Women face hike in car insurance premiums

blueboy43

ninky wrote: »

i think the ruling is fair and sensible. the current system penalises safe drivers who happen to be young males and rewards dangerous drivers who happen to be female and older based on nothing more than averages. well we are not 'averages' we are individuals. what will probably happen is that those who prove their inability to drive well with frequent accidents will pay an even bigger premium than they do now. insurance should be based on personal record not whether you belong to one gender or another. i speak as a woman and a feminist.

The problem is that this ruling will mean a disincentive for women to own a car and drive when they are younger. It will certainly mean they use buses more, walk more, use other forms of public transport - that is simple economics. It is fairly likely there could be increased sexual assaults as a result of this.

Men have roughly 60 times more testosterone than women - it is this hormone that makes risk taking, aggression, gambling etc etc more likely. It is a simple biological difference.

Insurers can discriminate on a wide range of criteria. A footballer will pay more than a nurse. Someone living in a city more than someone in the country. The young pay more than the old. A single man more than a married man. Anyone in these groups can claim "I am not an average" but until you have a history of driving, insurers really have no other way of assessing risk.

ninky_2

blueboy43 wrote: »

The problem is that this ruling will mean a disincentive for women to own a car and drive when they are younger. It will certainly mean they use buses more, walk more, use other forms of public transport - that is simple economics. It is fairly likely there could be increased sexual assaults as a result of this.

Men have roughly 60 times more testosterone than women - it is this hormone that makes risk taking, aggression, gambling etc etc more likely. It is a simple biological difference.

Insurers can discriminate on a wide range of criteria. A footballer will pay more than a nurse. Someone living in a city more than someone in the country. The young pay more than the old. A single man more than a married man. Anyone in these groups can claim "I am not an average" but until you have a history of driving, insurers really have no other way of assessing risk.

other than past performance. for me this and number of years driving (or holding dl) should be the only criteria used.

imagine if a sales company decided that the men on average sold more than the women so they would only employ men?

it may make economic sense to make insurance decision based on averages but it doesn't make good moral sense. fortunately the sensible european legislators see this.

ninky_2

to suggest this decision will lead to rape is completely ridiculous.

you seriously think women travelling on buses or walking will lead to rape? mad as a hatter.

lostinrates

Isn't all insurance, however rik is calculated, going to based on averages some how?

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Isn't all insurance, however rik is calculated, going to based on averages some how?

quite probably but the ones that are do with human characteristics should not be allowed.

imagine if they started charging fat people more at all you can eat buffets?

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

quite probably but the ones that are do with human characteristics should not be allowed.

imagine if they started charging fat people more at all you can eat buffets?

But wouldn't that be exactly what you are advocating? Based on record...well fat...by far the overwhelming average, suggests a previous of over indulgence.

abaxas

We should all go to the court and take a 'p122' in the women's toilets.

Job done.

Graham_Devon

blueboy43 wrote: »

The problem is that this ruling will mean a disincentive for women to own a car and drive when they are younger. It will certainly mean they use buses more, walk more, use other forms of public transport - that is simple economics. It is fairly likely there could be increased sexual assaults as a result of this.

Jeez. Talk about taking things to the extremes.

Men have been paying these insurance costs for ages, so I don't think it will mean women simply won't be able to pay. They will just have to pay the same as what their mate, who is male does.

Linking it to sexual assaults is a bit "out there".

lostinrates

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Men have been paying these insurance costs for ages, so I don't think it will mean women simply won't be able to pay. They will just have to pay the same as what their mate, who is male does.

Linking it to sexual assaults is a bit "out there".

Agree about the link...but I'm also hoping chaps are going to start paying for half our sanitary protection, seeing as costs relating to being female are unfair....

lisyloo

seeing as costs relating to being female are unfair....

Get a grip people.

Being shortsighted is unfair (you have to buy glasses or contacts).
Having big feet is unfair.
Having hayfever is unfair (the cost of medication).
Having bad teeth is unfair (you have to pay for the dentist).
Bein sweaty is unfair.
Feeling the cold is unfair.

Life isn't fair.

The fact is that anyone posting on here probably has clean water, food on the table, a roof over their heads etc. and in global terms is extremely wealthy.
Anyone who thinks this is unfair should look at the global lottery and count themselves extremely lucky and then start getting a grip.

Too many whingers on here.
Count your blessings.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the world a better place, but whinging endlessly isn't the way to go.

Rant over :-))