ChatterBank3 mins ago
A little controversial this.
32 Answers
http://www.dailymail....-fewer-accidents.html
Is this a victory for sex equality?
Was it ever fair for women to obtain cheaper car insurance?
Were they less likely to be involved in an accident, because male drivers kept out of their way? :0)
Will all female supporters of the EU, now change their views, because of this European ruling?
/// Insurance experts warned that younger women will be hit particularly badly as they will end up having to pay the same premiums as ‘boy racers’. ///
What a sexiest statement to make, is there no such thing as a 'Girl racer'?
/// Motoring groups warn the ruling could lead to more deaths on the roads if young men benefiting from lower premiums buy faster cars.///
So just because the 'criminally' huge premiums that young male drivers have been forced to pay these insurance companies may come down (and I have yet to see that), they are all going to dash out and buy Ferraris or Lamborghinis? I don't think so.
Those small, 'no road tax' cars can already reach incredible speeds.
Is this a victory for sex equality?
Was it ever fair for women to obtain cheaper car insurance?
Were they less likely to be involved in an accident, because male drivers kept out of their way? :0)
Will all female supporters of the EU, now change their views, because of this European ruling?
/// Insurance experts warned that younger women will be hit particularly badly as they will end up having to pay the same premiums as ‘boy racers’. ///
What a sexiest statement to make, is there no such thing as a 'Girl racer'?
/// Motoring groups warn the ruling could lead to more deaths on the roads if young men benefiting from lower premiums buy faster cars.///
So just because the 'criminally' huge premiums that young male drivers have been forced to pay these insurance companies may come down (and I have yet to see that), they are all going to dash out and buy Ferraris or Lamborghinis? I don't think so.
Those small, 'no road tax' cars can already reach incredible speeds.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
in theory, insurers would just cherry pick their customers - good rates for those who are low-risk, and high ones to deter high-risk customers.
But when the law steps in and demands that everyone must be insured, then I guess it must also feel obliged to promote equality, otherwise young men would simply be priced off the roads. (Not a bad idea but I can see why no governmetn will promote it.)
But how responsible women drivers will feel about having to subsidise boy racers is hard to say.
But when the law steps in and demands that everyone must be insured, then I guess it must also feel obliged to promote equality, otherwise young men would simply be priced off the roads. (Not a bad idea but I can see why no governmetn will promote it.)
But how responsible women drivers will feel about having to subsidise boy racers is hard to say.
-- answer removed --
if it costs less to deliver a letter across London, why should I be forced to pay the same for stamps as someone in the far flung wastes of, oh, Lancashire?
The answer is that governments do try impose social costs reasonably equally across the whole country. When they don't, you get Englishmen complaining that Scots get cheaper education.
Still, the cost of car insurance is rather higher than the cost of a first-class stamp (though the gap is closing), and women drivers will be getting a rather rawer deal.
The answer is that governments do try impose social costs reasonably equally across the whole country. When they don't, you get Englishmen complaining that Scots get cheaper education.
Still, the cost of car insurance is rather higher than the cost of a first-class stamp (though the gap is closing), and women drivers will be getting a rather rawer deal.
Other Half
The underwriters' stats are the key facts here. It's impractical to assess risk for every individual - they can only use data available; ie gender, age, postcode, vehicle, driving offences.
As you say, you drive 'rarely'. Less driving itself can be a factor in fewer claims.
Either way, if lady drivers of a certain age (possibly with cars cheaper to repair, replace or write off) cost less in claims than men of the same age then the underwriter will require lower premiums.
If young men cost a lot in claims not only will the premium go up for all - insurance companies may further inflate the premium because they simply don't want that category of high risk business
The underwriters' stats are the key facts here. It's impractical to assess risk for every individual - they can only use data available; ie gender, age, postcode, vehicle, driving offences.
As you say, you drive 'rarely'. Less driving itself can be a factor in fewer claims.
Either way, if lady drivers of a certain age (possibly with cars cheaper to repair, replace or write off) cost less in claims than men of the same age then the underwriter will require lower premiums.
If young men cost a lot in claims not only will the premium go up for all - insurance companies may further inflate the premium because they simply don't want that category of high risk business
It was always wrong to lump such large groups together to treat differently. One can understand a personal record of no or few fault claims leading to a reduction in order to keep business but anything else ceases to be fair & equitable.
It's a suspect practice anyway, tailoring premiums based on what you know of the likely risk. The whole point of insurance is that all share the risk so no one gets majorly stung. Taken to the ultimate conclusion, if insurance companies could work out individual risk we'd all end up paying what we are going to claim in the future, plus a bit as the company profit: so why would anyone bother ? Lumping folk together to remove the risk for the individual is the raison d'être of the industry, and they're chipping away at it.
It's a suspect practice anyway, tailoring premiums based on what you know of the likely risk. The whole point of insurance is that all share the risk so no one gets majorly stung. Taken to the ultimate conclusion, if insurance companies could work out individual risk we'd all end up paying what we are going to claim in the future, plus a bit as the company profit: so why would anyone bother ? Lumping folk together to remove the risk for the individual is the raison d'être of the industry, and they're chipping away at it.
Alway thought insurance companies are the only one who benefit from the road carnage .One person killed on the roads is too many .Then ins comp .put up the cost of insurance because they have worked it out young people are the cause of this .So dont insure them ,dont allow them on the roads ,but dont blame them for high cost of insurance .What happens to the 2 to 3 thousand it cost the young to go on the roads .
I've always thought the 'bankers' on the roads must be young men or businessmen - until a friend suggested the next few times I was cut up by someone overtaking, or someone was aggressively driving up by rear end (so to speak) expecting me to let them past, to take a look at the driver -she said they would be 'dolly birds' (LOL! ). And yes next few times it happened it was all women. I think they should stop no claims protection and give better discounts for people who really have not claimed and the longer you go without a claim the better discount - I say this because the age factor does not work - surely you are at a greater risk if you are in your fifties with a couple of claims in the last few years that have not affected your bonus because of protection , than a person in their late thirties with 20 years clean driving?
// But how responsible women drivers will feel about having to subsidise boy racers is hard to say. //
Probably the same as responsible young male drivers feel about having to do it at the moment.
It's interesting. On the one hand it's wrong to discriminate because of age or sex, but on the other hand, the accident figures speak for themselves.
Like police searches - should they be targeting grey haired old ladies as much as young men when looking for knives etc, or is that just a stupid use of resources?
Probably the same as responsible young male drivers feel about having to do it at the moment.
It's interesting. On the one hand it's wrong to discriminate because of age or sex, but on the other hand, the accident figures speak for themselves.
Like police searches - should they be targeting grey haired old ladies as much as young men when looking for knives etc, or is that just a stupid use of resources?
