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

I believe we should all have our own insurance profiles.

Certainly make any N00b driver pay over the odds but not completely rape their wallets for 5 months of the year. Year on year.

Ouch on the first policy but if you don't claim then DRASTICALLY reduce the new premium until a claim is made. Then you have ...say..3 years of Ouch before being reset.

Regardless of gender, I've seen some psycho biatches driving in my time but they don't grate as much as seeing reverse baseball cap wearing youngsters driving fart canned Corsa's doing nothing wrong !

Except listening to Radio 1 or Rapcrap.
 
Tich said:
This is ridiculous. I had a quote from Elephant for £740 on the car i'm buying. I knew this new directive would affect prices so I went back onto confused.com and recalculated my quotes.

All my quotes from every insurer are coming in higher. The quote mentioned above now comes in at £1100. I have so far found one quote for less than £1000.

I thought females would be paying more, or men paying less. How did they work out that everyone should pay morre? I spoke to Elephant directly and they have told me that it wasn't what they expected either but all quotes are now higher and females have been brought up to match the higher quotes now given to men.

Something has gone horribly wrong here.
Click to expand...

Your original quote should still be on their systems though & valid for a month so you should be able to use that one still.
 
jamief said:
Risk premiums should be calculated at an individual level, at least whilst individuals are the ones doing the driving.
Click to expand...

This would be true .................. If the number of people driving in the UK was a lot less. If a company rates on , lets say, over 40 different things, you want a group of 300-500 people who work in a renewals department to individually update your driving history over the last 10/12 months ?

The problem people have is that its amazing to think up new ways to work out insurance, however its not fully developed in a sense because your not looking at the overall picture, people need to work on a way to impliment the change as well as making sure it doesnt conflict with insurance law and copmetition law

Brookert said:
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?
Click to expand...

Majority of companies don't rate on colour. Regarding viewing the statistics, short answer is no. The statistics each company hold is market sensitive, if an insurance adviser ask their insurance company(different company for whom he works for) for their statistics they could use it to give the company he works for an upper hand.

Some companies if you ask them what has gone up in rating from last year, some will be able to tell you what has increased but it normally takes a little time for them to get the answer as only the pricing departments have access to their statistics
 
Brookert said:
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?
Click to expand...

Most statistics used in proper sciences is laughably poor when compared to advanced econometrics.

Economics and Finance are far ahead of anything else in the applied statistics world (except for Physics perhaps, but you wouldn't be referring to statistical tests if you were talking about that).
 
Last edited:
Renewed today, £940 last year, auto renewal was £877. Quick call to Bell got it down to £777. Then ran a check on Go-Compare to find Elephant, which is also part of the admiral group quoted me £714. So Bell have priced matched.
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I reckon that might have something to do with the fact that youngsters are getting cars earlier then they used to and they`re newer (and probably faster) than they used to be. Long gone are the days when a lad bought a clapped out car and did it up. Certainly when I was a teenager back in the late 70s / early 80s it was very rare for parents to buy their kids a car, they`d have to work and save up for it themselves. Thus they`d get their car a bit later in life (when, hopefully, they`d matured a bit) and they`d have bought it with their own money, so hopefully they would drive it with a bit more care.
In my opinion nearly all children (of whatever age) are spoilt these days.....
 
Justin Smith said:
I reckon that might have something to do with the fact that youngsters are getting cars earlier then they used to and they`re newer (and probably faster) than they used to be.
Click to expand...

Probably more the fact that there are twice as many cars on the road (15 million in 1970, 20 million in 1980 compared with 31 million+ today). A lot more expensive third parties to bimble into.
 
Last edited:
My insurance goes down by £100, adding my mother normal brings it down, now it puts it up by £4

MW
 
Last edited:
On one hand I feel gutted for the female drivers who are much safer drivers than their male counter parts, on the other hand I like how progressive this new EU law has forced us to be when it comes to gender norms, I just hope now females will recieve better treatment else where where they are discriminated against like men were in this instance.
 
hurfdurf said:
On one hand I feel gutted for the female drivers who are much safer drivers than their male counter parts, on the other hand I like how progressive this new EU law has forced us to be when it comes to gender norms, I just hope now females will recieve better treatment else where where they are discriminated against like men were in this instance.
Click to expand...

Didn't you feel gutted for the male drivers who were much safer drivers than their dangerous counterparts before this change in the law?

Where are female discriminated against? They are discriminated for when it comes to divorce, children (both maternity and custody rights) and they get more lenient sentences for like for like crimes. I'm sure there are others, these are three examples off the top of my head.
 
Dabbles said:
Didn't you feel gutted for the male drivers who were much safer drivers than their dangerous counterparts before this change in the law?

Where are female discriminated against? They are discriminated for when it comes to divorce, children (both maternity and custody rights) and they get more lenient sentences for like for like crimes. I'm sure there are others, these are three examples off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

Oh look, a little MRA, what a shock to see on these, the OcUK forums.

I do not feel gutted for men what so ever, no.

British women are under-represented in Parliament, paid less than men at work and increasingly being sent to prison for committing minor offences, a report on sex discrimination has found. The report, which was published by an influential committee of the United Nations, paints a damning picture of daily life for women living in the UK who continue to fight for a fairer deal in society.

Women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% of what men make working the same hours in the same job. Numerous studies have shown this.

Researchers at Princeton published a study that showed bias against women in hiring practices within the sciences and hit on some particularly interesting aspects of subconscious discrimination.

The researchers gave the same application materials and resume to two sets of scientists and told the scientists to evaluate the candidate for a position as laboratory manager. Half the scientists got the materials with a male name attached. Half saw a female name. The scientists gave the male name a higher rating on competency, hireability, and their own willingness to mentor "him". They also offered "him" a higher starting salary — 30,238, compared to 26,507 for the female name.

The catch: These trends held regardless of whether the scientist doing the hiring was male or female, and none of the scientists used sexist language or sexist arguments as justification for their decisions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...discrimination-is-rife-in-britain-915800.html
 
Last edited:
Insurance is insurance, they rely on you being stupid or lazy to make money off you.

As I've had two years with a company car which I've just had to give back, I've had to buy a runabout (900 quid mondeo) to get to my new job.
Rang up old insurers to ask how much (I'm 36 with 2 years no claims, I've never had a claim, but spent most of my time as a named driver as I e had company vehicles) for fully comp on the mondeo-£560.
That's nonsense I said, I can more than halve that with one phone call to literally any other insurer.
That's what the system is saying they said.

Went on compare the market, £230 fully comp with Swinton, job done.

The gender thing comes to the fore now, but I don't think its having any real effect on premiums, people are just taking more notice of what they are paying and picking up on the normal insurance scam of hiking the prices up on existing and hoping they don't notice.
 
hurfdurf said:
Utter piffle
Click to expand...

I die a little inside each time I read your posts. If your attitudes don't prove that we are absolutely not born equal then nothing does.

hurfdurf said:
The researchers gave the same application materials and resume to two sets of scientists and told the scientists to evaluate the candidate for a position as laboratory manager. Half the scientists got the materials with a male name attached. Half saw a female name. The scientists gave the male name a higher rating on competency, hireability, and their own willingness to mentor "him". They also offered "him" a higher starting salary — 30,238, compared to 26,507 for the female name.
Click to expand...

Do you believe scientists are intrinsically sexist pigs, or could there be other reasons for the (rather small) bias towards employing a male?

In the name of balance, how about publishing some data from healthcare services which are absolutely dominated by women?
 
delta0 said:
My premium has gone down by £250 because of this new law. The sister's premium is up by £400.
Click to expand...

I doubt it is just down to the change in the rating factors.

atpbx said:
insurance is a scam etc.
Click to expand...

Not really, the reason why your price is higher with one company than the other is that to one your seen as a higher risk than the other. Not really a scam if you understand what the business model is based on. one company has more bumps and crashes with a particular car/person with a certain occupation/in a particular post code = they dont want them on cover. just incase your wondering, that is a simplified version :)
 
SGWillis- my renewal is due at the start of next month. I did a quote just before the law change and just after. The difference was £250 down for me and £400 up for the sister.
 
£1,100 to insure my 306 last year. Quoted £480 this year. Fully comprehensive with breakdown, windscreen and legal cover.

I was quoted £1,600 to insure a BMW 330D two weeks ago by only one company. This week I've been quoted £800 by quite a few.

Not too bad for 21 years old and 1NCB. It's certainly going in the right direction :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom