...but males are statistically more likely to have an accident?



or is that what you mean? lol

 

Yes! Why is it descrimination if men have to pay higher insurance premiums? The statistics (in this instance ) dont lie. You would expect to pay more if you bought a car that is statistically more likely to be involved in accidents or stolen.

 

Yeah I'm with you on that one, especially if they decide to do the same with age descrimination and bring our premiums up to the same as 17 year old lads!!

Problem is that some people say that black people are more likely to make a claim, but they can't/daredn't descriminate them for that!... So I guess it's now got to be the same accross the board.

 

Shouldn't matter if you are black, white, yellow, male or female. Surely it should be down to risk? Bloody madness

 

I'm not sure what you mean Hartside?...

What do you define as 'higher risk'?... as statisticaly men are higher risk?

 

Sorry if I was not clear. What I mean is that if it is proven women are less of a risk than a man, then the premium should reflect this (ie - it should be less)

It's madness that in the name of "discrimination" costs should go up

 

Men are higher risk due to there being more men on the road ?

While statistics say men are more likely to have an accident not all will so why should we foot the largest share of the bill based on likely hood ?

Justice has been done in my opinion

 

Where do you stop, surely basing a premium on age is age discrimination.

 

We all know the truth of what will happen though.

Ladies premiums will go WAY up, mens will go up anyway. We will all be sad

And insurance companies will still be laughing!

 

I find this a tricky subject to be honest... Lets say that you are an insurance company that isn't allowed to base premiums on age, sex, race and even area (discrimination as to where you can afford to live).

How else do you determine 'risk factor'?

Only way I could think was by 'experience'... but when you think about it that's just based on age really?

 

Look...whichever way things go men are still going to be butt-probed every renewal unless they are as old as Yoda and drive a milk float.
Women are just worried that they might have to fork out the same as we do.

You burned your bras for equality...deal with it.

 

You burned your bras for equality...deal with it.

[smilie=giggle.gif]

 

Haha!... I was just about to say that there's been no sign of the womens equal rights activists today

 

Only winners are the insurance companies - they must be laughing themselves silly!

 

I dont really see it as a gender descrimination issue. If women were statistically more likely to have an accident/claim then i would accept that i would have to pay more in the same way that i would have to/expect to pay more if i lived in a high crime inner city area.

Yes im worried that i will have to pay more but will also be annoyed if the premiums for men are not reduced as a result of this ruling



Exactly!

 

Save yourselves a fortune like me...
I'm covered under Churchill's 'Uninsured Driver Policy'

 

I am sick and tired of those B-ggers over there, telling us over here what we must do or not do.
Seems to me that it's no more than a nicely highly paid job for the" boys in the correct club" attempting to justify their existance.

 

Does this mean we'll now see an end to the annoying Sheila's Wheels adverts ?

 

Interesting subject - Your thoughts???

BBC News - Insurance and pension costs hit by ECJ gender ruling

This landmark was reached yesterday and has some pretty interesting sides of the argument......what are your thoughts??

 

People are discussing this here http://www.civinfo.com/forum/any-no...any-non-civic-chat-here-please/52305-gender-descrimination-motor-insurance.html

 

People are discussing this here http://www.civinfo.com/forum/any-no...any-non-civic-chat-here-please/52305-gender-descrimination-motor-insurance.html

Threads merged.

 

You can choose which car you buy.
You can choose how you drive.
You can choose where you live (to some extent, depending on funds).

Changing your gender is a bit more difficult.
I think this is why it may be viewed as discrimination.

Not saying I agree, I just think this is the background.

Then again, you can't choose your age either....

 

You will also see a drop in future male pensions as at the moment male pensions are calculated against a shorter life expectancy. As this is changed to end "discrimination" you'll get a lower pension payment (in a defined contributions scheme) A lot to thank this Consumer group for, they have done a great job for the companies involved to the detriment of the consumer

 

What would happen if Black people were statistically more likely to have an accident and Chinese people less likely? So black people pay more....more risk for the insurance company.
A black motorist complains to the European Parliament that he is paying more than the Chinese motorist under race descrimination
Surely...there would be an outcry!!....The PC police would have a field day!!
Isnt this the same???

 

You can bet that wimmin's insurance will go up whilst men's insurance stays high.

They won't meet 50/50 to retain current profit levels.

The argument about women haven't less accidents is only true because male drivers outnumber them by 50/1 apparently.

 

The argument about women haven't less accidents is only true because male drivers outnumber them by 50/1 apparently.

The calculations would take account of that.

 

As has been said before, risk is risk...its not discriminatory its based on fact.

Just another pathetic waste of time by those idiots in Brussels.

 

I really think it should be a case of innocent till proven guilty. We should all have cheap insurance (regardless of sex or age or location or whatever) till you have a claim then it can go up. That way we are all equal until you prove you aren't.

 

FT.com / Brussels - Court outlaws use of gender to assess risk

The general consensus is that insurance rates for women will rise rather than the rates for men being reduced.
Once again the only ones to benefit will be the insurance companies.

Surely, if statistically you are more likely to have to claim on your car insurance policy you should have to pay a higher premium regardless of whether you are male, female, have a car thats attractive to thieves etc etc

I think it's about bloody time to be fair. To say a woman is less likely to have/cause an accident IS sex discrimination. Can you imagine if an insurance company turned around and said black people are more likely to crash? There would be outrage. Or Muslims are safer drivers?

Area discrimination does need to go too, some insurers won't even quote me because I have an L postcode, despite the fact there has only been ONE incident of car crime on my street in the entire 17 years I've lived here.

 

Area discrimination does need to go too, some insurers won't even quote me because I have an L postcode, despite the fact there has only been ONE incident of car crime on my street in the entire 17 years I've lived here.

Why? hate to say it when I used to work away I had the pleasure of working in Liverpool on 2 occasions, both of these were 2 days work with an overnight stay and on both occasions the van was broken into (smashed window) yet at home I have only had the van done once in 15 years.

I will also add that a plumber friend told me the same and that now when he works in Liverpool he drives 20miles out at night for his logins so he does not get the van broke in to. Hate to say it but their is no smoke without fire.

 

I remember hearing/reading that the statistics about the amount of accidents involving male/female drivers isnt all that different. The big difference is in the average cost of each accident.

I.e, male and female drivers have a similar amount of accidents but they tend to be minor accident's with females whilst males tend to be bigger/more expensive accidents.

 

Whilst I understand questioning the maths, the insurance companies will pay a lot of people good with understanding maths and risk, and have a lot of data to hand, I think we'd struggle to challenge their statements and methods as laymen, it'll be very sophisticated behind the scenes.

I do find this situation ridiculous, I had a look under Mrs FranV8's bonnet, and found her to be built quite differently to me, and less likely to drive agressively, show off to her mates, etc etc, and the effect/difference more exaggerated the closer the age is to 17 .

Mental, what come next is ageism and all of us paying the premiums we did at 17.

I can see us distance ourselves from this court and its ruling, and this being one of the stepping stones to that outcome.

 

Whilst I understand questioning the maths, the insurance companies will pay a lot of people good with understanding maths and risk, and have a lot of data to hand, I think we'd struggle to challenge their statements and methods as laymen, it'll be very sophisticated behind the scenes.

I'm sure insurance companies do pay people good money to do the maths for them. Problem is, the maths is not "How can we best represent the risk our customers pose", it is "How can we justify charging our customers as much as possible whilst retaining them".

Insurance companies do not have our best interests at heart, they have their bankrolls in mind and little else.