MSE News: Gap in cost of male and female car insurance closes

Former_MSE_Guy

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"The difference in young women's and men's car insurance is already shrinking, ahead of rules to ban gender discrepancies ..."

Read the full story:
Gap in cost of male and female car insurance closes

davidgmmafan

"Pay-as-you-drive products could be further developed to allow insurers to more accurately match a driver's insurance premium to their actual risk"

This is the only logical solution IF risk is the real reason. I can't think of a better way to encourage young people who want to be responsible than allowing lower premiums if they drive carefully...

haremscarem

It's a fair comment, but I can't help but think that like 'PAYG Phones' and PAYG electric and gas, it will be too expensive.

no_choice_now

haremscarem wrote: »

It's a fair comment, but I can't help but think that like 'PAYG Phones' and PAYG electric and gas, it will be too expensive.

I also find it very menacing to think that it's yet another way the populous is being tracked in real time.

If anybody is gullible enough to think this is anything at all about money then they're a lost cause. Since compulsory insurance has come in to place there is no longer a requirement for each premium to be "£35 more expensive" to cover uninsured drivers. Have you all received a reduction of precisely £35 in your premium?

Didn't think so.

Percy1983

So penis premium tax is already starting to go, I look forward to the day its gone for good.

no_choice_now

Percy1983 wrote: »

So penis premium tax is already starting to go, I look forward to the day its gone for good.

Amusing but only a left-winger could successfully achieve delusion to think that male and females are identical. It's not just about what's between your legs, there are very big differences between men and women which alter the way they drive. The insurance company had it right to charge more if you have a penis (just be grateful penis length doesn't act as a multiplier!)

This EU "one-world" "one-people" propaganda is attempting to rewrite natural law. Men and women are not the same and no diktat is ever going to change that simple fact of gender inequality.


(Before the flame war starts I am not saying men or women can't have the same jobs or one is more valuable than the other etc. An inequality in this instance is a very positive thing, it's also what nature intended and nature is always right.)

Percy1983

I won't go into the whole arguement as I have before, but the current system says ALL women are better drivers than ALL men, which is not true.

Just because I share similar physical features to others this does not make me the same as others in that same group.

Charge us all the same and the good and bad drivers will soon show themselves (regardless of gender) and prices for those people can be adjusted to suit.

no_choice_now

Percy1983 wrote: »

Just because I share similar physical features to others this does not make me the same as others in that same group.

I fully agree with you Percy. Saying all men are equal is as stupid as saying women and men are equal.

For a system to be truly fair it has to include MORE variables not less. Gender, age, intelligence, social mobility and standing should all be factors. That way people will more closely pay for what they are likely to claim.

It's been repeatedly proven that intelligent people are far better drivers, so why should intelligent people (of both sexes) effectively be charged for the stupidity of others? Stupid people should pay more, this is common sense no matter how much these one-world types try to deny it and say such thought crime is bad or naughty etc.

It's also a well known fact that men have better spatial awareness than women which is why it's well known women are not as good at parking as men. But women don't tend to feel the need to speed down roads. So whilst women are worse drivers (in the technical sense) but are better drivers (in the responsibility sense).

Percy1983

I will say that the way age is used also bothers me, not all 18 year olds are the same much like not all 40 year olds are.

I agree that there should be different factors in play, but for car insurance I think it should be down to one thing alone and that is your driving ability.

I do believe all new drivers should pay the same (assuming the same car of course) and that should reduce with experience and of course no claims (proving you to be a good driver).

With that I do believe there should be a cap on young people insurance if they bide by some simple rules (eg, car no bigger than 1.2 engine and worth no more than £1500, just an example) this would mean the more sensible new drivers won't get hit too hard.

With that I do believe car insurance should be optional (like every other item I own) but that is a much larger debate.

olly300

Percy1983 wrote: »

I will say that the way age is used also bothers me, not all 18 year olds are the same much like not all 40 year olds are.

I agree that there should be different factors in play, but for car insurance I think it should be down to one thing alone and that is your driving ability.

I do believe all new drivers should pay the same (assuming the same car of course) and that should reduce with experience and of course no claims (proving you to be a good driver).

So how are you going to realistically fund it?

Insurance as it is done now uses some of the cheapest methods possible to calculate risk.

Percy1983 wrote: »

With that I do believe there should be a cap on young people insurance if they bide by some simple rules (eg, car no bigger than 1.2 engine and worth no more than £1500, just an example) this would mean the more sensible new drivers won't get hit too hard.

The reason young people insurance is high is not due to the value of their car it's due to the payouts when they hit something or, more importantly, injury someone

Percy1983 wrote: »

With that I do believe car insurance should be optional (like every other item I own) but that is a much larger debate.

So for example, if you hit me and I can't work ever again I shouldn't have any money to enable me to get care for the rest of my life?

The only insurance you are required to have by the various UK laws is third party. If your car is destroyed tough sh*t but if you kill or maim someone/something or damage a important structure then someone needs to pay for it. And that someone isn't the taxpayer.

olly300

no_choice_now wrote: »

I fully agree with you Percy. Saying all men are equal is as stupid as saying women and men are equal.

For a system to be truly fair it has to include MORE variables not less. Gender, age, intelligence, social mobility and standing should all be factors. That way people will more closely pay for what they are likely to claim.

Insurers do use a lot of variables.

For starters:
1. age - younger drivers due to inexperience have higher premiums
2. occupation -certain occupations i.e. musicians and journalists are not insured by some insurance companies due to the risk of them crashing being high.
3. postcode - people in city areas tend to have more claims than those in rural areas
4. Martial status - couples tend to have lower insurance premiums than single people
5. Mileage - if you drive a lot or a little your insurance is higher than if you drive an "average" number of miles a year
6. Where your park your car overnight - if you park your car on the road while it's more likely to be hit by something it's less likely to be stolen
7. Named drivers - if you have someone to share the driving with then you are likely to have a lower premium.
8. Where you got your license - if you got your license in the UK then you are less likely to have an accident than if you got your license abroad.

no_choice_now wrote: »

It's been repeatedly proven that intelligent people are far better drivers, so why should intelligent people (of both sexes) effectively be charged for the stupidity of others? Stupid people should pay more, this is common sense no matter how much these one-world types try to deny it and say such thought crime is bad or naughty etc.

It's also a well known fact that men have better spatial awareness than women which is why it's well known women are not as good at parking as men. But women don't tend to feel the need to speed down roads. So whilst women are worse drivers (in the technical sense) but are better drivers (in the responsibility sense).

Off course all the factors I've listed are generalisations per group just like your spatial awareness is a generalisation. I know a few women with better spatial awareness then men.

The reason insurers used gender is because younger womens' claims tend to be lower cost to the insurance company than younger mens' as a group. (The reverse is true for women over 55 who are more inexperienced drivers than men of the same age.)

With young people who are under 25 and inexperienced drivers gender seems to be the biggest variable in the calculated cost.