Women's Insurance
Comments
-
WGWarburton wrote: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.
His job involves more driving around than mine (a few treks to London and back twice monthly as well as to Portsmouth) age may be on his side, but a £75k car isn't from my point of view, also his point history should really go against him. But yes he's an old git
When I was working for the ambulance service (left a few months back now, back in admin and a part time student) I was insurance wise classed as 'call centre' staff as I worked in the control room taking the 999 calls so never out on the road. So there wasn't an issue with being on the road in a high risk job. I might have broken a nail while answering the phone but not crash a car Officers don't run, it's undignified and panics the men0 -
MrChuck wrote: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!
Don't be silly
They would pay the same as men who live on hills“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Ah, but you can choose whether you live on a flood plain or hill, or whether you drive safely or not.MrChuck wrote:...
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.
...
Your sex/race/other innate characteristic is not something you can choose (well, not usually), so it is morally wrong to discriminate on that basis.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...
£6.50 for a haircut?
[Jack Palance]City Folk![/Jack Palance]“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
MrChuck wrote: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!
The problem with charging based upon statistical risk is that you may find that race, religion, sexual orientation, hair colour etc. attracts different charges. I can see the Daily Mail headline now "British subsidise Ginger Lesbian Imigrants to drive luxury cars"Nobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
snailracer wrote:
Ah, but you can choose whether you live on a flood plain or hill, or whether you drive safely or not.MrChuck wrote:...
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.
...
Your sex/race/other innate characteristic is not something you can choose (well, not usually), so it is morally wrong to discriminate on that basis.
I don't see that morals come into it. Is it morally wrong to say that women tend to be shorter than men?0 -
Strange thing is in some countries you insure the car and it doesn't matter who gets in and drives it. Avoids all the issues with who is or isn't insured and nonsense about naming drivers.
PS if you are single then name a friend of the opposite sex as co-driver. Works out cheaper0 -
MrChuck wrote:snailracer wrote:
Ah, but you can choose whether you live on a flood plain or hill, or whether you drive safely or not.MrChuck wrote:...
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.
...
Your sex/race/other innate characteristic is not something you can choose (well, not usually), so it is morally wrong to discriminate on that basis.
I don't see that morals come into it. Is it morally wrong to say that women tend to be shorter than men?
Would it not be wrong to assume all women are the same height, both in absolute terms and relative to men, and so charge them a different price for ladders?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Haven't tread whole thread, so apologies if this has been covered...
...but surely age discrimination is also illegal?"Coming through..."0 -
What I could never understand is the fact that women have always, alwaqys hed it better than men in many respects, retire earlier/live longer, insurance cheaper, had doors opened for them, people stood on busses for them (showing my age) had time off for child rearing, posts held open for them to return to work, then they (and I) fought for womens lib, NOW they complain that having won so called equality they have to wait as long as a man to retire, and pay the same insurance.
When there is a divorce on the whole she gets the house and children and you ghet the bills.
Should of thought it out before you wanted equality, or did you expact the same benefits and more :twisted:
Women will finally have equality when I see them on the firing line in Afganistan, why should only young men be on the front line.
Fully paid up MCP and single DAD of three.Peds with ipods, natures little speed humps
Banish unwanted fur - immac a squirrel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heads.html0 -
TailWindHome wrote:MrChuck wrote:snailracer wrote:
Ah, but you can choose whether you live on a flood plain or hill, or whether you drive safely or not.MrChuck wrote:...
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.
...
Your sex/race/other innate characteristic is not something you can choose (well, not usually), so it is morally wrong to discriminate on that basis.
I don't see that morals come into it. Is it morally wrong to say that women tend to be shorter than men?
Would it not be wrong to assume all women are the same height, both in absolute terms and relative to men, and so charge them a different price for ladders?
Short women should just grow taller - problem solved.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:MrChuck wrote:snailracer wrote:
Ah, but you can choose whether you live on a flood plain or hill, or whether you drive safely or not.MrChuck wrote:...
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.
...
Your sex/race/other innate characteristic is not something you can choose (well, not usually), so it is morally wrong to discriminate on that basis.
I don't see that morals come into it. Is it morally wrong to say that women tend to be shorter than men?
Would it not be wrong to assume all women are the same height, both in absolute terms and relative to men, and so charge them a different price for ladders?
I'd say it's more like betting odds. If you could bet on mixed 100m sprints (maybe you can? I dunno) you probably wouldn't give them all the same odds, because you probably wouldn't expect that they all have the same chance of winning. It's likely that women will be less likely to win then men. Is there some sort of 70s- style discrimination against women going on, and is it immoral? I don't think so. It's just a recognition that group A are more likely to produce a given result than group B, and that's it.0 -
jeremyrundle wrote:What I could never understand is the fact that women have always, alwaqys hed it better than men in many respects, retire earlier/live longer, insurance cheaper, had doors opened for them, people stood on busses for them (showing my age) had time off for child rearing, posts held open for them to return to work, then they (and I) fought for womens lib, NOW they complain that having won so called equality they have to wait as long as a man to retire, and pay the same insurance.
When there is a divorce on the whole she gets the house and children and you ghet the bills.
should have thought it out before you wanted equality, or did you expact the same benefits and more :twisted:
Women will finally have equality when I see them on the firing line in Afganistan, why should only young men be on the front line.
Fully paid up MCP and single DAD of three.
My bold there, and just a pointer. women are on the front line in Afghanistan and being shot at on a daily basis. Just because they are not in infantry regiments does not mean women aren't in the firing line.
Just look at the case of AB(MA) Kate Nesbett who while on patrol with a group of infantrymen saved the life of a rifleman who was shot in the neck and had to run across open ground while under fire to save the mans life. For her actions she won the Military Cross.
Then there is Pte Michelle Norris (RAMC) who again while on patrol with an infantry regiment saved the life of a man while under fire and again won the Military Cross being the first woman to do so.Officers don't run, it's undignified and panics the men0 -
If an actuary were to take the trouble to analyse the statistics along race lines and discovered that white people were on average a worse risk than black, would it be acceptable to charge accordingly? Discuss.0
-
The car insurance companies can calculate risk from many factors, the most important being the driver's previous record. I don't see the problem, using sex was just a lazy shortcut.0
-
You just know insurance companies are just going to be raking it in. There will never be a chance that mens insurances costs would go down to meet those of women...god forbid the consumer should actually save money!Officers don't run, it's undignified and panics the men0
-
Er... because our Army Chiefs, who are old men, bar women from infantry combat duty.jeremyrundle wrote:...Women will finally have equality when I see them on the firing line in Afganistan, why should only young men be on the front line...0 -
"1,000 years from now there will be no guys and no girls, just wankers. Sounds great to me." - Irvine Welsh
Ridiculous equality laws like this will make it so.I used to just ride my bike to work but now I find myself going out looking for bigger and bigger hills.0 -
That's the point, it's not lazy, it's based on statistically significant, empirically measured sexual differences in perception of risk. It is an idealistic ruling and is anti sciencesnailracer wrote:The car insurance companies can calculate risk from many factors, the most important being the driver's previous record. I don't see the problem, using sex was just a lazy shortcut.I used to just ride my bike to work but now I find myself going out looking for bigger and bigger hills.0 -
Women have less accidents simply because there are less women drivers on the road.Peds with ipods, natures little speed humps
Banish unwanted fur - immac a squirrel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heads.html0 -
JR I've said it before and I'll say it again....You're an absolute gem.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
I agree there is likely a statistical difference between men and women drivers. However, this will be demonstrated in their claims history, choice of car, where they live, etc. which are more accurate predictors of risk as far as insurance is concerned, and more accurate than the driver's sex.Initialised wrote:
That's the point, it's not lazy, it's based on statistically significant, empirically measured sexual differences in perception of risk. It is an idealistic ruling and is anti sciencesnailracer wrote:The car insurance companies can calculate risk from many factors, the most important being the driver's previous record. I don't see the problem, using sex was just a lazy shortcut.
I am sure you could find a statistical difference between people of different colour, but that, apparently, would not be acceptable. If racism is banned, why not ban sexism as well?
Society decides what is fair and just and not the insurers, who still have plenty of other info to assess the risk. Otherwise, it is tail wagging dog.
It's also one less question in the annoyingly long list of questions the insurers ask you.0 -
jeremyrundle wrote:What I could never understand is the fact that women have always, alwaqys hed it better than men in many respects, retire earlier/live longer, insurance cheaper, had doors opened for them, people stood on busses for them (showing my age) had time off for child rearing, posts held open for them to return to work, then they (and I) fought for womens lib, NOW they complain that having won so called equality they have to wait as long as a man to retire, and pay the same insurance.
When there is a divorce on the whole she gets the house and children and you ghet the bills.
should have thought it out before you wanted equality, or did you expact the same benefits and more :twisted:
Women will finally have equality when I see them on the firing line in Afganistan, why should only young men be on the front line.
Fully paid up MCP and single DAD of three.
Yeah! You know who are the most discriminated against group in this country today? White, Middle-class, Males.
AMEN BROTHER!
Silly women have it so good.
:P0 -
^^
You can always get a sex change, y'know? :P0 -
snailracer wrote:^^
You can always get a sex change, y'know? :P
Are you kidding? Transgender people are the victims of harsh discrimination. Some even say more so than white middle-class males.0 -
But at least they'll get the same car insurance dealnotsoblue wrote:snailracer wrote:^^
You can always get a sex change, y'know? :P
Are you kidding? Transgender people are the victims of harsh discrimination. Some even say more so than white middle-class males.
0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:On Teenagers, they should pay the same. I'm tired of teenagers being heralded as societies outcasts.
I agree with the sentiment, DDD, but insurance is all about risk - and teenies are a BAD risk.
As are old f%rts, for different reasons - they tend to cause accidents. Thankfully my mum and Grandad both packed in driving when they realised they were getting a big past it. Most don't - because they are slaves to cars and, in many cases, damned selfish.
I'd make oldies take some form of test every couple of years (and pay for it), but sadly that's not going to happen any time soon, too many votes lost...
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
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.
Seems odd that IIRC you're a paramedic, therefore a police-trained driver? Surely your premiums should be buttons, unless you're a 17 year old paramedic
Who's the Para in your avatar?
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
I thought it a silly ruling at first but have come around to the idea.
I expect it'll just mean that the penalties for causing an accident will be more severe. Boy and girl both start at £1000 for example, and there'll be more boys that crash ('cause that's what the stats show will happen) so by year 2 then 80% of the girls will be on £750 and 80% of the boys at £1250.
That a male who has demonstrated an ability to drive well is charged the same as a female with identical record does seem fair.0 -
I'm a 28-year-old burd with 2 cars, therefore I don't support this ruling.
When I'm 65, however, I'll love it. Mind you, it will probably have changed back by then.0
