Insurance discrimination - has it gone too far?

Nitrojan

Nitrojan

Nitrojan

Associate
Joined
12 Jan 2008
Posts
2,116
Both my girlfriend and I passed within the same week and have currently been driving since March. She has been driving and old 1.2l Corsa and I have been driving my Honda Civic 1.5l however now I am considering selling in order to begin earning no claims on my own policy.

The girlfriend is buying a 2002 MG ZR+ tomorrow and is able to insure it fully comp for £1300 however I did a quote and got around £6,000. Even small cars like a ford KA is around £3000 for me to insure. How is the even right? Surely this is sex discrimination no?
 
it cant be sexual discrimination if its against a male.
Unfortunately the chav prats in their cars are ruining the ability of young males of being able to insure their cars, my best bet is to phone adrian flux for a quote their normally a lot cheaper than the usual lot.

also a MG zr really isn't the car you want, if your aiming for low insurance. best bet for low insurance is the cars young people dont drive or the editions that cant be modified normally a lot cheaper, failing that get a kit car cheap as chips to insure
 
Its a strange concept really, as people (mainly younger males) are kind of forced to drive a cheaper, usually an older car which as its old, it doesnt have all of the latest, now standard safety equipment (abs, air bags, esp, crumple zones ect). So when they do crash, the will not have all the protection resulting in a more servere injury, down to the fact that they had to pay a higher insurance premium which made them get a cheaper car!

Plus newer cars are more fuel effiecient aswell. I just cannot understand their logic.
 
If you cannot understand their logic then I am lost for words.

Young guys crash cars lots. This costs insurance companies lots of money. They therefore charge young guys lots of money to insure against the risk of them crashing.

It is that simple!
 
classicVin said:
Its a strange concept really, as people (mainly younger males) are kind of forced to drive a cheaper, usually an older car which as its old, it doesnt have all of the latest, now standard safety equipment (abs, air bags, esp, crumple zones ect). So when they do crash, the will not have all the protection resulting in a more servere injury, down to the fact that they had to pay a higher insurance premium which made them get a cheaper car!

Plus newer cars are more fuel effiecient aswell. I just cannot understand their logic.
Click to expand...

I totally agree - it is not fair at all. I would love an MG ZR however just because i'm male I can't yet my girlfriend can go and get one and insure it far cheaper than I can insure a 1 litre banger?!
 
She's less likely to crash it than you are.

Is it discrimination that people who have been driving for 20 years are charged less than people who have just passed? They are less likely to crash than you are too, which is why they too are charged less.
 
Mr^B said:
She's less likely to crash it than you are.

Is it discrimination that people who have been driving for 20 years are charged less than people who have just passed? They are less likely to crash than you are too, which is why they too are charged less.
Click to expand...

Unless their a OAP, then they just cause the accidents by going around the roundabout the wrong way:eek:
 
It's justified discrimination, though I'd prefer to see a scheme where people have to pay a higher premium and then get a % back for no claims, thus penalising those who make claims more.
 
^^

Exactly, OP is right it is discrimination, but unfortunately it's only unjustified discrimination which is illegal - if you can provide sufficient substantial reasoning for it then it's A-OK I'm afraid :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom