Should Insurance Be Sexless - Martin's Blog & Site Vote

Jenks100

I can personally understand the issue that women will have IF the statistics do prove that women are safer drivers than men but what i DO have an issue with is the fact that safe male drivers are penalised for the actions of a minority! I have recently turned 26 and my insurance has just gone up by 15%!

I have 8 yrs no claims bonus, and if the insurance companies say they reduce the premiums for experienced drivers i would like to see the proof - for the past 7 yrs i have covered between 35-45k miles a yr (which equates to nearly 300,000 miles!! This is the equivalent of 30 yrs driving at the avg annual millage!!

gazwalton

this discrimination has been going on too long, can you imagine if insurance was cheaper for white people because they had less accidents than black people or thin people rather than obese people? this is what no claims bonus's are for,

SueC_2

Jenks100 wrote: »

I have 8 yrs no claims bonus, and if the insurance companies say they reduce the premiums for experienced drivers i would like to see the proof - for the past 7 yrs i have covered between 35-45k miles a yr (which equates to nearly 300,000 miles!! This is the equivalent of 30 yrs driving at the avg annual millage!!

Aaah, but if you're on the road for 45,000 miles per year it could be claimed that you are four and a half times more likely to have an accident than if you're only there for 10,000 miles, purely and simply by virtue of the amount of time you're spending there!

It seems that, whichever way you cut it, motor insurance is not 'fair'. That doesn't mean however that it is also discriminatory!

ExperiMentor

Let's get the words right!

Discrimination, where there is a different cost based on a provable difference in risk, is OK, indeed desirable.

Prejudice or bias, such as 'all boys' or 'all old women' or 'all immigrants' are high risk, unless it is provable, are not.

The more factors that are taken into account in individualising premiums, the fairer the overall outcome to EVERYONE. The legitimate complaints above are where account has not been taken of a demonstrable factor.

[Martin - thius is close to what you said, but 'biology' vs 'behaviour' is not the right way to make the divide.]

Jenks100

SueC wrote: »

Aaah, but if you're on the road for 45,000 miles per year it could be claimed that you are four and a half times more likely to have an accident than if you're only there for 10,000 miles, purely and simply by virtue of the amount of time you're spending there!

It seems that, whichever way you cut it, motor insurance is not 'fair'. That doesn't mean however that it is also discriminatory!

Yeah i get that comment a lot Sue but surely that's the point of a no claims bonus?? if i can prove i can drive that many miles without an accident then how can my premium increase??

Grrr... I hate insurance but they have you by the small and curly's because you have to pay it!!

popadom

what i dont understand is how they can still discriminate against age? But i suppose they get away with saying "the price we give a 18 year old is the right price,what we give a 40 year old is "discounted" "

pineapple

Political correctness gone mad. All car insurance is 'discriminatory' to some extent. Your postcode, your age, your profession etc all count. It's based on statistical risk. Might as well throw out all the 'risk' factors then.

SueC_2

Jenks100 wrote: »

Yeah i get that comment a lot Sue but surely that's the point of a no claims bonus?? if i can prove i can drive that many miles without an accident then how can my premium increase??

Grrr... I hate insurance but they have you by the small and curly's because you have to pay it!!

Presumably for a combination of reasons:

- Inflation,
- Because it's not based on you, it's based on everyone who's insured,
- The insurance companies need to make a profit.

My circumstances have remained identical for the last three years (other than my car being older each year, therefore worth less and cheaper to replace if written off), my premium has still risen year on year. And that's before I get clobbered by whatever increase is going to be generated by yesterday's ruling.

But then, very few things haven't risen in price over the last three years, so why should insurance be any different?

I'm not defending insurance costs, I hate them as much as the next person, but they are a necessary evil and, as far as I can see, removing risk factors that can be taken into account when calculating premiums can only serve to make them less 'fair'.

DCodd

Slightly off topic but can someone post a link to the official statistics that show young men are more likely to have an accident as I have been searching for them but with no avail.

THANKS.

SueC_2

DCodd wrote: »

Slightly off topic but can someone post a link to the official statistics that show young men are more likely to have an accident as I have been searching for them but with no avail.

THANKS.

I very much doubt that these are figures that are publicly available.

I imagine they relate to the insurers' own records of claims made, as opposed to some kind of official government study.