Women drivers

[Booandpops]

Bit pissed at the fact car insurance will now be universal - no discounts for women drivers. I know that
some women will cause accidents and some men will but it feels like women are being fleeced from every corner at the moment. Child benefits going. sure start centres. Now higher insurance. You can bet they won't brings mens costs down or put women's wages up.

It's also about maturity and how you see driving.

A young person - particularly a young lad - sees a car as a toy, fun, status, something to show off in.

Now not ALL young lads, by all means, but enough to make it a real consideration.

I can't count the number of young people I have seen crammed into a little car, driving round - often very fast - because they think it's cool.

And late at night.

And gathering in car parks.

It's not just experience. It's your attitude. It's how you see a car, how you use a car.

Young lads are more likely to show off in a car than older people.

Again. Not every young lad. Many are sensible.

But if you were asked to name a group that speeds down the road, revving the engine, maybe has that thing on the exhaust that makes that godawful racket, piles lots of people into the car, drives round late at night, congregates in car parks, shows off...

Which group would you name?

Because I'm guessing not 30-something mums on the school run.

"As usual there is always one who refuses to see the point!

It isnt sexist to base a risk on the known factors. "

Which is what employers do when they pick men over women in job interviews.

The risk to employers is the woman leaving the workplace after being trained up, with all maternity pay.

The risk to insurers is that the men will have a more expensive crash than the women.

Not all women will have kids, and not all men will have an expensive crash.

Its not me who hasnt got their head around this shit.

"Car Insurance premiums are insignificant in comparison so I wouldn't worry." - No don't worry, current predictions are my insurance will ONLY go up by 4-500 quid. No sweat there then! Except by the time it comes into force petrol will be £2 a litre, all child benefits will be gone and I'll have had to sell my car and quit work as I won't be able to afford to go.

I take your point about the driving test, BaggedandTagged - but I would say that ds1 is going to struggle to get the driving experience he needs in order to become a better driver, because he and we are going to struggle to afford insurance for a car for him once he's qualified.

The bottom line is that insurance as a concept is based on the idea of pooled risk and premiums are therefore based on risk and probability. Without coming over and interviewing you personally, all an insurance company can do is input all possible factors and assess the likelihood that you'll have an accident which is your fault, or have the car damaged or stolen.

There are always going to be individuals who don't fit the profile and pay too much, and vice versa, but what's the alternative?

We shouldn't be basing risk on single factors. Just because you have (e.g.) speeding convictions doesn't necessarily make you more of a risk than someone else, because all your other factors could make you less of a risk.

We could go to a UAE type system where you just pay a % value of the car (effectively the car's insured, not the driver) , but that tends to be more expensive than the current system anyway.

CCP..

FFS we arent talking about jobs though! that is a totally different argument!

If you knew that group A would cost you more to insure than Group B then you would be a fool to not charge Group A more. It isnt anything to do with sex, age or anything else!

the job issue is entirely different :o

There are a lot of statistics and common sense practices out there that say a lot of policically incorrect things MrsWembley.

Equalities legislation is designed to prevent them being acted upon, to the detriment of one group over others.

Hey - I'm not saying I dont agree with you. I think men should pay more for car insurance, and I think the police should be allowed to target risk groups as they see fit. But no doubt the muslims wont agree, and 3k for a young man to insure an old car for a year is a joke when the girl next door paid 750 for hers.

I've changed my mind on this after a friend who works in risk management.

At first I thought, well, it's hard for women, but even harder for a responsible male driver to be told "you're bound to be irresponsible because you're a man".

But - actually insurance is about risk. Not weird assumptions, but what actually happens. Smokers die early, women live longer than men, young men are far more likely to have accidents. If you start telling insurance companies they can't assess risk based on the stats, how are they to do their job?

They are going to charge everyone the highest amount, LTJ.

I bet they are really happy, secretly.

In fact, I bet they organised all this

Well my friend's pissed off but it's her job to do the maths. If they're just going to say "oh, top whack for everyone", she may be the only person in insurance who loses out!

"If you start telling insurance companies they can't assess risk based on the stats, how are they to do their job?"

Well I think the issue is on what statistics they will be allowed to base their quotes on.
For example if a study were to come out that polish/black/irish people had more accidents than English people would it be acceptable to charge individuals more based on their race or nationality?

I have to agree with whoever it was that said that the insurance companies are going to be the only ones to benefit from this!

If those statistics were proven over as long a period of time as the male/female driving styles statistics, and it was proven that it was down to race and not gender, age, location etc etc , then you could argue that it was logical. Logical. Because you were looking at cold, hard risks. Facts. Numbers.

It would never happen because 1 - I very much doubt that race makes you drive in a particular way and 2 - nobody would undertake such a research and 3 - anyone who did, would be torn to shreads.

My husband is black. He is a 46 year old self employed father of 2. To say that he drives in the same way as a black 17 yr old lad, because they both black, is silly. Statistics would not prove that your ethnicity makes you more or less likely to drive a certain way.

No, but why would race be a factor in making someone more likely to have an accident?

Gender is a factor. Women's driving patterns tend to be different to men which is why they have fewer accidents, and those they do have tend to cost less.

Yes but there are parallels Bogeyface.

The fact is, you cant favour group B at the expense of group A because the distinction is clearly one based on sex. It doesnt matter that there are perfectly valid statistical arguments.

Equalities legislation has was put in place to ensure artificially imposed equality for everyone, irrespective of common sense or statistics. No way is the extra expense for men 'equal'.

My main point of contention is that I can't believe the European court of justice is inflicting this on us saying it's sexist when it's the European government that's imposing VAT on sanitary products, which in my view is essentially a tax on being a woman. Give me any example of ANY comparable product that men have to use that have VAT and I'll retract that view - but I bet no-one can.

Europe's more sexist than the insurance companies in my view. (You may or may not be able to tell that this is specific bug-bear of mine )

"No, but why would race be a factor in making someone more likely to have an accident?"

I'm not saying it is or that I could provide a reason if there was statistical evidence (could be anything, different cultures etc). What I'm asking is, if an insurance company conducted a study into it's insurance claims of the past 15 years or so and it turned out that there was a statistcal prevelance of a certain race or foreign nationality making higher insurance claims would this then justify them increasing the premiums of other individuals of that race or nationality?
After all they would be doing so based on statistical evidence and would have proof that statistically race X costs them more so they will charge race X more.

"If those statistics were proven over as long a period of time as the male/female driving styles statistics, and it was proven that it was down to race and not gender, age, location etc etc , then you could argue that it was logical. Logical. Because you were looking at cold, hard risks. Facts. Numbers.

It would never happen because 1 - I very much doubt that race makes you drive in a particular way and 2 - nobody would undertake such a research and 3 - anyone who did, would be torn to shreads."

Which was kind of my point. Nobody would conduct such a study (it would be PR suicide), but that even if the statistics were proven and a logical argument could be made, nobody would accept it because it would be viewed as outrageously discriminatory. Oh you're both black so you both drive in X manner.

BTW this isn't me suggesting that FN's or minorities drive in a different manner.

So when the equalities legislation is changed to include age then 50 yr old man will have to pay the same as a 17 yr old? Is that fair?

It does matter that there are statistical arguments because that is how they work premiums out ! ! !

How else would you have it? Individual interviews that would put the cost up even more? The % of the value of the car, again more expensive?

Sod the PC brigade, there is legislation out there to stop unfair practices that are just point blank unfair. Insurance is as fair as it can be. It's not black and white, it's a sliding scale. If it was fairer it would cost even more. And it's bloody expensive as it is, thank-you very much!

I'm not saying it's fair. I think it's pretty ridiculous, and it won't lead to a drop in mens insurance it will just raise womens to equal amounts. But if we are to have equality legislation it has to be across the board for it to have any integrity. Otherwise you will end up with the perception that it is equality for some but not for others.

"It does matter that there are statistical arguments because that is how they work premiums out ! ! !"

Of course, couldn't agree more. But the argument is what criteria is allowed to be subject to statistical examination. For much legislation it is deemed that you can't take in to account things which are inherent to the individual over which they have no control. So you can discriminate based on experience,educational qualifications, criminal history etc. but not race/gender/sexual orientation.

As others have pointed out if it is ok to differentiate based on gender based on statistical information in one situation then surely it should logically be ok to do so in all areas. Or else if it is wrong in one area it should be wrong in all areas.

[Looks are bruise from banging head against brick wall]

Fine ccp, compare apples and oranges if you like and in the process make no valid argument in anyway! I'm out :)

Me too. I'm too cross about the bloody PC nature this debate has taken too. I'm going to take it out on the ironing.

Basic principles of equality are enshrined in European legislation. This decision is not about cheap car insurance it about ensuring that the provisions of European Directives which have to be implemented into National law reflect the basic rights enshrined in the Treaties.

It is not possible to determine in each and every case whether these basic rights should be adhered to or not - they cease to be fundamental rights if you do that. They have to override everything for them to have any worth and validity.

Those of you complaining about cheap car insurance, do you think that it is fair that a woman pays more for a pension annuity than a man (and therefore will receive a lower pension for the same amount of money) because statistically women have a longer life expectancy?

Oh and those of you saying that it will make no difference to the cost of male insurance, this is not what the insurance industry are predicting. The figures I read suggested a 10% fall in the average cost of male insurance.

"do you think that it is fair that a woman pays more for a pension annuity than a man (and therefore will receive a lower pension for the same amount of money) because statistically women have a longer life expectancy?"

Yes- it's fair. We might not like it but it is fair because over the expected life span, they will receive the same amount of money based on their capital at retirement date.