MSE News: EU ruling could throw insurance pricing into chaos

mikey72

dacouch wrote: »

The majority are more likely to simply stop offering cover to young drivers of any sex, leaving a smaller market offering cover for young drivers and the market forces of supply and demand would push the prices up

That will just mean more drive un-insured, so we'll be paying then.

JimmyTheWig

It means it will make it more worthwhile for women drivers to self-insure (above the legal minimum) which will push average prices up. (Making it even more worthwhile for women to self-insure, etc.)

I'm guessing that we'll see more ads (and companies, maybe) aimed at women as they'll be more profitable.


But given that most people (?) are in a male/female couple it doesn't actually matter, does it?

de1amo

has anyone heard about the meteror that is due to hit in 25 years time--i will be 73 so can i have my pension assesed on what is more probable than projected lifespans that pension companies use now--all the recent deathsin my aging relatives have been due to catching superbugs in nhss hospitals-i am sure life expentancy has peaked and will continue to go down! i am a joyous chap

stphnstevey

Martin suggest women cancelling and renewing their insurance now, but how do you know that cost is not going to be more than what it goes up by?

Percy1983

As it is my insurance is due for renewal on the 18th of March and they usually hold quotes for 30 days so I will get quotes before and after and see if it changes, as a bloke the deduction of penis premium tax can only reduce my premium... surely...

JaspaC

I was so happy when I read the email!

This has been one of my pet hates for years. Ever since I started driving I've had to pay £1-2k premiums (Iv'e never had any claims) on the worst and most basic cars I could possibly find. and yet women of my age (20) can drive a reasonably modern, bigger car for nearly half of that! How is that fair?

I don't see myself as a bad driver.


And all because they are allowed to discriminate for profit! It's disgusting.
"statistically" men are more likely to crash than woman, so what? that doesn't mean all men are, or even that a vast majority are. This is discrimination against the drivers who aren't really likely to be involved in a crash.

I'm sure "statistically" that men are much more suitable for some manual labour (and other) jobs but it's illegal to use this as a factor for employment, so why are insurers allowed to do it?

Likewise I think the age discrimination is unfair too. Perhaps driving experience should have an affect, but not age independently! and more specifically 'blanket age brackets'. Sure it will even out over the course of your life but this doesn't make it fair.

I only have insurance as a legal requirement anyway. My £1600 premium is third party f&t only!

I imagine insurers will want to be competitive to women who will be reluctant to renew at the higher rates (especially given that they are a 'lower risk') and hence would have to lower men's slightly in the process.

Are there any significant statistics out there for accident/race(black white etc..) relations that could be used to further split down drivers into different risk categories? If there are then presumably all you up there supporting gender discrimination would have no problems with implementing this too would you!?!?



J

Martin Lewis, MoneySavingExpert.com creator, says: "A ban would be an idiotic ruling, that takes gender protection too far.

I think this is the first time that I completely passionately disagree with you here martin. unless you are only referring to life insurance. But otherwise, you must be suggesting that all other gender equality regulations are acceptable but this isn't?!?! why would you say that?

KevinG

JaspaC wrote: »

I think this is the first time that I completely passionately disagree with you here martin. unless you are only referring to life insurance. But otherwise, you must be suggesting that all other gender equality regulations are acceptable but this isn't?!?! why would you say that?

I still don't understand why gender discrimination is OK for life assurance but not car insurance. In each case it is all about statistics and risk, for a typical person of that gender, not a specific individual. What's the difference?

lisyloo

What's the difference?

You can NOT change genetic factors which influence your longevity (although you can change lifestyle factors).

You CAN allow gender factos not to influence your driving.

So if you are a man you won't live as long and there is NOWT you can do about that. But as a man you can drive safely.

KevinG

lisyloo wrote: »

But as a man you can drive safely.

But, statistically speaking, the insurer doesn't know that until you have proved it by doing so!

JaspaC

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaspaC
I think this is the first time that I completely passionately disagree with you here martin. unless you are only referring to life insurance. But otherwise, you must be suggesting that all other gender equality regulations are acceptable but this isn't?!?! why would you say that?
I still don't understand why gender discrimination is OK for life assurance but not car insurance. In each case it is all about statistics and risk, for a typical person of that gender, not a specific individual. What's the difference?

I didn't really mean one is more acceptable than the other, I just meant I don't passionatly care about life insurerae as I do for car insurance. Mostly because I don't have life insurance, or arguably a life to insure

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisyloo
But as a man you can drive safely.
But, statistically speaking, the insurer doesn't know that until you have proved it by doing so!

I think the whole point is that it's not fair to rely on statistics for gender discrimination.
An insurer doesn't know that a female driver can drive safely until she's proven it by doing so! and yet ALL of them are offered the cheaper rate right from the start. That isn't fair.
Besides you don't really prove that you drive safely by not claiming, just that you are very lucky or haven't claimed when you should have.
Incidentally it's a terrifying thought to think that you could have been driving carefully for nearly 4 years only to then be involved in a minor accident and then have to start all over again with your no claims bonus, meaning these 4 really high premiums count for nothing. It's a totally unfair system, which benefits those already at the top and not those progressing!

Insurance must be the only industry in which these kinds of discrimination are not only allowed but encouraged!

Once the ruling goes through, does anyone think there will be any kind of 'back-cases' for claims of illegally discriminating against male drivers in the past?


Presumably this will combat any future rises that were recently anticipated (for males at least).?


J