View Full Version : About damn time...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610
This might not please some people, I know. But IMO, not a single other type of company is allowed to discriminate against someone because of their gender. The fact that insurance companies have been doing so for this long is a disgrace.
ha ha this is going to kill students/young drivers who are named drivers on Mums insurance lol.... !!!!
callumburns
01-03-11, 09:44
about bloody time indeed no more of this woman are better drivers so they get cheaper insurance pish, they should in the kitchen and not on the roads anyway.
Unfortunately it just means they'll raise women's insurance up to the same level as the mens... rather than lowering mens, or finding a balance between the 2.
We all know insurance co's are money grabbing expletives, this will just be another excuse :(
jointhedotz
01-03-11, 09:49
so everyone will now pay near enough mens rates.....thats how i'm reading it anyway :-(
InvaderGIR
01-03-11, 10:05
There is a big thread about this over on a similar (but blue) forum, essentially it is a stupid idea as it then brings into question all the other things you can use to get cheaper insurance, like age, NCB etc. etc.
Also, statistically, women don't cause as bad/expensive accidents as males do, so it's only fair that we pay more than they do.
I think it's insane tbh, it's about risk. Clearly the stats point that women have "cheaper" accidents.
The British Insurance Brokers' Association (BIBA) said currently the cost of the average car claim by an 18-year old man was £4,400, while that for an 18-year old woman was £2,700.
This won't see an average being taken, as Spaceboy says. You think premiums are bad now, just wait until 2013 once the ruling kicks in. Next, we'll have a standard cost of insurance across all ages, as that's ageist, but the accident stats clearly show the different levels of risk an insurer takes against different demographics.
"We could see their prices go up 25-30% and men's premiums could fall by about 10%."
What a joke, do you really expect to see that, not a hope. Insurers will take more for women, and same for men. The following years results from the insurers will be interesting, nice full coffers of cash.
Oh yeah insurance companies are awful.
They must be rubbing their hands as they don't have to offer cheap prices to compete with womens only insurance companies.
I bet they'll try and offer a work a round on it though, offering a loyalty bonus or something to all customers who sign up before the end of 2012.
I've gotta say, I'm somewhat pleased too. Considering there is this cultural expectance that women should be given the same rights/wages/anything else as men (which is completely understandable, and I totally agree with - why should men get paid more for doing an identical job and performing identically to a woman in the same job?), why has it been culturally acceptable for men to be penalised in other fields, especially insurance? IMO it's utter BS that we can be discriminated against and no-one previously seemed to care.
When I was first learning to drive I looked around at some quotes for my car (2005 Corsa) and for poos and giggles anything which seemed high in insurance I decided to requote myself as a woman. One company, Endsleigh, quoted me £27,850 to insure myself as fully comp for 1 year for a car worth about £4.5k at the time. So they are expecting me to completely write off my car as a wreck 6 TIMES in a year?! I then requoted myself as a woman and it was £3,100. So by not having a gentleman's set of vegetables I can save almost 90% on my insurance?!? It's utterly beyond me how they can justify that - I mean obvoiusly they didn't want my business at the time, and so I'll never EVER get insured by Endsleigh for anything now. Talk about winning a customer for life, this is the diagonal opposite.
Anyway, ended up going with Direct Line for a much more reasonable quote, as they were able to do us a multi-car discount.
But yeah, as Spaceboy said I can't believe there'll be any appreciable saving for men.
I've gotta say, I'm somewhat pleased too. Considering there is this cultural expectance that women should be given the same rights/wages/anything else as men (which is completely understandable, and I totally agree with - why should men get paid more for doing an identical job and performing identically to a woman in the same job?), why has it been culturally acceptable for men to be penalised in other fields, especially insurance? IMO it's utter BS that we can be discriminated against and no-one previously seemed to care.
Makes no sense mate.
For doing the same job get paid the same, yes, agree.
But for something like there where there is a clear gender difference i don't think they should pay the extra because lots of blokes think because they passed a test they are all Michael Schumacher.
Nor should us men who can drive, and we don't my insurance is cheaper than younger blokes i know who haven't had any accidents.
Wait until you get a bit older and everyone pays the same insurance, you'll be a 30 year old who's never crashed, drives responsibly and ends up paying £2,000 a year because little idiots think they can corner at 100mph.
Added after 11 minutes:
Quickly browsed some figures.
Men are 77% more likely to be involved in a SERIOUS crash.
Men and women have the same amount of accidents, women mainly drive into things wrecking bumpers, men write off vehicles.
85% of serious motoring offences are committed by men.
Haha yeah, I can see where you're coming from and TBH I'm just failing to empathise atm as I'm bitter from my personal experiences. It's just so unfair when you're working craploads to pay for your pride and joy (and the insurance), and then the girls at work are able to get an appreciably better car than you AND work significantly less just because you have a sausage between your legs.
I know it would be better in 15 years time, and I know there are many male idiots at my age, and I know that life's not fair etc. etc., but at the end of the day I was being discriminated against and it's just culturally acceptable. To date (had my license for about 3.5 years) I've driven just over 50,000 miles, and the ONLY incident I've had is someone crossing on to my side of the road around a blind bend and taking out my wing mirror, then driving off. Obviously I didn't claim and touch wood I won't have anything serious soon either, but yeah, just a rant above lol.
It's the immediate label that gets me down... you are a young man therefore you are a bad driver.
So gouged for cash over the years and never had an accident... now 35 and finally paying something reasonable. Paying for the prats - yes, it goes grate a bit.
Buts if the label fits.
Sames as Squaddies aged 18 - 24 are THREE TIMES more likely to die in a traffic accident than a male civilian the same age.
Young male squaddies pay phenomenal amounts of car insurance these days.
Buts if the label fits.
Sames as Squaddies aged 18 - 24 are THREE TIMES more likely to die in a traffic accident than a male civilian the same age.
Young male squaddies pay phenomenal amounts of car insurance these days.
But it's exactly as Robin said - you aren't even given a chance to prove otherwise. I'm profiled and not given a chance to show what I'm like as an individual (well, I am if you count like 15 years of clean driving as a "chance"). If I could have halved my premiums by having a camera fitted so my insurance company could see how I drive, I probably would have done. Now I cba and wouldn't consider it as the industry has lost my trust.
Completely agree, the fact that insurance companies seem to 'stereotype' drivers based on their age, gender etc seems completely unacceptable in todays society really. Good drivers are given no opportunity whatsoever to prove themseleves that they are a safe, respectable driver except after many years of NCB (even then, other permanent factors are still taken into account).
Didn't think it would take long before the European Court of Justice would step in and get this sorted out.
Someone I know, 18, pays just under £3,000 for insurance on a car only worth £500, and he's only a named driver! If that person had been a woman, it would of been half.
It's not a stereotype, it is statistical fact.
The risk is calculated on the factors of claims, and hence the premium. What does strike me as odd though, is that with advancements in computing, postcode lottery ;), the number of factors could be massively increased.
We have stats for accidents per road, I'm guessing most, me included drive the same patches of road day-in, day-out on commutes to work or college. So with all this in mind, why not just decrease the width of the "bands" and add more in. Black box technology as well, it's available yet we are so slow to take advantage.
True with so many things, we have the tech, we just don't utilise it properly.
DT.
I can understand both sides if this argument... I think there should be subsidies available for those that want to take advanced driving courses, which can lead to cheaper insurance.
michaelkenward
01-03-11, 11:50
When will they stamp out postcode discrimination on home insurance?
Why should I get cheaper insurance because I live in the country, where burglaries are rare, while townies whose streets are burglarised every week pay more?
Why should I get cheaper flood insurance for my house on the top of a hill than the bloke who lives next to a river that overflows every year?
Statistics? What has that got to do with human rights?
After all, it is only fair that a 20-something bloke should pay the same insurance premium against getting pregnant as his 20-something wife/girlfriend.
This is discrimination against a person's gender, which I think holds a totally different argument than where you live.
All of those factors you just gave were factors that you could change, if you really wanted to.
OKAY yes, technically you can change your gender but lets not go there :p
InvaderGIR
01-03-11, 12:17
This is discrimination against a person's gender, which I think holds a totally different argument than where you live.
All of those factors you just gave were factors that you could change, if you really wanted to.
OKAY yes, technically you can change your gender but lets not go there :p
It isn't discrimination though, it's a statistical fact! Some retards have seen fit to claim it as sexism and now we're going through this idiotic idea and mess. :rolleyes:
michaelkenward
01-03-11, 12:40
This is discrimination against a person's gender, which I think holds a totally different argument than where you live.
Did you miss the word statistics in there?
Here it is again, statistics.
Statistics point to risks. That is how the insurance industry sets prices.
Today's ruling says that facts don't matter.
This will not bother a government that has abandoned any notion of evidence based policy. So don't expect the usual huffing and puffing about Brussels telling us what to do. (I know, I know, it isn't Brussels, but you don't expect MPs to understand that do you?)
A couple of points quickly before my next lecture.
Did you miss the word statistics in there?
Here it is again, statistics.
Statistics point to risks. That is how the insurance industry sets prices.
Today's ruling says that facts don't matter.
This will not bother a government that has abandoned any notion of evidence based policy. So don't expect the usual huffing and puffing about Brussels telling us what to do. (I know, I know, it isn't Brussels, but you don't expect MPs to understand that do you?)
Statistically women aren't as strong as men, yet women are allowed (and in fact encouraged!) to work in building work where the job instrinsically demands manual labour and hence strength. However, the equality laws allow this situation to exist, and why the hell shouldn't it be the case? If a woman wants to work on a building site, she should be allowed to if there's no good reason why she can't. OK she might not be as fast as her male colleagues, but she can still do the job.
Apply this to driving/insurance with young blokes - men are statistically more likely to have a crash than women, yet men are allowed (and in fact not discouraged!) to drive, as our culture today demands people learn how to drive. However, equality laws are now being applied to this situation, and why the hell shouldn't it be the case? If a man wants to learn to drive, he should be allowed to if there's no good reason why he can't. He might be more likely to crash, but he can still drive. Therefore why should he be penalised or at the very least not given the opportunity to show he can drive responsibly and consequently pay less on insurance premiums?
It's not a stereotype, it is statistical fact.
The risk is calculated on the factors of claims, and hence the premium. What does strike me as odd though, is that with advancements in computing, postcode lottery ;), the number of factors could be massively increased.
We have stats for accidents per road, I'm guessing most, me included drive the same patches of road day-in, day-out on commutes to work or college. So with all this in mind, why not just decrease the width of the "bands" and add more in. Black box technology as well, it's available yet we are so slow to take advantage.
True with so many things, we have the tech, we just don't utilise it properly.
DT.
I don't know how I can articulate my point any better - it might be a fact that we're more likely to crash, but we aren't given an opportunity to show that we can consistently drive responsibly at all and hence given the opportunity to lower costs. Doing Pass Plus with my current provider would save me £17.61 this year according to an e-mail I've just dug out. Pass plus costs IIRC around £300. We're encouraged to get more experience but the system doesn't benefit us - it's COMPLETELY against you and it will not in any way allow you to exit it, just because you're a young bloke. Where is any sign of fairness? In this day and age of equality, isn't it fair for us to be less penalised than this cohort of society currently is, considering the grounds for the premiums we pay?
Also I now realise however that personally, I like having freedom and Big Brother stuff doesn't excite me at all. We all complain about Big Brother ISPs monitoring us - the technology is there, just the resources required are ridiculous, and it would be the same with cars. Having said that, something Big Brother-esque in your first year of driving which limits your speed to 70 and records your driving data might be a great idea if it SIGNIFICANTLY cut your cost of insurance.
Sniperdude
01-03-11, 13:33
I think its a hypocritical judgement simply because women still get paid less than men
in most jobs
I think it would have been fair to address this and give working women more money
instead in lining the pockets of insurance company even more than they already are.
Tom McPhail, a pension specialist at the investment firm Hargreaves Lansdown
I think this guy's name summarises the whole idea, I'm 20 and looking at doing my test in April and I have no intention of driving except as a named driver on my fiancee's car. The price for me to buy and insure my own car would be more than I earn in the year whereas I can get a bike (currently on a scooter) and pay a fraction of the cost, but with the rates being more balanced I will pay about the same but my fiancee will have to pay more for the same cover that she's already got...
Insurance is just a con anyway, getting a quotes on the mini, they want more now, at 32, with 9 years ncb and 0 points than I paid last time I insured it.. I was 22 with 1 years ncb and 0 points then.. its the same car, just worth about a grand more.
Last year, my renewal was £300 more than I was paying, with an extra years ncb... then they asked why I left lol.
Probably been said but all the insurance companies will do is raise the womans premiums inline with the mens. Saving what exactly?
But I would love to see the statistics behind women being safer drivers than men under 25....
Oh, and did anyone see the BBC interview in Manchester, they asked two people: a middle aged man, who couldn't care less, and a young female, who thought "men should pay more because they expect to".............. worst interview answer ever??????????
Insurance should be on the car - anyone can drive it, it's linked to the car, not the person. Premiums would be higher for more expensive cars, rightly so - let the rich pay more, and it makes it 100% fair.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.