mirage Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I think you may find Formula car racing is all about FINISHING THE RACE. So if birds are all much safer less risky drivers than men - then you would expect Formula one to be full of them - no ? I very much doubt that anyone will find that Formula 1 is all about finishing the race. I think you will find that it is about finishing it highly placed. Huge difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 My first vehicle a brand new mini van at 21 years of age bought for £349. Fully Comprehensive cost £31 a year in 1964 ended up £12 a year with no claims in 1970. Road Tax £10 with £5 MOT. Wages £20 per week The insurer Prudential. Only 2 claims in 47 years. Today Vauxhall Zafira, any driver over 25 years of age with one speeding endorsement £486. Wages £125 per week. Wages £20/week is £1040 a year, a matter of tenfold increase of the NMW annual. (200/week now after tax∋ is the minimum wage) But Fully comp is now £4000* rather than the inflation adjusted £310, MOT is £45 rather than £50. Road tax £200 rather than £100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Would posters who are happy for insurance companies to charge men and women differently be as happy if insurance companies were doing the same for different ethnic groups? I'm sure any half decent actuary could find statistically significant correlations between ethnic group and accident rates. I very much doubt that anyone will find that Formula 1 is all about finishing the race. I think you will find that it is about finishing it highly placed. Huge difference. Really ? You want to have a bet that if 2 drivers from one team, finish every single race, in whatever time (even if it takes them 3 days to do each race) - they will finish LAST in the championship. My point may be pedantic. But you see where I am going. Anyway who cares who is a better driver or not. Would probably just be sensible to let Insurance companies insure who the ****** they want. Let them discriminate on basis of age or gender or whatever. If another company can see money to be made out of insuring those 'missing out' - they will dive straight in there. I am sure this is the way business is generally supposed to work. Prior to people ******ing about with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 It's always been a matter of slight irritation to me that my car insurance premiums are higher than both of my sisters' premiums - despite the fact that they both drive more than me and have both had more accidents than me - just because they lack a Y-chromosome. When it comes down to it, if you believe that anti-discrimination legislation is justified in general, then it has to be justified here. People should be judged on what they do, not what their genes suggest they might do. That is a basic human right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Edit: £3500? You're joking. Yep £3500 is a joke, some of the younger riders I know have quotes of 4000-9000 a year on crappy cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 It's always been a matter of slight irritation to me that my car insurance premiums are higher than both of my sisters' premiums - despite the fact that they both drive more than me and have both had more accidents than me - just because they lack a Y-chromosome. When it comes down to it, if you believe that anti-discrimination legislation is justified in general, then it has to be justified here. People should be judged on what they do, not what their genes suggest they might do. That is a basic human right. It is also interesting to see various female reactions to this when asked on TV. Saw 2 today (Yes they may have been chosen just to annoy me but I doubt it) First one said she thought it was unfair that she paid less than her twim - however because she ended up paying less she was fine with it. Another bird I saw asked about ? Said (Something along the lines of) that men were used to paying more for it and as this was the case why would we change it. They don't seem to mind paying more anyway. It is amazing quite how hypocritical women can be when it comes to this sort of thing. In fact that brings up another point. I wonder if the equality commission were involved in this ? And if not - why not ? Because it appears to be a pretty blatant discrimination against sex - whether the overall point is justified for the majority or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guillotine Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Yep £3500 is a joke, some of the younger riders I know have quotes of 4000-9000 a year on crappy cars. Yes I was shocked to hear these figures on the news earlier. I had no idea..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) The way this is reported annoys me. The BBC (and just about every other) headline is: Women are set to pay higher car insurance premiums and men will get smaller pensions following a European Court of Justice ruling when it would be just as valid to have the headline: Men are set to pay lower car insurance premiums and women will get larger pensions following a European Court of Justice ruling Why must news always be presented in the worst possible light (especially if it involves Europe)? Edit: Unless, of course, it involves rising house prices! Edited March 1, 2011 by snowflux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Agreed. But cars are too powerful for kids these days. Glad I didn't have 200hp to play with when I was 18. My ford escort 1.1 was £80 to insure when I was 18. That was a weeks wage to me then. I could only afford a rust bucket but many of my 18yr old mates bought XR3i's which could hit 130mph going to footie up and down the country etc! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Yes, I understand why it is. I just think that to make assumptions about a person's character or behaviour or likely behaviour based on a demographic group that they have no choice but to belong to is pretty hideous, frankly. eight Really? Because, well, thats kind of the point of insurance. Insurance premium for 17 year old male on a £1k car = £3500 Fine for driving without insurance if caught = £100 + 8 points which would mean the 17 year old has to retake his test (both parts). Probably cheaper to pay the insurance. Yes, I can see people trying to find ways of differentiating their product that just happen to run along demographic lines (don't ask me how, but for what I'd be worth to them they may try). One thing will be certain; it will lose you money to insure young males for 20% less than current premiums, and it will be a money spinner to insure girls for the same price. Someone is going to find a way of exploiting that, and customers will lose. Just set up a company that only insures women. AFAICS, this doesn't kill of the like of Sheila's wheels. They can still charge a smaller amount for women as you can't prove they charge a different price for men if they don't insure the men. No idea how legal that would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catsick Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Its interesting to see here that all the comments are based around car insurance which is actually the more trivial market of the three being effected, Life insurance and pensions being much larger in terms of the sums involved, men will all be facing a 10% cut in the pensions they will be receiving when they buy an annuity, this is a huge kick in the nuts for them, I am sure this will further add fire to the anger over gold plated civil servant deals. The key thing here is sex is an observed factor in both longevity and the chances of having an accident, I am sure that if women were injected with testosterone on a daily basis the accident figures would probably converge to some degree. Insurance companies are in the business of analyzing risk be it longevity or chances of having a claim on car insurance and with a massive statistical database they price accordingly, if 3k for a 17 year old boy to insure a fiesta was the wrong price then any insurance company would be free to be aggressive in this sector and make good profits, but clearly it is not a sector that pays to win too much business in. What is now going to happen is insurance companies will have to scramble to rebuild their models as they will not just be able to blend the existing rates, I am sure that to start with the rate will be the higher of the two as former low risks will find ways to migrate to cheaper policies that bypass the directive in some way, for example nurses could be offered cheap insurance, the fact that 95% of nurses are women will mean the nurse is a good proxy for a woman but without being sexist , also on the eve of the directive coming in an insurance company could offer a 3 or 5 year policy, which clearly only women will take up, they also could offer the chance to lock in annuity rates ahead of time which only men will take up. Not knowing for sure what behavior will be observed will mean insurance companies will have to charge the higher of the two prices to everyone to start with before they get a decent database on how new behavior is and how many good risks can and are being bled out into policies that capture the old sex dependent features without being explicit. As an extreme example, would a sex blind blood test measuring testosterone levels (which is present in men and women to varying degrees) and then charging a lower level based on testosterone in the bloodstream ( and other drugs or hormones present to lesser degree or excessive alcohol consumption) be acceptable ? A few men will have very low levels and in effect be classified as women for insurance purposes ! I am sure women would be happy to take one if it meant 500 quid off the car insurance or men if it meant 5000 pounds a year for life income. The insurance company could ensure they don't even take the information on sex into account just research that presence of high levels of testosterone is a key factor in car accidents or early death. The upshot is insurance companies will probably end up making some nice windfall profits, consumers will get screwed or at best be no worse off, and everyone will hate the EU a little bit more ... Disclaimer - I own a lot of Aviva shares (-: Edited March 2, 2011 by catsick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartimandua51 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Just set up a company that only insures women. AFAICS, this doesn't kill of the like of Sheila's wheels. They can still charge a smaller amount for women as you can't prove they charge a different price for men if they don't insure the men. No idea how legal that would be. It wouldn't be legal. The Equality police went gunning for Ladycabs who were set up for women who didn't trust the average minicab driver. They had to take on a couple of male drivers, and I think they changed their advertising to say they specialised in the disabled, children and others who required special care. Similarly I'm sure a firm like Sheila's Wheels can do things like giving away pink sparkly handbags / spa days / beauty products free with their policies which won't appeal to (most!) blokes. A bloke on BBC breakfast has just said the Ins cos. are likely to use NCDs, type of car, occupation as surrogates for gender, just as catsick has just suggested. Edited March 2, 2011 by cartimandua51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Because the kind of sweeping generalisation that you made about 17 year old males would, I believe, be illegal to make about the groups I mentioned despite the fact that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that both are more likely to be involved in accidents. I also found it quite offensive (Harriet Harman says I'm allowed to be offended on behalf of anybody else now), especially since I was once a safe 17 year old old who never had an accident and yet didn't have to pay the frankly ridiculous sums being demanded these days. Tangentially, how are young British lads ever to have any hope of a career in driving if they cannot even afford private motoring? eight +1 If I lived in a crime ridden area, populated by ex cons, does this make me a former lag by default? There's plenty of jobs these days that require your own transport. Not sure I'd fancy being priced out of a market thanks to some sweeping generalising risk analysis.There's no reason why anyone should be paying these sky high prices. Their scorecard criterias make no sense, go compare/confused.com demonstrates this perfectly. Besides the risk sex gap is closing anyway. In the past 15 years, males have been paying more due to: SOME 17-21 year olds crashing their suped up Novas/Corsas... 90s middle management mondeo man traveling up and down motorways in large numbers (so logically distorting statistics) SOME over 65s who were clearly unfit to drive etc. Now, all the above also applies to women, whose numbers on the roads are increasing. Infact more so for the 17-25 group, as it's only girls who can afford to insure the suped up Corsas/Clios etc. The EU (for once) are ahead of the curve with this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Really? Because, well, thats kind of the point of insurance. The point of insurance is pooled risk. The insurance companies seem to prefer the approach of making every single customer their own personal underwriter. eight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Price controls usually result in shortages. How this pans out in the insurance market will be interesting. Lack of wholesale funding? Rising costs of the ambulance chasers? If this is the case then they should say so, not blame the under 25s. Interestingly I got cut up by a BMW driver on the way to work today, and nearly crashed into another after they failed to indicate. How many under 25s drive BMWs?! Me thinks 'risk' is being missapplied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingWithTheInlaws Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Surely gender is just another category that we fit in for the purposes of trying to assess the risk for insurance purposes. Does this mean the next step is to stop insurers from differentiating on age? I think it's correct that the insurance companies should be allowed to quote what they like for any individual based on all the statistical information they have. I hope that Sheila's wheels are able to continue with their USP - surely if they don't sell to men then they can't be accused of selling insurance to women cheaper than they do to men! Regarding the high prices for 17 year old lads. Apparently, they have a one in five chance of crashing and the average claim is £10k, so that's why their premiums are in the 1000s. BTW, I just got a quote for an Audi RS6. £600. Edited March 2, 2011 by LivingWithTheInlaws Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Would posters who are happy for insurance companies to charge men and women differently be as happy if insurance companies were doing the same for different ethnic groups? I'm sure any half decent actuary could find statistically significant correlations between ethnic group and accident rates. Its worse than that. Suppose they found a gene that if you had it meant that you had a higher chance of being a smoker. Suppose that this gene also had the effect that they always had blue eyes, however not everyone with blue eyes had the gene. Statistically, you could say that people with blue eyes are therefore more likely to be smokers. The insurance company therefore groups people with blue eyes as a higher risk, even though: 1. You have blue eyes, but do not carry the gene 2. You may carry the gene, but not be a smoker. I don't think many people defending the right of insurance companies to discriminate with regards to sex would so readily agree with the above scenario, but that in effect is exactly what the sex discrimination is doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Regarding the high prices for 17 year old lads. Apparently, they have a one in five chance of crashing and the average claim is £10k, so that's why their premiums are in the 1000s. BTW, I just got a quote for an Audi RS6. £600. Sorry, don't believe it. Not in a million years. I wonder how much repair work you'd get done on an RS6 for £600........? eight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingWithTheInlaws Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Sorry, don't believe it. Not in a million years. I wonder how much repair work you'd get done on an RS6 for £600........? eight I'm sorry I don't have a link to those stats but I clearly heard them on the radio last year. That's why I said 'apparently'. They are surprising if true. The point about my £600 quote is not how much an accident I might have will cost, but how likely all the 38 year old, 14 year NCB RS6 drivers are to crash and the cost of that crash shared between the ones that don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Would posters who are happy for insurance companies to charge men and women differently be as happy if insurance companies were doing the same for different ethnic groups? I'm sure any half decent actuary could find statistically significant correlations between ethnic group and accident rates. Or if homeowners were statistically safer drivers than private tenants?!? In my last job, being a homeowner granted an extra 25 - 50 points on to your credit score. Being a private tenant however ranged from 0 to -45 points. Where does it stop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingWithTheInlaws Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Its worse than that. Suppose they found a gene that if you had it meant that you had a higher chance of being a smoker. Suppose that this gene also had the effect that they always had blue eyes, however not everyone with blue eyes had the gene. Statistically, you could say that people with blue eyes are therefore more likely to be smokers. The insurance company therefore groups people with blue eyes as a higher risk, even though: 1. You have blue eyes, but do not carry the gene 2. You may carry the gene, but not be a smoker. I don't think many people defending the right of insurance companies to discriminate with regards to sex would so readily agree with the above scenario, but that in effect is exactly what the sex discrimination is doing. It should be an open market and up to them how they assess risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhifoe Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I've been a teenage male driver, and I've seen the quality of teenage male driving. Women may have more prangs, but the head on crash on the blind corner will be caused by a man who thinks he can see through hedges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) It should be an open market and up to them how they assess risk. In which case, it shold be a free market that allows me to drive without insurance or not. Edited to add: I notice you didn't say whether you thought the scenario to be fair and reasonable. What, instead of being blue eyes as the signal, it was a race related trait? Edited March 2, 2011 by Lepista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Anyway who cares who is a better driver or not. Would probably just be sensible to let Insurance companies insure who the ****** they want. Let them discriminate on basis of age or gender or whatever. If another company can see money to be made out of insuring those 'missing out' - they will dive straight in there. I am sure this is the way business is generally supposed to work. Prior to people ******ing about with it. +1 Goes for Life Insurance too of course. If anyone makes pricing errors on groups then someone else can come in and sweep up the opportunity. The number of people on this site who would be equally at home sitting on the EU Commission trying to run everyone else's lives is alarming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 In which case, it shold be a free market that allows me to drive without insurance or not. Sure. And if you harm someone be prepared to make amends to them. It might take you the rest of your life of course, but that's your choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.