Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35176712)

V strange - young women are statistically less likely to have an accident or be charged with a driving offence; since insurance is usually based on actuarial evidence, changing this seems counter-intuitive.

Originally Posted by Lister of Smeg (Post 35176713)

About damn time too. Why should men be penalised for some half brained chavs.

All first time drivers should be treated as equal. As you go along the road, the more NCB's you build up the more discount you should earn!

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35176728)

But young men have more accidents - why should they be treated equally when they are more at fault?

Once both sexes are over 25, the costs tend to be the same (well, in my experience they do), unless, of course, there is a history of claims/accidents.

Originally Posted by frogstamper (Post 35176740)

If the statistics prove that young women are less likely to be involved in a motor accident than young men which they apparently do, then its common sense that their premiums are going to be lower, it has nothing to do with equal rights or favouring women over men the insurance companies have obviously seen that young men are a higher risk than young women...simples really.:)

Of course there is the Saudi way of solving this problem.;)

Originally Posted by Lister of Smeg (Post 35176744)

I think insurance should be based on individual basis, rather than stereotyping.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35176823)

Well on April the 18th I will have been driving for 23 years, and pay more now than I did when I first started driving.

We need to stop discriminating against single people without kids.

What is even more anoying is that back in November a car hit my stationary car, when my quote was due I shopped around, and was angry to find that I have to pay £40 more for being a victim, and I did shop around.

Today we are getting shafted by insureance companies as they know they have got us by the short and curlies, and if we don't pay we get a criminal record.

Originally Posted by Lister of Smeg (Post 35176739)

Do they? Can you provide me with any credible links to backup your comment?

I've being driving over 5yrs now, not one accident (touch wood) yet a lady down the road from me, much younger, new driver, able to drive a newer car than me, pays half what I pay. Surely, you see where I am coming from?

I'm being penalised for someone else's mistake!

If ALL 1st time drivers were charged with zero history, it would be much fairer!

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35176728)

But young men have more accidents - why should they be treated equally when they are more at fault?

Once both sexes are over 25, the costs tend to be the same (well, in my experience they do), unless, of course, there is a history of claims/accidents.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35176823)

We need to stop discriminating against single people without kids.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35176952)

I'm still waiting for someone to deny the truth and tell a typical lousy women drivers and parkers joke.

Originally Posted by Mr_love_monkey (Post 35176996)

Actually your premiums go up if you have young children - as they are considered to be a distraction with their noise, and more likely to cause an accident.

---------- Post added at 08:41 ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 ----------



my wife isn't any good at parking, but then that's just because I've convinced her that 2 inches is actually a lot bigger than it really is :)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35176945)

Facts are our friends.....

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35176945)

Facts are our friends.....

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35177025)

Youtube. it's all in colour and some with sound.

Originally Posted by Mr_love_monkey (Post 35177038)

might be for you - my friends are my singing potatoes

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35177049)

They are not singing - they are lamenting.....

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35177070)

How sweet....

Originally Posted by frogstamper (Post 35176740)

If the statistics prove that young women are less likely to be involved in a motor accident than young men which they apparently do, then its common sense that their premiums are going to be lower, it has nothing to do with equal rights or favouring women over men the insurance companies have obviously seen that young men are a higher risk than young women...simples really.:)

Of course there is the Saudi way of solving this problem.;)

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35177161)

They are not discriminating on the basis of sex but on statistical evidence.Are you suggesting that in future all statistical evidence has to be collected in a racially,sexuality and gender free manner?That results should be skewed in an effort not to be discriminatory?

What nonsense that would be.PC gone mad.;)

Originally Posted by ZrByte (Post 35177223)

The only important statistic for car insurance is the odds of a driver having an accident. And not where said driver keeps their dangly bits.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35177311)

absolutely correct ,and the odds are that a woman is less likely to have an accident than a man so is priced accordingly

Originally Posted by ZrByte (Post 35177513)

Irrelevant. I notice you snipped and ignored the rest of my post. How is gender any more relevant than race?

Originally Posted by ZrByte (Post 35177513)

Irrelevant. I notice you snipped and ignored the rest of my post. How is gender any more relevant than race?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35177562)

i didn't ignore it ,it has no bearing on anything
race has nothing to do with it (although i daresay that there will statistics somewhere)Insurance companies could go on forever proving that Chinese women over 30 and are left handed are safer drivers than scottish men under 50 with a ginger beard ,all they can realistically do is use data regarding age and sex regardless of race

---------- Post added at 20:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:32 ----------




how can you say it is irrelavent ,you said it

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35177640)

Males under 25 don't get higher insurance because they are male - they get higher insurance because they have more accidents.....

And 2 years ago, did you both have a clean driving licence and equal no claims bonus?

Also, looking at your age, 2 years ago, you would have been under 25, which is the upper boundary of the high risk group for males, which explains why it has dropped (unless you are stating that her's has increased to match yours).

Why is the male cost of living higher than that for women? There appear to be some straw men being built around here.....

Originally Posted by ZrByte (Post 35177610)

You twisted my words to try and make them say the opposite of the point you know I was trying to make, and the point you made was irrelevant.
Race wouldn't complicate it anymore than it is now, yet that's overlooked because it would be classed as discrimination. Yet somehow sex discrimination is ignored or should I say was ignored.

And Hugh, the things you list for home insurance are all things you can change, just as parking on a driveway, installing an alarm and immobiliser would for a car. Can you change your gender? Yes, lol. But should you have to to get cheaper car insurance? :D (actually do transgenders get cheaper or more expensive car insurance? because they shouldn't).
Would you agree to paying more for your home insurance because of your gender?
Do you really think this would even still be around now if men had cheaper premiums? The activist groups would have had that practice shut down years ago.
While we're at it lets increase male wages above female again as cost of living is clearly higher for us.
And I'm not ignoring the fact that most insurance premiums are based on statistics, quite the opposite. What I am arguing about is that they conveniently ignore statistics when it suits them. Which in my opinion leaves your point about accuracy in question.

Also I feel I should point out that it is measured based on in car fatalities rather than just drivers. So all this gender argument really proves is that there are more men travelling in cars.

On an interesting side note, My insurance came out only £5 more than my partners this year. Though hers was half mine just 2 years ago.

Originally Posted by ZrByte (Post 35177663)

Yes but the assumption is because I am male I WILL have more accidents. Ergo higher insurance because I am male. Not had one yet, although I do regret typing that as you know I will on the way to work tomorrow now.

She is 9 days older than me and we have been on the road for roughly the same amount of time (She has had her licence about 2 months longer than me). And clean licences with equal no claims. We where also going for renewal at the same time on the same car (seeing who was cheaper since we use it equally).
And to be a little pedantic I was over 25, well 25 and 5 months to be exact. Which counts ;)

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35176810)

I know a woman who in the past has written off a car in a Range Rover, then writ off the Range Rover. then she has scraped a few cars in the Range Rover. damaged a car in her Fiesta, writ off the Fiesta. damaged 2 cars in her Zafira, waiting till she writes the Zafira off.

and she still gets cheap insurance.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35184367)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610



Equality may work in both directions but it doesn't always work out how we would like.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35184379)

Isn't that part of the reason for equality to be legislated for?

IIRC the much misquoted driving report found that men had more and bigger accidents merely because of the type of driving that they did(ie for longer periods and distances). Men were found to lose concentration after driving for long periods whereas women just didn't have the full ability to drive(eg park) in the first place.

If a particular person(female or male) is accident free then that will be already reflected in any no claims bonus.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35184388)

The reasons why men have more and bigger accidents is irrelevant. The fact is, they have more and bigger accidents. They are a bigger insurance risk and an insurer ought to be able to factor that in to any premium.

Originally Posted by chris9991 (Post 35184412)

Don't they factor in driving distances by asking for the annual mileage?

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35184418)

I'm now waiting for the person in a run down crime ridden housing estate with ten times vehicle theft of anywhere else to take the "I pay more because I'm poor" argument to the ECHR :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by chris9991 (Post 35184412)

Don't they factor in driving distances by asking for the annual mileage?

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35184421)

Or people on benefits should get cheap car insurance anyway?

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35184417)

I'm sure they'll come up with something to sort it out.

After they've sorted out the 'age discrimination' part of it.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35184445)

You mean when they can't discriminate against someone taking out life insurance at 55+ without having to pay through the nose in premiums.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35184456)

But if a young person takes out life insurance he/she can get it at the lowest premium possible.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35184458)

Yes but we're discussing car insurance.

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35184461)

No we're discussing gender being denied as a reason for different premiums and the implications that will have for insurance as a whole.

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35184462)

In conclusion, more cars, more premiums paid, less pay outs.

So why the heck is my (and everyone elses premiums going up???

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35184467)

Just gender?
Oh well. I'll have to start a new thread then :)

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35184488)

Derek: I'd agree with the second part, but aren't our roads safer than ever? with less deaths per annum than the previous year etc (and that's with more cars too)

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35184467)

Just gender?
Oh well. I'll have to start a new thread then :)



I always do.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35184607)

Does the ECJ realise that they have created discrimination with this ruling .It also covers pension annuities so because of this ruling men will have to have more money in the pension pot to get the same as women out because womens life expectancy is longer

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35184653)

And young drivers cannot be charged more because they are young.

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35184670)

Being cynical I'd expect simply that female drivers will now pay the same as men, and no one will benefit. I suppose its *just* possible that mens may come down slightly, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts though, that the Insurers will benefit from more money coming in regardless.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35185152)

Hannan's view.

We have to listen because Dave says so.