MSE News: Insurance costs to soar as gender discrimination banned

Percy1983

Now can anyboy geniunely say this is right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12824940

starrystarry

Percy1983 wrote: »

Now can anyboy geniunely say this is right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12824940

Nobody's saying it's right, even the insurance company involved said the quote was a mistake.

Percy1983

I am ignorinng the top quote, look at his lowest quote, is that right?

starrystarry

I guess that reflects the risk of insuring a 17 year old male new driver in a relatively high risk area.

Percy1983

It is an example of the stats gone mad, he isn't proven to be a good or bad driver and has bought one of the most sensible cars I can think of. What more can he do?

starrystarry

I don't suppose there is much else he can do. The statistics show that young drivers are far more likely to be involved in accidents, young males are higher risk and some areas are higher risk than others. So statistically he is far more likely to make a claim and the insurers price accordingly.

Percy1983

Back to the original point, isn't is descrimination to say:

He is male and all males are the same.
He is 17 and all 17 are the same.
He lives in a rough area so is therefore a ruffiun.

As I say stats have gone mad he isn't proven to be a bad driver but has to pay like he is due to others in the past who share ONLY the 3 points above with him.

I can honestly say that is my premiums where £30 more (along with the rest of us 25+ people)and I knew people like him got a more resonable quote (less than £3k for a car like his) I would be happy with that, if he proves to be a bad driver throw him to the wolves, before that give him a chance.

Like I say the stats may indicate many things, but rather than the good 17 year old males having to pay for the bad 17 year olds why don't we all pay a little more to cover these bad drivers?