Seems as if mens insurance is going to come down and womes is going up,along with pension subs, life insurance , etc.

Yeh, bet mens comes down, LOL.

never under stood why it was cheaper anyway, how can your sex mean you are a better or safer driver? it’s sexism. end of.

So is ‘ageism’ going to be sited now?

Will us over 30 soon be subsidising 18 yr old yoots to drive Imprezas?

your quote should be based on your driving history and choice of vehicle and nothing else. if you are a new driver and have little or no experience then your premium should be higher. if you have a poor driving history then your premium should be higher. being a male does not mean you are a poor driver and should not incur a higher premium than a female with the same experience and driving history/postcode etc and can only be seen as sexism.

Ridiculous. Insurance premiums should be based solely on the risk which that individual represents to the insurer and nothing else, otherwise we will end up with the TSY scenario.

how can your sex mean you are a better or safer driver

Insurance companies exist to make money. They would not give cheaper premiums to women unless there was very good historical data to justify it.

I’m now wondering what some extremely intelligent, (although arguably very boring) highly paid actuarists are going to do?

and that risk should be assessed on your driving history and not your sex.

if it were the other way round this would have been stamped out years ago on grounds of sexism.

So how would someone calculate life insurance premiums?

How would they calculate when they expect you’ll die if they can only look at your history?

were not talking about health here! it’s about you’re ability to drive safely based on your gender. different types if insurance will be assessed with different criteria anyway eg, if heart disease is common in your family history or hereditary illnesses are there in your family history then your premium will be higher as it can be seen that you are at more risk but the ability to drive safely cannot be determined on your sex.

No, we’re talking about insurance and, that given certain factors or characteristics, the level of risk you pose.

As an example, your inability to punctuate properly indicates that I’m unlikely to be able to have a reasoned discussion with you about this topic. For this reason, I’m out.

Yeh, bet mens comes down, LOL.

As if that will happen. It just means your premium may not go up quite as much. I think they take the opportunity to profit a bit more out of us.

but the ability to drive safely cannot be determined on your sex

True – but the probability and risk can be, which is why it is not sexist.

Why not find something which is truly sexist, like retirement age. Women live longer than men yet are allowed to retire earlier, how unfair is that?

punctuation! perhaps you’d like to enlighten me with your superior intellect and explain how being a male makes one a poorer driver then seeing as no-one has yet done so.
simply saying they have ways of determining this, is not acceptable as an answer.

First things first… do you understand probability?

Its a farce, men and women have very different morbidity/mortality rates and there will be no winners with the new ruling; rest assured that everyones premiums will see a hike 😡

probability is not fact! but yes i do have a basic understanding.
carry on

So if you have a fair dice… what is the probability of rolling a 6?

1 in 6

punctuation! perhaps you’d like to enlighten me with your superior intellect and explain how being a male makes one a poorer driver then seeing as no-one has yet done so.

Erm, historical statistics.

That wasn’t overly taxing, was it?

You have to crack a smirk though at the women featured on the radio sound bites, squawking about being penalised and how unfair it is, blah, blah, blah. As was touched on above, can you imagine if men were statistically safer and were afforded cheaper premiums – there’d be bras being burnt all over the place.

As an example, your inability to punctuate properly indicates that I’m unlikely to be able to have a reasoned discussion with you about this topic. For this reason, I’m out.

😆 😆

personal historical statistics i can understand but not statistics based on other peoples history.

How exactly would you propose that an insurance company assesses the risk you represent as a new driver?

it can’t which is why new drivers pay more but when you have a history to look at it can make an informed decision based on your track record.

I wrote a really long blinkin post. Probably my longest ever then my internet goes down. What are the chances of that, eh? 😉

The Artist sums it up nicely though. Thank you.

mmb – what premium should a new driver pay? They’ve got an unblemished history.
What about when you change your car? There’s no history of you driving that particular car.

The awsome guys always get upset about this because they don’t understand what’s actually at play. Nobody is saying women are any less likely to have an accident – indeed mile for mile most insurers find that accident rates are more or less even – but rather experience tells them that men (and in particular young men) have much better accidents. If a man and a woman both crash their cars into lamp posts, the woman will typically be in 1st gear performing a 3 point turn, but the man will typically be hitting the rev limited in 4th gear, will have spun 6 times and will be on fire. And that’s a statistical fact.

petrieboy

I was just about to say something along those lines. IME women have bumps (fnaar), men, young men in particular, have crashes.

Woody & Petrieboy +1… it’s what my post said… the EV of payout for blokes is much higher!

new drivers are an unknown and as such will incur a higher premium that they no doubt think is unfair. the car you drive does not mean you are a better or worse driver either but it may be a more likely target for thieves thus increasing the premium but it is still just as likely to be stolen if it is owned by a woman! also postcodes play a part in premiums too as certain areas are plagued by higher theft rates.
in all there are many reasons why premiums differ from one person to another but simply being of a particular sex does not make a person a worse driver and should have no bearing in the premium.

So the insurance category of cars is just down to their desirability to car thieves?

Someone who is used to driving a 1.0l Micra is not more likely to have an accident when they step into a 3.0l rear wheel drive performance car?

If you want your own premiums to be decided specifically on your own level of risk then you either use generalisations based on what kind of person you are (you know, job, place you live, age, sex, the kind of stuff you get asked when applying) which is cheap to manage as it is based on what happens to that kind of person.
Or,
You get a personal assessment of your driving, over an extended period to get a true impression, and agree to be randomly followed several times a year just to make sure you didn’t just go easy for the test, and understand that your premium will also include a bit more to cover the wage of all these extra staff.

Personally I would take the small hike in premium on the basis that I am a bloke and “might be a bit of a cock behind the wheel” than a massive hike to pay another persons salary+admin fees+whatever else.

Do I not get regular breast cancer screens because I am not old enough? Will they start when I am old enough or am I unlikely to get them because I am statistically less likely to get cancer (ok, in this case a much bigger difference in risk, but still a decision based on historical statistics).

So what you’re suggesting, mmb, is that a 21yo male driver with a 4 year clean driving history should pay less than a 40yo woman with a small parking accident a couple of years ago, despite the fact that on average the 21yo is likely to cost the insurance company far more in claims?

the risk in going from a small car to a more powerful car does not increase depending on your sex does it? it depends on your experience.

mmb

You appear to have a basic grasp of how insurance premiums are calculated and then completely discount the unarguable fact that men have more costly accidents. Why oh why would that not have a bearing on the cost?

edit

the risk in going from a small car to a more powerful car does not increase depending on your sex does it?

Oh FFS yes it does – men will, in all probability, drive more powerful cars faster, the consequence of which is bigger and more costly accidents.

No, I think the point is that statistically you are riskier in both cars if you are a young bloke, than a young woman, or old woman, or old bloke. So they charge you, or them rather, more.

edit-riskier in a business sense, more expensive.

if the woman has had a more recent accident then yes she should incur an extra charge.

Ah FFS, my initial assertion has been proved correct. Insure yourself against pointless typing by not entering into debates with people who don’t use capital letters.

She would and does incur an extra charge, when she loses her no claims bonus (or she has paid for a protected no claims bonus and has therefore insured her discount)

it is not fair to be charged for the mistakes of others, if i didn’t do it why should i or you for that matter pay.

Therefore… no insurance. We all just pay directly for the costs of any accidents we cause.