[Bloo Loo]

Redcellar, on 10 March 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

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).

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.

[Ah-so]

Redcellar, on 10 March 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

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).

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.

[Redcellar]

Bloo Loo, on 10 March 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

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.

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.

[Self Employed Youth]

Ah-so, on 10 March 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

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.

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...

[adamUK]

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.

[Grrrr I'm a tiger]

This is a much, much bigger hit for men though: harmonisation of annuity rates.....


http://www.hl.co.uk/...tes-set-to-fall

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.

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

This post has been edited by hotairmail: 10 March 2012 - 01:23 PM

[Bloo Loo]

hotairmail, on 10 March 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

This is a much, much bigger hit for men though: harmonisation of annuity rates.....


http://www.hl.co.uk/...tes-set-to-fall





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

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

[Grrrr I'm a tiger]

Bloo Loo, on 10 March 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

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

Yellow loo?

[Lagarde's Drift]

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".

[Redcellar]

Laguarde, on 10 March 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

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".

Well you certainly wouldn't if they left it the same!

[Frank Hovis]

Bloo Loo, on 10 March 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

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?

Don't be truckist!

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

The real rise is included:

Quote

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.

So if you were Mrs Bloo Loo you would find yourself paying £312 rather than £250.

I would expect mens' premiums to fall as a consequence, though not by as much as they would if the amount of legal costs allowed were capped so that these no-win-no-fee merchants could only charge a standard rate.

[Lagarde's Drift]

Redcellar, on 10 March 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Well you certainly wouldn't if they left it the same!

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

[daddybear]

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

[markyh]

Frank Hovis, on 10 March 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

£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!



M

[SnapCrackleNPop]

Not all men a 'boy racers'.

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

This post has been edited by SnapCrackleNPop: 10 March 2012 - 02:10 PM