Sexist Car insurance

Astaroth

The unlimited requirement for bodily injury is UK law under the RTA (may be a EU requirement too but have to admit not knowing that much about EU legislation)

As to the state of offices... you very clearly havent been in our offices including head office where, like with many companies, areas visible to the outside world and future potential partners is relatively plush but the areas which wont be seen by the outside world (including those occupied by Managing Directors) is anything but plush.

As everyone wears a suit to a job interview because first impressions count exactly the same goes for businesses. If you were "courting" a multinational company to become their strategic partner to provide insurance under their branding first impressions count again. Is this right? I guess the whole question of what MDs etc are used to and expect is a whole nother discussion but in the current capitalist climate investors/ other Execs would have concerns about the status of a partner/ their image if they didnt have the appropriate trappings of a successful company - though saying that, with the exception of Lloyds Syndicates I cant think of any insurance company that maintains a head office within central London any more because of the costs.

As to Exec pay... personally I think, with my employers at least, it is actually relatively low compared to other non-insurance companies of equal size. At the end of the day when you are talking about £10b of turnover you arent going to get someone with appropriate experience to take on the job of growing that by above inflation levels (as is the job of all execs) by offering them £50k and nissan micra.

The other very relevant point is that at present our total buildings costs are less than 0.1% of our costs. Even if we were to ship our 18,000 UK employees to Dundee realistically you would save what? About 10p per policy?

The vast majority of cost to an insurance company is claims and in particular personal injury claims. If it was possible to reduce the volume of these claims or even reduce the fees that solicitors charge (for low loss claims these can easily exceed the cost of the claims) then we may see a real reduction in premiums.

As to the price comparison... I followed the link you gave and mirrored my UK policy as closely as possible with a USA on based in NY (as it was the only ZIP code I had to hand) and it came out being much more expensive for significantly lower cover. Probability of very large loss claims is obviously low but given that at any one time we have a couple of hundred claims exceeding £1m the chances are significantly higher than the chances of winning the lottery and millions of people think that the lottery is a worthwhile investment.

ArchieB_2

I find the whole argument that Insurance shouldn't be 'rated' as it is in some way prejudicial, a little juvenile. If you can't rate on statistical fact then we all have flat rated premiums. Great - I drive a slow family diesel car worth £5k and pay £800 whilst Jermaine Penant drives a £150k Ferrari and pays £800.

Isn't equality great!

As a young male, you are more likely to make a claim - fact. If you live in a high crime area you are more likely to claim - fact. If you drive a high performance car you are more likely to claim - fact.

Two of them you can probably do nothing about (socio economic restraints may prevent you moving). Are these therefore descriminatory rating factors -no.

In terms of proving causality in relation to age and gender, there have been studies that only back-up what is common sense. We could get the EU to carry out a multi milion pound study to prove causality OR we could just look at the huge sample, see the undeniable difference between claims statistics and just accept that certain groups of people cost insurers more.

I've just though - are New Look discriminating against men by only selling ladies clothing?? Maybe we could discuss that - it would be as futile as this debate about 'discrimination'.

lisyloo

are New Look discriminating against men by only selling ladies clothing??

Absolutely not.
New Look will sell their clothes to both women and men for the same price.
Both men and women are equally free to buy the clothes and wear them.
How can this be discriminatory :-))

astonsmummy

new look sell mens, womens, childrens, maternity

ArchieB_2

Ha, ha- I knew I'd pick a store that sold some mens socks or something.

Refuse to enter New Look so wouldn't know. Anyway Lisyloo - I did say a discussion would be futile and yet here you are responding. Damn - I've just responded. This is turning into a debate. What a waste!

inmypocketnottheirs

lisyloo wrote:

They are not providing the same things at all.
To make a proper comparison you would need to compare not only the accident statistics but aklso the tax regime, staff costs in these varying countries.
This is not a valid comparison at all and even if it was providing one anbeecdote is meangliess.
The articles and statistics provided by myself and Astaroth were industry wide not one single persons premium.



It's also important not to be underinsured.
It's a trade-off.
The incident where Gary Hart drove his landrover onto a railway line cost £30 million.
Obviously you need to draw a line somewhere or you will end up paying far too much for a remote possibility.



I do not expect the people I pay to work in terrible conditions on low pay.
I think what you have said above is complete fantasy.

Which companies are providing this?

I have paid 2 figures for both my bike and car insurance so I doubt very much that anyone is getting fat on my account.

Of course if people don't shop around then they might get ripped off.........
This is not exclusive to the car industry, it's true if you buy a house, car, kitchen or anything.

TBH all a load of co**lers. All I am interested in is how much I pay, both here and in the US. The US is cheaper, the UK is more expensive, QED.

Actually, what does surprise me here is the cheap insurance I pay on my motorcycle, £56 p.a. fully comp. That would actually cost me more in the use, around $160.

I just expect to get value, not get stiffed, and as an aside I would pay less tax in the US if I was based there permanently due in large to their more liberal tax deductability.

We have just become conditioned and 'hoodwinked' into paying more for all the false reasons both lisyloo and astaroth are peddling. If you want to buy in to this faleshoods that that is fine by me. Just don't expect me to!!;)

Astaroth

inmypocketnottheirs wrote:

All I am interested in is how much I pay, both here and in the US. The US is cheaper, the UK is more expensive, QED.

Far too many people are only interested in what they pay until a claim happens... when you get hit with a $1.5m claim which your insurance doesnt cover I am sure you would suddenly become much more interested in the details.

When getting a quote for the purposes of this discussion the website said that the legal minimum in NY for property damage was $10,000 - again I am sure you will suddenly be more interested in things other than price when your $60,000 car is written off by a TP and their insurers will only pay you $10,000 and the rest is up to you to try and get directly from the TP themselves. If we could legally limit our liability to £5,000 for all our customers I am sure we could more than 1/2 our premiums.

As illustrated earlier though the USA is not universally cheaper by any means, great, in your circumstances it is... for me NU is cheaper than Swiftcover but that doesnt mean that NU is universally cheaper.

astonsmummy

Keeping this OT, no i dont think it's sexist, not many people i know would go with diamond and the likes anyways, why not ask if saga is agest or insureres who only insure young drivers?
They obviously do this because there is a market for it, statistics show women have fewer accidents so are a lower risk, wether its because they are better drivers or they dont drive as much is irrelivent.
And fr the record, i am a woman, been driving 4 years, not one accident, drive ALOT, and in my travels i observe that men are the most agressive and competetive, they tend to manouver dangerously on purpose, tailgate etc, women tend to be slower and indecisive but not really dangerous and oldies are just painfully slow.
I am not generlising all people, this is just based on what i see when i drive.

ArchieB_2

inmypocketnottheirs wrote:

TBH all a load of co**lers.

We have just become conditioned and 'hoodwinked' into paying more for all the false reasons both lisyloo and astaroth are peddling. If you want to buy in to this faleshoods that that is fine by me. Just don't expect me to!!;)

The FACT is that insurers in this county, make their money through investing premium and only in some lines of business do they make a true underwriting profit (ie claims cost are less than premiums charged). Not many motor books alone are making money for insurers at the moment.

This is fact and thus are we being ripped off on motor insurance? I don't think so. Our cost of living, tax burden and so on is not comparable to the US and neither are the products being sold. Car insurance is not the same from one insurer to another in this country (differences in cover can be huge - so can costs) let alone accross the pond.

By saying people are peddling falsehoods is simply not true. I have zero reason to back up or lie for the insurance industry (quite the opposite) but I know what I have said is fact, your argument on the other hand is far too simple and proves nothing I'm afraid.

magyar

ArchieB wrote:

Ha, ha- I knew I'd pick a store that sold some mens socks or something.

Refuse to enter New Look so wouldn't know. Anyway Lisyloo - I did say a discussion would be futile and yet here you are responding. Damn - I've just responded. This is turning into a debate. What a waste!

No it isn't!