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

Percy1983

olly300 wrote: »

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.

The problem now is more the fact its gets the cheapest possible for those who are fine (like myself), but in reality I would happily for £50 more a year if it meant young people get a fair chance (innocent until proven quilty), of course such a change would need to be done industry wide.

olly300 wrote: »

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

I guess my point was more the not very powerful car as they would be less likely to have an accident.

olly300 wrote: »

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.

I am a great believer in actions and consequences, to which if I choose not to take said insureance and then do cause such a problem then I have just signed up to payroll deductions for the rest of my life. (+ more maybe)

The end of the day I would be approx £10k up right now if I was given that option, to which I would be £10k up if I had to pay for damage etc (yes that may not cover the super extreme exampsles people can come up with).

With that why can't we move away formt hsi blame culture and each person is responsible for there own insureance, eg car insurance covrs your car no matter how damage gets caused, you hit anything its there problem if they aren't insured.

Same goes with health/life cover I get hurt in an accident if I am covered then I am fine.

As I say its a large debate which you won't agree with.

richto

no_choice_now wrote: »

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.

It's about time this was fixed.

It has always been an anomally that women are on average less proficient and more dangerous drivers and have more accidents per mile driven than men, but yet get lower insurance rates, as they drive fewer miles and make on average lower claims. So a woman that does drive as many miles and does makes as many claims as an equivalent man will still pay less for her insurance

I find especially annoying adverts like 'Shela's Wheels' where they make the blatently untrue claim that their lower rates are because women are 'safer drivers'. No, they are because women drive less and claim less.

However my question is, how can they then justify price differences based on age? Surely it must be years of driving experience only.

Percy1983

Its already at the point where if 2 people are exactly the same accept for gender that the women can have 2 claims and still get cheaper insurance than the man with no claims. (yet who is proven to be the worse driver?)

As for less claims being made, twice I have had to pay to repair my car as it has been damaged in car parks, yes I agree I can't prove women drivers did it, but with going with odds they most likely did, in both cases there is a reduction in the stats. How many small bumps/scrapes go unreported?

olly300

Percy1983 wrote: »

The problem now is more the fact its gets the cheapest possible for those who are fine (like myself), but in reality I would happily for £50 more a year if it meant young people get a fair chance (innocent until proven quilty), of course such a change would need to be done industry wide.

You would but myself and other people who live in cities wouldn't be.

Percy1983 wrote: »

I guess my point was more the not very powerful car as they would be less likely to have an accident.

Having witnessed the results of 2 young people who caused an accident, one male and one female, having a less powerful car doesn't stop them being distracted by their mates.

Incidentally the damaged caused by the young male was more expensive than the damaged caused by the young female. The male smashed into a back of a car coming round the corner at 30 mph while the female did it at 5mph.

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am a great believer in actions and consequences, to which if I choose not to take said insureance and then do cause such a problem then I have just signed up to payroll deductions for the rest of my life. (+ more maybe)

The end of the day I would be approx £10k up right now if I was given that option, to which I would be £10k up if I had to pay for damage etc (yes that may not cover the super extreme exampsles people can come up with).

Your honest most people are not.

Plus if you did extreme damage such as falling asleep at the wheel, derailing a train and damaging a bridge your lifetime payroll deductions may not be enough to pay for all the damage, so again the taxpayer will be paying again.

Percy1983 wrote: »

With that why can't we move away formt hsi blame culture and each person is responsible for there own insureance, eg car insurance covrs your car no matter how damage gets caused, you hit anything its there problem if they aren't insured.

Same goes with health/life cover I get hurt in an accident if I am covered then I am fine.

So how is a child of 5 suppose to cover themselves if their parents refuse to?

Percy1983 wrote: »

As I say its a large debate which you won't agree with.

I've worked with people from different countries and have asked them how their insurance works. Ultimately if you drive that badly and injure someone it's the lawyers who again get rich.

BTW I don't agree with whiplash claims and ambulance chasing companies.

olly300

richto wrote: »

It's about time this was fixed.

It has always been an anomally that women are on average less proficient and more dangerous drivers and have more accidents per mile driven than men, but yet get lower insurance rates, as they drive fewer miles and make on average lower claims. So a woman that does drive as many miles and does makes as many claims as an equivalent man will still pay less for her insurance

It's because the claims cost the insurance company less.

Remember insurance companies are out there to make money (though they haven't been doing so well in recent years) so if they find a grouping that costs them less for accidents, or doesn't claim so much they will try and target that group.

richto wrote: »

I find especially annoying adverts like 'Shela's Wheels' where they make the blatently untrue claim that their lower rates are because women are 'safer drivers'. No, they are because women drive less and claim less.

Sheila's Wheels car insurance is expensive.

richto wrote: »

However my question is, how can they then justify price differences based on age? Surely it must be years of driving experience only.

You need an actuary to answer that one properly as well as a neuro-scientist/physiologist.

One thing that is always stated is that married people and those with children are less likely to take risks as they someone/people who are dependent on them. If you are older you are more likely to fall into these categories.