alchresearch Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Just listening to the JV show on Radio2 and they're discussing the sexist bias when it comes to motor insurance. The EU court case comes up next week. Excuse the old (and DM) link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1324025/EU-threat-women-drivers-insurance-premiums-set-rocket.html Sadly, I don't think the abolition will mean fairer premiums for all, they'll just raise the womens and leave the mens as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichD Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Sadly, I don't think the abolition will mean fairer premiums for all, they'll just raise the womens and leave the mens as it is. I share your suspicion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scozzie Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 awww, I hope not. my o/h is on my insurance, so no matter which car we use, he usually does the driving. I know this is the case in a number (not all) of relationships which is one of the reasons that women have lower insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 It really is a sad, sexist business. I can reduce my premium by £100 if I tick female instead of male. Why should this be when they don't know me or how I drive? I've got the OH as a named driver on my policy which reduced it by £60, even though she never drives the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. Insurance companies set premiums based on an assessment of the risk against which they are insuring. They are commercial companies and these are commercial decissions. Why should the EU get involved. Next they will be complaining about life insurance despite it being a well established fact that women live longer than men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vwkittie Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I'm female and my insurance is higher than a lot of comparable males, just being female doesn't magically make it cheap. I agree with uptowngirl, if the statistics show that women are less likely to claim then the price should reflect that. Same as your location, type of car, number of miles etc. All this ruling would mean is that everyone will have to pay more to cover the costs - EU madness strikes again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 To uptown girl and vwkittie: If it could be shown statistically that black people tended to be more likely than white people to claim on their car insurance would you also approve of black people having to pay more for car insurance? If you could prove that short people tended to be more likely to claim on their car insurance than tall or average sized people would you also approve of short people having to pay more? In fact I'd put good money betting that, were the current situation reversed, and it were men who got cheaper car insurance than women, that there would be a great deal more outrage than there currently is. There's a big difference compared to the things you mention vwkittie, ie. location, type of car, number of miles. These are things you can choose and control, your gender is not (mostly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Just listening to the JV show on Radio2 and they're discussing the sexist bias when it comes to motor insurance. The EU court case comes up next week. Excuse the old (and DM) link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1324025/EU-threat-women-drivers-insurance-premiums-set-rocket.html Sadly, I don't think the abolition will mean fairer premiums for all, they'll just raise the womens and leave the mens as it is. Nothing sexists about assessing the risk based on statistical evidence. You may as well argue that it's ageist to charge young drivers more. Or that it's locationist to charge more for areas with higher crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vwkittie Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 To uptown girl and vwkittie: If it could be shown statistically that black people tended to be more likely than white people to claim on their car insurance would you also approve of black people having to pay more for car insurance? If you could prove that short people tended to be more likely to claim on their car insurance than tall or average sized people would you also approve of short people having to pay more? In fact I'd put good money betting that, were the current situation reversed, and it were men who got cheaper car insurance than women, that there would be a great deal more outrage than there currently is. There's a big difference compared to the things you mention vwkittie, ie. location, type of car, number of miles. These are things you can choose and control, your gender is not (mostly). Fair enough, they'll have to stop asking for our dates of birth then too! I can't help how old I am! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 It really is a sad, sexist business. I can reduce my premium by £100 if I tick female instead of male. Why should this be when they don't know me or how I drive? I've got the OH as a named driver on my policy which reduced it by £60, even though she never drives the car. For exactly the same reason that you're premium would go up if you claimed you were 17, and up again if you claimed you were driving a modified car. It's not based on prejudice, it's based on statistical evidence as to the risk involved in insuring you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.