MSE News: EU ruling could throw insurance pricing into chaos

Soapy955

Ever so slightly off topic but I inherited my Dad's van that he had used for his business.
When I tried to get it insured I was told by one company that they were very sorry but they don't insure housewives to drive vans. I was livid! I wasn't going to use it for business, just as a runaround for me and my daughter but for some reason I was a liability because I was a housewife??

Edited to add.... it was only a small Daihatsu HiJet so not a huge thing that was a menace on the road!

KevinG

Percy1983 wrote: »

You age as a direct relation to how long you have left to live.

You gender has no relation on your ability to drive.

No, your age is an indication of how long you are likely to live, not how long you will live, it's all about risk and there is no difference at all between that and different rates for male and female drivers, based on the relative risk.

Percy1983

My point is the older you get the closer to death you get... FACT.

Where as the younger you are the worse driver you are, yes there is a pattern that some young drivers are hazard but I wouldn't class it a strictly a fact.

mikey72

If you live long enough, your car insurance will increase again.

lisyloo

You gender has no relation on your ability to drive.

It's not about ability.
In general risk taking IS related to gender and that's inherent.
Note that I say in general as I do believe there is a lot of scope for individuals.
It's not possible for insurers to quote on an individual basis so people are grouped (by postcode and other factors as well as just gender).

Where as the younger you are the worse driver you are, yes there is a pattern that some young drivers are hazard

It is absolutely nothing to do with driving ability.
It's all about the COST OF CLAIMS.
Statistically men as a group have much more expensive claims. FACT.
That's nothing to do with being a good or bad driver.

If this becomes LAW then there is nothing that any of us can do about it, in the same way that there's nothing we can do about the current situation (apart from not having a car).

Percy1983

I am not arguing that as a group men cost more on car insurance, but right now in EVERY WOMEN will get a better quote than EVERY MAN yet not EVERY WOMEN costs the company less than EVERY MAN.

How hard is it to do it on an individual case, a simple formula based on how many years you have been driving and how mnay accidents you have had in that time gives a very clear indicator of you driving experience and ability as an individual does it not? with costs based on that bad male and female drivers will pay more while good male and female drivers pay less, to group into good and bad drivers to calculate car insurance is very fair as you control which group you are in (by how safely you drive), grouping my age or gender isn't fair as you can't change you age or gender (generally).

lisyloo

I am not arguing that as a group men cost more on car insurance, but right now in EVERY WOMEN will get a better quote than EVERY MAN yet not EVERY WOMEN costs the company less than EVERY MAN.

Agreed.
That's because they group people by certain criteria - gender being one of those criteria but certainly not the only one.

How hard is it to do it on an individual case, a simple formula based on how many years you have been driving and how mnay accidents you have had in that time gives a very clear indicator of you driving experience and ability as an individual does it not?

It's not hard at all, if that's the model they want to use.
It gives a clear indicator of your accident record in the past (for people with experience). It does not give a clear indicator of your risk which is what insurers want.
You could be low risk but have been unlucky in the past.
Similarly you could be a high risk but have been lucky in the past.

For an extreme example let's say you have just been diagnosed with uncontrolled epilepsy.
It might be that you've had not accidents but you are very high risk.

with costs based on that bad male and female drivers will pay more while good male and female drivers pay less

No, I don't agree.
Someone's accident record does not reflect their driving ability.
What would happen is lucky people who pay less and unlucky people would pay more (which happens at the moment to a degree).
Luck and risk are not the same thing.

to group into good and bad drivers to calculate car insurance is very fair as you control which group you are in (by how safely you drive)

It's nothing to do with how safely you drive.
If someone crashes into your parked car it doesn't make you a bad driver, it makes you unlucky.
The only way to test whether someone is safe is to sit someone beside them and assess them. That costs money.

grouping my age or gender isn't fair as you can't change you age or gender (generally).

So you think the prescence of the testosterone hormone has absolutely nothing to do with willingness to take risks??
There is LOADS of research and statistics showing that women are more risk adverse than men especially young men.

Note that I am not commenting on what I think is fair or unfair (as to be honest I have not made up my mind).
But I do disagree with some of your arguments.

Percy1983

Now I could argue Men generally have better spatial awarenes which can help massively with driving. Yet again you are descriminating (much like insurance companies) there are many men who keep there testosterone under control while driving, with than if I castrate myself would I then qualify for womens rates.

I did miss the point of when I mention accidents I did mean accidents to which you are to blame and people shouldn't be punished for 100% no blame accidents.

My point is rather than calculating risks based on many discriminatory factors base it on performance, so all a innocent until proven guilty.

lisyloo

Now I could argue Men generally have better spatial awarenes which can help massively with driving.

I totally agree with you 100% even though that's negative for women.
The fact is that the odd bumper and wing mirror are not expensive and we are interested in COST not number of accidents.

Yet again you are descriminating

Yes.
Discrimnation is good in lots of ways.
For example if you were interviewing someone for a job, you'd want the best candidate right? so you'd discriminate on merit?
Surely everyone would agree with that?

there are many men who keep there testosterone under control while driving

You are now preaching to the converted.
I'm a ROADAR tutor (ROSPA advanced drivers and riders) and almost all of my colleagues are men.

with than if I castrate myself would I then qualify for womens rates.

If you legally became a woman and had the relevant operations then I suspect that legally you'd be entitled to womens rates.
A "cut & tuck" is a big far to go for an insurance discount for most blokes though

My point is rather than calculating risks based on many discriminatory factors base it on performance, so all a innocent until proven guilty.

There are two problems with your proposal.

1) Past performance includes an element of luck and does not fully take account of the risk. Bad drivers can certainly be lucky. Also your risk could increase (example - you get epilepsy) and that is not reflected in your past perforamce. Insurers want to base it on future risk, not past perforamance. I agree there is a link, but past performance not a good enough basis on it's own.
2) It's doesn't work at all for drivers with no experience.

The other problem with it of course is that the insurance industry doesn't agree with you which is ....ahem.......a minor problem.

christinem

If insurers have to abandon rating on gender for young drivers they will have to do something else to discourage boy racers so my guess would be they will introduce new rating factors that are approximately gender specific - height or shoe size perhaps!!