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

Inactive

Saudi Arabia doesn't have this problem.. :rotfl::D

bosseyed

Ebe_Scrooge wrote: »

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.

And therein lies the issue for me, particularly for new drivers. Prior to the ruling two 17 year old first time drivers, neither with any proveable driving history - the female is given cheaper insurance purely on the basis of gender - certainly wouldn't be allowed if it was the other way around. You can't give preferential treatment on the basis of gender and nothing else surely.

And I'd say the statistics that prove woman are less likely to claim may well be a tad skewed - as far as I was aware, women drive less than men, less women on the roads, therefore more accidents and more claims involving men.

Essentially, women strive for equality in all things, this is one of those issues that they seem to have forgotten about presumably as it has always suited them rather nicely to pay less insurance NOT ANY MORE LAYDEEEEZ

Strider590

bosseyed wrote: »

Essentially, women strive for equality in all things, this is one of those issues that they seem to have forgotten about presumably as it has always suited them rather nicely to pay less insurance NOT ANY MORE LAYDEEEEZ

Goes for a lot of things...... Equal pay? then why do our ladies sit in the office filing their nails while "the lads" are putting (small) bags of paper recycling onto the back of a van every 2 weeks?

And why do "the lads" have an arctic bog with not so much as an air vent, when the ladies have heating, mirrors and a small sofa?

Equality is a wonderful concept.... When it suits.

Print_Screen

I wondering why basing premiums on gender was allowed but on other things such as race it is not.
After all there has been oppression of both races and women throughout history? :huh:

MsHoarder

bosseyed wrote: »

And therein lies the issue for me, particularly for new drivers. Prior to the ruling two 17 year old first time drivers, neither with any proveable driving history - the female is given cheaper insurance purely on the basis of gender - certainly wouldn't be allowed if it was the other way around. You can't give preferential treatment on the basis of gender and nothing else surely.

And I'd say the statistics that prove woman are less likely to claim may well be a tad skewed - as far as I was aware, women drive less than men, less women on the roads, therefore more accidents and more claims involving men.

Essentially, women strive for equality in all things, this is one of those issues that they seem to have forgotten about presumably as it has always suited them rather nicely to pay less insurance NOT ANY MORE LAYDEEEEZ

But that's mostly due to a lower annual mileage, not fewer drivers, so each individual insured woman is less likely to have an expensive crash.

MsHoarder

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But the question remains; what risks are they assessing? Are they calculating the likelihood that the policy holder will have an collision, or will make a claim?

They're calculating the average payout to that group.

So the cost is roughly the total of all the at-fault claims in that group(high speed accidents are much worse than cracked bumpers whilst parking ) and divided by the number of people in that group.

Plus profit.