My opinion for years (since those adverts for 'women only' car insurance) was that it is sexist and this is the best (and only?) thing to come from being in the EU, however, there is that little part of me that thinks about the 'statistics', which 'proves' that women are less likely to have an accident than men, it's a fact, but then again, where do you draw the line? age? race?
Also, I worry that female insurance will go up, and male insurance will....well.....do nothing, I just think they will have 101 excuses not to lower the insurance for men :sideways: (typical rip off Britain style)
Quote from: Snokio;320778Also, I worry that female insurance will go up, and male insurance will....well.....do nothing, I just think they will have 101 excuses not to lower the insurance for men :sideways: (typical rip off Britain style)
I don't get why this ruling was made. If women are cheaper to insure (I figure they must be because of the discounts, but not from personal experience) then their premiums should be lower. If young drivers cost more to insure their premiums should be higher. If a Ford Escort is more likely to cost an insurance company money than a Fiat Panda then it should cost more to insure. It's not discrimination, it's a business model.
It can't go from discriminatory (the model they're using now) to one price reflects all without a massive overhaul. And they won't do that. So basically All prices will go up, insurance profits will rise, things will settle in as the norm and it'll repeat again when age discrimination becomes illegal.
It's about risk. The higher the risk the more you pay. So in theory if it could be proved that a certain type of person was more likely to be involved in an collision then they should pay more. I cannot see how it could be possible, but in theory if Afro Caribbean's were proved to be more likely to make a claim then they should pay a higher premium and conversely if they proved to be safer drivers they should pay less.
It's insurance for gods sake, you pay proportional to your risk, it's not a hard concept to get the brain around. I am just paying for a service.
"Hello I would like to be insured against the 10% risk that I will make a claim please."
"Certainly Sir, that will be £500 please."
"Hello I would like to be insured against the 5% risk that I will make a claim please."
"Certainly Sir, that will be £250 please."
Duh! :doh:
Aye, and it's going to be totally Fubar'ed when they rule that you can't base premiums on age either.......
I resent the fact that I have to pay a horribly inflated premium, despite never having caused an accident, simply because there are people my age & gender who decide to drive like morons.
Then again, I can also see it from the insurance companies point of view - they have to take the risk factor into account.
Factor in the bum-weasels that don't even get insurance and force others to cover their incurred costs.
I was served my renewal notice yesterday. 70% increase on last year's cover. No claims made, no accidents partaken of.
I've also just renewed and it's exactly the same price as last year for our two cars - both 2.0ltr diesels - £277.01 and £346.18 comprehensive with protected NCB - I was surprised when it came through. Give them a call and tell them you'll leave, They'll reduce it.
Quote from: BigFatCat;320819Factor in the bum-weasels that don't even get insurance and force others to cover their incurred costs.
70% increase on last year's cover. No claims made, no accidents partaken of.
Same here. Phoned several coy's, and tried the usual 'TV' brokers and threatened to leave. Got a whole £3 pa knocked off.:yahoo:
I'm coming to the conclusion that getting a taxi everywhere local, & hiring a car for extended trips would cost less than I spend now. :blink:
Quote from: Penfold;320821I've also just renewed and it's exactly the same price as last year for our two cars - both 2.0ltr diesels - £277.01 and £346.18 comprehensive with protected NCB - I was surprised when it came through. Give them a call and tell them you'll leave, They'll reduce it.
That's less than half of what I pay for my humble old 1.6ltr petrol Civic, and I'm now 26 :(
Actually the more I think about it the more I wonder if my original post was fair. Reading the other comments and some stuff on the web I think insurance companies should rate people as individuals rather than groups. Maybe start with questions like what do you drive (obviously), what is your claim history, what additional driver training if any have you taken, how much do you drive, where do you park your car at night. Yes some of these are existing questions but some are not.
It occurs to me that maybe the biggest single factor in driver safety isn't even considered by insurance companies. Training. For example people who pass their Institute of Advanced Drivers examination are 70% less likely to be involved in an collision than people who haven't. And that's not just where they are at fault. It includes accidents where a 3rd party is responsible. That's a huge difference, and I'm pretty sure there is no other single factor that has such a dramatic effect on risk ie.e age, gender. But how many Insurance companies take any notice of additional training? One. Just a single Broker. And even they don't reduce premiums by anything approaching 70%. If Insurance Companies are going to rate risk they need to do it fairly, which clearly they don't. They're quite content to take a full premium from me even though I am significantly less likely to have an accident that another male driver of my age.
So Insurance Companies give a discount to a driver who may or may not be a high risk just because they happen to be a member of a larger potentially low risk group but no discount for an person who as in individual can prove they are the lowest risk group of any driver on the road. It's hypocritical and it's stupid.
So I've changed my mind. Ban sweeping generalisations and charge people premiums based only on what can be defined about their own personal and unique circumstances.
smilo-(fickle)-don
I've been driving since my 18th birthday near enough (well 17th if you count learning). I'm 24 this month. I've been a named driver all that time on a shared car, Direct Line say they take that into account with a "Named driver no claims discount". I'm paying nearly £900 on a car that was that much when I bought it (with a £550 excess). I know if I hit someone it's likely to cost far more, but that's a bit silly. I drive a Diesel Xantia...hardly a boy racer.
Yes, that's right 6 years and I've not had an accident. (there were prices as low as £500ish with some shady companies, but this way I'm hoping to keep the direct line no claims - if that's even worth anything)
My point is. Charge the people who crash more. Not the people who don't. People who are responsible for a crash are more likely to crash again so it's not exactly biased.
I drive a 1.2 Renault Clio, which i bought for £300, i pay £2300 for insurance as a 17 year old male apprentice in a garage. I changed this to female as i was curious to the difference, came out as just over £1000.
Sexist? Imo, Yes.
Can't believe you pay £2300!! Is there a special circumstance? (i.e. points / claim / where you live etc?) Or is that just the norm for young drivers now?
Edit: isn't cheaper just to have a sex change?
Its the norm for young drivers. £2300 is with a multicar discount too (Admiral Multicar)
We had a multicar policy with Admiral but when I checked them separately it actually came out cheaper - it's worth checking....
Also, it may be worth checking the car you're driving against number of crashes. For example it can work out cheaper to insure a 2.5l diesel landrover Defender than a 1.whatever Fiesta. Why? 'Cause the demographic of which car is involved in more accidents by young people is the Fiesta. Go for a car which young people don't drive and it not commonly crashed and it's cheaper. It certainly used to be the case anyway.
I think Penfold is right and while it would be an idea for someone looking for a car to consider this it again proves how dumb Insurance assessment is. T-Bag managed to get through his first (most potentially dangerous if you believe Insurance companies) six years collision free. That's no mean feat and I utterly failed to do it. So he gets a discount. But they then load him back up as he's a younger (under 30) driver and happens to fall into a couple of vague demographic groups that are a higher risk. Hence the premium comes down and then goes back up again.
Quote from: T-Bag;320839I've been driving since my 18th birthday near enough (well 17th if you count learning). I'm 24 this month. I've been a named driver all that time on a shared car, Direct Line say they take that into account with a "Named driver no claims discount". I'm paying nearly £900 on a car that was that much when I bought it (with a £550 excess). I know if I hit someone it's likely to cost far more, but that's a bit silly. I drive a Diesel Xantia...hardly a boy racer.
Yes, that's right 6 years and I've not had an accident. (there were prices as low as £500ish with some shady companies, but this way I'm hoping to keep the direct line no claims - if that's even worth anything)
My point is. Charge the people who crash more. Not the people who don't. People who are responsible for a crash are more likely to crash again so it's not exactly biased.
I'm in a very similar situation, just I'm 21 and have been driving since 17.
I think the whole system of charging people because they fall into a specific demographic is ridiculous, I get lumped in the same group as the knob'eds who drive at 55mph in 30 zones because of my gender and age. I also understand that's the only way to do it. They can't and don't know how good at driving you as an individual are. I've been in cars with guys and gals whose driving gives me butterflies and I spend the whole journey using my passenger side brake pedal. (Stopping distances are overrated anyways!)
Everyone's different. I have a female friend (who fits the female driver stereotype perfectly) and cannot park to save her life and has to get her boyfriend do it for her - her boyfriend hasn't even passed his driving test. She's been driving for about a year and a half now, I have been driving for 4 years. She should pay more than me as she is far more likely to cause damage to other vehicles, but that's not the case.
Guys, have you considered giving some money to one of your family members/close friends so they can drive you wherever you want? Or perhaps getting a low CC motorcycle (rain might be a problem - there are hard top cycles though)?
The kind of money you're all paying is a joke - they are ripping you off.
Over here, I pay 800 ish euros with 60% no claims @ 25years old - fully comprehensive. I drive a glass van.
I don't know if it would work here, but in Canada (as I understand it) car insurance is different in two ways:
1. You insure the car, not the driver.
2. It's done through government agencies rather than private companies.
Surely this is a fairer way of insuring drivers? If you buy your 17 year old a little 1ltr Micra, you shouldn't be charged 3 or 4 times the value of said car just to insure it. Buy them a turbo-charged Golf on the other hand...
They've also got alot to answer for when it comes to the valuation of your car when making a claim. My boss bought a small Vauxhall for about 5K. One year later, a drunk-driver slammed into it in the middle of the night and ran off. It was parked on their drive, not on the road.
They had to pay a £250 excess, and the insurance company only gave then £1000 for the car (which was a write-off). Could someone explain how this is in any way fair?
Went through a lot of talking on the phone yesterday with my insurers. Insuring my wife was costing me £130 extra. Dumped her off the insurance, after asking her first to avoid :ranting2: and took it down to £7 less than I paid last year. She doesn't want to drive my car so no harm done.
I did like the statement from the insurance minion about "Fords being expensive cars to insure." Should I mention the Zonda as a weekend runabout?
Gorion, that won't help. You have to suck it up as without accumulating a no claims bonus the insurance will still be unaffordable.
Pushing this thread slightly to one side, I'll toss in this then:
With female car insurance due to go up in cost due to the new rulings, I am surprised so little has been said about male insurance rates going down. The fact is that I have not seen the costs go down and strongly suspect we'll 'average up' to the more profitable male rates.
The flip side of the coin is this: males currently get better pension annuity rates than women as women live longer than men and so on average the insurers have to pay more out to a female pensioner than a male. So this ruling not only means no decrease in malke insurance premiums, but it is likely to push unisex annuity rates through the European Courts in coming years which will reduce our retirement income.
The only way to fix this is to drive like a maniac and die young I reckon?
Insurance companies make a small fortune off drivers like me an Tox. We have little choice. A NCD is effectively worthless on a premium as large as ours. Hit 25 and they'll probably change their tune, but it's as if they are conspiring to make us either unable to afford the insurance, or stick to the named driver on a parents car (which they can then refuse to pay if they find it's not a shared car).
They need to hammer the premiums on cars that are desirable to boy racers, and any car with a body kit. Then double hammer anyone that gets a speeding ticket or points on their license. Then triple hammer people who have caused a crash. The quadruple hammer people who have caused several crashes.
Male/female/young/old. It doesn't matter for all but the first one.
I've reached the age when I can afford the insurance on a sports car,
unfortunately I now can't get in or out of one:sideways:
Buy yourself a morris minor or an old mini.
Pro's:
No Tax,
low maintanence (parts still available)
low fuel costs,
low insurance,
every old bloke you meet "used to have one of those in the 60's, used to transport pigs to market in it...ahhh, happy days..."
People smile, wave and let you out into traffic.
Cons:
slow (unless you slip a 1300cc engine in like I did in my mini:D)
need TLC.
err
that's it.
I'm serious, look into it:flirty:
With all the recent advances in technology, it's surely time to fit a black-box into all cars.
There's accelerometers, GPS, monitors to tell how hard you brake etc. etc.
Insurance could be based on these readings and charged monthly based on your previous months motoring
.
They'd know exactly what nasty areas you've been driving/parking in, how fast you drive, how wildly you corner,
how hard you brake, what speed limits you've broken, how often the car is used etc.
It may be a bit Big Brotherish for some people, but it would be fairer for the sensible drivers.
I drive a 2.5l turbo diesel Defender, my premium is a lot lower (~£200) compared to my old 1.2 VW polo :D
I think its the fact that I only hit 70mph downhill with a following wind. And I have hardly reported the couple of incidents of people driving into me in the snow cos I fixed them all with a socket set, some WD40 and a large hammer...
Car Insurance didn't used to be that bad. My first car cost £100 and the insurance was £138 per year with road tax of £50. I sold the car for £300, so I was laughing.
My current car costs close to £500 per year and I haven't had an accident for 20 years or more and have full no-claims.
The problems (or fairer to say "insurance company excuses") arose from two areas.
The likes of "National Ambulance Chaser" came along in recent years and encouraged everyone, with even the slightest claim, to sue for injury damages, pushing premiums way through the roof. Insurance companies, like every profit-driven organisation, won't ever put their prices down, once they've had the chance to put them up.
Before the late 90's, new drivers just bought the smallest old banger they could afford to run and repair themselves, but by the mid-nineties youngsters were bought new cars by "helpful" parents on 0% finance and they promptly wrapped them round a tree, causing insurance repairs to rocket. If you bump and old banger with 3rd party insurance, who cares? But new cars require fully-comprehensive insurance, meaning every bump and dent gets claimed.
Not all young drivers are idiots, but it only takes a few people peeing in the well to poison the water. I had two accidents in my teens and early twenties, both caused by inattention and inexperience - the difference being my car I repaired and only the other driver claimed on insurance.
The driving test teaches you how to pass a test, not how to drive. You learn that afterwards, or you don't survive, but there's a lot of scrap metal in the grey area between, with garages and insurers getting fat on the proceeds.
Insurance isn't sexist, it's just a numbers game where the house always wins.
Quote from: ArithonUK;321525The problems (or fairer to say "insurance company excuses") arose from two areas.
Before the late 90's, new drivers just bought the smallest old banger they could afford to run and repair themselves, but by the mid-nineties youngsters were bought new cars by "helpful" parents on 0% finance and they promptly wrapped them round a tree, causing insurance repairs to rocket. If you bump and old banger with 3rd party insurance, who cares? But new cars require fully-comprehensive insurance, meaning every bump and dent gets claimed.
I think that's the key. As parents with more money it's now much more tempting to assist your kids and buy them a 'newer' and 'safer' car requiring fully comp. My missus and I ahve had many a blazing row about the cash we've given the older kids for cars and it all comes back to that.
My first car £500 with insurance the same. 3rd party for years until I built the no claims up. Not worrying about the car because it was a heap meant not worrying if it took a dent.
Kids nowadays are spoilt. Bring back national service. And hanging. Oh and Space Raiders, they were quite nice.
Why is it then, that Fully Comp often works out cheaper than Third Party?
Totally agree about the injury claim problem though, it really needs sorting out. Just because someone accidentally gave you whiplash, doesn't mean you're entitled to a large pile of money.
Agree with Benny about ArithonUK's comment.
I'm going through an insurance claim at the moment and think there might be a clue in there somewhere about why insurance is so high.
I got a small knock in the back bumper from another driver a few weeks ago. There are two very small scratches that go through the paintwork to the plastic of the bumper. As soon as I spoke to my insurance company they did some fancy computer check on the other drivers details. They informed me that everything was in order (i.e. the other driver was properly insured) and I would be entitled to a courtesy car with a guarantee of it not affecting my NCB regardless of whether the other insurer actually paid up. Within ten minutes of my phone call to my insurer the Car hire company was ringing me up with details of my temporary car and where I could pick it up from etc. I explained that my car was still perfectly roadworthy and that I didn't need a car. The hire company said that as I would loose the car for several days while it was assessed by the repair company and then loose it again while it was being repaired I really should take the hire car. They explained that it really would cost me nothing at all, except fuel. All the expense would end up with the other drivers insurance so 'What did I care about the cost?"
I got the car checked by the repairer while I waited, it took about five minutes, and I'll loose the car overnight while they respray the bumper. No car hire required and no costly insurance payout by the other driver.
I'm sure we're all collectively to blame along with the Insurance vampires when we grab that free car and 'Ohhh I think I got whiplash from my five mile an hour shunt"
Yea, I've had a similar experience.
A nice lady bumped into me doing about 10mph, resulting in a dent to the rear-right wheel arch. It took my insurers chosen garage a week and a half to fix, and involved them replacing the wheel arch panel, quarter panel, the entire door and a large piece of plastic from inside the door.
I wouldn't like to guess at how much it cost to repair, but it must have been alot - and was mostly un-neccesary (replacing the wheel arch would have repaired all the damage done). I'm just glad the other person's insurer accepted liability!