If You Had The Choice To Live Anywhere...
ChatterBank0 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.
I believe so
As for whether women are better drivers that can rather depend.
If women have less accidents you may find they also do less mileage
You may also find the accidents they have are less severe and cost less than the ones men have.
So being a better insurance risk isn't necessilly the same as being a better driver.
Personally I suspect they have different sorts of accidents, I suspect male accidents are often from over confidence or aggressive driving where women have more accidents from distraction and paying insufficient attention.
This comes from having been involved in teaching my son and my daughter to drive in the last few years
As for whether women are better drivers that can rather depend.
If women have less accidents you may find they also do less mileage
You may also find the accidents they have are less severe and cost less than the ones men have.
So being a better insurance risk isn't necessilly the same as being a better driver.
Personally I suspect they have different sorts of accidents, I suspect male accidents are often from over confidence or aggressive driving where women have more accidents from distraction and paying insufficient attention.
This comes from having been involved in teaching my son and my daughter to drive in the last few years
I'm sure your premium went up, Mick, as did mine, as did most peoples. There are a number of reasons, but among them are:
- Increased cost of car repairs.
- Increased payouts due to false personal injury claims (usually "whiplash") whch insurers are not prepared to challenge.
- Increase in "crash for cash" claims (which, again, insurers seem unwilling to tackle).
The increases in premium due to the last two of these reasons most certainly does contribute to the "theft" which you mention and I agree that more should be done by insurers to tackle them. But none of this has anything to do with the way they assess their comparitive risk.
Insurers do not tar all drivers with the same brush. Far from it. But they do tar drivers in the same riisk group with the same brush. How else would you suggest, for example, they set the premium for a seventeen year old with no driving experience other than by comparing that group's accident and claims data with others? They have to take a view of the comparitive risk they face and whilst not an exact science they make it as fair as they can. In order to make it "non-discriminatory" they would have to charge all drivers the same premium. And that certainly would not be fair.
I'm sorry you dismiss my arguments as being valid only because I say so. I have tried to put together a reasoned case to contribute to the debate and have provided some reasoning and examples where I can. But if those arguments are to be dismissed as being so "just because I say so" (even before, apparently, you had read them fully) makes me think that there is not much more I can usefully add.
- Increased cost of car repairs.
- Increased payouts due to false personal injury claims (usually "whiplash") whch insurers are not prepared to challenge.
- Increase in "crash for cash" claims (which, again, insurers seem unwilling to tackle).
The increases in premium due to the last two of these reasons most certainly does contribute to the "theft" which you mention and I agree that more should be done by insurers to tackle them. But none of this has anything to do with the way they assess their comparitive risk.
Insurers do not tar all drivers with the same brush. Far from it. But they do tar drivers in the same riisk group with the same brush. How else would you suggest, for example, they set the premium for a seventeen year old with no driving experience other than by comparing that group's accident and claims data with others? They have to take a view of the comparitive risk they face and whilst not an exact science they make it as fair as they can. In order to make it "non-discriminatory" they would have to charge all drivers the same premium. And that certainly would not be fair.
I'm sorry you dismiss my arguments as being valid only because I say so. I have tried to put together a reasoned case to contribute to the debate and have provided some reasoning and examples where I can. But if those arguments are to be dismissed as being so "just because I say so" (even before, apparently, you had read them fully) makes me think that there is not much more I can usefully add.
The same driving examiner that passed me first time failed my elder brother 3 times - said he was a danger on the road! My eldest brother passed his driving test in the army and the examiner there admitted that if it had been in civvy street he would have failed as well!
Growing up on the base there were lots of deaths due to young driving and all were male.
Growing up on the base there were lots of deaths due to young driving and all were male.
- Increased payouts due to false personal injury claims (usually "whiplash") whch insurers are not prepared to challenge.
- Increase in "crash for cash" claims (which, again, insurers seem unwilling to tackle).
Why?
Because it is easier to put up the premiums of decent law abiding drivers to pay for it.
- Increase in "crash for cash" claims (which, again, insurers seem unwilling to tackle).
Why?
Because it is easier to put up the premiums of decent law abiding drivers to pay for it.
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.