Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News1 min ago
Equality long overdue?
52 Answers
http://
Now that young male drivers will soon have true equality with young female drivers, is it now time that Insurance companies used the increase in female insurance, so as to decrease the huge premiums that young males have been paying for years?
/// Experts fear that young women will be priced off the road if forced to pay the same high premiums as ‘boy-racers’. ///
/// Kelly Wright, 23, from Salford, Greater Manchester faces a hike from £890 a year to about £1,600. ///
/// She said: ‘I cannot afford this increase so would have to give up my car and therefore my job. It offends me that I will be in the same bracket as boy racers.’ ///
Then be prepared to be offended my dear, they are not all 'BOY RACERS' you know, but unlike you, they have been forced to pay these sums for years.
Now that young male drivers will soon have true equality with young female drivers, is it now time that Insurance companies used the increase in female insurance, so as to decrease the huge premiums that young males have been paying for years?
/// Experts fear that young women will be priced off the road if forced to pay the same high premiums as ‘boy-racers’. ///
/// Kelly Wright, 23, from Salford, Greater Manchester faces a hike from £890 a year to about £1,600. ///
/// She said: ‘I cannot afford this increase so would have to give up my car and therefore my job. It offends me that I will be in the same bracket as boy racers.’ ///
Then be prepared to be offended my dear, they are not all 'BOY RACERS' you know, but unlike you, they have been forced to pay these sums for years.
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.
There is set to be a decrease in premiums for male drivers. Though, as you'd expect, it isn't proportional to the increase in female drivers' premiums. I mean, does anybody honestly think that the insurance industry wasn't going to capitalise on the chance to make a nice profit whilst complying with the equality ruling.
I read an article which demonstrated the age bands and the percentage difference in premium post change. If I recall, the maximum decrease for the youngest male drivers is going to be about 15% at the top end.
I am torn really. On the one hand I'm male so I welcome a slight let up in car insurance, having been a careful driver for 8 years and still being ripped off every year because I'm not yet 30. On the other, if females are statistically less likely to be in an insurance accident or claim, then surely their premiums should reflect this?
The bigger problem is uninsured drivers and the penalties associated with it. If a young boy racer can get a 200 wreck, not insure it thereby saving himself about 4K, the worst that'll happen is that the wreck gets crushed, he'll be fined a grand at the very most, and he'll get points or maybe a ban. The people who are willing to play that game aren't going to let a ban stop them from driving, so the system to deal with the problem is broken and it ends up costing legitimate, well behaved and - frankly - robbed motorists the money.
I read an article which demonstrated the age bands and the percentage difference in premium post change. If I recall, the maximum decrease for the youngest male drivers is going to be about 15% at the top end.
I am torn really. On the one hand I'm male so I welcome a slight let up in car insurance, having been a careful driver for 8 years and still being ripped off every year because I'm not yet 30. On the other, if females are statistically less likely to be in an insurance accident or claim, then surely their premiums should reflect this?
The bigger problem is uninsured drivers and the penalties associated with it. If a young boy racer can get a 200 wreck, not insure it thereby saving himself about 4K, the worst that'll happen is that the wreck gets crushed, he'll be fined a grand at the very most, and he'll get points or maybe a ban. The people who are willing to play that game aren't going to let a ban stop them from driving, so the system to deal with the problem is broken and it ends up costing legitimate, well behaved and - frankly - robbed motorists the money.
Insurance is all about assessing risk and putting a value on it. And Insurance Companies are commercial enterprises to make money. Any difference in the price of insurance is not gender biased, but based on data.
I would hold your glee if I were you AOG, older drivers get better insurance premiums than yonger ones. It could be argue that that too isunfair and ageist and older drivers should pay the the same as young ones
I would hold your glee if I were you AOG, older drivers get better insurance premiums than yonger ones. It could be argue that that too isunfair and ageist and older drivers should pay the the same as young ones
Insurance premiums should not be the same for males and females, if males have more accidents and more claims then females, then their insurance premiums should be higher.
It's the same as homeowners - those who live in areas which are prone to flooding, or burglaries or houses built near or on old mines will face heavier premiums than those who own properties that don't fall into those categories.
As Gromit has pointed out - should a 65 year old woman living in rural Hertfordshire pay the same premiums as an 18 year old male living in Moss Side?
It's all about risk here, not equality.
It's the same as homeowners - those who live in areas which are prone to flooding, or burglaries or houses built near or on old mines will face heavier premiums than those who own properties that don't fall into those categories.
As Gromit has pointed out - should a 65 year old woman living in rural Hertfordshire pay the same premiums as an 18 year old male living in Moss Side?
It's all about risk here, not equality.
sp1814
Insurance premiums should not be the same for males and females, if males have more accidents and more claims then females, then their insurance premiums should be higher
Well I have never had an accident.....but regardless you think I should cough up for the males that have had accidents , sp?
Insurance premiums should not be the same for males and females, if males have more accidents and more claims then females, then their insurance premiums should be higher
Well I have never had an accident.....but regardless you think I should cough up for the males that have had accidents , sp?
If proportionally more black people have accidents , should they pay more than white people?
If shopkeepers have more accidents than welders, should they pay more?
If right wingers have more acc........... blah blah ....blah.
It's about time you payed insurance on your own insurance record, not other peoples
If shopkeepers have more accidents than welders, should they pay more?
If right wingers have more acc........... blah blah ....blah.
It's about time you payed insurance on your own insurance record, not other peoples
(1) Yes
(2) Yes (some professions, though not shopkeepers or welders as far as I know, already pay increased premiums).
(3) Yes (if you could define "left winger" or "right winger)
Policyholders who have a driving history already have their premiums adjusted by way of "No-claims bonus". Insurers have to assess risk for drivers about whom they have limited or no information and they do so by grouping them into groups according to statistical risk. This is done for most types of insurance, not only motor policies.
The difficulty is that the ridiculous "equality" industry has confused this principle with discrimination. It is not discriminatory to charge higher risk groups higher premiums. Nobody would expect travel insurers to charge the same premium for an 85 year old as they would for a 30 year old. Experience tells insurers that they are more likely to receive a claim from the older person not because they are old but because people in that age group make more claims. So it is with young drivers.
(2) Yes (some professions, though not shopkeepers or welders as far as I know, already pay increased premiums).
(3) Yes (if you could define "left winger" or "right winger)
Policyholders who have a driving history already have their premiums adjusted by way of "No-claims bonus". Insurers have to assess risk for drivers about whom they have limited or no information and they do so by grouping them into groups according to statistical risk. This is done for most types of insurance, not only motor policies.
The difficulty is that the ridiculous "equality" industry has confused this principle with discrimination. It is not discriminatory to charge higher risk groups higher premiums. Nobody would expect travel insurers to charge the same premium for an 85 year old as they would for a 30 year old. Experience tells insurers that they are more likely to receive a claim from the older person not because they are old but because people in that age group make more claims. So it is with young drivers.
I agree completely with mick. If you set kids insurance at a nominal level for the first year that they could afford- say £500- and left it there if they don't have an accident then you would find that several things would happen not the least of which would be fewer accidents by laddish driving because they have a very real incentive not to have an accident and see their insurace go up to say £3k, and you would not get the massive amount of kids we presently have driving without insurance, it's a win win situation, but obviously it'll never happen unless we grasp this matter firmly and have form of nationalised insurance for young people- so as I said it'll never happen.
Mick-Talbot
The fact that you have never had an accident should be reflected in your no claims discount.
In that way, you are not coughing up for the 18 year old boy racer. All things being equal (ie. if you had the same profession and post code as an 18 year old lad), your insurance premiums would be considerably less, because of your age and claims history.
The fact that you have never had an accident should be reflected in your no claims discount.
In that way, you are not coughing up for the 18 year old boy racer. All things being equal (ie. if you had the same profession and post code as an 18 year old lad), your insurance premiums would be considerably less, because of your age and claims history.
Mick-Talbot
You wrote:
If proportionally more black people have accidents , should they pay more than white people?
Hypothetically, yes.
However, insurance companies don't generally go down to that level of granularity on insurance risk, in the same way that they do not ask about sexuality (are gay men and lesbians safer drivers than straight people etc).
I assume they have risk assessors who know to what level of detail they have to go before they can rule out differences such as race, sexuality etc.
Ultimately insurance premiums could be determined on a whole host of irrelevant traits such as educational background, height and whether you watch Coronation Street - but that would be mad.
You wrote:
If proportionally more black people have accidents , should they pay more than white people?
Hypothetically, yes.
However, insurance companies don't generally go down to that level of granularity on insurance risk, in the same way that they do not ask about sexuality (are gay men and lesbians safer drivers than straight people etc).
I assume they have risk assessors who know to what level of detail they have to go before they can rule out differences such as race, sexuality etc.
Ultimately insurance premiums could be determined on a whole host of irrelevant traits such as educational background, height and whether you watch Coronation Street - but that would be mad.
Of course it would be mad, as is men paying more than women simply because they are men. Some men are better drivers than some women and vice versa. It slightly naffed me off the the wife was allowed 2 accidents before her insurance became a similar price to mine.
As is being considered a boy racer because you are 17.
The article starts.
"How female drivers have just days to renew car insurance to avoid paying same as boy racers"
Do you get asked if you are a boy racer?
/// Experts fear that young women will be priced off the road if forced to pay the same high premiums as ‘boy-racers’. ///
None boyracer young men are already priced off the road, Do these 'experts' only care about young women?
/// Kelly Wright, 23, from Salford, Greater Manchester faces a hike from £890 a year to about £1,600. ///
Total conjecture.
/// She said: ‘I cannot afford this increase so would have to give up my car and therefore my job. It offends me that I will be in the same bracket as boy racers.’ ///
And so are none boyracers love ...................
As is being considered a boy racer because you are 17.
The article starts.
"How female drivers have just days to renew car insurance to avoid paying same as boy racers"
Do you get asked if you are a boy racer?
/// Experts fear that young women will be priced off the road if forced to pay the same high premiums as ‘boy-racers’. ///
None boyracer young men are already priced off the road, Do these 'experts' only care about young women?
/// Kelly Wright, 23, from Salford, Greater Manchester faces a hike from £890 a year to about £1,600. ///
Total conjecture.
/// She said: ‘I cannot afford this increase so would have to give up my car and therefore my job. It offends me that I will be in the same bracket as boy racers.’ ///
And so are none boyracers love ...................
Mick, you are exhibiting the same lack of understanding as the "equality brigade":
"...as is men paying more than women simply because they are men."
They are not paying more because they are men. They are paying more because as a group (though maybe not individually) they are more likely to be involved in an accident.
"Do you get asked if you are a boy racer?"
No, you get asked how old you are and what gender you are.
Insurers also adjust premiums according to postcode. This is because some areas are more prone than others to suffer car theft. Are you suggesting this should not happen? Are you suggesting that travel insurers should not adjust premiums in line with age?
Certainly not all 17 year old males are bad drivers. But then not all cars in "high risk" areas will be stolen.
"...as is men paying more than women simply because they are men."
They are not paying more because they are men. They are paying more because as a group (though maybe not individually) they are more likely to be involved in an accident.
"Do you get asked if you are a boy racer?"
No, you get asked how old you are and what gender you are.
Insurers also adjust premiums according to postcode. This is because some areas are more prone than others to suffer car theft. Are you suggesting this should not happen? Are you suggesting that travel insurers should not adjust premiums in line with age?
Certainly not all 17 year old males are bad drivers. But then not all cars in "high risk" areas will be stolen.
Women should still come out better over time because, if the insurers are correct, they will have fewer, and less expensive, claims, and more will have no claims bonuses. But the ruling is equality nonsense; we might as well say that scrap metal dealers are discriminated against (my daughter's insurer online asked whether she was one;her car is old but not that old!), or motor traders or entertainers are, and complain about that. Statistically the average woman driver is less of a risk, less likely to claim, and the average man, or the average scrap metal dealer, is more.
There's another factor to take into account - women drive less. In overall terms, men have more road miles than women, and the more you drive, the more likely you are to have an accident.
In addition to this (overall), women drive less expensive cars (resulting in cheaper insurance claims when they do have an accident, also they are more likely to have children on board, which is a factor in the way they drive.
The insurance industry doesn't charge women less for their premiums because they like them...they charge less because actuarial data shows that they make fewer claims and those claims are cheaper to settle.
Ergo - cheaper premiums.
In addition to this (overall), women drive less expensive cars (resulting in cheaper insurance claims when they do have an accident, also they are more likely to have children on board, which is a factor in the way they drive.
The insurance industry doesn't charge women less for their premiums because they like them...they charge less because actuarial data shows that they make fewer claims and those claims are cheaper to settle.
Ergo - cheaper premiums.
"Insurance is a competitive business. Be assured that companies will still find ways to offer better deals to low risk customers..."
Like this:
http://
Like this:
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.