Sexist Car insurance

Graham_Devon

And the women who was invisable and pulled out into the road on the mobile phone?

She was correct?

I give up. Have fun y'all

chodges84

But women on mobile phone pulling out between 2 hedges, yes, lots of due care and attention and someone who doesnt even recognise that there is a massive smash next to her and continues on her merry way.

I expect that people would have felt sorry for the old dear if she had've been 'shaken up' as well. If you have a massive trail of traffic behind you and are doing 25 on a NSA road, then I would beleive that SHE is driving without Due Care and Attention.

A woman attempting to drive whilst on a mobile would have no sympathy from me anyway as she was breaking the law. It sounds like she wasn't paying attetion when she came out the road.

The man was overtaking (whiich is legal) and by the sounds of it, it was safe to do so. If it hadn't have been safe he wouldn't have overtaken. I wouldn't, so I'm willing to bet he wouldn't either.

Thanks for the link to the story on the BBC. Its sad that a young boy was killed, but I can completely see where the biker is coming from. Even though he was overtkaing, he was doing so safely and the boy should not have been running.

In my example though, I was meaning more like a cyclist hitting your car in a legal parking space and causing damage. He wouldn't be insured, so you'd presumably have to go through the courts to get your money back if he/she was unwilling to pay.

mrcow

Graham_Devon wrote:

And the women who was invisable and pulled out into the road on the mobile phone?

Oh well you never said that she was actually INVISIBLE! I hope he put about her special invisibility powers on his claim :rolleyes:

chodges84

b. that he was subsequently put on a driver training course to teach him the importance of paying attention to the road before you perform a dangerous manouvre such as overtaking

I hope the woman on the phone was given a good telling off for using a phone whilst driving, as it is ILLEGAL. I read in the paper that it could lead to a jail sentance, which would be welcomed in my opinion.

If she pulled out in front of the overtaking driver without looking properly, what could the overtaking driver do?

read the link Graham provided for an excellent example of where an overtaking driver is NOT at fault.

mrcow

chodges84 wrote:

I hope the woman on the phone was given a good telling off for using a phone whilst driving, as it is ILLEGAL.

No disputing that.

Apparently she was also invisible too, there's probably a law against that as well.

All of which is completely OT!

chodges84

Apparently she was also invisible too, there's probably a law against that as well.

Driving would be VERY dangerous if there wasn't

pinkfluffybabe

Gorgeous_George wrote:

My view is that EVERY accident should carry a fixed penalty. I had a speeding ticket that awarded me 3 points and a £60 fine. When the old lady drove into the back of my wife's car (writing it off and causing neck injuries to my wife), the same old lady did not get fined or points awarded.



GG

Yes, I agree. I have lost count of how many times it has taken me 2/3 hours to get to work (a 1hr journey) because some eejit has driven into the back of someone on the dual carriageway. Most of these shunts are preventable if drivers left themselves enough space and paid more attention to the road.

A points and possibly a fine might make people be a bit more careful.

djgrazy

Tim_L wrote:

Insurance companies record statistics about accidents based on the driver at the time of an accident, not on whose name the insurance is in.

Nonsense! lets say Mr X has a Mondeo insured by Acme insurance for himself, his spouse and any driver over 25. He gives it to his sister who doesn't have a car whilst on holiday. His sister is involved in crash. Whose policy get's used? Mr X, he loses a few years of his NCB and "Statistically" he has claimed on his policy. this is the only information recorded about the incident. The "driver" would only be of interest to them if she didn't hold a licence.

I worked for 14 years in car insurance, don't think for a minute the statistics you are quoting bear any resemblance on the driver, women are and always have been the more nervous driver and cause many more accidents (indirect or direct) due to their uncertainty at junctions, speeds etc than men.

Don't believe me? Next time you pass a school at school run time, take a look at how many of these inconsiderate mares park on double yellows outside school gates to save their fat little sproggs the 30 yard walk. This alone causes countless accidents each year but who get's the blame when the mare is long gone?

lisyloo

It is far riskier for small businesses to employ women of child-bearing age.

I am a woman of child bearing age and I have absolutely no intention of having children.
I am glad that there are laws to protect me (and women who can't have any children).
This is a good thing.
Of course enforcement is an entirely different matter.

If a cyclist lost control and flew in to your car, he would be at fault but you would be left with the bill.

Not true.
You can sue him/her.
If they have house insurance they will likely be covered.
If they don't but have assets you can seize those (or get an attachement of earnings).

I agree with you that cyclists (and others) should have insurance, but don't confuse insurance with liability.
Someone that causes damage is liable.
It's just a bit harder to get the money without insurance.

In my example though, I was meaning more like a cyclist hitting your car in a legal parking space and causing damage. He wouldn't be insured, so you'd presumably have to go through the courts to get your money back if he/she was unwilling to pay.

You may not have to go through the courts if their house insurance agrees to pay out under the 3rd party liability section.
Otherwise yes, you have to go through the courts.
You may have insurance of your own to cover the legal costs.

lisyloo

I have yet to find a women only insurer who can give me a decent quote, so I have never used one

I have to agree with pinkflufflybabe.
I have been getting insurance for 20 years (sometimes for both car and motorcycle) and I don't think I have ever used one of these companies although I always shop round.