Young women drivers facing a £1,000 rise in car insurance
14 February 2011, 12:25 AM
#62
Insurance is about calculating risks, whether we feel it's fair or not doesn't really matter, it has to be calculated somehow, at least initially.
Statistics show women are invloved in less accidents than men, therefore the 'risk' is lower, therefore insurance premiums are lower. It doesn't matter what opinion I or anyone else has on that, that is what the stats show, so it is factored into cost.
I agree with Bubba in that, NCB should factor in quickly to put both sexes on an even keel once the first year has passed.
Statistics show women are invloved in less accidents than men, therefore the 'risk' is lower, therefore insurance premiums are lower. It doesn't matter what opinion I or anyone else has on that, that is what the stats show, so it is factored into cost.
I agree with Bubba in that, NCB should factor in quickly to put both sexes on an even keel once the first year has passed.
14 February 2011, 12:45 AM
#63
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance is about calculating risks, whether we feel it's fair or not doesn't really matter, it has to be calculated somehow, at least initially.
Statistics show women are invloved in less accidents than men, therefore the 'risk' is lower, therefore insurance premiums are lower. It doesn't matter what opinion I or anyone else has on that, that is what the stats show, so it is factored into cost.
I agree with Bubba in that, NCB should factor in quickly to put both sexes on an even keel once the first year has passed.
Statistics show women are invloved in less accidents than men, therefore the 'risk' is lower, therefore insurance premiums are lower. It doesn't matter what opinion I or anyone else has on that, that is what the stats show, so it is factored into cost.
I agree with Bubba in that, NCB should factor in quickly to put both sexes on an even keel once the first year has passed.
14 February 2011, 01:29 AM
#67
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No you are appealing to emotion, saying that because people die and property is damaged, that someone should pay more just because of their sex/gender being statistically associated with said deaths and damage.
Back to the stop and search example?
Back to the stop and search example?
14 February 2011, 01:53 AM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting proposition (with which I don't agree), but for the sake of argument;
1. If the insurance companies didn't ask for gender information in an application then they wouldn't have the data on which to 'discriminate'.
2. Statistically, either White, Chinese, Black must be a worse accident risk than the other ethnic groups. I doubt that insurance companies would be able to use that information to set higher premiums for one race.
1. If the insurance companies didn't ask for gender information in an application then they wouldn't have the data on which to 'discriminate'.
2. Statistically, either White, Chinese, Black must be a worse accident risk than the other ethnic groups. I doubt that insurance companies would be able to use that information to set higher premiums for one race.
14 February 2011, 09:14 AM
#71
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of my stunt man example the occupation carries a great statistical chance of death than that of an accountant hence it is the differentiator.
In the case of young drivers sex is the differentiator. There is no agenda there, no prejudice... it is just statistical fact and a good way insurers can apply different percentages. Nothing more and nothing less and if anyone is appealing to emotion here it is you as my argument is just cold hard logic!
Just go back and read what I wrote, you will get it eventually!
Irrelevant to the conversation.
Last edited by f1_fan; 14 February 2011 at 10:43 AM.
14 February 2011, 10:29 AM
#72
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
![[-(o)-]'s Avatar](customavatars/avatar70911_1.gif){kind=avatar}
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Between a speed bump and a pot hole
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if ladies will find their insurance going up, will that mean mens goes down? Fat chance!
And if my other halfs insurance goes up, it comes from a shared pot so I'll be even worse off. Don't see how anyone will benefit from this besides the insurers. Thank you to the genius who brought this to court.
And if my other halfs insurance goes up, it comes from a shared pot so I'll be even worse off. Don't see how anyone will benefit from this besides the insurers. Thank you to the genius who brought this to court.
14 February 2011, 11:01 AM
#74
Scooby Regular
14 February 2011, 11:03 AM
#75
Scooby Regular
Until a man can get pregnant and give birth then it can't really be a valid comparison.
14 February 2011, 11:04 AM
#76
ScoobyWorx
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnsley SY
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOW I READ WAY TOO FAR INTO THINGS BUT CAN WE SEE INS COMPANIES INCREASING THE WOMANS RATE WHICH EARNS THEM MORE REVENUE SO IN TURN SHOULD REDUCE MENS COSTS TO EQUAL IT OUT.
If men were charged extra due to their gender surely now woman are paying more we should get a reduction.
Or is this a way for goverment to increase insurance revenues which in turn mean more tax paid by us and in fact its not a case of ruling what their doing is wrong just a way to get more money in.
They think we are stupid. i dont care how they explain it thats what it is. if 10 million was paid in insurance and now with the extra woman pay it goes upto 13 million (figures are not researched or correct just examples) then surely they should reduce mens premiums slightly to the same scale as womans has been increased. If thats not happening then I AM RIGHT lol.
If men were charged extra due to their gender surely now woman are paying more we should get a reduction.
Or is this a way for goverment to increase insurance revenues which in turn mean more tax paid by us and in fact its not a case of ruling what their doing is wrong just a way to get more money in.
They think we are stupid. i dont care how they explain it thats what it is. if 10 million was paid in insurance and now with the extra woman pay it goes upto 13 million (figures are not researched or correct just examples) then surely they should reduce mens premiums slightly to the same scale as womans has been increased. If thats not happening then I AM RIGHT lol.
Last edited by JAutos; 14 February 2011 at 11:07 AM.
14 February 2011, 11:18 AM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you think about it, if the insurers want to be fair as far as premiums are concerned, then the only real way is to be guided by the statistics.
It is a fact that young drivers are more likely to have an accident and the premiums reflect that. Whether that is slanted more towards eirher sex I dont know. I have seen agressive female drivers, more likley to be in a large 4X4, who can be very overbearing and pretty dangerous on the road, maybe they are trying to prove something! I have also seen young female drivers who drive very well and with thought for others too, and young males who feel they have to prove their manliness in a car by taking ridiculous risks and chopping others up as well as older males who can be just as selfish and unpleasant in a dangerous manner.
All people are different and it is only the statistics which will show general trends.
I agree that NCB should play a big part in the final calculation of a premium as well as the other factors.
Les
It is a fact that young drivers are more likely to have an accident and the premiums reflect that. Whether that is slanted more towards eirher sex I dont know. I have seen agressive female drivers, more likley to be in a large 4X4, who can be very overbearing and pretty dangerous on the road, maybe they are trying to prove something! I have also seen young female drivers who drive very well and with thought for others too, and young males who feel they have to prove their manliness in a car by taking ridiculous risks and chopping others up as well as older males who can be just as selfish and unpleasant in a dangerous manner.
All people are different and it is only the statistics which will show general trends.
I agree that NCB should play a big part in the final calculation of a premium as well as the other factors.
Les
14 February 2011, 11:23 AM
#78
ScoobyWorx
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnsley SY
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also just reading some comments and they seem very opinionated over facts lol, apparantly been young and male means i am a huge risk.
Now here is the problem, while many males who are young are a high risk agreed, I am NOT, this is proved by 10 years of claim free driving and NEVER having an accident. But im still looked at as high risk, also ive driven performance cars since day one. 5 subaru's 2 celica GT4's a BMW M3 amongst many other. Inc a chavvy nova 2.0 which i built myself,
Now all my cars are looked after 110% serviced and repaired more often than needed things replaced which are still servicable, the way i see it is keep on top of repairs they dont tend to break down. Touch wood over 10 years ive never had a serious breakdown so obviously my logic works, Also my cars are always garagedand do less than 3-4k a year. Now im struggling to see why i should be put in a stereo typical catagory with idiots who have no regard for safe driving who have had a number of accidents etc.
Now this sexist thing can be looked at 2 ways, i know of 2 woman young driver in there early 20's who have written of their own car along with a parked car. I MEAN COME ON A PARKED CAR. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HIT SUMTHING THAT ISNT MOVING AND IS PARKED UP. Yes there are good woman drivers (seriously did i just type that) but there are also good male ones and neither should be hit with high premiums till they do sumthing to warrant them.
Now here is the problem, while many males who are young are a high risk agreed, I am NOT, this is proved by 10 years of claim free driving and NEVER having an accident. But im still looked at as high risk, also ive driven performance cars since day one. 5 subaru's 2 celica GT4's a BMW M3 amongst many other. Inc a chavvy nova 2.0 which i built myself,
Now all my cars are looked after 110% serviced and repaired more often than needed things replaced which are still servicable, the way i see it is keep on top of repairs they dont tend to break down. Touch wood over 10 years ive never had a serious breakdown so obviously my logic works, Also my cars are always garagedand do less than 3-4k a year. Now im struggling to see why i should be put in a stereo typical catagory with idiots who have no regard for safe driving who have had a number of accidents etc.
Now this sexist thing can be looked at 2 ways, i know of 2 woman young driver in there early 20's who have written of their own car along with a parked car. I MEAN COME ON A PARKED CAR. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HIT SUMTHING THAT ISNT MOVING AND IS PARKED UP. Yes there are good woman drivers (seriously did i just type that) but there are also good male ones and neither should be hit with high premiums till they do sumthing to warrant them.
14 February 2011, 11:29 AM
#79
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are clearly not reading or understanding what I have written. I am saying that insurance companies play a percentages game, why wouldn't they.
In the case of my stunt man example the occupation carries a great statistical chance of death than that of an accountant hence it is the differentiator.
In the case of young drivers sex is the differentiator. There is no agenda there, no prejudice... it is just statistical fact and a good way insurers can apply different percentages. Nothing more and nothing less and if anyone is appealing to emotion here it is you as my argument is just cold hard logic!
Just go back and read what I wrote, you will get it eventually!
Irrelevant to the conversation.
In the case of my stunt man example the occupation carries a great statistical chance of death than that of an accountant hence it is the differentiator.
In the case of young drivers sex is the differentiator. There is no agenda there, no prejudice... it is just statistical fact and a good way insurers can apply different percentages. Nothing more and nothing less and if anyone is appealing to emotion here it is you as my argument is just cold hard logic!
Just go back and read what I wrote, you will get it eventually!
Irrelevant to the conversation.
Are you really this obtuse?
Prejudice does not need a political agenda to be prejudice?
Are all male drivers dangerous?
Are all Muslims terrorists?
14 February 2011, 11:39 AM
#80
ScoobyWorx
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnsley SY
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statistically im a liablitly you say, I SAY THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CRASHED OR CLAIMED ARE THE LIABILTY NOT ME. MY RECORD PROOVES THAT.
14 February 2011, 11:40 AM
#81
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway I asked you earlier what your solution was. So let's have it.
14 February 2011, 11:42 AM
#82
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think your missng the point, ur right in what you say but i think people are saying hit people with high premiums when there actions/claims warrant it. As it stands the woman and man who are equal and apply for same insuarnace on identical car identical area etc, woman geta a price way less than the man, which is not fair simple as that, the man hasnt been proved to be a liabilty and the insurance company are not in a position to say sumbody is a liablity with no proof in my opionion. when sumbody has a claim increase there premium simple but to increase the premium on the assumption they will claim is wrong, you dont see them offering a rebate at the end of the year for us liabilties that havnt claimed do you. Its all a con to make more money.
Statistically im a liablitly you say, I SAY THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CRASHED OR CLAIMED ARE THE LIABILTY NOT ME. MY RECORD PROOVES THAT.
Statistically im a liablitly you say, I SAY THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CRASHED OR CLAIMED ARE THE LIABILTY NOT ME. MY RECORD PROOVES THAT.
14 February 2011, 11:45 AM
#83
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what stance are you arguing on now? Is it sexism, occupationism or what? You can't even keep your arguments consistent. You don't seem to have an issue with a person being selectively charged more based on occupation yet you do on sex even though the reason they are selected like that is EXACTLY the same
Anyway I asked you earlier what your solution was. So let's have it.
Anyway I asked you earlier what your solution was. So let's have it.
As I said one cannot choose one's sex, but one can choose one's occupation or whatever. Not happy with the cost of stunt man insurance then become an accountant!
14 February 2011, 11:47 AM
#84
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also just reading some comments and they seem very opinionated over facts lol, apparantly been young and male means i am a huge risk.
Now here is the problem, while many males who are young are a high risk agreed, I am NOT, this is proved by 10 years of claim free driving and NEVER having an accident. But im still looked at as high risk, also ive driven performance cars since day one. 5 subaru's 2 celica GT4's a BMW M3 amongst many other. Inc a chavvy nova 2.0 which i built myself,
Now all my cars are looked after 110% serviced and repaired more often than needed things replaced which are still servicable, the way i see it is keep on top of repairs they dont tend to break down. Touch wood over 10 years ive never had a serious breakdown so obviously my logic works, Also my cars are always garagedand do less than 3-4k a year. Now im struggling to see why i should be put in a stereo typical catagory with idiots who have no regard for safe driving who have had a number of accidents etc.
Now this sexist thing can be looked at 2 ways, i know of 2 woman young driver in there early 20's who have written of their own car along with a parked car. I MEAN COME ON A PARKED CAR. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HIT SUMTHING THAT ISNT MOVING AND IS PARKED UP. Yes there are good woman drivers (seriously did i just type that) but there are also good male ones and neither should be hit with high premiums till they do sumthing to warrant them.
Now here is the problem, while many males who are young are a high risk agreed, I am NOT, this is proved by 10 years of claim free driving and NEVER having an accident. But im still looked at as high risk, also ive driven performance cars since day one. 5 subaru's 2 celica GT4's a BMW M3 amongst many other. Inc a chavvy nova 2.0 which i built myself,
Now all my cars are looked after 110% serviced and repaired more often than needed things replaced which are still servicable, the way i see it is keep on top of repairs they dont tend to break down. Touch wood over 10 years ive never had a serious breakdown so obviously my logic works, Also my cars are always garagedand do less than 3-4k a year. Now im struggling to see why i should be put in a stereo typical catagory with idiots who have no regard for safe driving who have had a number of accidents etc.
Now this sexist thing can be looked at 2 ways, i know of 2 woman young driver in there early 20's who have written of their own car along with a parked car. I MEAN COME ON A PARKED CAR. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HIT SUMTHING THAT ISNT MOVING AND IS PARKED UP. Yes there are good woman drivers (seriously did i just type that) but there are also good male ones and neither should be hit with high premiums till they do sumthing to warrant them.
Loopholes aside it has to be a better system than what we have now.
14 February 2011, 11:53 AM
#85
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been totally consistent with my arguments, it was you who brought up occupation which is 100% irrelevant when it come to car insurance because because one is buying insurance as a Driver irregardless of sex.
As I said one cannot choose one's sex, but one can choose one's occupation or whatever. Not happy with the cost of stunt man insurance then become an accountant!
As I said one cannot choose one's sex, but one can choose one's occupation or whatever. Not happy with the cost of stunt man insurance then become an accountant!
Oh and for the record occupation is not irrelevant when it comes to car insurance and does have a bearing on your premium especially if you want business use cover. And so it should.
Seeing as you think you are a model of consistency and I don't we will have to agree to disagree, but you still haven't told me what your solution is.
I assume you are therefore happy in the interests of political correctness (the irony of which is not lost on me here) that everyone pays top whack premium until they have driven for a few years and can be assessed yes?
Great idea, as I said only in the terninally un-PC world of SN NSR could a rise in insurance caused by political correctness be celebrated just to make an interesting thread
14 February 2011, 11:55 AM
#86
ScoobyWorx
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnsley SY
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is a good debate lol, Yes quite frankly its about time woman paid the same as men even if it means my partner paying more. Im all for equality. WOman play the sexist card all to often when it suits them but are quite happy when it means cheaper insurance apparantly its ok to be sexist,
14 February 2011, 11:58 AM
#87
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is a good debate lol, Yes quite frankly its about time woman paid the same as men even if it means my partner paying more. Im all for equality. WOman play the sexist card all to often when it suits them but are quite happy when it means cheaper insurance apparantly its ok to be sexist,
14 February 2011, 12:34 PM
#90
ScoobyWorx
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnsley SY
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that's just it, it's not sexism, it's statistical analysis and playing the percentages. If the insurance comopanies found that all people with blue eyes had more accidents than those with bornw or green eyes then if you had blue eye you would pay more. It is just a way of separating one group from another. As I said before it would only be sexist if the statistics didn't back up their actions.
Why should young safe male drivers have to pay high premiums because some others are unsafe. I have proved over a 10 year period i am about the lowest risk you could insure, do my premiums reflect that.
I THINK NOT