10% discount for male drivers

[dune]

European judges rewrote the rule book for insurance companies today by banning risk assessment based on gender.

Using differences between men and women as a risk factor in setting premiums for car and medical insurance as well as pension schemes breaches EU rules on equality, declared the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

The verdict - which applies from December 21 next year - will force changes in the current practice of basing insurance rates on statistics about differing life expectancies or road accident records of the sexes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361750/Car-insurance-women-soar-25-men-face-10-CUT-EU-rules.html#ixzz1FMSBSzqB

 

Good news. It's always annoyed me how a bird at work who is a nervous wreck at the wheel and who can't parralel park gets cheaper insurance just because she drives at a snails pace. People like her cause more accidents by forcing other road users to overtake.

[stu0x]

I'll go out on a limb and say the more likely result will be a 35% increase for women, and a 0% decrease for men...

[scotty]

I'll go out on a limb and say the more likely result will be a 35% increase for women, and a 0% decrease for men...

 

....and the Sherlock award for 2011 goes to StuOx.

[dune]

I'll go out on a limb and say the more likely result will be a 35% increase for women, and a 0% decrease for men...

 

Probably. My insurance shot up by £300 this year and i've got 9 years no claims bonus. I've now gone with http://www.swiftcover.com/carinsurance/ and they beat the nearest quote by a clear margin. The service is probably **** though but i'll cross that bridge as and when I need to.

[Red and White Army]

The idiot of the year false economy award goes to the facist idiot Dune.

 

Next up - Dunes top tip on how to save on heating & lighting bills by setting fire to your carpet.....

 

Chocolate teapots have nothing on this clown.

[Red and White Army]

Wasn't Stanley banned anyway? Why has this muppet been allowed back?

[Deppo]

Ignoring the fact that Dune doesn't fully understand the actual implications of the ruling, I don't see what's wrong with women being charged less. They are less of a risk. They have less accidents. Just like young people are more of a risk. Just like you car is more likely to be stolen if parked on the street in a sh*t neighbourhood rather than in a garage in a crime free area.

[GenevaSaint]

Probably. My insurance shot up by £300 this year and i've got 9 years no claims bonus. I've now gone with http://www.swiftcover.com/carinsurance/ and they beat the nearest quote by a clear margin. The service is probably **** though but i'll cross that bridge as and when I need to.

 

Dune, I'm also with SwiftCover, they're ok for service. Had a small bump, logged details on website, occasional update to the case then it was closed, all sorted. I'm sure it could be painful but although they're web based they do have a number to call if you want to speak to someone.

[scotty]

Ignoring the fact that Dune doesn't fully understand the actual implications of the ruling, I don't see what's wrong with women being charged less. They are less of a risk. They have less accidents. Just like young people are more of a risk. Just like you car is more likely to be stolen if parked on the street in a sh*t neighbourhood rather than in a garage in a crime free area.

 

While I pretty much agree with most of this Deppo, how often does your bird actually drive when you both go out? My wifes annual car service usually amounts to an MOT/quick oil change/dust out the cobwebs. I always end up driving. I think the last time she drove me anywhere was to collect my car from the garage last october. And even then she asked me to drive her car on the way there, surely part of the reason womens insurance risk is lower is that they cover so few miles compared to men? We bought her car new 8 years ago and it has 32000 miles on the clock, I'm sure it would be cheaper for her to get taxis.

[ecuk268]

Insurance is all based on risk and, statistically, women have less accidents than men and, when they do have accidents, they tend to be less serious.

 

It seems mad to tell insurance companies that they can't use proven statistical methods in their calculations.

 

You can never tell what an insurance company is going to be like. When I had a bump in the car, Churchill were brilliant, everything sorted quickly with no fuss. But when I had a collapsed drain (also had my house insurance with them), they were a real pain, taking ages to process the claim, so I'm now with Swiftcover.

[dune]

Ignoring the fact that Dune doesn't fully understand the actual implications of the ruling, I don't see what's wrong with women being charged less.

 

What if it was the other way around and men were charged less - the womens lib lot would have been up in arms and "loose women" would have something to say about it. would it be acceptable if the cost was worked out according to race or sexual orientation?

Edited 1 March, 2011 by dune

[Golden Balls]

I think it the insurance should be taken on experience and no claims.

 

So what if more men have accidents. Doesn't mean I will.

 

It's like a life insurance company saying to an Indian "No sir, we will have to charge you more as statistics prove a lot of suicide bombers are male and Indian"

 

It's pre judging people.

[stu0x]

It's like a life insurance company saying to an Indian "No sir, we will have to charge you more as statistics prove a lot of suicide bombers are male and Indian"

Well, it's not is it.

 

1) A criminal act that resulted in your own death would invalidate your insurance policy.

 

2) Wrong part of the subcontinent. I think you meant Pakistan. They all look the same though, eh?

 

3) The statistical impact of suicide bombing on total deaths is basically nil.

 

A far more accurate comparison would be a life insurance company demanding higher premiums from people who have a history of heart disease in their family. Which... they do.

[Golden Balls]

Well, it's not is it.

 

1) A criminal act that resulted in your own death would invalidate your insurance policy.

 

2) Wrong part of the subcontinent. I think you meant Pakistan. They all look the same though, eh?

 

3) The statistical impact of suicide bombing on total deaths is basically nil.

 

A far more accurate comparison would be a life insurance company demanding higher premiums from people who have a history of heart disease in their family. Which... they do.

 

Good point. Pakistan. You know what I'm getting at. Which is the prejudice. Like someone posted above... If roles were reversed, women would be up in arms saying it's sexist. Plenty of women go on about being equal, well here you go.

[thesaint sfc]

Probably. My insurance shot up by £300 this year and i've got 9 years no claims bonus. I've now gone with http://www.swiftcover.com/carinsurance/ and they beat the nearest quote by a clear margin. The service is probably **** though but i'll cross that bridge as and when I need to.

 

I'm with them *high five*

 

Their service has been pretty good actually. I've hit a cyclist and gone into the back of two people and they've been really helpful.

[Deppo]

While I pretty much agree with most of this Deppo, how often does your bird actually drive when you both go out? My wifes annual car service usually amounts to an MOT/quick oil change/dust out the cobwebs. I always end up driving. I think the last time she drove me anywhere was to collect my car from the garage last october. And even then she asked me to drive her car on the way there, surely part of the reason womens insurance risk is lower is that they cover so few miles compared to men? We bought her car new 8 years ago and it has 32000 miles on the clock, I'm sure it would be cheaper for her to get taxis.

 

Well you've proven my point then - if they don't rive as much and always want you to drives then clearly they are less likely to have an accident. If a male is constantly driving his lady around then he has more chance off being involved in an accident. I'm not sure I get your point.

 

One a separate note, please don't refer to my Derek as a "bird". He's quite effeminate but definitely not a "bird" and definitely pays full price, expensive insurance.

[GenevaSaint]

Dune, this also affects pensions and life assurance. Men will get less when they buy their pension annuity now, the fact that you're male and have a shorter life span cannot be taken into account when allocating pensions, not all good news.

[solentstars]

European judges rewrote the rule book for insurance companies today by banning risk assessment based on gender.

Using differences between men and women as a risk factor in setting premiums for car and medical insurance as well as pension schemes breaches EU rules on equality, declared the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

The verdict - which applies from December 21 next year - will force changes in the current practice of basing insurance rates on statistics about differing life expectancies or road accident records of the sexes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361750/Car-insurance-women-soar-25-men-face-10-CUT-EU-rules.html#ixzz1FMSBSzqB

 

Good news. It's always annoyed me how a bird at work who is a nervous wreck at the wheel and who can't parralel park gets cheaper insurance just because she drives at a snails pace. People like her cause more accidents by forcing other road users to overtake.

 

leave your stamp collection and train spotting hobbys alone and get yourself a woman dune then you would not be so angry with the modern world lol

[Lord Duckhunter]

Dune, as a free market Thatcherite I would have thought you of all people would want Insurance Companies to set their own premiums and charge what the hell they like.

[LGTL]

How very Socialist of you Dune, you're finally learning!

[JustMike]

the whole "woman are better drivers" stats are false, mainly down to the fact that the people that spout this rubbish fail to factor in the fact that there are more male drivers, which would lead to more male claims. They also ignore the 2 people on one car policy where you would have say husband as policy holder with the wife as a named driver.

[aintforever]

It SHOULD end up with decreased insurance for Men, at first they will just put women's premiums up but in the long term they should average out.

 

Problem is the same EU ruling it is based on also says you shouldn't discriminate against age so we will all end up paying more because of idiot chav teenagers.

[Golden Balls]

It SHOULD end up with decreased insurance for Men, at first they will just put women's premiums up but in the long term they should average out.

 

Problem is the same EU ruling it is based on also says you shouldn't discriminate against age so we will all end up paying more because of idiot chav teenagers.

 

They can just say 'less experienced' which is fair enough.

[bridge too far]

^^^

 

We've now got a 2 car policy and I'm the policy holder - because I now do a lower mileage and also because Mr TF has just bought a sh*t hot Subaru. I'm surprised more men don't put their wives as main policy holder although I guess any advantage will be wiped out because of this ruling.

 

Is it so that there are more male drivers than female ones? Hmmm I wonder. However, I'll concede that GENERALLY males drive more miles than women. But again, when I was working, I drove far more miles a year than Mr TF did, because of my job.

 

Sadly, you guys won't get a reduction for your car insurance. You can bet your bottom dollar that the insurance companies will leap on this and hike everyone's rates, saying that they'll have to calculate individual insurances rather than rely on actuarial and empirical evidence.

 

Low mileage is reflected in everyone's policy. I reduced my own (paltry) insurance amount once I'd stopped work and reduced my annual mileage by two thirds.

[Deano6]

Ignoring the fact that Dune doesn't fully understand the actual implications of the ruling, I don't see what's wrong with women being charged less. They are less of a risk. They have less accidents. Just like young people are more of a risk. Just like you car is more likely to be stolen if parked on the street in a sh*t neighbourhood rather than in a garage in a crime free area.

 

^

|

|

└-------- I agree with this guy.

[Deppo]

^

|

|

└-------- I agree with this guy.

 

Stop messing about and come home Derek. The cats miss you.

[scotty]

Well you've proven my point then - if they don't rive as much and always want you to drives then clearly they are less likely to have an accident. If a male is constantly driving his lady around then he has more chance off being involved in an accident. I'm not sure I get your point.

 

One a separate note, please don't refer to my Derek as a "bird". He's quite effeminate but definitely not a "bird" and definitely pays full price, expensive insurance.

 

apologies to Derek. What I suggest is that we get up a working group with the aim of getting our womenfolk to shoulder their fair share of driving duties. What sends me ballistic is when she bleats about not wanting to drive so she can have a drink, then when we get wherever it is she sips a small glass of white wine then switches to soda water for the rest of the evening. Far as I'm concerned, if she coerces me into driving duties she damn well ought to get proper p*ssed.

[Lighthouse]

Personally I think insurance should depend entirely on years of no claims bonus, although maybe some factors like location and where it's parked should be included.

 

Factors like age, gender and occupation shouldn't be a factor. I'm not more likely because I'm a bloke in my 20s. I am however less likely to crash because I've got 4 years NCB, compared to someone who's 2 write offs in the last 5 years. I don't buy the whole 'statistics' argument either. It's like saying black people should be banned from using high street banks because statistically black people commit more robberies. It's just wrong.

[Deano6]

Personally I think insurance should depend entirely on years of no claims bonus, although maybe some factors like location and where it's parked should be included.

 

Factors like age, gender and occupation shouldn't be a factor. I'm not more likely because I'm a bloke in my 20s. I am however less likely to crash because I've got 4 years NCB, compared to someone who's 2 write offs in the last 5 years. I don't buy the whole 'statistics' argument either. It's like saying black people should be banned from using high street banks because statistically black people commit more robberies. It's just wrong.

 

You set up an insurance company on that basis and I'll set up an insurance company allowing any risk factors I want and let's compare profit margins in 5 years time.

[Lighthouse]

You set up an insurance company on that basis and I'll set up an insurance company allowing any risk factors I want and let's compare profit margins in 5 years time.

 

I know why they do it, doesn't mean it's right. Surely it's not beyond the realms of possibility to implement a fair system and draw similar profit margins. Just charge more for people who have had accidents.

[dune]

Personally I think insurance should depend entirely on years of no claims bonus, although maybe some factors like location and where it's parked should be included.

 

NCD protection is the biggest con going. When you apply for new insurance they always ask you whether you've had any accidents in the past 5 years or so which should be an irrelevent question if you've got NCD protection.

[dune]

Dune, as a free market Thatcherite I would have thought you of all people would want Insurance Companies to set their own premiums and charge what the hell they like.

 

The way things have gone in this country if you're a white english male you're the only section of society that is fair game to be discriminated against. Therefore I welcome rulings that stop us being treated as second class citizens. Lets hope that positive discrimination is the next thing thats outlawed.