46 replies to this topic

[Scallywag630]

Tricky subject. Until there is any way to radically alter the way insurance companies operate, we are stuck with the present system.

Poeple have mentioned prejudice against the young, but consider this: I have been driving for 40 years and had an accident in 1974 (not my fault, I was rear ended) Just think how much I have paid over the years with no return except a legal piece of paper! Is it fair that I should pay higher premiums to offset any loss caused by young, inexperienced drivers?

[maryquant]

Its a fair point scallywag - insurance is the sort of thing you buy hoping it will be a waste of money.

But at the moment a new driver is £2000, an experience driver is £200

We either 'discriminate' (although I think its fair to base price on risk) or both the new driver and the experienced driver pay £1100 each - at the end of the day its private business and therefore profit orientated. If you lower the premium for younger drivers, its going to have to be made back elsewhere.

Should also say it is not sexist to charge girls less than men if girls cost insurers less than men do and are a lower risk.

It would be sexist to charge girls less than men because insurers liked boobies.

[Ethel]

Yes it is,

It's discrimination to make a judgement about an individual because they belong to a specific social group. A lad isn't obliged to be a poor insurance risk because they are a young male any more than a young woman is obliged to get pregnant and leave a job after an employer has invested a small fortune in training her.

It's also true that black people have a higher incidence of diagnosed schizophrenia, but it wouldn't be right to put all black people on anti psychotic medication


I will risk a prejudicial opinion on private business, they'll be making more profit out of the riskier end of the market.

[mikey72]

Its a fair point scallywag - insurance is the sort of thing you buy hoping it will be a waste of money.

But at the moment a new driver is £2000, an experience driver is £200

We either 'discriminate' (although I think its fair to base price on risk) or both the new driver and the experienced driver pay £1100 each - at the end of the day its private business and therefore profit orientated. If you lower the premium for younger drivers, its going to have to be made back elsewhere.

Should also say it is not sexist to charge girls less than men if girls cost insurers less than men do and are a lower risk.

It would be sexist to charge girls less than men because insurers liked boobies.

I could live with that.
Pay a reasonable amount when you are young, then pay a little more when you're older, so you pay it back over your lifetime.
Every older driver started out somewhere, and most younger drivers will carry on driving.
If it's compulsory, it shouldn't be a profit making private business, as it is open to abuse. The idea of a paid for basic third party insurance is good, then the personnal choice of topping up would be better.

EU ruling shortly looks like it will rule it is sexist too, so insurance will change.

[AVV IT]

Insurance premiums are based on calculated risk of collision...... End of!! You can moan, winge or generaly complain about the cost of premiums but they are based on a risk based commercial market not on what you seem to think is fair.

If you are 17, male and with under 12 months driving experience then you are statistically the most likely to have a collison, it's not meant to be sexist, ageist or discriminatory, its simply calculated on evidence based statistical risk. If you drive between the hours of 2200 hours and 0700 hours then your statistical risk of collision is increased still further. Insurers offer these "curfew" policies to reduce premiums to reflect the reduced risk of not driving during those hours. Nobody is saying that you should "be tucked up in bed" at that time, just that you are at more risk of an accident at that time of day and therefore if you wish to drive during those hours then your premium will reflect that additional risk. In the same way that a higher powered vehicle will attract a higher premium to reflect the increased risk of collision over a lower powered one. If you don't want to pay the additional premium then you don't drive a high powered car.

...and for those of you doing the "it's not fair that older experienced drivers pay a lot less than me" routine, try to remember that older experienced drivers by their very definition were also once young & inexperienced and therefore were also once paying the same inflated premiums based on age and lack of experience that you are. If anything the situation was less favorable back in the day than it is now, twenty years ago there were no internet comparison web sites, so the insurance market was far less competitive than it is today. Sooner than you think you will be 40 something, with 25 years driving experience and a full no claims discount. At which point having paid your high premiums all those years & having earned your right to a lower cost policy, you will suddenly find the situation an awful lot less unfair...everyone always does!

[maryquant]

I hope it does - im not in favour of the current system at all.

Would much rather have a mandatory minimum insurance at a reasonable price.

Its not compulsory (as your not required by law to drive) so therefore no requirement to have government controlled.

As for the sexism argument its not something I want to get into, I dont think its fair - I think it should be changed. But for as long as men are statistically a higher risk....

[Ethel]

It's not compulsory, but driving is such a big part of modern life it's almost as important as a right to education.

Maybe if insurer's gathered the data they'd find evidence that Geminis & Virgos were a higher risk than Taureans & Leos, we'd all still be entitled to be treated as individuals - otherwise we may as well live in a society where you have to go to the right sort of school to be in the government.

It would be interesting to know how much is paid out in insurance claims and how much profit the insurers make. We might find a compulsory, not for profit, state scheme would be cheaper for nearly everyone.

[Beej123]

If you can sit and say its sexist to charge lads more even though they are statistically a much higher risk then surely all insurance should be based on the COST of the car ie. a £300 rover metro and a £300 Cougar V6 should cost the same? Its discrimination to assume that the bigger engined car will be driven faster!

Its stupid to say its prejudice, higher risk, higher prices, lower risk, lower prices.

AND if the EU decide it's sexist then sorry girls but expect an increase in premiums, you will become a 'young driver' and be lumped in with the lads

[ShoutforJoy]

It would be interesting to know how much is paid out in insurance claims and how much profit the insurers make. We might find a compulsory, not for profit, state scheme would be cheaper for nearly everyone.

I worked for Norwich Union 3 or 4 years ago and they were 'celebrating' because they only paid out 97% of incoming motor insurance premiums to satisfy claims! In previous years it had been as high as 125% How many of us would run a business generating 3% gross profit and a net loss? This unsustainable position is the main reason that premiums have risen steeply over the last few years.

The only fat cats in motor insurance are claims management companies and ambulance-chasing solicitors! If we could put a stop to these then we would see premiums lower.

Until then insurers have to analyse, manage and minimise the risk as best they can.

[maryquant]

They would - but the star sign wouldnt effect the premium.

Whilst it may be sexist to consider men as bad drivers, the statistics are backed up by psycology, testosterone levels, and the difference in mindset between men and women.

There was a TV show on recently which discussed the dangers of speeding etc. When they interviewed the girls it was all "I wouldnt risk speeding." and "People who speed are idiots." etc etc etc - When they interviewed the guys it was more a case of "Yeah its like an adrenaline rush." and "I speed to impress my mates."

It was stereotyped to some degree of course, but there is still merit in it - whether we like it or not, agree to it or not, or personally dont fit into the categories of "Good Girl / Bad Boy" drivers - the fact remains that statistically men cost insurers more (thats not even saying they are worse drivers!)

If a state system was introduced there would be a few problems.

a) The state wont want to pay out for 4 passengers each claiming 75k in compensation for injuries without charging a premium for policies in the first place.

b) Women will complain they pay the same as men, instead of men complaining they pay more than women.

[Ethel]

It's sexist because you can't look at 2 young drivers and say one will make a claim because they are male and the other won't because they are female. You are generalising (based on their gender) - that is what prejudice is. You can't choose your gender like you can choose what car to drive.


I don't dispute that gender differences exist, it's about being treated as individuals with equal rights and equal opportunities. We do actually need drivers to make society work so it's also about more than individual rights.

[maryquant]

It's sexist because you can't look at 2 young drivers and say one will make a claim because they are male and the other won't because they are female. You can't choose your gender like you can choose what car to drive.

There not saying that one will make a claim because they are male.

They are saying that it is statistically more probable that the male would be more likely to cost them money.

As such, they price based on the risk.

In 10 years time, if women start costing more to the insurance companies than men do - then insurance will start charging women more than men. Simple - its not because you are of a particular gender, but because that particular gender at the moment costs more to insure.

Edited by maryquant, 05 February 2011 - 05:00 PM.

[Beej123]

It's sexist because you can't look at 2 young drivers and say one will make a claim because they are male and the other won't because they are female. You can't choose your gender like you can choose what car to drive.

But you can use statistics to make an educated decision and say the male is more likely to crash.

You can't say jumping off a cliff WILL kill you but you are at a much higher risk to someone that sits at home!


I know a few mates (males) that have crashed and it was because they slotted right in with the steriotype, yes some girls are the same but STATISTICALLY lads are more likely to crash

When i sign a contract at work i am willing to offer different terms to different people, the first impressions of the business is all i use and 99% of the time i am right, without this commomn sense i wouldnt do half the business i do do. Like i said before, we all risk assess every day and thats all the insurers are doing.


I am a high risk driver 19 male, all i can do to try to help the cause is report people who i see driving stupidly, thus hopefully getting them cautioned and fingers crossed their driving may improve.
(it doesnt work like this in real life but i do my best!)

[Ethel]

You aren't saying they will, but the insurers are saying they will pay more, which amounts to the same thing.

You can say with greater certainty that women are more likely to leave a job because they are pregnant than men. Would you allow employers to discriminate on that basis?

There aren't the same social imperatives in jumping off cliffs, I don't think it's a particularly effective way in getting to work for most people.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/8544715.stm.

Claims management companies & ambulance chasers are surely an argument to take it out of the private sector, you'd be able to have tribunals, as we do for social security & employment. Both those areas are often intimately involved in dealing with the consequences of the higher value claims so there's likely to be economies in bringing the whole business closer together.

[Beej123]

You can say with greater certainty that women are more likely to leave a job because they are pregnant than men. Would you allow employers to discriminate on that basis?

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/8544715.stm.

Claims management companies & ambulance chasers are surely an argument to take it out of the private sector, you'd be able to have tribunals, as we do for social security & employment. Both those areas are often intimately involved in dealing with the consequences of the higher value claims so there's likely to be economies in bringing the whole business closer together.

This isn't comparable in reasoned arguement, ONLY women can get pregnant, this would only be comparable if ONLY men could crash


Also im going to second guess the comeback of 'men could leave to look after children' correct but men can't have the month off to give birth