Car insurance for men to be the same as for women.

Mine has gone down £120(it starts end of this month) after hitting the big 50, the only good thing about getting to 50 lol


Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android
 
Last edited:
Griffo said:
I'd forgotten there was a film of the book, maybe that will make a nice Christmas post-lunch viewing hehe.

And yes, I thought 'discrimination' was (dictionary yay) unfair treatment based on prejudice. And prejudice was just an opinion or feeling, for better or worse. Less costly accidents aren't an opinion, they are facts (unless the internet has lied, which is impossible).
Click to expand...

Which film/book? :)
 
strange,

re running the quote for our focus from 2 months ago and the insurance for the wife and I on a diesel focus living in a war zone category post code has dropped from £365 to £352. no major difference it seems in fact a slightly positive decrease. hurrah for maximum no claims and being the wrong side of 30 :)



on a more serious note young driver premiums are terrifying when you speak to <20 somethings and they tell you of £3000 insurance premiums you really wonder why they bother driving at all. I remember back in my teens insuring all sorts of quick metal at 17 for sub 500 a year, RS turbos astra gtes etc etc. Christ even modified cars weren't what I would call ridiculously expensive. iirc I was sub 700 a year for a 2l 16v nova @ 18

maybe it says more about the way we train kids to drive rather than anything else. maybe its time to re-evaluate the driving test?


in fairness though I agree with the equalizing of premiums regardless of gender, we should place more emphasis on a drivers training (encourage more to take up pass plus maybe?) and their track record, hopefully now all the young uns are in the same boat we might see them being rewared more when they get that elusive first years no claims bonus under their belts
 
Last edited:
Delta12 said:
. I remember back in my teens insuring all sorts of quick metal at 17 for sub 500 a year, RS turbos astra gtes etc etc. Christ even modified cars weren't what I would call ridiculously expensive. iirc I was sub 700 a year for a 2l 16v nova @ 18
Click to expand...

A lot of the old hot hatches weren't really that fast though and there wasn't anywhere near the same sort of claim culture. I'd certainly never heard of people deliberately crashing but that seems common in some areas now.
 
I think insurers should be able to determine prices however they want, with the exception of price fixing / cartels (given that insurance is mandatory). Then again, I suppose if the rated based on race there would probably be a big controversy.

Slight worry for us as my wife's insurance will be due in about 3 months and potentially looking to buy a better, faster car (bearing in mind she currently drives a Corsa 1.2 which is like group 2 or something).
 
Last edited:
Delta12 said:
on a more serious note young driver premiums are terrifying when you speak to <20 somethings and they tell you of £3000 insurance premiums you really wonder why they bother driving at all. I remember back in my teens insuring all sorts of quick metal at 17 for sub 500 a year, RS turbos astra gtes etc etc. Christ even modified cars weren't what I would call ridiculously expensive. iirc I was sub 700 a year for a 2l 16v nova @ 18
Click to expand...

not in my day. As a 17 year old I paid over £500 per year fully comp on a Renualt 5 le car 2 which had about 85 bhp. That was 30+ years ago so probably £2000 in todays money.

However it has got silly, a friend of mine asked me to look at his young sons insurance on a 1990 Ford Escort 1.6 diesel. The best quote I could find was £3300 third party fire and theft :eek:

No wonder so many youngsters drive uninsured.
 
Dabbles said:
No, I don't and I acknowledge that is where the system falls down. But that is supposed to be the intention of insurance.



Quite right. But until now certain groups were penalised as they were a high risk group, not individual. Hopefully the way things are going we are paving the way for individuals to be held to account for the accidents they cause.
Click to expand...

Yes penealise individuals but you can only do that after they have had an accident. For insurance to work you need to assess the risk in the first place. I mean should somebody leaving in the sticks pay the same as somewhere like chapeltown? Of course not.

Griffo said:
I'd forgotten there was a film of the book, maybe that will make a nice Christmas post-lunch viewing hehe.

And yes, I thought 'discrimination' was (dictionary yay) unfair treatment based on prejudice. And prejudice was just an opinion or feeling, for better or worse. Less costly accidents aren't an opinion, they are facts (unless the internet has lied, which is impossible).
Click to expand...

Totally agree which is why some insurance companies alter the poremium based on the colour fo the car. Its a whole industry called actury where people crunch the states and come up with the premiums versus risk.

For example

http://www.mynrmacommunity.com/motoring/2007/09/24/crash-risk-and-the-colour-of-your-car/

black, blue, grey and others ranking lower on the visibility index were associated with higher crash risk in daylight hours.

MUARC’s research also suggests crash severity is linked to vehicle colour, with “low visibility colours having higher risks of more severe crashes.”
Click to expand...

Therefore fair enough for your insurance company to charge more for a black, blue or grey car versus other brighter colours and the stats back up that you will have more crashes and more severe
 
There`s another side to this law which isn`t directly anything to do with cars but serves to illustrate just how illogical and unfair it is. In the past men (purchasing annuities) got more money per month in their pension for the rest of their lives than women. This is because statistically men don`t live as long as women (is that due to the fact women have got easier lives ! ? ! ) so that`s fair enough. Now, with this ridiculous law, legally they can only have the same pension as a woman. But since they don`t live as long as women men will be getting less back for the money they put in than women will, and if anyone, including women, doesn`t think that`s completely unfair, they don`t understand it.
 
Is there any way we can actually see the 'statistics' behind insurance risk? I would hope they use a statistical test to actually prove there is a significance difference in the data, much like the scientific community, instead of chucking a few points on a graph and slapping a laughable line of best fit going through them.

Would they claim a blue car is higher risk than a black car because there are 0.1% 1% 10% more claims?
 
You would like to think there's a reasonable error band on all the modelling so that anything at say .01-4.99% is effectively ignored with only proper outliers being picked up and therefore price adjusted.

Will they take into account how many blue cars they actually have insured compared to black so as not toswing it unfairly and weight things appropriately? Again you'd like to think so but given their business is to model and charge for risk I have my doubts. Thats the most basic concept I can think of, im sure they fiddle the stats in all sorts of more complicated ways - as you would if it meant profit for the company.
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
Yes penealise individuals but you can only do that after they have had an accident. For insurance to work you need to assess the risk in the first place. I mean should somebody leaving in the sticks pay the same as somewhere like chapeltown? Of course not.
Click to expand...

It's still going to work like that, except now the high risk group will be 'young' rather than 'young and male'. This way the insurance companies are going to have to load risky individuals' premiums more than those of particular groups to stay competitive. But yes, without any driving history young people's car insurance is going to remain expensive.

Justin Smith said:
There`s another side to this law which isn`t directly anything to do with cars but serves to illustrate just how illogical and unfair it is. In the past men (purchasing annuities) got more money per month in their pension for the rest of their lives than women. This is because statistically men don`t live as long as women (is that due to the fact women have got easier lives ! ? ! ) so that`s fair enough. Now, with this ridiculous law, legally they can only have the same pension as a woman. But since they don`t live as long as women men will be getting less back for the money they put in than women will, and if anyone, including women, doesn`t think that`s completely unfair, they don`t understand it.
Click to expand...

Given that the retirement age for women has increased to that of men it may be that in the longer term women's life expectancy will 'reduce' (or not increase as rapidly as men's) and life expectancies will even out due to women have to work as long as men.
 
There isn't even an argument to be had here.

Statistically, women are safer drivers than men and their payouts are significantly smaller. Therefore, to operate a profitable business model, car insurance providers should be allowed to charge men more for insurance because the average man is a higher risk. It is quite frankly tough luck that there are some men out there who are significantly safer than the average man and some women who are a higher risk than the average woman. It is a sacrifice that has to be made to ensure a fairer provision of service to the majority.

But Oh No... here comes more ideological nonsense from EU policy makers. The whole notion of equality is ridiculous to me and seems dreamt up by those who either have a chip on their shoulder or carry massive insecurities. We are not all born equal and legislation trying to make us all equal is a load of rubbish. Some people are more intelligent than me and are applying for higher paid and more demanding jobs, does that mean I have an equality-right to demand those employers are not allowed to value intelligence and discriminate against me because I'm less intelligent? If I enter a race should I be allowed to demand an equality-right so that those who are faster than me have seconds added to their time so we can compete equally. Sounds absurd doesn't it, well so is the EU gender equality ruling.

Next thing we'll have a ruling saying they can't discriminate by age despite the fact anyone with the IQ of a kettle knows the average 80 year old granny is more likely to have an accident on the roads than the average 30 year old man.

Somewhere between full equality and the absence of equality lies a point that is healthy for society, but this ruling by the EU is just absurd and politicians often get it completely wrong.
 
Last edited:
Just to add some figures to the discussion; my renewal came through this morning, last years was £1600, this year I'm being offered £970. The renewal date is 1 month before my 19th birthday, car purchase date of 2012, and 2 years NCB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom