cashinmattress

Women Face £362 Rise In Car Insurance

99 posts in this topic

[url="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2111380/Women-face-362-rise-car-insurance-EU-rules-rewarded-safer-driving.html"]link[/url]

[quote]Millions of women drivers could have to pay an extra £362 a year for their car insurance after a ruling by European judges, it emerged yesterday.

The increase follows a decision that men cannot be charged more for their policies even though they are more likely to have a serious crash.

The ruling, described by critics as ‘madness’, means that from December 21 women drivers – although generally safer – will no longer be able to access cheaper car insurance rates because of their gender.

Labour transport spokesman John Woodcock said female drivers face an ‘insurance timebomb’ and called on ministers to curb the impact of the ruling.

Analysis by Labour found that women could end up paying an extra £362 a year, around £30 a month. A Treasury analysis revealed that women of all ages would see their premiums increase by up to 24 per cent on average.

Young men would see theirs fall on average by 9 per cent.

Insurance experts warned that younger women will be hit particularly badly as they will end up having to pay the same premiums as ‘boy racers’.

A woman under the age of 22 pays around £1,682 in car insurance while a young man is charged an average of £2,750.

This is because men under 22 are ten times more likely to have a serious crash, 25 times more likely to commit a driving offence and twice as likely to make an insurance claim.

Policies with more than one named driver will be adversely affected if the main policy holder is a woman.

When a man is the main driver and a woman the ‘named’ driver, premiums are likely to come down. The changes will be forced through without Parliament having the chance to fight the ruling by the European Court of Justice.

Experts say the overall cost to UK customers of the judgment – based on a case brought by a consumer group in Belgium – will be almost £1billion.

Motoring groups warn the ruling could lead to more deaths on the roads if young men benefiting from lower premiums buy faster cars.

Mr Woodcock urged ministers to put pressure on insurance companies not to round up rates to the average paid by men.

Labour wants to see every insurance company being forced to offer drivers at least one black box product.

The boxes allow motorists to prove how safe they are by recording how they drive. Those who drive carefully or don’t drive at night could benefit from cheaper premiums.

Mr Woodcock told the Daily Mail: ‘At a time when motorists are already being squeezed by record fuel prices, women will be dismayed that out-of-touch ministers are not lifting a finger to defuse the insurance timebomb heading their way from Europe.

‘Premiums for women are currently less because they tend to have fewer accidents.

The Government must not sit back and let the insurance industry round up to the highest level they think they can get away with – that could mean hikes of up to £362 for women.

‘The ban on insurance by gender means women will need to find different ways to prove they are safe, but currently not enough insurers offer new black box technology that helps safer drivers get lower premiums.’

Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: ‘Three weeks ago the Prime Minister held a meeting for the insurance industry at Downing Street. But because we are not prepared to do anything about Europe, we can do absolutely nothing about this madness.’

Until now, discrimination in setting insurance rates has been permitted under EU equal treatment rules allowing the market to base the price of a financial product on the statistical likelihood of a person having an accident, falling ill or dying.

All insurance products will be affected by the new ruling. For life insurance, men could see a 10 per cent fall in costs, while women’s rates could rise by as much as 20 per cent as they live longer.

Malcolm Tarling, from the Association of British Insurers, said: ‘This gender ban is disappointing news for UK consumers and something the UK insurance industry has fought against for the last decade.’[/quote]

Meh. With the price of petrol and our indigenous energy supply steadily dwindling into oblivion, and our nation full of fatties, perhaps its a good thing to get more out of cars and finding alternate means of transport.

EDIT: I meant nothing gender specific with the fatties comment. I've seen enough blokes with huge beer bellies in Britain for several lifetimes. Edited by cashinmattress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='cashinmattress' timestamp='[url="tel:1331380031"]1331380031[/url]' post='[url="tel:3281870"]3281870[/url]']
[url="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2111380/Women-face-362-rise-car-insurance-EU-rules-rewarded-safer-driving.html"]link[/url]



Meh. With the price of petrol and our indigenous energy supply steadily dwindling into oblivion, and our nation full of fatties, perhaps its a good thing to get more out of cars and finding alternate means of transport.
[/quote]

And women are more likely to jump in the car rather than walk, I think[img]http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have to say I'm with the EU on this one.

Insurance and particularly car insurance is a scam industry. They are actually unregulated petty criminals in cheap suits.

One of the metrics commonly used by car insurance companies is that if you have an accident, you are statistically more likely to have an accident again. This is commonly used by the industry to justify bumping premiums up and zeroing out no claims even for no-fault claims.

Stop and think about that determination. If I win the lottery, am I statistically more or less likely to win it again? Probabilistically, I am less likely. Statistically, my earlier win makes no difference. But insurance companies make 60% of pure profit based on this deliberately skewed logic.

The insurance industry desperately needs a regulator but with powerful lobbyists, is unlikely I think ever to get one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond' timestamp='1331382223' post='3281897']
One of the metrics commonly used by car insurance companies is that if you have an accident, you are statistically more likely to have an accident again. This is commonly used by the industry to justify bumping premiums up and zeroing out no claims even for no-fault claims.

Stop and think about that determination. If I win the lottery, am I statistically more or less likely to win it again? Probabilistically, I am less likely. Statistically, my earlier win makes no difference. But insurance companies make 60% of pure profit based on this deliberately skewed logic.
[/quote]

I think if somebody's been in an accident that was their fault, it's a clue that they may not be the best driver in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond' timestamp='1331382223' post='3281897']
Have to say I'm with the EU on this one.

Insurance and particularly car insurance is a scam industry. They are actually unregulated petty criminals in cheap suits.

One of the metrics commonly used by car insurance companies is that if you have an accident, you are statistically more likely to have an accident again. This is commonly used by the industry to justify bumping premiums up and zeroing out no claims even for no-fault claims.

Stop and think about that determination. If I win the lottery, am I statistically more or less likely to win it again? Probabilistically, I am less likely. Statistically, my earlier win makes no difference. But insurance companies make 60% of pure profit based on this deliberately skewed logic.

The insurance industry desperately needs a regulator but with powerful lobbyists, is unlikely I think ever to get one.
[/quote]

????
So if I have an accident it's purely random?
Sloblocks.

It's not a lottery and the comparison is off the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond' timestamp='1331382223' post='3281897']One of the metrics commonly used by car insurance companies is that if you have an accident, you are statistically more likely to have an accident again. This is commonly used by the industry to justify bumping premiums up and zeroing out no claims even for no-fault claims.

Stop and think about that determination. If I win the lottery, am I statistically more or less likely to win it again? Probabilistically, I am less likely. Statistically, my earlier win makes no difference. But insurance companies make 60% of pure profit based on this deliberately skewed logic.
[/quote]
It's not skewed logic. It's simple fact.

Unlike a lottery, where your chances are winning do not depend on your previous results, having a non-fault accident while driving is highly dependent on your having been involved in a previous non-fault accident.

The reasons are complex, but relate to driving style, perception of risk, reaction times, etc.

For example, a safe drive who always keeps a large empty distance ahead of him (the recommendation is around 4 seconds of free road), is much less likely to suffer a rear-end shunt, because the large empty distance in front of him, allows him to break more gently.

Similarly, a sales rep who does huge numbers of motorway miles and a limited number of in-town miles, mainly visiting large out of town industrial estates, avoids many of the in-town hazards or hazards of country roads.

Neither of these factors are easily quantifiable by the insurers, except by the previous accident history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not take the £362 off for men? Oh no, that would be too kind wouldn't it. It is a scam. From what I gather, the huge hikes in insurance are all down to these slimey no win no fee people, and all thoase whiplash claims. I think whiplash claims should be banned, as they are clearly all fraudulent. And if you did actually get whiplash, you could still pay for treatment by the fact that you car insurance bill will have halved. It's win-win. I also think that insurance should be held in a deposit scheme, so that ultimately after say each 5 years of no claims, you get most or all of it back. That's just wishful thinking though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond' timestamp='1331382223' post='3281897']
Stop and think about that determination. If I win the lottery, am I statistically more or less likely to win it again? [b]Probabilistically, I am less likely. Statistically, my earlier win makes no difference[/b]. But insurance companies make 60% of pure profit based on this deliberately skewed logic.

[/quote]
Could you enlighten me as to the difference between "probabilistically" and "statistically"? I do not understand what you mean above.

Either, as others have pointed out, people who have accidents are statistically far more likely to have more accidents, much as those with criminal records are more likely to commit crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't really know which side i'm on here:

On the one hand should insurers be able to discriminate by age (17 year old male driver?) They have to surely.

What about race? Clearly not.

Where does gender lie between these two? Not sure to be honest. Edited by gadget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would cost me £6000 per year for car insurance. (£10k of pre tax salary)

I don't drive, I don't drive to work. I sign on and claim benefits. I will work jobs in walking distance that allow me to be marginally better off than the dole, but they are few and far between.

If working 40 hours a week could enable me to drive (by allowing me to afford the costs of driving legally - primarily insurance), I'd be half tempted to work. I could then spend my free time visiting family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what are women paying now?

why would the premium go up by more than I pay now?

fully comp £250 excess never made a fault claim.

Maybe they could stop driving 4L Juggernauts on the school run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I foresee that this will be the thin end of the wedge. The next hike in premiums will be for health and life insurance due to no longer being able to take someone's age into consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='jammo' timestamp='1331383350' post='3281908']
Why not take the £362 off for men? Oh no, that would be too kind wouldn't it. It is a scam. From what I gather, the huge hikes in insurance are all down to these slimey no win no fee people, and all thoase whiplash claims. I think whiplash claims should be banned, as they are clearly all fraudulent. And if you did actually get whiplash, you could still pay for treatment by the fact that you car insurance bill will have halved. It's win-win. [b] I also think that insurance should be held in a deposit scheme, so that ultimately after say each 5 years of no claims, you get most or all of it back. That's just wishful thinking though.[/b]
[/quote]
The post was going so well, until you come up with a quite bizarre comment. If you get your deposit money back after 5 years, who is going to pay for all the insurance claims - the fairies?

Much as we like to tell ourselves that we are being ripped off by insurers, insurance is a very low margin business. An insurer's P+L is basically "premiums - claims + investment income - costs and overheads". The insurance market is now so competitive that premiums are pretty much as low as they can be. It is probably as near as can be to the economist's "perfect competition".

There is no scope for getting your premiums back. If you did, it would not be insurance but a savings scheme. Edited by Ah-so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='gadget' timestamp='1331383577' post='3281911']
Don't really know which side i'm on here:

[b]On the one hand should insurers be able to discriminate by age (17 year old male driver?) They have to surely. [/b]

What about race? Clearly not.

Where does gender lie between these two? Not sure to be honest.
[/quote]

That would be ageism. Yet I think they can do it, bizarre though. You could differentiate based upon experience, i.e. how long you held your licence and how many actual road years experience (if that were measurable).

EDIT: actually not bizarre. Everyone is 17 as everyone becomes over 35 etc. and gets cheaper premiums. Male female however is genetic and therefore you would be discriminating based upon a factor the individual has no control over and made no choice about. Edited by Redcellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond' timestamp='1331382223' post='3281897']
Have to say I'm with the EU on this one.

Insurance and particularly car insurance is a scam industry. They are actually unregulated petty criminals in cheap suits.

One of the metrics commonly used by car insurance companies is that if you have an accident, you are statistically more likely to have an accident again. This is commonly used by the industry to justify bumping premiums up and zeroing out no claims even for no-fault claims.

Stop and think about that determination. If I win the lottery, am I statistically more or less likely to win it again? Probabilistically, I am less likely. Statistically, my earlier win makes no difference. But insurance companies make 60% of pure profit based on this deliberately skewed logic.

The insurance industry desperately needs a regulator but with powerful lobbyists, is unlikely I think ever to get one.
[/quote]

if statistically youre more likely to have another accident then that means there appears to be a connection i.e the events are related.

if the 2 were unrelated this would be evident in the statistics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Redcellar' timestamp='1331384652' post='3281927']
That would be ageism. Yet I think they can do it, bizarre though. You could differentiate based upon experience, i.e. how long you held your licence and how many actual road years experience (if that were measurable).
[/quote]

Odds of a payout event are not ism anything....this is the real danger of DIVERSITY and Political Correctness.

Next they will be suggesting that all horses in a race should have the same odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Redcellar' timestamp='1331384652' post='3281927']
That would be ageism. Yet I think they can do it, bizarre though. You could differentiate based upon experience, i.e. how long you held your licence and how many actual road years experience (if that were measurable).
[/quote]
But of course that is still de facto age discrimination. You cannot specify a minimum number of years experience in a job advert any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bloo Loo' timestamp='1331384902' post='3281932']
Odds of a payout event are not ism anything....this is the real danger of DIVERSITY and Political Correctness.

Next they will be suggesting that all horses in a race should have the same odds.
[/quote]

Edited my post with thoughts too late.
Male female however is genetic and therefore you would be discriminating based upon a factor the individual has no control over and made no choice about.

How far would this go? Can you analyse someones genetic code to put them into a statistical group and charge them based on that. Insurance smooths the losses amongst the many. Political correctness isn't the reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Ah-so' timestamp='1331385098' post='3281934']
But of course that is still de facto age discrimination. You cannot specify a minimum number of years experience in a job advert any more.
[/quote]

You can discriminate against the youth when it comes to jobs serving alcohol, driving vehicles (for insurance purposes) and you can even pay them less. They don't even get topped up with state benefits like the 25+ year olds do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm actually with the EU on this one.

Insurance companies use your gender as a proxy for how safe or unsafe a driver you might be. I'm a male and so in the insurance company's view I'm a higher risk. I'm also a careful driver and have not had a claim since 18 years old, so my record would actually say I'm low risk.

The EU ruling is designed to steer insurance companies away from looking at basic but inaccurate indicators such as age, gender, occupation, etc, and actually how skilled you are at assessing and taking appropriate action whilst driving. Basically the insurance companies have to smarten up a bit.

Adam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a much, much bigger hit for men though: harmonisation of annuity rates.....


[url="http://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/male-annuity-rates-set-to-fall"]http://www.hl.co.uk/...tes-set-to-fall[/url]


[quote]Legal & General, one of the UK's largest annuity providers, estimate male annuity rates could drop by up to 10% once the legislation takes effect.[/quote]


Right - so that is an instant 10% off the total value of your pension...happy? Edited by hotairmail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='hotairmail' timestamp='1331385706' post='3281948']
This is a much, much bigger hit for men though: harmonisation of annuity rates.....


[url="http://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/male-annuity-rates-set-to-fall"]http://www.hl.co.uk/...tes-set-to-fall[/url]





Right - so that is an instant 10% off the total value of your pension...happy?
[/quote]

yeah, but we can pee our names in the snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bloo Loo' timestamp='1331385812' post='3281951']
yeah, but we can pee our names in the snow.
[/quote]

Yellow loo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm all I can see is women insurance premiums rising at a faster rate than men. I highly doubt male drivers will get significantly lower premiums from this "equalisation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Laguarde's Companion' timestamp='1331386020' post='3281954']
Hmmm all I can see is women insurance premiums rising at a faster rate than men. I highly doubt male drivers will get significantly lower premiums from this "equalisation".
[/quote]

Well you [b]certainly [/b]wouldn't if they left it the same!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now