Crazy, this wasn't gender inequality, it was just recognising the fact we actually are different (statistically). Why should infinitely more sensible young women have to pay because stupid boy racers keep crashing their pimped out chav mobiles?
Statistics mean nothing when discrimination is put on the field, and considering the massive change of insurance premiums we've seen at least as UK motorists in the last year, this will change the whole young driver market for sure.
I'm an insurance consultant and still ask how long you've lived in the UK for, and if the customer says for X amount of years and not all thier life...the premium goes up. Now I still am required to say this question so I'm assuming this is still the case with some underwriters as statistically again people who haven't lived in the UK all thier life cause more accidents?
Insurance should be the only business that allows for what they have seen as discriminatory; as you say Bob, for the simple reason it's based upon facts and not bias. I always thought that discrimination in a court of law had an underlying meaning of prejudice, which this surely isn't if it based on fact?
Quite a long running argument. Insurance isn't fair. "All the females", "All the males", "All the under 25s".
I guess it's all the same, just an arbitrarily decided size of net - they have no real interest in establishing an individual's risk, or we'd be doing something like personality tests when we do our driving theory tests - that would cost what, a couple of quid?
They could all decide to make it "All the drivers", it's the same principle so you couldn't really complain, just with a bigger net.
Typical case of equality law creating more expense & pain... for everyone.. all in the name of 'fairness'. Don't forget men lose out in regard to pensions.
Mind you I do find it somewhat bizarre how much negative coverage this gets, say compared to equality law in the workplace, which cripples thousands of small businesses every day of the week.
I guess this is a great wake up call to those who called for all these laws in the first place
I don't understand this either. Surely any discrimination is based on prejudice and not on facts? I have seen the figures that say that men crash more times than woman in a year but woman drive less miles in a year than men so per mile woman crash more often. I have also seen that men write off more cars as most of womens accidents are prangs.
Either way, the insurance companies would of worked it out, if women are less of a risk then they should pay less. I don't see how it could be any different.
Does this mean that us younger drivers could go to court because older drivers get cheaper insurance based on age discrimination?
Well that means my insurance is going up, my sister is a named driver which actually reduces how much I have to pay, only by about £20 but it's still a saving.
I can see why a small difference in premiums could be justified because the statistical trends are pretty clear to see, but my insurance for a 1970 Minor 1000 being double that of my sister driving a '94 Astra is just ridiculous. There needs to be undisputed scientific proof that male drivers are always more dangerous for them to justify such a huge gap, and there isn't any.
I think we're more likely to see women's fees rising than men's dropping, insurance companies are probrably clapping their hands together at the potential excuse to grab even more money because the ruling is worded wrong.
Because for every boy racer there is another lad of the same age who has a car rusting in the garage because he or his parents can't afford to pay ridiculous premiums. And for every safe women driver there is another who drives like my sister. Essentially the whole car insurance industry is based on stereotypes, drivers are judged before they even turn a wheel.
And higher premiums means a greater percentage of young male drivers on the road who can even afford to modify their cars, driving premiums up further.
Insurers should not be allowed to determine premiums based on risk until they have justification on an individual basis, after say a year or two of driving.
I didn't mean this ruling effects the age of the driver, but women got insurance cheaper as they are less of a risk same as older drivers. Now they have ruled that women shouldn't get it cheaper so surely by the same illogical logic then older people shouldn't either.
Not scientific but you wouldn't catch me in the passenger seat of car driven by a male under the age of 25 very often.
Anyway, there shouldn't be any scientific proof needed for an insurance company to justify their charging. Once you start forcing in such regulation then the large cost will only be passed onto the consumer. If any insurance company wants to charge someone £10,000,000 or £1 that should be up to them. If the market is allowed to function those that over-charge just won't be able to operate.
However, because the market is so heavily regulated, naturally only the very largest insurance companies can afford to operate, and thus premiums will be very high to suit their needs. The competition just isn't there to drive down prices.
I wonder if that view is based on real experience or a well-worn stereotype? Probrably the latter.
I will not be told how I am going to drive when I haven't driven since the day I passed my driving test.
If the market is regulated suitably what few insurance companies are left wont be allowed to charge to suit their needs, and if this means they have to change their model of operation to survive (beyond simply charging more) then so be it, the cost dosen't have to be passed on to the consumer, that only happens because businesses are too lazy to adapt.
Different industries need different levels of regulation, ranging from nationalisation to almost completely hands-off, an industry that directly affects the livelihoods of so many people to such a great extent should never be allowed to be a free for all.
Competition alone is not enough to drive down insurance premiums by more than a couple of percent. There always comes a point when claim payouts will exceed the premiums taken. It's the fault of the ambulance chasers, the "ouch my neck hurts, give me ten grand" victims, the uninsured drivers etc. This massive cost is what has pushed premiums through the roof in the last 15 years, nothing else. If there were still a profit margin (they're miniscule as it is) to be had, companies would love to take all the business by offering cheap insurance.
It is more expensive being male though. Look at the NHS - we all pay into it equally but women use it way more often, especially my girlfriend who keeps getting cancer - she should pay 10x as much tax as me.
A few insurance companies here are non-profit.. They only keep the prices at a level to make it go around, and if they earn a profit in a given year it gets paid back equally to all members.
Seems like the best way to go about it tbh..
It's still cheaper for a young girl to insure her car compared to a young guy though.
