Sexist Car insurance

exel1966

Annando wrote:

I don't get it... how could an insurance company make such an assumption? This would mean that we would have more money to go on trips? Or that job interviews are bound to be miles away and not accesible by train or bus?
Plus they do ask you already how many miles you do a year, so being unemployed shouldn't be a factor.

It's because we are all unfairly categorised as a "sterotypical person" within that area. It's harsh, but a fact of life.

I'm_With_Stupid

lisyloo wrote:

One could argue that this is discriminatory also, but they have o have SOME rules. They can't calculate every premium by hand as it would push prices up no end.

Well they could actually go on your driving record. Just a thought, like.

gazza975526570

how would that work for someone who has just passed their test?

Or lived in a higher crime area?

inmypocketnottheirs

lisyloo wrote:

I am not sure how you manage to work that out.
I would see it the other way round - that in other countries people overpay for insurance they don't need.
Some of us are not being squeezed (as you can see from my previous post).
If you
a) shop around
b) get cashback
c) don't overinsure
d) don't duplicate e.g. several legal policies may not be necessary

I'm sure Martin will have an article with lots of good tips in.



Put some effort in and you won't get ripped off.
Many industries rely on the fact that most people won't put effort in.

OK then explain this?

The same level of cover (in fact higher in the US for various state laws) would cost me $346, for six months. Therefore for twelve months cover it would very roughly work out at £360. This is for a BMW 740SE, which currently costs me £526, after 5% cash back from Quidco. Quotes started at £832.

inmypocketnottheirs

exel1966 wrote:

There are hundreds of these baffling anomylies used by the insurance sector to raise our premiums.

Exactly my point!

I'm_With_Stupid

gazza975526570 wrote:

how would that work for someone who has just passed their test?

Or lived in a higher crime area?

They'd pay more, because they're a higher risk (or more accurately, an unknown risk). Obviously. But it would go on you actual driving record, rather than all this discriminatory crap. And like I said previously, a 40 year old who's just passed their test would pay the same as a 20 year old, a girl who's just passed her test would pay the same as a boy, and a builder who's just passed his test would pay the same as a nurse. Of course they'd never do it unless they were forced to though. Location is different, because it's nothing to do with the driver themselves.

Gorgeous_George

The fact that men are a greater insurance risk because they do more miles (as well as drive more aggressively - or arrogantly) had been discussed.

I'm not sure that when the insurer looks at the stats that the computer kicks out, do they compare:

a. claims from accidents when women were driving against those when men were driving

or

b. claims from women against claims from men

If a car is stolen it would count as a claim by the policyholder. Similarly if the car is unoccupied when it is hit by a passing car or catches fire.

I am guessing when I say that joint insurance policies are more likely to be in the males name. Maybe this is not so significant in today's enlightened world.



GG

lisyloo

Well they could actually go on your driving record.

They DO go on your driving record.
What makes you think they don't?

But there are also other factors as well.
For example with theft it's important where you park your car.
If you live in a nice area with a garage then clearly you are at less risk than someone who parks their car on street in the "rough" part of a city center.

Thefts are nothing to do with driving so there are OTHER factors as well as just your driving record.

It's because we are all unfairly categorised as a "sterotypical person" within that area. It's harsh, but a fact of life.

Would you prefer every quote to be hand tailored by an underwriter?
I think you will find the general cost would rise considerably.
Let's say £50 per hour for 3 hours work, so an extra £150 for everyone for more "fairness".
I think you would find that people would pick cheaper but "unfairer" companies.
The fact is that people buy on price and not factors like fairness.

The same level of cover (in fact higher in the US for various state laws) would cost me $346, for six months. Therefore for twelve months cover it would very roughly work out at £360. This is for a BMW 740SE, which currently costs me £526, after 5% cash back from Quidco. Quotes started at £832.

I believe it is more likey to do with accident rates (and costs of repairs) in the US rather than the UK.
I think it is very unlikely to be UK corporations getting fat on profits as it's a very competitive market place.

They'd pay more, because they're a higher risk. Obviously. But it would go on you actual driving record, rather than all this discriminatory crap. And like I said previously, a 40 year old who's just passed their test would pay the same as a 20 year old, a girl who's just passed her test would pay the same as a boy, and a builder who's just passed his test would pay the same as a nurse. Of course they'd never do it unless they were forced to though. Location is different, because it's nothing to do with the driver themselves.

I don't disagree with you but I don't believe it's your place (or mine) to dictate the business models of these companies (unless you are major investor - in which case what are you doing chatting on here?)

Gorgeous_George

magyar wrote:

Out of interest, on those areas which say "leave two chevrons between you and the next car", do you EVER see anyone leaving a large enough gap.

I find they work. However, if there are say 10 chevrons, should I accelerate until I am just the two mandated chevrons away from the car in front? Likewise, if the car in front is doing 110mph, should I match her (or him) to keep just two chevrons between me and the car in front?



:rotfl:



GG

lisyloo

I'm not sure that when the insurer looks at the stats that the computer kicks out, do they compare:

Hi George,

To be perfectly practical the role of a business is to make profits for it's investors/shareholders.
They will come up with a business model that makes them money but is also not SO unacceptable that they get boycotted.
This is the nature of pure business.

None of them started up in business to provide "fairness".

Perhaps this isn't the way the world should be but on the whole it's the way the world is.

I sometimes think that people who expect "fairness" are not being realistic.
We are not borm equal.
Some of us are intelligent, attractive, slim, healthy and others are not to various degrees.

There is no fairness in nature or business.

If anything needs to be changed it's the law to change the way that businesses are run.
Businesses will not change their model unless their is MASSIVE public pressure which I don't think is gonna happen in this case.