FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Should women pay as much insurance as men?
Should women pay as much insurance as men?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Due to "equality" laws coming into force do you think its right that both men and women pay the same for motor insurance?
We all know who the best drivers are don't we?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"luckily it gets a tiny bit cheaper for me when i turn 25."
You won't believe what happens when you're 50 then...... Oh, what do you mean 'we're talking about insurance'...??? 
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago
Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum |
I don't have a car so don't really care, but if women are going to have to pay the same insurance, why do younger people have to pay more than older people?
I know everyone will say that its because they have more accidents than older people, but men have more accidents than women and they will be paying the same. Maybe some insurance broker on hee can let s know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I thought we did pay the same.
I was under the impression that the rate is reduced for a) safe driving over a number of years b) being an advanced driver like what I is c) not being a dickhead boy under 21 and stuff .... d) liccle vee hickle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
men should pay the same as women but that will never happen, insurance company's never lose, my daughter works for one and they openly laugh about how much people pay, never see a poor insurance company |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The thing I do object to with car insurance which is directly relevant to gender, is that (from what I can glean from my last two brokers) there is NO calculation made to work out the number of miles driven per claim by someone.
Due to my job, I drive 90-100k a year. The last claim I made (not my fault) was four years ago, so since then I have covered 360k miles at least, so 1 in 360,000.
However, I know someone (a lady) who does - at most - 3000 miles a year, and who has had two claims in the last two years. A ratio of 1 in 3000, or 120 times MORE likely to have an accident than me.
And yet, her premium - taking the approx cost of the claims (both her fault) into account - is ridiculous. Less than £400 a year. The 'private' use element of my insurance (it's a taxi so passenger liability is a big part of my £2800 premium) is about £1,000. I have been told by both brokers this is due to the mileage I do. When I pointed out the comparison of 'Claims per 1000 miles' they said it is not taken into account.
The reason I say this has a direct relevance to female drivers is that the average annual mileage for a female driver is about half that for a male.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The stats say that young men under the age of 22 are 10 times more likely to be the cause of an accident than young women of the same age. The average insurance for a young male in this age bracket is around the £3K mark (shocking!)and around £1800 for a female. After Dec 21st, young women will have to pay the same as young men. So who is going to benefit from this sudden upward surge of income for the insurance companies? How is it going to improve things?
The ruling comes from Europe and, apparently, even the insurance companies don't think it's fair.
Ain't it great being ruled from Brussels? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Statistically women have fewer accidents than men so it makes sense that a formula can be applied that makes insurance cheaper for a demographic section of drivers who are less likely to claim or be claimed against. It's good business sense and fortunate for women, although I'm sure a fairer formula could be applied to men who can demonstrate years of accident-free driving. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The thing I do object to with car insurance which is directly relevant to gender, is that (from what I can glean from my last two brokers) there is NO calculation made to work out the number of miles driven per claim by someone.
Due to my job, I drive 90-100k a year. The last claim I made (not my fault) was four years ago, so since then I have covered 360k miles at least, so 1 in 360,000.
However, I know someone (a lady) who does - at most - 3000 miles a year, and who has had two claims in the last two years. A ratio of 1 in 3000, or 120 times MORE likely to have an accident than me.
And yet, her premium - taking the approx cost of the claims (both her fault) into account - is ridiculous. Less than £400 a year. The 'private' use element of my insurance (it's a taxi so passenger liability is a big part of my £2800 premium) is about £1,000. I have been told by both brokers this is due to the mileage I do. When I pointed out the comparison of 'Claims per 1000 miles' they said it is not taken into account.
The reason I say this has a direct relevance to female drivers is that the average annual mileage for a female driver is about half that for a male.
"
Can't fault your logic in one way - more miles per year equals more experience - and if claim free why shouldn't this be recognised?
However - also logically - more miles per year equals more risk of an accident/claim.
The calculations used are complex and its a shame that the addition of such technology as trackers and in car digital recording devices (actually quite cheap!) don't reduce premiums as much as they possibly should! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
it is complicated....
what they have said is that you are not allowed to be charged differently without any history....
so for a first time driver... you are not allowed to differentiate between a woman and a man...
after that you can.... number of years, miles driven, claims/ no claims ect........
but the one thing you are not allowed to charge on is gender... which seems fair |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
IMHO, the distance driven in a year is not necessarily indicative of the potential risks that one would face.
I find short distance town/city driving far more stressful and hazardous than long distance motorway driving.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it is complicated....
what they have said is that you are not allowed to be charged differently without any history....
so for a first time driver... you are not allowed to differentiate between a woman and a man...
after that you can.... number of years, miles driven, claims/ no claims ect........
but the one thing you are not allowed to charge on is gender... which seems fair"
charge on gender.
like single guys and clubs. 
but thats another issue |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"men should pay the same as women but that will never happen, insurance company's never lose, my daughter works for one and they openly laugh about how much people pay, never see a poor insurance company "
Sorry sir but you are wrong.
Nig pulled out of private motor market due to non performing book.
Groupama just purchased by ageas due to being sold off by parent company.
Independent went bust due to bad claims.
Leemar insurance gone out of business.
Just to name a few.
It's all about the fact that the EU did not feel it was fair to rate on gender, as some judge agreed when it was challenged to be unfair. What the judge did not take into consideration was the stacks of statistics that actuaries put together to argue the case. The judge did not feel that statistics was a fair argument.
This is just a step closer to what the insurers want of having telematics in cars. They use this technology on big fleets and buses, and are working with car manufacturers to be fitted as standard. Word is ford are very close to this. Once this happens insurers will be able to prove negligence and injuries quicker, thus reducing claims costs. It will also allow them to track driving habits and load premiums for speeding etc.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"men should pay the same as women but that will never happen, insurance company's never lose, my daughter works for one and they openly laugh about how much people pay, never see a poor insurance company
Sorry sir but you are wrong.
Nig pulled out of private motor market due to non performing book.
Groupama just purchased by ageas due to being sold off by parent company.
Independent went bust due to bad claims.
Leemar insurance gone out of business.
Just to name a few.
It's all about the fact that the EU did not feel it was fair to rate on gender, as some judge agreed when it was challenged to be unfair. What the judge did not take into consideration was the stacks of statistics that actuaries put together to argue the case. The judge did not feel that statistics was a fair argument.
This is just a step closer to what the insurers want of having telematics in cars. They use this technology on big fleets and buses, and are working with car manufacturers to be fitted as standard. Word is ford are very close to this. Once this happens insurers will be able to prove negligence and injuries quicker, thus reducing claims costs. It will also allow them to track driving habits and load premiums for speeding etc.
"
will not happen for years, people will be quoting human rights left right and center , i drive for a living and have a tracker on my car , they tried to use the information for insurance companys and the union now have them tied up in knots over it, as for personal use in private cars....just dont buy a car with the spy in the cab in it, as soon as people dont buy the cars the manufacture will stop putting them in
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
women drive smaller, shitter, less powerful cars, and do less miles, therefore pay less.
I pay £280 a year for a 1.6 Seat Leon, came down quite a lot since i went past 25. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"men should pay the same as women but that will never happen, insurance company's never lose, my daughter works for one and they openly laugh about how much people pay, never see a poor insurance company
Sorry sir but you are wrong.
Nig pulled out of private motor market due to non performing book.
Groupama just purchased by ageas due to being sold off by parent company.
Independent went bust due to bad claims.
Leemar insurance gone out of business.
Just to name a few.
It's all about the fact that the EU did not feel it was fair to rate on gender, as some judge agreed when it was challenged to be unfair. What the judge did not take into consideration was the stacks of statistics that actuaries put together to argue the case. The judge did not feel that statistics was a fair argument.
This is just a step closer to what the insurers want of having telematics in cars. They use this technology on big fleets and buses, and are working with car manufacturers to be fitted as standard. Word is ford are very close to this. Once this happens insurers will be able to prove negligence and injuries quicker, thus reducing claims costs. It will also allow them to track driving habits and load premiums for speeding etc.
will not happen for years, people will be quoting human rights left right and center , i drive for a living and have a tracker on my car , they tried to use the information for insurance companys and the union now have them tied up in knots over it, as for personal use in private cars....just dont buy a car with the spy in the cab in it, as soon as people dont buy the cars the manufacture will stop putting them in
"
It's already happening in the UK with young drivers, with telematics being used to track usage, and a 3 strike rule being enforced.
It's already being used in the states and works successfully. Insurers are reporting claims disputes being lowered.
As for people not buying cars, once the insurers decide its the way to go, the majority of policies will be underwritten on this basis, and the people will follow to get lower premiums. There will still be traditional methods used, but they will be more pricey.
There is an issue over what data they use, but as long as they write the conditions into the policy and get them passed, it will be tough to challenge.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I was reading that premiums for men will go up anyway, regardless (and quite possibly due to) of the new law.
Best advice is to get extra training and experience. I got my advanced licence early on and its saved me loads over the years (and come in handy). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I imagine the conversations in insurance company boardrooms went something like this:
Ins pic. "So EU, what you're saying is that we will be legally obliged to charge half the driving population a whole lot more for their insurance? And there's nothing they can do about it as they legally need insurance? Ahahahahahah, anyone want some more champers?"
EU. "Er....Well....You could charge the other half of the population a bit less instead?"
Ins plc. "Ahahahahahah.....stop it....you're killing us...you guys are great"
Or something like that.
What I don't get, and forgive me if I over simplify, is that insurance is just betting.
They calculate odds on us having a crash or something within any year. We pay them say, a £500 stake that we won't have an accident in a year and need damage repaired. At the end of that year, they keep the stake and we have to pay them over again! Whoever came up with this is genius. They cannot loose. As someone said, you never hear of an insurer going to the wall.
The only way to get insurance prices to drop is like everything else. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has to stop paying for it. The law can't possibly prosecute everyone, and once you start damaging their income streams then watch the prices fall.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *umpkinMan
over a year ago
near the sounds of the wimborne quarter jack! |
"No I don't think it's fair. Insurance should be based on statistics and risk. If it's there in black and white that women pose a lesser risk then why should they pay the same as boy racers?"
I`m glad you said this! There is an increasing number of girl racers on the roadS, well at least driving around my way there certainly seems to be! Some young girls driving standards are little better than a lot of the boys of the same age.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
shouldn't be any difference in my eyes, we all drive the same cars, engine size ect,some drive like arse holes and some drive like 2mro will do, never gonna reach a happy medium.... but at my age it's getting cheaper, ah the benefits of age eh!!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Personally I think riders of pushbikes should have insurance along with people who drive horses.
I've had my car damaged several tines by cyclists coming up the side of my car while I'm stationary at traffic lights, handle bars along the side of my car requiring several hundred pounds to put right. All I got from the knob on the bike was "sorry", no details, no offer to pay for the damage. I could have gone through my insurance but it would have driven my premium up.
Everyone who uses the roads, for what ever purpose should have some form of insurance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is happening with life insurnace aswel... If your females you need to get it sorted asap as in the next week or so you will be charged the same as men...
If you go on google and type this "life insurance prices to increase by upto 25%" there is a good blog on it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I imagine the conversations in insurance company boardrooms went something like this:
Ins pic. "So EU, what you're saying is that we will be legally obliged to charge half the driving population a whole lot more for their insurance? And there's nothing they can do about it as they legally need insurance? Ahahahahahah, anyone want some more champers?"
EU. "Er....Well....You could charge the other half of the population a bit less instead?"
Ins plc. "Ahahahahahah.....stop it....you're killing us...you guys are great"
Or something like that.
What I don't get, and forgive me if I over simplify, is that insurance is just betting.
They calculate odds on us having a crash or something within any year. We pay them say, a £500 stake that we won't have an accident in a year and need damage repaired. At the end of that year, they keep the stake and we have to pay them over again! Whoever came up with this is genius. They cannot loose. As someone said, you never hear of an insurer going to the wall.
The only way to get insurance prices to drop is like everything else. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has to stop paying for it. The law can't possibly prosecute everyone, and once you start damaging their income streams then watch the prices fall.
"
I could spend hours explaining the whole rationale behind insurance premiums, etc but I fear it would not be taken on board. Just lik. Why you need motor insurance, and how being hit by a non insured driver would severely affect your life.
If you don't want to buy insurance, you could always go down the other legitimate route of buying a bond for over £500,000 to honour any claims you might incur. I know which route I'd rather take! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not quite condescending enough but thanks! I am glad you didn't take time to explain it to me, I'm sure my girly brain has better things to think of, like kittens and knitting.
I'm not saying we don't need insurance. Just that its far too expensive, the price never ever stops going up and the only people who benefit from insurance is the insurers. If you have an accident, your fault or not, your premium goes up.
And its not down to the cost of uninsured drivers, the number of whom is rising due to insurers pricing them out, but there are still not that many as the vast majority obey the law. Its sheer profiteering from a captive consumer base and nothing more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm a wagon driver ,done it most of my life ,drive several thousand miles each week accident free ( see loads in my mirrors though ) yet my Mrs gets cheaper insurance than me , and she's had 2 accidents in the past 3yrs!
Work that one out !
The insurance guys are rubbing their hands togeather on this one , the ladies are about to get shafted ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
insurance is based on stastics.. and the truth is woman are safer drivers as they will think "damn brake and stop an accident" where as a guy thinks "well its the other car in the wrong!"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It is wrong to judge one mans driving against another mans driving. Why should I be penalised for being male, because SOME men have more accidents than others? Your premium should be calculated from a national average, then altered according to YOUR personal driving history. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not quite condescending enough but thanks! I am glad you didn't take time to explain it to me, I'm sure my girly brain has better things to think of, like kittens and knitting.
I'm not saying we don't need insurance. Just that its far too expensive, the price never ever stops going up and the only people who benefit from insurance is the insurers. If you have an accident, your fault or not, your premium goes up.
And its not down to the cost of uninsured drivers, the number of whom is rising due to insurers pricing them out, but there are still not that many as the vast majority obey the law. Its sheer profiteering from a captive consumer base and nothing more. "
It's nothing to do with your girly brains, its your outlook.
Why is it too expensive? The idea of insurance being that the premiums of the many pay the the claims of the few?
If those claims costs go up, then the premiums will as there is not enough in the pot.
Not all premiums are going up, mine went down!
I didn't say it was solely down to uninsured drivers. The insurance premium is massively hiked due to the liabilities attached to the policy. I for one would rather pay £600 to potentially being sued for millions, which could happen if you left someone injured for life.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So what you're saying is that if we clamped down on uninsured drivers, blame claims, 3rd party traumatisation etc, our insurance would go down?
Well that's an interesting idea, but not one which is ever likely to be tested. And I find the idea unlikely anyway. Any company which has to service shareholders is unlikely to do anything to reduce the fat dividend they get.
A lot of our insurance premium is government enforced profit protection.
Congrats on your premium going down. How much by? And was that taking out a new policy with another company or renewing with who you're with at the mo?
Personally mine hasn't gone down in years. True it hasn't rocketed, but does seem to go up £10-20 a year. No claims in 10 years either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what you're saying is that if we clamped down on uninsured drivers, blame claims, 3rd party traumatisation etc, our insurance would go down?
Well that's an interesting idea, but not one which is ever likely to be tested. And I find the idea unlikely anyway. Any company which has to service shareholders is unlikely to do anything to reduce the fat dividend they get.
A lot of our insurance premium is government enforced profit protection.
Congrats on your premium going down. How much by? And was that taking out a new policy with another company or renewing with who you're with at the mo?
Personally mine hasn't gone down in years. True it hasn't rocketed, but does seem to go up £10-20 a year. No claims in 10 years either. "
My premium reduced with the same company.
Claims cost are having a huge effect on premiums. Also premiums have in the past been kept low due to insurers using surplus reserves from other books to fund losses.
However as the cost of other claims are increasing, property being a casing point insures can no longer fund the losses.
The cost of re-insurance is going up too hence being passed on to consumers.
Also capacity is being withdrawn by some insurer's, meaning it is not as easy as 5 year. ago to place risks.
If you want cheap cover why not go to an offshore insurer, with little stability and ate likely to stop trading. As I said on previous posts insurers do go to the wall, and I'm not talking Lloyds syndicates.
I aslo believe that it is unfair for young male and females to be rated the same, as there is enough information to prove the point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Insurance companies have based premiums so far on risk plus profits. I am dam sure they are not going to bring down premiums for young males just put them up for young women. Effectively the government is saying make more profit of women drivers as the risk for them didn't suddenly change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
