAIK and an exception to the rules of driving and evolution.

If you know/meet anyone else like that you have a social obligation to thrust hot bananas up their nostrils.

But yeah, eighteen-year-olds are dickheads. I speak from observation and experience!

[radddogg]

I can think of a number of middle-aged people who would do exactly that tbh.

Wutever. When I was 18 I was a danger to society, now I'm not. I bet most of the other late 20-early 30's would say the same.

[rovex]

Everyone who is an unknown risk should be charged a flat fee and the cost should adjust depending on what happens from that point on. A man with a perfect record will pay more than a woman with a perfect record, that simply isnt fair and IS discrimination, the EU courts agreed simply because it very clearly is discrimination.

My (much younger) sister has had 2 claims and has been driving 3 years. She still pays less than her boyfriend, who is the same age and has basically the same car, and no claims. Thats just stupid and clearly shows the insurance industries risk assessment system is broken.

The current system punishes every man, safe or not, just for being a man. If you never claim you will pay more than a woman with the same record and car. How is that fair? Charge those who claim, based on what they cost you AFTER they claim, not before. Sure people switch companies, but it will even out eventually because for every one you lose, you gain another.

What they should do is make the penalty for claiming higher (depending on the type of claim of course). If you are genuinely at fault you should have to pay more. A friend has a modified Astra GSI turbo. He paid £4650 insurance. He crashed and it cost over £5000 to fix his car. His renewal? £4900.. Now sorry, but no, it should have been something silly, £8000 or something, to get him out of a car he cant handle and into something more reasonable for a 20 year old.

[Neilbaker86]

Everyone who is an unknown risk should be charged a flat fee and the cost should adjust depending on what happens from that point on. A man with a perfect record will pay more than a woman with a perfect record, that simply isnt fair and IS discrimination, the EU courts agreed simply because it very clearly is discrimination.

My (much younger) sister has had 2 claims and has been driving 3 years. She still pays less than her boyfriend, who is the same age and has basically the same car, and no claims. Thats just stupid and clearly shows the insurance industries risk assessment system is broken.

The current system punishes every man, safe or not, just for being a man. If you never claim you will pay more than a woman with the same record and car. How is that fair? Charge those who claim, based on what they cost you AFTER they claim, not before. Sure people switch companies, but it will even out eventually because for every one you lose, you gain another.

What they should do is make the penalty for claiming higher (depending on the type of claim of course). If you are genuinely at fault you should have to pay more. A friend has a modified Astra GSI turbo. He paid £4650 insurance. He crashed and it cost over £5000 to fix his car. His renewal? £4900.. Now sorry, but no, it should have been something silly, £8000 or something, to get him out of a car he cant handle and into something more reasonable for a 20 year old.

Well said.

[Punx0r]

No! This a great missunderstanding of statistical risk

There will always be exceptions to every rule, but that proves nothing.

Women are clearly less costly to insurers than men. As are people of a certain age, occupation, martial status and the million other things they as about you. If they weren't then someone would jump on the opportunity and offer discount insurance to blokes and make themselves a packet.

What else? It's discrimatory to charge 80 year old's more for health insurance than 20 year olds?

Like it or lump it, we have all been reduced to a simple mathematical formula that is accurate for the population as a whole.

Some clever sod analysed the bank records of millions of brits in order to identify muslim terrorists. Clever, yet simple. Statistics at work.

Unless there is evidence of collusion to keep men's insurance artifically high (above their true risk rating), then I'm not sure what the EU court is up to?