No more cheap insurance, ladies.

Originally Posted by ZrByte

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

But it's not an assumption - males (especially those under 25) do have more accidents (over five times), and the insurance rates reflect that - I am unclear why you find that fact so hard to accept.

[toonlight]

Originally Posted by Gary L

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.

Has she got money to burn gary ? Looks like the lady in question needs to retake her driving test pronto, no if's or but's. Strip her rights (driving) till she can prove she able to drive not into parked car or even to reverse even a 3 point turn in a car infested place. Would that be too much to ask of her gary ? That's my point she a accident waiting to happen or kill others.
Any how it's evens stevens on all counts now gary, I wish her good luck in her insurance (amount- no claims)quote in her another new car. HAHA


toonlight

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

Insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.

The ECJ decision will also affect the cost of buying an annuity - an annual pension - as women live for longer than men and so receive a smaller annual pension for the same pot of money.
The insurance industry has warned that the change will lead to men receiving a smaller annuity income than they do now when their benefits are brought into line with those for women.

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

For pity's sake ... Yet more pragmatism sacrificed on the altar of "equality". The world has truly gone mad.

[Taf]

No, just the ECJ........

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

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.

[Derek]

It's blatantly obvious to anyone with a hint of common sense men, especially young ones are at fault for the more expensive and destructive crashes.

Still just another reason to ignore all the decisions coming from Europe.

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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.

---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 ----------

Threads merged

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

If a woman who drives for long times and distances will be as big a risk as a man, then shouldn't she pay bigger premiums and shouldn't a man who only drives short distances pay lower premiums. A past record of actual accidents is already factored into the premiums somebody pays.

[chris9991]

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

Originally Posted by chris9991

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

I believe so.

[Gary L]

I think because of this 'ruling' insurance is no longer based on risk.
it was actually discrimination where if you're a bad driver you get charged more. it needed discrimination for it to be able to work properly.

but discrimination is bad so we got rid of it.

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

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

[Kymmy]

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

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

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

Or people on benefits should get cheap car insurance anyway?

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by chris9991

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

They do but it means squat.

When I was made redundant back in 2005 my insurance went up as I was out of work and using my car less, when I got a job and did 10k a year my insurance went up, when I was made redundant again in 2009 my insurance went up.

The last accident I had that I was to blame was back in 1991, since then I had no accidents, speeding tickets, parking fines, stopped by police etc.

Lastly when my stationary vehicle was hit (2010), my insurance went up (£40)

I'm sure they pluck a number out of the air, and times it by another.

I fed up of being discriminated. Perhaps this will now balance out the good drivers from the bad.

---------- Post added at 10:49 ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

Or people on benefits should get cheap car insurance anyway?

Yeah but they put ther premium up, they are money grabbing (insert expletive(s).)