Women's Insurance

[becks]

Why oh why is it seen as discimination that women get cheaper car insurance when it is a FACT that women's claims cost less than men's? I don't want to be part of bloomin Europe and think this is wholly unfair - and I don't think it's sex discrimination anyway - it's fact. Any views?

[inferno]

I don't think we should be positively discriminating in favour of women! (see MOBO postings)! :-)

[inferno]

Sorry - in Music section.

[WoWo]

You can't have it both ways. I agree in principle to what your saying but I'm sure there are many things where the needs of both men and women cost more than the other sex. Lets say for example toilet facilities, I won't go into detail but it cost more to keep a set of womens tolilets clean than mens fact (as you put it), so under you view you should have to pay extra to go to the toilet. We either have equality or we don't.

[number8]

No problem with it at all - it is for this very same reason that permanent health insurance rates are cheaper for men than women - men cost less in claims than women: this is an undeniable fact, and therefore it is only right and proper that men should pay less. This is not discrimination in any way shape or form, it is perfectly logical that a group that costs insurance companies more money than another group (e.g, drivers under 25 compared to drivers over 25) should pay more into the pot.

[sharp1]

women cause the accidents men have them

[becks]

Mmmm, thanks for the answers, generally i don't pay to go to the toilet wowo but i see your point - however if men are getting cheaper health insurance either this has to be changed as well (to bring it into line etc) or maybe EUROPE SHOULD BUTT OUT of England's affairs and leave us alone! And i don't reckon it costs more to keep women's toilet clean - we pee IN the toilet - boys get it everywhere!

[Oneeyedvic]

I do not believe it is sexual discrimination - just as I don't see a seperate race for women in the 100m as sexual discrimination. I do take offense that being a male, i am perceived as a higher risk than a female when I have 7 years no claims. I would have thought that insurance companies take that into account more than anything. Incidentally, if that is discrimination, is it also discrimination that people over 65 get discounts - surely that is an agist thing. I demand that over 65's pay full price!

[BenDToy]

The whole concept of insurance is based on discrimination. Age, location, status, sex, occupation...need I go on?

[Sylday]

The point is, becks, that you are getting the advantage of a lower premium not because you are a safe driver (though I'm sure you are) but because women in general are safe drivers, and you just happen to be a woman. Whereas a man has to pay a higher premium not because he is a less safe driver than you, but because he happens to be a man. It is this sort of discrimination that the EU draft Directive aims to avoid. There are all sorts of ways in which drivers could be categorised to assess their premiums, without gender discrimination - by age, geographical region, occupation, etc etc. Ultimately, the less discrimination there is on grounds of gender, the better it will probably be for women.

[morg_monster]

about oneyedvic's post, now i'm only a novice in the car insurance field, but surely the fact you have 7 yrs NCB counts for more than the fact that you aren't a woman? I mean, your premiums with 7 yrs no claims must be far far lower than if you had no NCB. If statistically, a man with 7 yrs NCB is more likely to have an accident in the next year than a woman with 7 yrs NCB (don't know if this is true), then the man's premium would/should be higher (debatable)? Surely when you have this many years safe driving the difference gender makes to the premium must be pretty minor (please correct me). All i know is it does make a BIG difference when you're a young driver with no NCB! (happily I'm on the right side of the gender divide...). I don't really have a view on whether this 'discrimination' is right or not, but I do think that once you are proved to be a safe driver gender should not make a difference to premiums. I believe it is true that the accidents men have are far more expensive than the accidents women have (low speed collisions) so I can see the logic behind young men having to 'prove' themselves with a few years safe driving before they are on more equal footing with the girls. After this though, surely gender shouldn't matter.

[Drewhound]

The insurance companies work out the risks and charge the premiums accordingly, I don't see any problem with that at all. A long NCB makes a much bigger difference anyway

[bernardo]

What on earth has "not wanting to be part of Bloomin Europe" [wherever that is] got to do with car insurance?

[morg_monster]

Bernardo, the EU is saying that to fit in with its discrimination laws Britain must not give cheaper car insurance premiums to women (which we do because statistically the risks of women drivers are lower / claims are cheaper to fix) and cheaper annuity premiums to men (which we do because statistically they don't live as long as women). They say it is discrimination on the basis of gender. I agree with Drewhound, the risks are calculated scientifically based on years and years of statistics, surely the premium for whatever insurance should be based on these cold hard facts. For example if they choose to get health insurance elderly people pay more simply because as we get old more things start going wrong with our bodies, surely they aren't going to say this is age discrimination now!

[becks]

As morg has pointed out it EU directives that are saying we have to come into line and not discriminate - and the same reason we had to change all our measurements of stuff. I don't want to be in Europe I am English, not bloomin European and I resent the fact that the EU is trying to make us part of it with their silly money-wasting exercises.

[londondave]

It is only cheaper insurance for women because there are less women drivers so less likely to be involved in a accident

[bernardo]

Oh! So you're talking about the European Union, not Europe (blooming or otherwise).

[Brugel]

The woman who proposed eliminating sex-discrimination on car insurance gave the following reason. She said that suppose, for the sake of argument, that it's a fact that black people have more car accidents than white people. Then, even if this is true, it would never be acceptable for insurance companies to charge black people higher premiums. So, she argued, it is also wrong to charge men more than women. What do you think of this argument? (I suspect it's flawed but, as usual with me, I'm not sure.)

[WoWo]

Brugel, I think the argument makes a good point, however the solution seems to be the wrong way round. There are certain factors like car performance, area you live that we can all agree effect the amount of claims, but using sex (or race) does seem to be discriminatory.

[Oneeyedvic]

I love this point - on the face of it is seems ludicrous to think that its sex discrimination. However as Brugel points out it is sex discrimination.. Does this also mean that saying black people commit the most crime is racist or just plain fact. (I do not know if the statement is true or not - just illustrative)

[stevie21]

Particula types of crime in particular areas are committed more by blacks. In true Michael Moore stylee - we tend to forget the corporate crimes committed predominantly by rich white folkies. To answer the original questions - if any group of individuals (females, people with NCB or otherwise) are reliably and predictably less likely to claim then I'm all for charging them less.