[Closed] Insurance equality for women

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

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

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?

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.

yeti you still have not proved that as a male i am a worse driver, i'm still waiting for you to show your superior intellect, if you're inclined to think that my poor grammar and punctuation means i have less intelligence than you then you're clearly not as clever as you think.
there are many men who have never had an accident or claim and yet they pay an increased premium based on other peoples poor driving and that is unfair.

it is not fair to be charged for the mistakes of others

Well, all I know is that as a 'mature' woman driving a dull small-engined car, I seem to pay a high premium for not having had an accident for 10 years. I drive around 15K a year, mainly motorway. Only me on the insurance too.

there are many men who have never had an accident or claim and yet they pay an increased premium based on other peoples poor driving and that is unfair

the statistical chance of an accident based on the information available to them is statistics from other peoples accidents not yours if you have not had any.

TSY - you need to include smilies in your posts!

Your failure to show a basic grasp of the insurance market and to really think about the questions posed on here tonight is all the evidence I need.

Refer back to my last point on the previous page if you wish... if we only pay for our own mistakes... insurance doesn't exist. It can't.

Statistics and probability is how insurance works.

I'll ask you another question... I've never had a fire in my house what should my 'buildings' premium be? Free?

die at 66? that's not unfair at all! it's just bad luck.

Sorry C_G

😉
😀
😆
😆
😉
😆
8)

I was saving them until you showed up!

cinnamon_girl - Member
Well, all I know is that as a 'mature' woman driving a dull small-engined car, I seem to pay a high premium for not having had an accident for 10 years. I drive around 15K a year, mainly motorway. Only me on the insurance too.

out of interest what do you class as a high premium?

no it shouldn't free but it shouldn't cost more because you are a male! if you are a smoker perhaps but not because you're male.

OK - lets explore my sidetrack how do insurance companies calculate premiums for life insurance given that none of the people taking that out have died yet?

statistically, black people might crash more than asians, christaians more than Jews! male or female, ahh yes thats fine!

About time & completely right!

Nice point on retirement age

it shouldn't cost more because you are a male! if you are a smoker perhaps

i understand perfectly well how the insurance market works and just because it is done in a particular way does not mean it's fair. many things have been done a particular for many years and have been changed because they were not fair, it's called progress.

mmb

This is a wind-up, right ?

yes smokers should pay more as there is an evident risk but being a male is not evidence of being a poor driver.

yes smokers should pay more as there is an evident risk but being a male is not evidence of being a poor driver

I hope so, or else I've been overly patronising. In which case... I apologise.

i'm happy to continue this discussion tomorrow if you like but i'm up at six and i need my sleep.
goodnight all and good talking to you! 🙂
my tune has not changed smokers pay more as the risk is proven.
goodnight till tomorrow 🙂

It's statistically likely that I'll be posting rubbish on here tomorrow.

Sweet dreams, x.

out of interest what do you class as a high premium?

Can't remember exact figure but over £400 and insurance companies sneakily increase the excess each year unless you specify the amount yourself.

smokers pay more as the risk is proven

smokers pay more as the risk is proven

just as it is for male drivers

exactly, just as smoking is no guarantee of cancer, insurance is about future risk as well as your personal history, and the only way to determine that is statistical evidence based on the population (and your demographic) as a whole - it's a whole business and it's called actuary. If you don't do that, everyone's premium would be zero (or nominal) until you have and accident and then no insurance company would even look at you, so just as THY says, the insurance industry just wouldn't exist.

being a male is not evidence of being a poor driver.

for a worldwide study
and they tend to cost more when they do

The British Insurance Brokers' Association (BIBA) said currently the cost of the average car claim by an 18-year old man was £4,400, while that for an 18-year old woman was £2,700

cinnamon_girl - Member
Can't remember exact figure but over £400 and insurance companies sneakily increase the excess each year unless you specify the amount yourself.

thats relatively low tbh...

thats relatively low tbh...

Interestingly, mrs aracer pays more than me on a smaller car despite a very similar job description, a lack of any speeding points and no claims in the last 15 years (I've had a few, but the most recent more than 5 years ago, so irrelevant). Don't suppose she'll be impressed if her premiums go up and mine go down!

Low!!!!

My car is group 23 with 6 years protected no claims, £300 excess and breakdown cover. I'm about the same age as CG and I thought £310 fully comp was expensive 😯

Slightly OT but I do feel a need to rant in this general subject area.

Just bought my first new car. Before doing so, checked with my existing insurers what my new premium would be.

Ring up today to arrange swapping the insurance over. Apparently they can't insure me because the wheel size the car has is different to their records, even though it's a brand new vehicle, the wheels are mfr fitted parts, and are standard issue on higher spec models of the same car. Absolute imbeciles of the highest order...

Most infuriating part of the entire 30 minute conversation: "Is there anything [u][i]else[/i][/u] I can help you with?" The urge to point out that she hadn't exactly helped in the first place was too great...

Still chuckling at all these people who truly don't grasp the actuarial science behind it.

I spent 12 years in claims dealing with some horrific photos and medical reports following accidents, and I can't recall a bad one that was caused by a woman. At the time we were the insurer dealing with the first £1 million pound damages settlement and had the record damages award in Northern Ireland as well. As my boss ruefully pointed out, that's like San Marino winning the European and World Cups!

The number one cause of death in young women is apparently their driver boyfriends. That should make people think a bit about cause and effect (though the dead ones are, usually, cheaper than the badly injured ones)

Since when has insurance been 'fair' anyhow. I pay more for my insurance because I've lived abroad (so not accrued no claims bonus), because I've had someone crash into a hire car I was driving and because my car was stolen after a burglary. Not really fair (i live at a different address to the burglary so the risk based on address doesn't fit) but it's how insurance works.

Insurance isn't even logical nevermind fair. Adding my dad onto my insurance reduces the premium by 100 quid even though he lives hours away and has points on his licence.

I'm guessing all the people moaning about premiums high at 300 quid are 40 plus - you're a little out of touch with reality

The Southern Yeti - Member
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.

POSTED 12 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

C_G, how about paying 1200 quid TPFT for a OAP caravan AKA Pug 406 estate worth maybe 700 quid if cleaned? That's what my mate was quoted (35y.o. male, Surbiton, garage, alarm, immobiliser, tracker fitted, no points, no convictions, no commuting) recently.

BTW Shall we insist that if you're a male who shaves his balls you pay more?

 

Here's another perspective: If an insurer has better information than most which identifies groups of people that have fewer accidents (volvo owners who shop at Waitrose and are CTC members, say) they can charge them slightly less than the competition, and fill up their book with safe, low cost drivers.

They're all looking for the safe drivers whose premiums they can discount, and they'll carry on researching, recording claims data in more granular ways, and tweaking pricing algorithms.

They're trying hard to be as accurate as they can, because being more accurate than the competition means they can be cheaper than the competition while still making money.

That's the idea, but there's loads of them all doing the same thing and, as an industry sector, it'll carry on losing money...

I'm guessing all the people moaning about premiums high at 300 quid are 40 plus - you're a little out of touch with reality

Yes! I've been driving for around 35 years and have always had 'dull' cars as it were cos they don't interest me. Not claiming to be a good driver at all but, fingers crossed, no speeding tickets.

The reality is that my premium has virtually doubled within the last few years and I suspect part of this is due to uninsured drivers.

Edit: Hairychested - blimey! 😯

And tbh in my case the insurance premiums don't really seem related to the car I drive - as its rarely changed over the years, while the cars have.

But then since the real cost of an accident is in the 3rd party costs, is that a surprise?

my insurance is £1600 per year, £200-400 is something i will never experience, oldies, consider yourself lucky, not hard done by

I'm 28 and pay £240 for an mx-5 and similar again for a diesel mondeo. Don't need to be old for cheap premiums 🙂

mmb were you on radio 1 newsbeat yesterday stating that mean have more accidents becasue more of them are on the road at a time? 😆

how about paying 1200 quid TPFT for a OAP caravan AKA Pug 406 estate worth maybe 700 quid if cleaned? That's what my mate was quoted (35y.o. male, Surbiton, garage, alarm, immobiliser, tracker fitted, no points, no convictions, no commuting) recently.

I'm guessing all the people moaning about premiums high at 300 quid are 40 plus - you're a little out of touch with reality