Is Insurance Sexist??

[Snokio]

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)

[T-Bag]

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)

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.

[smilodon]

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:

[Penfold]

Aye, and it's going to be totally Fubar'ed when they rule that you can't base premiums on age either.......

[Tutonic]

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.

[BigFatCat]

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.

[Penfold]

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.

[Lameduck]

Factor 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:

[Tutonic]

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.

That's less than half of what I pay for my humble old 1.6ltr petrol Civic, and I'm now 26

[smilodon]

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

[T-Bag]

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.

[Jewelz^]

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.

[Snokio]

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?

[Jewelz^]

Its the norm for young drivers. £2300 is with a multicar discount too (Admiral Multicar)

[Penfold]

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.