Sexist Car insurance

raskazz

Graham_Devon wrote:

All I'm saying is, if you drive less, your less likely to be in a crash, thats pure common sense.

The differences in risk between the genders are not purely down to mileage.

Get a quotation within normal circumstances with the gender of the driver as male. Get another quotation with the exact same circumstances with the gender set to female and chances are the premium will be reduced. This is because women are safer drivers on the whole.

lisyloo

Your taking all this as an attack on females, and it's not, and looks like your taking it as a personal attack too.

No, but I disagree with some of your statements.

All I'm saying is, if you drive less, your less likely to be in a crash, thats pure common sense.

This is not necessarily true.
I can give two reasons why I think this isn't true.

Firstly people that drive small distances e.g. less than 2000 miles per year, are likely to be worse drivers because of their lack of familiarity with road conditions and their own vehicle.

Secondly you could have a real idiot (or inexperienced driver) that drives few miles compared with someone very well trained that does many miles.
For example lets take a trained traffic police officer who does many miles but is properly trained in advanced driving techniques and compare them with a 17 year old on a scooter or a 90 year old going to the shops.

So I disgaree with you that this is "pure common sense".
You need to look at other factors such as training, reactions (age?), experience (age?) as well as what TYPE of driving someone does.

I haven't had an accident in 20 years, she has had 4 and written two cars off

Well it's the other way round in my household, but these are nevertheless isolated anecdotes and therefore pretty irrelvevant to the whole argument.
You need to look at national figures to get proper answers.

Old people don't drive much, are less likely to cause serious damage in a slow speed crash and would be able to pay for repairs without using the insurance company.

Gosh you really are up to speed on making sweeping generalisations today aren't you.
Some old people have poor reactions. How fast do you think you need to be going to kill a pedestrian who is not encased in a metal box?

What makes you think all pensionsers have money?
That is a ridiculous sweeping generalisation.
Do you have any facts to back up any of your claims?
If so please present graphs, links, sources etc. not personal anecdotes and sweeping generalisations.

Your calling my stuff drivel and then your coming up with stuff about providing better sperm. !!!!!!?! Where did this even enter the debate? Thats one thing men can do and females never will be able to do.

Absolutely!!
The point I was making is that there are some things men can do that women can't and some thinks women can do that men can't.
Stating this is not being sexist. It's medical fact.
My point was that if it's true and factual then it isn't sexist.

How is my stuff drivel when you come up with that!?

I came up with facts.
You have come up with personal anecdotes and generalisations.
I am happy to argue with you about facts, but if you are going to make claims then you need to back them up with statistics, reports, links sources etc.

You can also get a reduction on your insurance by not crashing, it's worked for me over 6 years!

Only 6? How come?
It's worked for me for 20.
You said you haven't had an accident in 20 years, why has it only worked for you for the last 6?

Women had just picked up a new 206 and her excuse while shaking and crying was 'i couldnt find the brake, it's a new car'.

She probably doesn't drive enough !!
This backs up my point that doing few miles does not necessarily make you safer.
It can make you more dangerous because of your lack of familiarity with roads and the vehicle hence I don't agree with your claim that few miles means less accidents.

But again this anecdote is rather meaningless. It one in thousands.
We need national statistics to prove any claims not anecdotes from individuals with a pre-disposed bias.

Gorgeous_George

lisyloo wrote:

Some old people have poor reactions. How fast do you think you need to be going to kill a pedestrian who is not encased in a metal box?

www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk wrote:

Key statistics

You are more likely to kill a pedestrian driving at 40mph than 30mph.
Specifically, if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 20 mph, the pedestrian has a 95% chance of survival.
If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the survival chance is 80%. But if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 40mph, the pedestrian's chances of dying rises to 90%. (this lowers to 80% for a child).

Of course, if the child had not stepped into the path of a car there would be 0% chance of death or serious injury.

If women are better drivers, tell me, when did a woman win a Grand Prix?



GG

lisyloo

Here are some links

http://www.sirc.org/publik/driving_risk.shtml

"There is extensive evidence to show that men, and young men in particular, tend to be more aggressive than women (in all known cultures) and they express aggression in a direct, rather than indirect, manner. This has a very significant impact on driving – encouraging more competitive and hostile behaviour with consequent higher probabilities of crashing"

http://www.sirc.org/publik/driving.pdf

In terms of driving behaviour, the differences can be seen clearly in the greater propensity of males to take risks, exhibit aggression and seek thrilling sensations. The results of these differences are highlighted very clearly across the globe in higher accident statistics, more expensive and frequent insurance claims and higher rates of convictions for offences such as dangerous and drink-driving.

In the UK, motor insurance underwriting takes such gender-differentiation into account to ensure each gender effectively pays for its own class of claims at different ages. Young men are charged more than young women because they cause more frequent and expensive accidents. In our view, this is justified on the basis of the evidence that we have reviewed.

---

Sorry to any guys out there, but it appears that the evidence is not on your side.
If you want to save money then

a) buy yourself a low insurance group car
b) keep a modest car and not a expensive one
c) park it in a garage or driveway overnight
d) Join the Institute od advance motorists and get yourself trained AND save some money at the same time.

Graham_Devon

Only 6? How come?
It's worked for me for 20.
You said you haven't had an accident in 20 years, why has it only worked for you for the last 6?

Erm, well, I never said I been driving for 20 years. If I had, I'm sure I would have had many accidents, considering I would have been 6 when I started driving on the roads!

I have 6 years as I held a licence for 8 years but been actively driving for 6 as I didnt buy a car straight after passing my test as I had other things to be doing. In my 6 years, thanks to spending some of them as a fiedl engineer, have wracked up 210k miles.

Why does someone always have to come alone and make something so serious!

Are you from the WI!?

Graham_Devon

lisyloo wrote:

Here are some links

http://www.sirc.org/publik/driving_risk.shtml

"There is extensive evidence to show that men, and young men in particular, tend to be more aggressive than women (in all known cultures) and they express aggression in a direct, rather than indirect, manner. This has a very significant impact on driving – encouraging more competitive and hostile behaviour with consequent higher probabilities of crashing"

http://www.sirc.org/publik/driving.pdf

In terms of driving behaviour, the differences can be seen clearly in the greater propensity of males to take risks, exhibit aggression and seek thrilling sensations. The results of these differences are highlighted very clearly across the globe in higher accident statistics, more expensive and frequent insurance claims and higher rates of convictions for offences such as dangerous and drink-driving.

In the UK, motor insurance underwriting takes such gender-differentiation into account to ensure each gender effectively pays for its own class of claims at different ages. Young men are charged more than young women because they cause more frequent and expensive accidents. In our view, this is justified on the basis of the evidence that we have reviewed.

---

Sorry to any guys out there, but it appears that the evidence is not on your side.
If you want to save money then

a) buy yourself a low insurance group car
b) keep a modest car and not a expensive one
c) park it in a garage or driveway overnight
d) Join the Institute od advance motorists and get yourself trained AND save some money at the same time.

Again, could this not be because were driving more, therefore are more at risk to our 'volitile' nature?!

What I'm trying to say is, HOW can a women be a better driver than a man on average. Tell me. Come up with YOUR reasons, not other peoples who are using this 'evidence' to increase costs for a 2 3rd's of their business customers.

Remember, this is research undertaken for those looking to make more profit from their customers.

lisyloo

If women are better drivers, tell me, when did a woman win a Grand Prix?

What does racing on a racing circuit have to do with driving on public roads?
The skills required for racing on a race track are completely different than those required on the daily commute or school run.

I don't see what relevance your question has but I believe the data that I have already provided should give you a clue.

Men are more agressive and hence more competitive. In general women do not possess the high level of competitive nature to be succesful in racing.
This very fact which (in general) makes them less good at racing, makes them superior drivers and less likely to have accidents.

This doesn't of course mean that NO women are any good at racing because within these generalisations there is scope for individuals. However insurance companies will work within the general rules.

Tim_L

Insurance companies record statistics about accidents based on the driver at the time of an accident, not on whose name the insurance is in. It's a simple matter of record that women are a better insurance risk, and businesses are run on risk tables not some sort of silly sample-size-one anecdote about someone's wife having had four accidents.

It isn't sexist to say that women are a better insurance risk: it's a simple matter of fact. Women make fewer claims on their insurance. It doesn't matter a jot that they drive less (if this is true), though clearly this may also be a factor in having a reduced rate.

If you believe otherwise then start an insurance company that ignores risk tables and works on the basis of ill-informed and rather silly ideas about driving competence.

Graham_Devon

Gorgeous_George wrote:

Of course, if the child had not stepped into the path of a car there would be 0% chance of death or serious injury.

If women are better drivers, tell me, when did a woman win a Grand Prix?



GG

Or of course, if your in one of our agressive, volitle natured cars and not in a 1.1 micra, we'd hit the breaks and stop 50% quicker than the micra would

As for courses, I don't care how many courses or advanced driving things someone has been on. If they have drove 100k miles without an accident and someone else has drove 5k miles without an accident, BUT with advanced driving course under their belt, I'll feel more comfortable sat next to the one who drove 100k miles.

This is all turning a bit rubbish now!

Gorgeous_George

Graham_Devon wrote:

Erm, well, I never said I been driving for 20 years. If I had, I'm sure I would have had many accidents, considering I would have been 6 when I started driving on the roads!

I think that she got you and I confused. Bless her.



GG