MSE News: Insurance costs to soar as gender discrimination banned

ashleypride

Ihatecameron wrote: »

Like who for eg, name one insurance company that has been driven out of the market for over charging.

The simple fact is, insurance compaines today make FAR less money than they used to. You are paying more today simply because the cost of settling claims has rocketed.

pinkteapot

Ihatecameron wrote: »

I dare say they have a minimum charge, if you live in what they class as a rough area, even though you have never claimed. You will pay big time.

Yes, because by living in a rough area there is a chance you will claim in the future!

Geordie_bear

pinkteapot wrote: »

No, it doesn't. It says that statistically a young male driver is more likely to have a crash than a young female driver. There is a difference.

Yes but in the same time period a male driver may have 3 accidents whilst doing say 100k & the female has 2 whilst doing 40k! That's my point the system of simply recording accidents rather then how frequent isn't fair!

Mallotum_X

plumber2009 wrote: »

About Time this happened.

A women driver has statisticly the same chance of being involved in an accident as a man does.

Equal rights have to work both ways.

Are you a bit hard of thinking?

Statistically women drivers cost the insurance companies less money (either though less accidents or less costly ones)

Hence why the insurance co's gave women lower insurance....

lisyloo

Men drive a lot more miles then women so instead of having stats for accidents of both men and women it would be interesting if the insurance companies changed this to a more fairer system of 'accidents per miles' driven.

Mileage is a factor on insurance.
Also it's the COST of accidents that's important not the number.
Women can have dozens of wing mirror incidents in supermarkets but it pails into comparison with one man driving onto a train track and costing circa £50M.
Insurers are focussed on the COST and the accidents men (as a group) tend to have tend to be of the more expensive variety than women have. This is of course over a large group and individual behaviour can vary greatly.

pinkteapot

"The rising cost of repairing cars has also added to the rise in premiums as insurers battle to offset the huge underwriting losses they have been making in the last couple of years. Estimates suggest that for every £1 taken in premiums, £1.22 is being paid out in claims."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/19/fastest-car-insurance-cost-rise

Mallotum_X

plumber2009 wrote: »

So if a driver (man or woman) decides to crash into me, how would the driver know wether i was a man or a woman.

An accident can happen to anyone at any time. I dont give a toss what the insurance comanies say. I see it all for myself on the roads everyday. Also young women drivers today are worse than men.

Tougher penalties for using mobile phones and women messing around with makeup while driving should be introduced as these are the main causes of accidents and not gender.

If they crashed into you then their insurance company would have to pay out....

Are you a troll or just thick?

Ihatecameron

ashleypride wrote: »

The simple fact is, insurance compaines today make FAR less money than they used to. You are paying more today simply because the cost of settling claims has rocketed.

That is probably true but not for the reason you state, it is because just about every money grabbing company in the country, like Tesco for eg, is jumping on the insurance bandwagon.

More competition means less profit for the rest, so they have to charge more with a smaller customer base.

Percy1983

pinkteapot wrote: »

No, it doesn't. It says that statistically a young male driver is more likely to have a crash than a young female driver. There is a difference.

But ALL males pay more than ALL females in like for like positions.

I won't argue with postcodes as much as the area can have a direct effect on the possibility of theft etc, with that areas with higher crime rates are cheaper to buy houses in so the sums figure out overall.

With that I did find a odd thing, as it is my postcode does me no favours so I looked into getting a tracker fitted and figured as I plan to keep the car a while the cost might actually be saved on premiums over the years... my premium went up if I had a tracker fitted!

cogito

Underwriter wrote: »

:T

OMG I give up.

Troll.

And so you should.

This is what you said on another thread:

Certainly Kokott said in her original opinion document that no one should remain disadvantaged by being forced to pay higher premiums than they had to - but I don't think the silly woman realised that her argument was going to result in everyone's premiums going up.

Who is the troll?