Men vs Women: UK car insurance rates

[Wobba]

EU rulings say higher rates for young men are discriminatory and rule there must be an equal rate across male and female policyholders. Discuss.

[chip]

I want to see if they make the same ruling about age, will be bloody interesting if they do cause the car insurance business is just going to fall apart I should think!

[A&P]

Would be nice if they balanced the price ie drop mens insurance and raised womens rather than take womens price up to the mans. Dont think that will happen though probably just raise them all :cry:

[chip]

Would be nice if they balanced the price ie drop mens insurance and raised womens rather than take womens price up to the mans. Dont think that will happen though probably just raise them all :cry:

They are talking about mens dropping 10% and womens going up 25%

which means they are doing exactly what you say (as men currently spend 2.5 times as much in the uk on car insurance as women in total)

[2 live]

its about time they got the equality theyve been screaming for for so long tbh. i dont think the women campaigning for equality will like it much tho tbh, cos it doesnt suit. i.e. theyl pay more. its a shame the life ins. and pensions arent quite there yet too tho.

[A&P]

^^^^ agree with you bud. Chip thats good news too did not know they were doing that so from :cry: to :)

[Wobba]

There are numerous inequalities between men and women in the way they are treated, perceived and dealt with by the population at large and the system, always have been. In this case however I can see why they may say young women are a lower risk than young men.

Don't believe what you hear on TV though. Women DO have accidents, just as many if not more than men, it's just they tend to be lower in overall claim value.

By the way, this whole situation backfires on men around the age of 65 as women are rated as a higher risk at this point than men, and it's men that get the better deal.

[chip]

Women drive less miles on average than men, thats the main reason that on average their total claim value per person is lower.

[2 live]

but they can have more claims per year, sure at a smaller cost, but the total cost can end up more.......things like rear/front bumpers and painting, dings, scratches etc etc etc.

[scratabout1988]

I'm not sexist, buttt..........

a woman very nearly killed me and herself after deciding to cross a dual carriageway 10m in front of me in wet weather.

women may not have as many accidents as blokes, but are more than likely the cause of many too!

such lapses of concentration deserve higher premiums in my opinion and fairs fair!

[stevie_b]

I don't see why this needed meddling with - it was never a purely sexist policy. If their risk profiling shows that, as a group, women have lower value claims in a period than men do I think it is perfectly acceptable to base premiums accordingly. In the same way that I think if they can show that a bouncer is likely to have more accidents than an accountant then it is acceptable to take people's profession into account, or where they live if statistically that influences how likely their car is to be vandalised or stolen (which it will). It doesn't always make sense but they have to base it on something rather than charging everyone the same figure, and as long as they have stats to back it up then fair enough. It does seem a bit weird at times though - having a long history of driving high performance cars, with 10+ years NCB and no claims/convictions I found it a bit odd that they wanted to reduce the premium if I added my wife to the policy, who has had two 'fault' accidents in the last 12 months?!? But, hey, I'll happily add her to it if they will reduce the cost. Even more weirdly it reduced further when I UPPED the annual mileage limit from 3k to 5k. How can having the option to use the car more REDUCE the premium? Some other strange risk profiling they have that says low usage drivers are more of a risk I presume, but I drive other cars so 3k limit on a car does not mean I am just driving 3k a year. So I went for 5k and you don't need to drive it the maximum number given anyway. I just go on the comparison sites and play with all the options for an evening until the lowest numbers pop out! So having higher premiums for women in future will probably actually INCREASE my insurance costs!

I think there are other things they could have legislated on before this - like why women get to retire earlier than men but are also the ones who should get to live longer in life enjoying themselves afterwards!

[Clio-Girl]

im just bloody glad ive just renewed both my cars, before this all goes up.

[Jamie.]

It's based on statistics so I think the pricing is fair enough. If they need proof review there evidence on costings, apart from that, leave it alone.

[chip]

Stevie_b, would you say it was also fair then if they discovered that black people were more likely to have an accident and charged accordingly?

If its going to be done on profiling, who should decide what info they are allowed to profile or not?

[2 live]

good point^^^^^^ but then it would be classed as racist. but only if it made the ins for said black man/woman more expensive

and imo yes it should be worked out that way. there will be a larger percentage of 1 group making more claims than another. therefore they should pay more. either that or it should be worked out on the individual and their history in terms of claims. i.e, 1 guy has 10 years without a claim, should pay less than 1 guy with 4 claims in 15 years etc, no matter what colour, sex, or location.

[chip]

Well no claims already happens, the problem with looking at peoples complete 15 year driving history (or 19 years in my case) is that the information simply doesnt exist as far as im aware, and also there is a limit to how far going back is useful.

I suspect that what may happen in the long run is all premiums will go up but people on full no claims will get an even bigger discount than they do now to bring them back to the same place, the insurance companies know how much they want to charge people to fairly assess the risk so will just have to alter their calculations to attempt to get to a similar point without certain criteria being factors.
A bit like trying to map a car with less ignition points, you can still do it, you just lose resolution in places.

[2 live]

yeah no claims bonus is the way they do it now. but 7 years is the limit iirc. i have 20 years driving under my belt, 15 of which have been claim free. maybe if they give a lower percentage for each year, extending the amount if time it takes to rack up full ncb would give a better pic of the individual?

will b interesting to see how they work it.

[chip]

I think they view 7 years as full representative, if you used to be a bit of a risk but have had 7 years claim free since then clearly you ahve changed your driving style or gained some talent since anyway, lol

7 years is long enough to become a doctor or lawyer etc, so im sure its long enough to show you can drive reasonably well, so im not sure there would be much value in attaching further discount for people with 20 years than 7 etc