So......an end to cheaper car insurance for women

Strider590

Ebe_Scrooge wrote: »

If it's statistically true that women make less claims than men, then it seems resonable to offer them cheaper premiums ( obviously, taking into account all other relevant factors as well ). Just the same as a 17 year old newly qualified driver, of either sex, is likely to crash more than a 40 year old with 20 years experience under their belt.

I think statistics have been padded out to make them more simple....
A young driver is more likely to be involved in a high damage/value accident, but I could count on one hand the number of young driver accidents i've seen and it's far fewer than any other age range.

Men tend to be more aggressive drivers = high speed, high value claims, usually road rage induced racing at high speeds with no regard for other road users and often no regard for speed limits, traffic signals or road signs.

Women on the other hand tend these days to be very competitive = low speed, low value claims, usually competing for a space in a queue or blocking other drivers out and in situations involving high degree's of situational awareness, like parking or moving through tight gaps.

Older drivers tend to think they are above the law and just drive about playing low speed bumper cars. They're primary cause of car park damage, but rarely get caught because they pretend they didn't notice and just drive off.

Inactive

Strider590 wrote: »

I think statistics have been padded out to make them more simple....
.

I doubt that all insurers would pad out statistics, it wouldn't make financial sense.

I honestly believe that the insurance companies have it about right.

Tinks74

My insurance is due for renewal this month, on one site this question appeared - Will you be driving at peak traffic times?
How the heck can you know? If I could predict the future like that I wouldn't need the insurance because I'd know if/when I was going to have an accident and avoid it.
I want to drive my car at times that are convenient to me in order to do the things I want to do at the time I want to do them. I don't have my life planned out by the hour for the next year.

We need to put an end to spurious PI claims and assumptions from insurance companies that if there has been an accident there is instantly a whiplash claim to be made. (I have personally had to explain on more than on occasion that when I was hit from behind whilst stopped in traffic there were no injuries sustained by anyone in the car. The people on the other end of the phone were very insistent and could not understand that I did not want to make a claim!).

I am infuriated that so called 'Comprehensive cover' isn't.
Could there not be basic standards for levels of insurance so you know what you are getting at the very minimum. I bet if I looked at 3 different quotes based on the same details for 'Comprehensive Cover' that there would be varying levels of cover yet they all purport to be the same thing.

Strider590

Inactive wrote: »

I doubt that all insurers would pad out statistics, it wouldn't make financial sense.

I honestly believe that the insurance companies have it about right.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but what im saying is it's not as simple as saying "young drivers are bad and everyone else is great", this is what we're being told, but the truth is far more complex than that.

By simply attacking only young drivers, they're basically saying that everyone else are great drivers... Clearly this is wrong.

Inactive

Strider590 wrote: »

I'm not saying it's wrong, but what im saying is it's not as simple as saying "young drivers are bad and everyone else is great", this is what we're being told, but the truth is far more complex than that.

By simply attacking only young drivers, they're basically saying that everyone else are great drivers... Clearly this is wrong.

Statistically, young drivers cost insurers more, hence they pay higher premiums, I personally can see nothing wrong with that.

Insurers do not distort their own statistics IMO.

Strider590

It's believable, that's why they say it... We've all seen young drivers blatting about with their loud exhausts, it's believable that they have more accidents because we don't see old Doris down the road doing that. However the truth of the matter is that having a loud car doesn't make you more likely to have an accident.

The annoying fools who smack your car up when it's parked at the local supermarket however, they're not young drivers.

Charging young drivers the earth however is a very handy way of telling us "no your premiums aren't too high, look how much we charge younger drivers!", when our premiums are all too high full stop.
If they didn't charge so much for young drivers, we'd all complain our premiums (at current levels) were too high.

If that looks familiar, try this.... "we're going to put 200% tax on petrol because of global warming"

Inactive

Strider590 wrote: »

It's believable, that's why they say it... We've all seen young drivers blatting about with their loud exhausts, it's believable that they have more accidents because we don't see old Doris down the road doing that. However the truth of the matter is that having a loud car doesn't make you more likely to have an accident.

Well I think you are wrong, insurers have no incentive whatsoever to not charge according to their own statistics, unfortunately none of us have access to them, however, surely at least one insurer would charge a lower premium for young drivers if their was any evidence to support your flawed theory.

Premiums, in general are related to risk assessment by insurers.

MsHoarder

Strider590 wrote: »

It's believable, that's why they say it... We've all seen young drivers blatting about with their loud exhausts, it's believable that they have more accidents because we don't see old Doris down the road doing that. However the truth of the matter is that having a loud car doesn't make you more likely to have an accident.

The annoying fools who smack your car up when it's parked at the local supermarket however, they're not young drivers.

Charging young drivers the earth however is a very handy way of telling us "no your premiums aren't too high, look how much we charge younger drivers!", when our premiums are all too high full stop.
If they didn't charge so much for young drivers, we'd all complain our premiums (at current levels) were too high.

If that looks familiar, try this.... "we're going to put 200% tax on petrol because of global warming"

But dinting a car in a supermarket costs in the hundreds of pounds. A young driver who seriously injures 3 friends by coming off a country road at 60mph+ costs tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The insurance companies are more worried about the latter and price insurance accordingly.

Lum

MsHoarder wrote: »

But dinting a car in a supermarket costs in the hundreds of pounds.

It also doesn't result in a claim since the majority of the time the perpetrator sods off without leaving any details.

The accidents caused by young males tend to be of the kind that get recorded.

Inactive

Lum wrote: »

The accidents caused by young males tend to be of the kind that get recorded.

Sadly, often at the Funeral Directors.