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

moggylover

tbourner wrote: »

In general yes, all correct, but what I don't get is why they blanket that 'average' coloured tar over the entire population of each sex with a huge brush? I'm a male but I'm cautious and aware when driving, I got good pass results, did pass-plus, no points on my licence, no accidents etc. Surely that is all more important than what sex I am? They ask enough questions when applying for insurance why don't they USE some of the answers. I think they need to modifiy the weightings applied to each factor.

Then perhaps they need to use a "starting point" of higher insurance premiums for young men in general, but then reduce them for those that can show the best pass results and that go on to do pass-plus or advanced driving courses, and a bigger NCB amount for the claim free years at the start.

Initially though, the vast majority of young male drivers are still going to be far higher risk, and I say that with the trepidation of a mum who has sons fast approaching the time when they are going to want their first cars:eek:. I suspect my two will be quite careful with them, because they won't get them unless they buy them themselves, and insure them themselves (and NOT on my policy) just as I had to do myself many moons ago. They won't be getting to drive my car either.

Possibly the best practice though would be for the sensible, patient and careful young men (and women) to give their less intelligent mates a really hard time for being a pl0nker every time they get behind the wheel because only when it becomes "uncool" to drive like you are on a race track will we solve the problem of young men killing themselves, their friends and others because they "believe" they are a great driver:( (it might also curb the middle-aged boy racers having a mid-life crisis as well:D)

Personally I totally object to my premiums having to be more expensive to cover the costs of any hoodlum drivers, and I have long since been of the opinion that they should only be able to get 3rd party, fire and theft insurance (because no way should the rest of us be paying in any way for their replacement vehicles) and that they should not, at ANY cost, be allowed insurance on any sort of vehicle that comes into the GT or Sport or whatever bracket for at least 5 accident free years.

Having said that, I can take you to a number of houses around here where the grey haired, middle-aged boy wonder is also an accident waiting to happen:D

moggylover

ringo_24601 wrote: »

The insurance industry is just going to have to find more accurate measures of risk, per person. It is discriminatory to decide that I, as a male, will drive with less skill or with more recklessness than someone of similar occupation/age/location of the opposite sex.

It's quite simple to do this.. AND would be great for road safety. Put far more emphasis on the number of points you have on your license, any advance training you've done and your number of claims

But, in truth, the insurance company doesn't decide that: the statistics do:D

The statistics don't say that you ARE a worse driver, just that you are statistically more likely to be and since offering "insurance" is sort of like gambling on someone you have to assess those sort of things in order to decide whether to offer that insurance or not, imo:)

moggylover

tbourner wrote: »

She won't be part of insurance databases, but she'll be on DVLA records as holding a driving licence and not having any accidents, and that's where I assume insurance regulators get their facts and figures from. Maybe I'm wrong though.


It's not though. Try it! Get some quotes and change the things you think will affect the premium. I bet none of them change it as much as changing sex or age!! Going from fully comp to 3rd party usually puts the quote UP!! It's insane.



If I had 100 men who fit the above description, and 100 random girls who've been driving for 3 years - I'd much rather take the chance on the 100 blokes, regardless of whether 1 or 2 go and have a nasty accident the next day, it's a much lower risk than the 100 girls with no history!

I think you will find it is based on shared information between insurance companies regarding numbers of each gender insured, and numbers of accidents per group (age, gender, etc.) and the average costs of those claims:)

They would really only be assessing this on those WITH insurance, not including all those that hold a licence but never drive.

tbourner

moggylover wrote: »

Possibly the best practice though would be for the sensible, patient and careful young men (and women) to give their less intelligent mates a really hard time for being a pl0nker every time they get behind the wheel because only when it becomes "uncool" to drive like you are on a race track will we solve the problem of young men killing themselves, their friends and others because they "believe" they are a great driver

Unfortunately they group together, so the plonkers have plonker mates who think it's really funny and cool to drive like a twonk. None of my mates drove like that and neither did (do?) I, and I'm sure I would have protested had they driven like a loon when I was in the car.

stevemcol

capondoug wrote: »

Not only should insurance be sexless, it should be entirely based on the risk of the individual. Until an individual has had a claim he/she is no risk.

Incorrect. Until an individual has made a claim, particularly a younger person, the individual risk has not been demonstrated. The first accident could kill a pedestrian and 3 passengers. That has happened.

capondoug wrote: »

Only once there has been a claim is there a valid reason for the premium to rise and rise again with each additional claim.

Stable door and bolted horses

capondoug wrote: »

It should be illegal to stereotype individuals whether it be by race, age, sex, religion or any other grouping.
Surely we have human rights to be treated as individuals?

Disagree. If a group in society demonstrates a higher risk, why should insurance companies accept that risk for the same cost?

It is not possible to screen individuals, there are too many variables. However, as an individual's experience grows and safety is demonstrated over a long period of time, the gap in policy prices tends to narrow. Men still have a higher chance, statistically, of being in an accident and the accident stands a higher chance of being serious. These are facts.

Googlewhacker

Loanranger wrote: »

No chip on your shoulder though?

Nope, it works both ways, mens only clubs should be banned as well as women only gyms etc

Equal means the same, not biased towards one gender over another!

maryb

Interesting that Martin says he feels discrimination based on biology should be OK but not behaviour. I would say it is the other way round - and that is why we do not allow discrimination on the basis of something you can do nothing about, like race. Behaviour on the other hand is within the control of the individual biology notwithstanding. The difficulty here is that biology and behaviour intersect. However, we don't accept the argument that young men are ruled by their hormones when it comes to crime, why should we for driving?

Those men who drive safely and feel they are being penalised should bear in mind that if it weren't for their self control bringing down the average risk, it would be even more expensive than it is.

And a lot of the worst drivers drive uninsured because they can buy an old banger for £200. If they are caught driving uninsured the car is scrapped - big deal, they buy another, it's cheaper than insurance. Imagine how much the average premium would go up by if they did buy insurance

DCodd

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Nope, it works both ways, mens only clubs should be banned as well as women only gyms etc

Equal means the same, not biased towards one gender over another!

The above are choices and you have the choice to go to mixed sex establishments whereas there is no choice to avoid the discrimination within the insurance industry and make no mistake it is discrimination. A section of society is treated differently to another section of society, solely based on gender.

The comparision with employment is very valid here. Statistically the financial risk to an employer for employing a Mother or a Woman of child bearing age is far greater than employing a Male of a similar age.

This ruling reinforces the concept of equal rights but with a potential negative impact, such is life. You have to accept the rough with the smooth when it comes to fighting discrimination in any form unless you are prepared for everyone to turn a blind eye when discrimination is benefical to them, personally.

silvasava

I really think this could be the thin end of the wedge. If Insurance companies can no longer use the statistics for gender then in future they will not be able to use age either. This will have a knock on effect in other areas of insurance too. I was always under the impression that Insurance companies insured risk - the higher the risk the higher the premium if you take out age & gender on car premiums there's not much else!

andysuth

Whilst its nonsense that women are the same risk as men, it's nonsense that men are 4x-5x the risk of women.

I've been hit by a car 3 times, each time not my fault: ALWAYS women drivers, usually at junctions.

The answer isn't to equalise the payments, it's to close th gap and make other factors more important.

It's also nonsense that men shouldn't have higher rates of annuity on pensions.

I've never made a claim on my own insurance, and have taught my wife to drive.

When I went for car insurance, I had 12 clean years of driving and was 30, my wife had recently passed her test and was 31.

I was absolutely shocked when the insurance company wanted £1,200 for just me on the car insurance, but £500 when I had my wife as a named driver.

This basically means a man, 30 years old and 12 clean years of driving experience is considered a higher risk than a woman who is 31 and been driving for 2 months.

What kind of a messed up world do these insurance people live in?

I'd suggest Britain pulls out of the European Human Rights Act, and starts to make up our own rules.

Failing that, let's get them to look at the geographical bias put on car insurance next. Liverpool Insurance: £800, Bath Insurance:£250.

I can hear the sneers already, but like for like policies and the only place my car has ever been damaged is BATH.

-AS