MSE News: Insurance costs to soar as gender discrimination banned

adamc260

Ihatecameron wrote: »

Exactly, we will all end up paying more for insurance. The insurance companies will not reduce costs for men to cover the extra vast profits they will make from women to strike a balance. And people on here will continue to berate me for saying insurance companies are a rip off.

Anything that is a legal requirement should not be run by private companies only interested in making vast profits for individuals belonging to the funny handshake brigade.

To be honest, I'm 22 and only pay £550 a year with protected NCB on a Toyota Auris (Focus sized car)

I'm not really going to complain, of course I'd like it cheaper but thats pretty decent imo

ROY47

1. Limit new drivers to 1000cc or lower cars (as they do with motorbikes , I think they are limited to 250cc? )
o.k. this will not stop accidents but will stop rich daddys / mammys buying their sons / daughters turbocharged death wagons

2. New drivers must do normal driving test and advanced motoring test

3. New drivers have gps / trackers and speed limiters fitted

4. All vehicles when insured must be inspected for modifications etc. , this should stop boy / girl racers adding allsorts to improve power etc. ans saying naff all to insurance

5. All vehicles to have some sort of disply on windscreen similar to tax disc showing they have insurance

6. Stop the where there's a blame there's a claim system and their rediculous £££££££££££££££££ claims

7. Penalise the one's who cause an accident not the one's who were innocent parties ( if your rear ended penalise the one who hit you Not penalise the one hit as insurance do now)

8. Stop the rediculous expensive replacement car system where you can insist on like for like vehicle, a courtesy car will do costing £100 a week compared to £000's for a like for like


Wishful thinking all of the above ???????????????????

ashleypride

ROY47 wrote: »

4. All vehicles when insured must be inspected for modifications etc. , this should stop boy / girl racers adding allsorts to improve power etc. ans saying naff all to insurance

Most of the carp boy racers add slow them down

ROY47 wrote: »

7. Penalise the one's who cause an accident not the one's who were innocent parties ( if your rear ended penalise the one who hit you Not penalise the one hit as insurance do now)

Unforunately, stats wise, if you have been in an accident even if not your fault, the likelyhood of you being in another one is greatly increasd.
There's also the argument that good defensive driving reduces the risk of accidents even when not your fault.

ROY47 wrote: »

8. Stop the rediculous expensive replacement car system where you can insist on like for like vehicle, a courtesy car will do costing £100 a week compared to £000's for a like for like

Yes, this is the massive problem. People, presumely think they have a right for like for like, they don't.
One of my friends, accidently hit a parked bike (minor body work damage £500 at most). The guy spoke to his legal team and arranged a hire bike for him - at the cost of £16,000 for 6 weeks. Now they need to go to court to sort it out.

mikey72

ashleypride wrote: »

Unforunately, stats wise, if you have been in an accident even if not your fault, the likelyhood of you being in another one is greatly increasd.

I know this stat has become very well known recently, and being cynical, it seems to co-incide with insurers now charging a higher premium for no fault claims.
Apart from hearsay, do you have any actual reference for this statistic?

ROY47

mikey72 wrote: »

I know this stat has become very well known recently, and being cynial, it seems to co-incide with insurers now charging a higher premium for no fault claims.
Apart from hearsay, do you have any actual reference for this statistic?

I wonder how long the stats reckon if you've had 1 accident too you having another??

I had a bump 12 yrs ago ,not my fault I was stationary ,wonder when my next one is

Probably tomorrow after saying that :cool:

Percy1983

Surely if I was hit by a car tommorrow the odds are then lower for me to be hit again, lightening striking twice and all that.

wozearly

mikey72 wrote: »

I know this stat has become very well known recently, and being cynical, it seems to co-incide with insurers now charging a higher premium for no fault claims.
Apart from hearsay, do you have any actual reference for this statistic?

If a number of insurers are doing it, then its pretty much a dead cert to be reasonably well-evidenced in claims statistics.

Otherwise the first insurer(s) to take the plunge and try to magic up extra premiums with an irrelevant pricing factor would see those customers move to competitors who weren't doing it, losing not just the extra money but that customer's entire premium as well.

wozearly

Percy1983 wrote: »

Surely if I was hit by a car tommorrow the odds are then lower for me to be hit again, lightening striking twice and all that.

That depends. If the reason you were hit by a car is because you regularly walk out into oncoming traffic without looking to see if its safe then it would be a pretty good indicator that you're more likely to be hit by a car again in the future.

wozearly

Ihatecameron wrote: »

Exactly, we will all end up paying more for insurance. The insurance companies will not reduce costs for men to cover the extra vast profits they will make from women to strike a balance. And people on here will continue to berate me for saying insurance companies are a rip off.

Anything that is a legal requirement should not be run by private companies only interested in making vast profits for individuals belonging to the funny handshake brigade.

I doubt you're willing to accept that you might be wrong, but motor insurers aren't necessarily the vastly profitable organisations that you claim;

"Motor insurers, hit by soaring claims due to the growing influence of "no win, no fee" lawyers, are set for a collective loss of 1 billion pounds this year (2010), after a record 1.6 billion deficit in 2009"

Source: Deloitte (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/11/02/uk-insurance-cars-britain-idUKTRE6A100E20101102)


Most industries that managed to lose £2.6bn over 2 years wouldn't describe themselves as profitable. Putting this into perspective, this is about the same amount that it costs the NHS to provide maternity services - its not exactly small change!

mikey72

wozearly wrote: »

If a number of insurers are doing it, then its pretty much a dead cert to be reasonably well-evidenced in claims statistics.

Otherwise the first insurer(s) to take the plunge and try to magic up extra premiums with an irrelevant pricing factor would see those customers move to competitors who weren't doing it, losing not just the extra money but that customer's entire premium as well.

"It must be true because they all do it"

Ah well, I wonder what else will appear.
Probably the lastest stat will be woman are more likely to have an accident then men, so all insurances must rise.
If they all do it, it'll be true.