Women face hike in car insurance premiums

nicko33

The court needs to recognise that men and women ARE different.
Equality in this case should be that if a man and a woman are identified as having an equal risk, they should pay an equal premium.

Equal rights does not mean necessarily mean equal treatment.

lostinrates

The_Fox wrote: »

I really cannot see the problem, if it could be proved that white drivers were safer and had less accidents than black drivers does any think it would then be right to make black drivers insurance more expensive.:)

Fox


p.s if you are BNP i already know your answer

This isn't the same argument at all to me.

On what basis could it be argued? If it were ever investigated there could be a socioeconomic link I suppose if it were raised, but quite patently skin colour itself isn't going to make you a safer or less safe driver (it might mean you are pulled over more and checked up on though.) It might be relevant with medical insurance though...e.g. sickle cell or things more prevalent in different races...just as men are less likely to get ovarian cancer and women less likely to get testicular cancer....statistically, just as statistically women are less expensive to insure as drivers.

IS there any other weird stats relating to equality? e.g. sexuality and drivers?

The_Fox_3

lostinrates wrote: »

This isn't the same argument at all to me.

On what basis could it be argued? If it were ever investigated there could be a socioeconomic link I suppose if it were raised, but quite patently skin colour itself isn't going to make you a safer or less safe driver (it might mean you are pulled over more and checked up on though.) It might be relevant with medical insurance though...e.g. sickle cell or things more prevalent in different races...just as men are less likely to get ovarian cancer and women less likely to get testicular cancer....statistically, just as statistically women are less expensive to insure as drivers.

IS there any other weird stats relating to equality? e.g. sexuality and drivers?

Ok i see your point, but you try telling lefty liberal do gooders for example that there are jobs where men should take preference because they are better and it's not long before you see women up in arms, it works both ways girls:)

CloudCuckooLand

This is statistically proven and insurance is risk based.

....statistically, just as statistically women are less expensive to insure as drivers.

The statistics only reflect what you choose to measure.

Gender is only statistically proven to be a factor because it has been measured.

If Insurers recorded eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, size of feet, length of arm, length of leg, whether you breast fed and/or wet the bed, whatever...then statistics could be produced to prove that each category was safe/normal/dangerous.

Does that mean we should use any of those categories?

The problem with risk, is that once you are proven to be a bad risk - having put in claim(s) - then if the premiums shot up to recoup that money, then you wouldn't bother insuring, you might as well effectively "self-insure" - keep the cash for when you need it.

Except no individual can fund the massive Personal Injury claims being put in for young deaths.

Age has to be next, if "they" are serious about discrimination not being legal. I'm not saying its right or logical, but all the information we gather is arbitrary - based on reasonable inferences, perhaps, but not some "truth" set in stone.

Plenty of young men are safe. As said, several young ladies are less than safe. Often, ladies in their 30s are pretty swift around town, with a kid or two in the back, too...some pensioners are absolutely frightening.

Not sure that reached any conclusions...

MsHoarder

The_Fox wrote: »

Ok i see your point, but you try telling lefty liberal do gooders for example that there are jobs where men should take preference because they are better and it's not long before you see women up in arms, it works both ways girls:)

If men are better at something then they will usually pass more of the exams to get into that area and get more work done so have something which can be measured to be promoted on. The complaint is about different treatment for the same work (except for the very hard-core lobbyists, but we can't really take them into account).

westv

CloudCuckooLand wrote: »

The statistics only reflect what you choose to measure.

Gender is only statistically proven to be a factor because it has been measured.

If Insurers recorded eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, size of feet, length of arm, length of leg, whether you breast fed and/or wet the bed, whatever...then statistics could be produced to prove that each category was safe/normal/dangerous.

Does that mean we should use any of those categories?

The current factors for risk (age, gender, location etc) have produced clear statistical differences over a period of time and that is why insurers use them. The other factors you mention are unlikely to do so and that is why insurers do not use them. If the factors did, they would.

Arg

Yeah but....

then statistics could be produced to prove that each category was safe/normal/dangerous.

AndyGuil

Eventually it will be just years driven, NCB, convictions and previous accidents that they will take into account. Not sex, age or job. They will work around the age problem with the years driven and NCB.

westv

Arg wrote: »

Yeah but....

Risk statistics aren't just magically produced to confirm a statement that, for example "Male drivers are worse than female drivers". They are purely based on the cost over time that each element brings to the risk pool. There is no point in any insurer manipulating the figures.

AndyGuil

AndyGuil wrote: »

Eventually it will be just years driven, NCB, convictions and previous accidents that they will take into account. Not sex, age or job. They will work around the age problem with the years driven and NCB.

I think using previous accidents is a way of getting around the gender issue.