MSE News: Insurance costs to soar as gender discrimination banned

mikey72

wozearly wrote: »

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!

Good turnround from the forecasts made in 2008 then.

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2008/03/13/car-insurance-companies-set-to-make-a-profit-as-premiums-outstrip-claims/

or good selective spin.

Trunk_z

ROY47 wrote: »

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

With motorbikes (at least when I did the test 2ish years ago) it is based on engine output (not size) and age. I had just hit 21, so could ride any size bike every produced. Under 21 (or before 2 years experience) then you are limited to some BHP, or torque - I forget which.

Regarding engine size for cars - my first car had a 2.5litre engine!
It was a 1984 Land Rover and barely moved - it's 0-60 time was dependant on going down hill with a strong wind at your back! You'd be surprised at what they can squeeze out of these small capacity engines nowadays.

wozearly

mikey72 wrote: »

Good turnround from the forecasts made in 2008 then.

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2008/03/13/car-insurance-companies-set-to-make-a-profit-as-premiums-outstrip-claims/

or good selective spin.

Fair point...I don't personally have any way to know whether Deloitte's report is accurate or laden with spin from the insurance industry.

In terms of the turnaround, the financial crisis probably put paid to Datamonitor's 2008 prediction. Insurers make a fair chunk of money through investing the premiums they take in, so as interest rates and investment returns fell through the floor that would have hurt them in the wallet.

Sadly, hiking premiums to cover the gap must be a fairly tempting solution.

...hmm. Getting a wee bit off topic here. :cool:

ashleypride

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.

I learnt this years and years ago, the accident rate increased 50% for 3 years after the initial accident. (This is lumping both fault/no-fault together though)

mikey72 wrote: »

Apart from hearsay, do you have any actual reference for this statistic?

Police drivers handbook, who analysed national stats.

smk77

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.

Are you serious? Just in case you are and that wasn't a joke.....

The only reason the odds may be lower is that there is a chance that the car may have killed you! i.e. there is a chance that you would never be hit again as you'd be surrounded by 6ft of soil!!!

Mobility151990

All i have to say is THANKYOU EU COURTS. N MSE l am ashamed of you for taking such a daily mail stance of reporting this article. You immediately spell the gloom for one sex yet forget the advantage for the other. I think the court is wrapping people over the knuckles for doing that very thing, you better learn quick before you get told off for such things in future.

About time men get cheaper insurance, why should we get hit for higher premiums just for being a man. I am safer than many male drivers yet i get tarred with the same brush. As some women may be more unsafe than other women. Judge not one group differently if not equal to the rest. Time to sit back and wait for my premiums to drop

Percy1983

smk77 wrote: »

Are you serious? Just in case you are and that wasn't a joke.....

The only reason the odds may be lower is that there is a chance that the car may have killed you! i.e. there is a chance that you would never be hit again as you'd be surrounded by 6ft of soil!!!

Strictly speaking if the odds of being hit where 1 in 10 the odds on being hit twice would be 1 in 100, so the person who hasn't been hit is on 1 in 10 odds while somebody who has is now on 1 in 100...

mikey72

ashleypride wrote: »

I learnt this years and years ago, the accident rate increased 50% for 3 years after the initial accident.

Police drivers handbook.

So to recap then.

It's a statistic from years ago, known only to police drivers, yet in recent years insurance companies have started charging for no fault claims, as now the driver is more likely to have another accident?
Did they buy a copy of the book?

mikey72

ashleypride wrote: »

I learnt this years and years ago, the accident rate increased 50% for 3 years after the initial accident. (This is lumping both fault/no-fault together though)



Police drivers handbook, who analysed national stats.

I see you have amended it, so it's not even a relevant statistic to loading for no fault claims anymore.

wozearly

Percy1983 wrote: »

Strictly speaking if the odds of being hit where 1 in 10 the odds on being hit twice would be 1 in 100, so the person who hasn't been hit is on 1 in 10 odds while somebody who has is now on 1 in 100...

That only holds true if each individual has the same chance of being hit by a car and the odds of being hit by a car twice are completely uncorrelated to the odds of being hit by a car once.

For example, the logic works fine if you're talking about, say, two raffles with 10 people in them and one winner. The chance of an individual winning the first raffle is 1 in 10. The chance of the same person winning the second raffle as well is 1 in 100.

Going back to the car example, if you regularly cross roads then you're more likely to be hit by a car than someone who only rarely crosses the road as there are more opportunities for the event to occur.

That alone would be enough to skew the odds, but there's also the possibility that the reason you were hit by a car in the first place is relevant to the future likelihood of being hit by a car - such as your method of crossing roads being to run across at a random moment with absolutely no regard for your personal safety.

If people who are hit once go on to have a 9 in 10 chance of being hit a second time, that tells a very different story...even if the chances of any single individual being hit are still 1 in 10.