Women's Insurance
Wallace1492
Posts: 3,707
Well, there can now be no discrimination between genders for insurance.
Means that women's policy's will increase. Shame.
However, as they do probably cause more accidents, but somehow do not get involved in them, then maybe it makes sense.
Will they also bring age discrimination into line also? OAP's who can barely see the length of their car should be paying the same as some hormone rich, teenage boy racer - they are both just as big a menace.
Discuss.
Means that women's policy's will increase. Shame.
However, as they do probably cause more accidents, but somehow do not get involved in them, then maybe it makes sense.
Will they also bring age discrimination into line also? OAP's who can barely see the length of their car should be paying the same as some hormone rich, teenage boy racer - they are both just as big a menace.
Discuss.
"Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
0
Comments
-
On women, well they wanted and won the right to vote.
On OAP if you can't see the length of your car you shouldn't be driving and if they're in an accident and it can be proven they shouldn't be behind the wheel for physical reasons the insurers shouldn't payout. - Puts the responsiblity for saftey back on the driver. I tend not to drive in my glasses for that very reason.
On Teenagers, they should pay the same. I'm tired of teenagers being heralded as societies outcasts.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Why the sudden ageism - plenty of young drivers who seem unable to see still drive - maybe they should pay more insurance0
-
Hi,
In discussions on this topic, please bear in mind that Actuarial Mathematics is a different branch of a very large field to Logic.
It's therefore to be expected that insurance premiums will not always be logical.
Having said that- it's a commercial arrangement and young men are higher risk than others, so it makes sence that they pay more. Similarly, I understand that women typically have more frequent, but much less damaging accidents than men. Can't remember where I read that, though.
Cheers,
W.0 -
Jay dubbleU wrote:Why the sudden ageism - plenty of young drivers who seem unable to see still drive - maybe they should pay more insurance
OK let me be more clear anyone who is physically unable to operate a vehicle properly or in a safe manner should (i) not be allowed insurance (ii) assuming they lied to get it should be inbreach and therefore the insurace should be void.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:Why the sudden ageism - plenty of young drivers who seem unable to see still drive - maybe they should pay more insurance
OK let me be more clear anyone who is physically unable to operate a vehicle properly or in a safe manner should (i) not be allowed insurance (ii) assuming they lied to get it should be inbreach and therefore the insurace should be void.
DDD they would not get a license if they could not operate it properly or in a safe manner! And I do believe that currently if an affliction or physical afirmity prevented them from operating safely, and they did not report this to DVLA/Insurance, then any insurance will indeed be void.
Maybe we should all pay the same, then those who have accidents/claims and it is there fault, have this doubled/trebled/whatever depending on the level of the claim."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:On women, well they wanted and won the right to vote.
On OAP if you can't see the length of your car you shouldn't be driving and if they're in an accident and it can be proven they shouldn't be behind the wheel for physical reasons the insurers shouldn't payout. - Puts the responsiblity for saftey back on the driver. I tend not to drive in my glasses for that very reason.
On Teenagers, they should pay the same. I'm tired of teenagers being heralded as societies outcasts.
Err, what's universal suffrage got to do with car insurance? Assume you're being flippant.
As has been pointed out, if you drive with some kind of infirmity that reduces your ability to drive safely, then your insurance would be void anyway - although that's small comfort for the poor sod who has been run over.
Teenagers are societies outcasts because they have to pay higher insurance premiums? Seems a bit of stretch to me. They have to pay higher premiums because they crash into things more due to their lack of experience and inflated sense of their driving abilities. If you happen to be a statistically unlikely teenage driver who doesn't crash in to things, then that's unfair, but it's a long way down the list of World Problems That Need Sorting. You could always wait until later in life to start driving.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I still want to know how I pay more insurance on my 1.2 Fiat Punto with no points and 10 years accident free motoring than Jake does on his SLK and 6 points and an accident for while he was at fault 3 years ago.
I can only assume it's because he's an old git.
Officers don't run, it's undignified and panics the men0 -
NGale wrote:I still want to know how I pay more insurance on my 1.2 Fiat Punto with no points and 10 years accident free motoring than Jake does on his SLK and 6 points and an accident for while he was at fault 3 years ago.
I can only assume it's because he's an old git.
And better at deal finding....!0 -
I, for one, will be more than happy to see the back of those f*cking awful "Sheilas Wheels" adverts.....0
-
This ruling actually does make sense
It is now illegal* to set prices based on the gender of the customer.
It is reasonable to charge more to drivers with no history of good driving behind them, though this should apply to all age groups.
I'm not sure why this should be getting people hot and bothered.
Oh and any able bodied person, male or female, young or old who can't fill their own car with fuel should not be on the road.
* maybe not illegal“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It is an "interesting" move. Will they apply the same reasoning to things like private health insurance, where women usually pay more?
Whilst some men might applaud this move I think its stupid, and opens a can of worms.0 -
[rant]
I don't understand motor insurance. It has been cheaper to include Mrs wbw as a named driver on my car even though she has her own and never drives mine. The cost for my cover went up following my wife's second no fault accident in 3 years (why are we penalised when everyone admits it wasn't our fault?). I've heard of people being charged more for parking their cars in garage or on driveway compared to parking on the street, and drivers getting charged more for fitting winter tyres in recent bad weather.
I suspect these changes will not make insurance cheaper for anyone, but might result in bigger profits for insurance companies [/rant]Nobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
NGale wrote:I still want to know how I pay more insurance on my 1.2 Fiat Punto with no points and 10 years accident free motoring than Jake does on his SLK and 6 points and an accident for while he was at fault 3 years ago.
I can only assume it's because he's an old git.
Hmm, I wonder if navy officers are low risk? Plus the Mercedes is an old man's car (sorry, Jake!), so the combination of age, vehicle and occupation may be actuarially attractive...
The Punto, OTOH, being driven by a young woman in a high risk occupation (Do I recall correctly that you work shifts in the general area of emergency medicine?)... may be considered high-risk by the insurer... have you shopped around much? Or considered changing cars to something driven by really boring people?
Cheers,
W.0 -
Banning sex discrimination in car insurance means women effectively subsidize men. However, it applies to pensions, too, where men end up subsidizing women.clanton wrote:It is an "interesting" move. Will they apply the same reasoning to things like private health insurance, where women usually pay more?
Whilst some men might applaud this move I think its stupid, and opens a can of worms.
Win some, lose some.0 -
walkingbootweather wrote:[rant]
I don't understand motor insurance. It has been cheaper to include Mrs wbw as a named driver on my car even though she has her own and never drives mine. The cost for my cover went up following my wife's second no fault accident in 3 years (why are we penalised when everyone admits it wasn't our fault?). I've heard of people being charged more for parking their cars in garage or on driveway compared to parking on the street, and drivers getting charged more for fitting winter tyres in recent bad weather.
I suspect these changes will not make insurance cheaper for anyone, but might result in bigger profits for insurance companies [/rant]
You're trying to be logical- see my earlier post, logic's a different branch of maths.
Statistically, if you've been involved in an accident then you're more likely to be involved in another than someone who hasn't (even if it wasn't your fault). You can see how this might be the case: an experienced and careful driver may avoid accidents caused by others, just as an experienced cyclist can often steer clear of trouble.
The winter tyre thing is a bit odd, but people who modify their cars are typically higher risk than those who don't... and drivers with winter tyres may take to the roads on days when those without stay at home...
Try to think in terms of populations, subgroups and risk not your individual circumstances...
Cheers,
W.
[edit: typo]0 -
Ageism is still allowed, on the basis that people who are young, will become older :PJay dubbleU wrote:Why the sudden ageism - plenty of young drivers who seem unable to see still drive - maybe they should pay more insurance0 -
i personally think it should be the same for both, just been having this conversation with my mrs an she agreed.
young lads do typically drive as do young girls, i know so many young un's that have had crashes both lads and girls i would say it equal proportions.
Men seam to drive fast, women tend to not not read the road etc
im not trying to sound sexist in the slightest here!!Keeping it classy since '830 -
snailracer wrote:
Ageism is still allowed, on the basis that people who are young, will become older :PJay dubbleU wrote:Why the sudden ageism - plenty of young drivers who seem unable to see still drive - maybe they should pay more insurance
but unfortunately, not all of them.
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. The explanation I heard is that you may be a good driver, but if you drive in places full of bad drivers then you will still have accidents and claims, even though none of the accidents are your fault.WGWarburton wrote:
...Statistically, if you've been involved in an accident then you're more likely to be involved in another than someone who hasn't (even if it wasn't your fault). You can see how this might be the case: an experienced and careful driver may avoid accidents caused by others, just as an experienced cyclist can often steer clear of trouble...]walkingbootweather wrote:[rant]
... The cost for my cover went up following my wife's second no fault accident in 3 years (why are we penalised when everyone admits it wasn't our fault?)...[/rant]
Which is why it's a called a no-claims discount, not a no-fault discount.0 -
Also, if you are old, you will not become youngerdaviesee wrote:snailracer wrote:
Ageism is still allowed, on the basis that people who are young, will become older :PJay dubbleU wrote:Why the sudden ageism - plenty of young drivers who seem unable to see still drive - maybe they should pay more insurance
but unfortunately, not all of them.
0 -
rjsterry wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:On women, well they wanted and won the right to vote.
On OAP if you can't see the length of your car you shouldn't be driving and if they're in an accident and it can be proven they shouldn't be behind the wheel for physical reasons the insurers shouldn't payout. - Puts the responsiblity for saftey back on the driver. I tend not to drive in my glasses for that very reason.
On Teenagers, they should pay the same. I'm tired of teenagers being heralded as societies outcasts.
Err, what's universal suffrage got to do with car insurance? Assume you're being flippant.
As has been pointed out, if you drive with some kind of infirmity that reduces your ability to drive safely, then your insurance would be void anyway - although that's small comfort for the poor sod who has been run over.
Teenagers are societies outcasts because they have to pay higher insurance premiums? Seems a bit of stretch to me. They have to pay higher premiums because they crash into things more due to their lack of experience and inflated sense of their driving abilities. If you happen to be a statistically unlikely teenage driver who doesn't crash in to things, then that's unfair, but it's a long way down the list of World Problems That Need Sorting. You could always wait until later in life to start driving.
I did wait until later in life to drive... 26 I think.
As for the tone of my post. I was going for 'Mybreakfastconsisted' type melodrama effect.
I think woman paying the same is fair. I think teenagers should pay more as the additional cost does add a level of increased responsibility. OAP's should pay according to their insurance history until, of course they are unable to operate a vehicle safely due to age and fading physical prowess.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Secretly I know WGW is right but to continue my rant...WGWarburton wrote:
Statistically, if you've been involved in an accident then you're more likely to be involved in another than someone who hasn't (even if it wasn't your fault).
I'm not sure one individual being involved in 2 non-fault accidents over a three year period is statistically significant, and even if it were, surely it suggests a greater likelihood of having another non-fault accident?!?
Logic goes out of the window when having gone through the trauma of collecting distressed wife and kids from scene of accident, having to put up with inconvenience of car repairs, just because 2 different muppets weren't paying attention, then finding it is going to cost me more money as a result. What I can't understand is why these clowns weren't forced to compensate me for increased insurance premiums as a result of their behaviour. ............ and breathesNobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:As for the tone of my post. I was going for 'Mybreakfastconsisted' type melodrama effect.
Needs more cut and paste to get the style just right, with a link to something that doesn't quite back up your point at the bottom :twisted:1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
TailWindHome wrote:It is now illegal* to set prices based on the gender of the customer.
As far as I am aware it has been illegal for a long time0 -
owenlars wrote:TailWindHome wrote:It is now illegal* to set prices based on the gender of the customer.
As far as I am aware it has been illegal for a long time
My last hair cut £6.50. Wife's last haircut £75. Explain that then....
Actually simply looking at our respective haircuts would explain this difference very well...Nobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
But it doesn't in my case. My last hair cut was £12 but for a guy to get a hair cut that takes the same time if not longer costs around £7 IIRC.walkingbootweather wrote:owenlars wrote:TailWindHome wrote:It is now illegal* to set prices based on the gender of the customer.
As far as I am aware it has been illegal for a long time
My last hair cut £6.50. Wife's last haircut £75. Explain that then....
Actually simply looking at our respective haircuts would explain this difference very well...0 -
walkingbootweather wrote:owenlars wrote:TailWindHome wrote:It is now illegal* to set prices based on the gender of the customer.
As far as I am aware it has been illegal for a long time
My last hair cut £6.50. Wife's last haircut £75. Explain that then....
Actually simply looking at our respective haircuts would explain this difference very well...
When I get a hair cut my girlfriends response is normally I like it and/or its prickly.
When she gets a hair cut.... 'Bom chicka wha wha'
That's the price difference :PFood Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
TailWindHome wrote:This ruling actually does make sense
It is now illegal* to set prices based on the gender of the customer.
It doesn't make sense, because insurance prices aren't really set on gender- they're set according to the statistics describing the the risks associated with particular criteria. Women aren't being charged differently because they're women, they're being charged differently because the demographic to which they belong is shown to represent a different risk than other demographics.
Should women who live in houses on hills pay the same home insurance as men who live in houses on flood plains?*
No, because they don't represent the same risk to the insurer. Their gender is not being taken into account, it's their chances of claiming that matter and if this is shown to be different for men and women then so be it.
Equality is fine but if there are measurable differences between the genders in a particular scenario then I don't see who gains by waving them away and saying everyone's the same.
*I don't know anything about home insurance but you get the point!0 -
snailracer wrote:
Banning sex discrimination in car insurance means women effectively subsidize men. However, it applies to pensions, too, where men end up subsidizing women.clanton wrote:It is an "interesting" move. Will they apply the same reasoning to things like private health insurance, where women usually pay more?
Whilst some men might applaud this move I think its stupid, and opens a can of worms.
Win some, lose some.
Except we don't "win" - ever. We woudl only be winning if the price for men AND women fell somewhere between the two current prices - in all instances. I doubt this will happen - we will all end up simply paying whichever is the highest and the insurance companies win.0
