Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cashinmattress

Women Face £362 Rise In Car Insurance

Recommended Posts

In order to deal with this situation I would be quite happy to pay more for road tax to include basic third party insurance. If we could get enough people together we could launch a petition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£362 seems to be an average figure including 17 yos in XR2s.

The real rise is included:

A nice mk1 fiesta XR2 like i had in the late 80s (about £3.5k to buy and £600 p/a fully comp for a 19 year old) will actually cost you about £5k now for a nice one and could be insured in classic car insurance!

B)

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spp

Not all men a 'boy racers'.

If they are...hit them on a personal level when they cause an offence/crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure? I get cheaper insurance just by adding the girlfriend as a named driver. Will that change in an upwards or downwards direction? <_<

At least one of the big names has dropped that policy, of reducing because of a named driver. I tried it with mine this year, instead of a discount they wanted another £500 more!

I see what you mean though. I did think you just meant male policy versus female. Mixed and named drivers is very interesting as to the effect it will have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least one of the big names has dropped that policy, of reducing because of a named driver. I tried it with mine this year, instead of a discount they wanted another £500 more!

I see what you mean though. I did think you just meant male policy versus female. Mixed and named drivers is very interesting as to the effect it will have.

Yes, as there are many variations, there is no certainty that a premium will go up or down, or stay the same.

I am just skeptical about the entire con industry, and just see premiums going up for everyone, only more so for women.

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.

Insurance companies use gender as a proxy for how safe or unsafe a driver you might be because it is an excellent proxy for how safe a driver you might be, particularly if you are young.

If you were an insurer and you had 100 newly-qualified drivers, 50 men and 50 women, you could offer them all the same rate. I would offer the women a cheaper rate and the men a higher rate. If the men went with your cheaper rates, so be it - after a year your insurance company would be bust and mine would be doing very nicely, thank you.

Among experienced drivers, sex (or "gender" as you call it) becomes less significant, and experience more. This is reflected in insurance premiums and there is actually little to choose between male and female premiums for experienced drivers.

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.

If I had the money I would prefer to self insure like the big bus companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is only fair that both men and women should start on an even playing field (although men are slightly higher risk).......if a proven own fault accident then happens only then should the financial price of higher premiums kick in.......that should incentivise new learner drivers to take more care, and less dangerous risk. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite this being an EU regulation, I suspect insurance companies would offer cheaper insurance to somebody called Wendy, rather than Dave, since their actuaries would have determined Wendy to be a safer name! :lol::blink::huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That was their fault, yes. But the rule is applied even when its a no-fault claim. As I err ... wrote in the OP.

????

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

Sloblocks.

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

See above. Read what people write before posting.

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.

Oh dear. You started off well then use a driver-at-fault scenario to describe why a the logic applied to no-fault claims is valid.

Logic FAIL!

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.

Probabilistically is looking forward, statistically is looking backwards. Statistically it is unlikely I will spin ten heads in a row, probabilistically speaking it is as likely as any other outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had the money I would prefer to self insure like the big bus companies.

And I'm not sure why that can't be done. I've heard insurance companies spout that cyclists should have insurance. Well, if they had their way, pedestrians would have it for crossing the road too.

Like I said, the insurance industry is desperately in need of a regulator with specific focus on the industry. The Insurance Ombudsman is toothless patsy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. You started off well then use a driver-at-fault scenario to describe why a the logic applied to no-fault claims is valid.

No. I didn't. I said "suffer" a rear end shunt, meaning that this would be a no-fault accident (i.e. a 3rd party runs into the back of this careful driver).

If I brake hard to avoid an obstruction, a careless driver behind is more likely to ram into the back of me, than if I had anticipated the hazard and reduced my speed gently in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I didn't. I said "suffer" a rear end shunt, meaning that this would be a no-fault accident (i.e. a 3rd party runs into the back of this careful driver).

If I brake hard to avoid an obstruction, a careless driver behind is more likely to ram into the back of me, than if I had anticipated the hazard and reduced my speed gently in advance.

Erm. Re-read your post.

1. You are the careful driver, you keep a safe distance between yourself and the next car.

2. The person behind you isn't and doesn't

3. They hit you, its their fault.

4. They get penalised.

5. You get penalised.

Penny dropped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm. Re-read your post.

1. You are the careful driver, you keep a safe distance between yourself and the next car.

2. The person behind you isn't and doesn't

3. They hit you, its their fault.

4. They get penalised.

5. You get penalised.

Penny dropped?

No. You miss my point.

I am careless. I only notice an obstruction in the road at the last minute. I slam on the brakes. Slightly careless, too close, driver has no opportunity to avoid, and runs into the back of me.

I am careful. I anticipate hazards and slow down and increase distance between myself and the car in front. I notice a problem early and brake gently. Slightly careless driver behind is too close, but sees my brake lights, and the distance closing and has a chance to slam on the anchors, avoiding a collision.

The fact is that a careful driver can sometimes mitigate the carelessness of those around him. This is why careful drivers have fewer non-fault accidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Oh boy. When you spin three heads in a row, is the next spin more or less likely to be heads or tails? Whichever of those you think is more likely, you are wrong. Neither is more likely than the other.

Your misunderstanding of the problem is the reason insurance companies get away with it - because they conflate probability with statistical analysis, and you simple don't get the difference between them.

The fact is that a careful driver can sometimes mitigate the carelessness of those around him. This is why careful drivers have fewer non-fault accidents.

Yes! We're there I think. *Sometimes* . But not always. And yet you will always be apportioned some of the blame by your thieving profiteering insurance company. That's the inequity of the issue, that's why insurance companies are simply double-dipping on the claimant and insuree's policies.

And a regulator would quickly put a stop to that type of shenanigans. An ombudsman on the other hand is happy as long as the insurance company has enough money to pay their dues each year (and no doubt you've spotted a conflict of interest right there already).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see this as women being charged more at all.

Just brings it into line with equal rights.

.

I only had 2 accidents in about 30 years of driving.

One was hitting an unlit obstruction in the road for which the perpetrator was rightfully prosecuted, and the other was when I was sideswiped by a women on a roundabout.

Problem with the women on the roundabout is I could see her getting closer as we moved round the roundabout (and it was a large 3 lane roundabout) and I kept trying to get out of her way, but she seemed intent on hitting me even when I ended up with all 4 wheels on the pavement.

So where are we?

Are women to be charged more or have guys been overcharged for so many years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where are we?

Are women to be charged more or have guys been overcharged for so many years?

The change forces insurance companies to charge women more than their fair share, and men less than their fair share.

There is quite a striking difference in claims patterns between males and females, on an aggregate basis.

Women definitely have more accidents per mile driven - but tend to drive fewer miles than men, and the claims resulting from these accidents are also less costly, due to a different mixture of accident types (women get into more low-speed accidents during city driving, whereas men tend to have more higher speed accidents).

The net result is that an insurer pays about about 10% more in claims for an average male driver, than a female driver (all other factors being equal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy. When you spin three heads in a row, is the next spin more or less likely to be heads or tails? Whichever of those you think is more likely, you are wrong. Neither is more likely than the other.

Your misunderstanding of the problem is the reason insurance companies get away with it - because they conflate probability with statistical analysis, and you simple don't get the difference between them.

not at all.

if it was as random as a coin toss then the statistics would show that it is 50/50.

if the statistics show that it isnt 50/50 on a regular basis e.g its 60/40 it might indicate that the coin for example is weighted in some way.

so if you have an accident that wasnt your fault, and this was just a random event , the statistics would show this, and your premiums would remain the same.

if there is a correlation that people involved in a claim are more likely to claim again then its not random. i.e perhaps your not as innocent as you make out the first time round.

maybe quite often the fault is weighted 70/30 towards the person who caused the accident rather than 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your misunderstanding of the problem is the reason insurance companies get away with it - because they conflate probability with statistical analysis, and you simple don't get the difference between them.

I have training in statistics, and use statistical techniques (especially those which serve to identify relevant factors, out of a collection of other factors which may not be relevant) in my work on a regular basis.

I must confess, though, that I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by this (or by your other attempted explanations between "probability" and "statistics").

While it is true that if you spin a coin and get heads 10x, then if the coin is unbiased, you are equally likely to spin a head or tail on the next round.

However, this is because individual coin spins are independent of each other - there is no connection between one and the next.

Now consider the an experiment with drivers. Take 100 drivers who had a no fault accident in the last year, and 100 drivers who had no accidents in the last year. Then after a 12 month period see how many have had accidents. If your hypothesis held true, then they would have equal numbers of accidents. In reality, the groups have greatly different numbers of accidents. The probability of having an accident is highly dependent on whether you have already had a no-fault accident.

The insurance companies are well aware of this and can prove it, which is why they use it as a weighting factor for calculating premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is precisely because insurers are not allowed to discriminate that premiums are now so high for everyone.

Insurers are getting round this by using post code data

So if you live in a postcode area where people most likely to commit insurance fraud live your premiums will be astronomical

You can probably guess where these areas are without needing a database of claims.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after 20 years of driving, and the same in ncb. omeone took a red light and drove into me denting my front wing.

because the cost of repairs to both vehicles was quite low the insurance companies decieded to call it a no fault claim. thus my insurance cost has gone through the roof for something not my fault at all, as well as the insurance company not paying a penny for the repair as it was under the 500 pound excess i had and cause they named it no fault i couldnt claim from the other parties insurance policy.

so im left with no no-claims and a accident risk for something not my fault. as the companies felt the cost to defend the claim was not worth it, it would have been much better if they had wrote the vehicle off, that way they would have fought their corner.

just a not worth it persuing claim for them, a fortune for me the innocent party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously a lot of people on here who have no understanding of how the insurance industry works or the fundamentals of Insurance as a risk transfer mechanism. As a Chartered Insurer and someone who has worked in the London insurance market my two pence worth:

One of the biggest challenges for insurers is "investment income" which is pretty much non existent and has been since the good old recession. Motor insurance simply makes no underwriting profit (premiums minus claims) and has not done so for years and therefore "profit" relies on "investment income" which is gained through "speculating" with the pool of premiums, the goal being to try and generate a profit over the underwriting cycle. This is typically done as a very short term investment and one of the challenges is the choice of investments which are often limited but also heavily influenced by Capital Adequacy requirements for the insurers.

Yes it is wrong to penalise based upon age / sex / race, but the bottom line is that motor underwriting engines are built up over years and years of data and they know who is more likely to have an accident. Unfortunately this can mean that a young Asian male gets severely penalised versus a middle aged white woman.

Im not saying it is right, but I'm not really sure what the solution is. Should we just charge everyone the same no matter how old, what sex etc? Would this work out better for the consumer in the long run? Personally I think there would be far to greater moral hazard in doing something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that car insurance is used by many companies to subsidise other types of insurance.

Rises in premiums are directly linked to the ridiculous payout being made in relation to the BP oil leak, where the US gov is basically milking it for every cent they can. Car insurance should be run by the government on a not-for-profit basis, and strict rules should apply in terms of blame (no more of this splitting the blame on every claim so you can push up premiums) and in terms of fraudulent claims - make fraudulent claims a criminal offence with a 10 year minimum sentence and offer rewards for people who dob others in.

Ultimately the catch is now that if you allow insurance companies to base premiums on sex, then you have to allow them to base it on race.

And then the fight started...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That is as may be.

But if they have had an accident and are male, does that mean I am more likely to have an accident? I think not, and to penalise me on that basis would be discriminatory.

What about gay men? Are they classed as male or female for driving risk?

It should be like here in France. All cars must be insured for any driver with a licence - no exceptions. This means although I may pay a bit more young people can afford insurance. Consequently there are also few drivers driving without insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.