Anna Glypta Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 They said on Look North last night that 90% of accidents caused by people falling asleep at the wheel were caused by men. I wonder if it is sex discrimination by women who won't drive when they are totally exhausted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Did you not read my post or the BBC article? As for statistics, years and years ago when this forum was a nipper there was a discussion (which oddly didn't end up locked as a result of trolling / name calling / playing the race card) about driving. I did a bit of FOI research for the thread from the DVLA and ABI and it turned out: There are more male drivers than female. Of the drivers that are female, a large percentage are a named driver on a male's policy - meaning if a claim is made it goes against the man, his policy and skews the statistics. Males have more "major" crashes. Women have more "minor" crashes, usually reversing out of parking spaces. You make an interesting point. I wonder how accurate the insurance companies actually are with regard to the risk of male/female drivers, because their computers can't possibly hold all the relevant data with regards to mileages to calculate risk/mile. My wife likes me to do all the driving when I'm in the car. This is not a claim that I'm a better driver, but my wife thinks I am, and she is certainly not comfortable with long journeys on motorways. As a result, I must do 3/4 of the mileage in the car for which we are both insured. Just because of mileage alone, I am 3 times more likely to have an accident than my wife is, but this does not mean I am 3 times the risk. If, during our 25 years of driving we had 4 accidents, and 3 of them were recorded to me in-line with our time at the wheel, the insurance database will have me as being 3 times the risk. In fact, when I think of my circle of friends and family, almost all the husbands, dads, sons, brothers, boyfriends, I know do the driving, particularly on long journeys. Until insurance companies implement pay-per-mile insurance, something they tried but failed a few years ago, I can't see how accurate measure of male/female risk can be determined anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluggy Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Car insurance companies should be able to charge what they want, on any criteria they see fit. It's their business. Maybe so but having car insurance is a legal requirement to drive a car, given that there has to be set limits on what they can and cant do or charge otherwise they are collectively in a position to abuse their powers. Personally I'm still unsure if the ruling is a good or bad thing but the cynical side of me thinks that rather than adjusting premiums to a half way point they will simply increase profits by increasing the female costs as below Male: £200 p/m Female: £100 p/m "Fairest" thing to do is make each £150 p/m, overall revenue will stay the same as would cost of claims so there isn't really a loss to the insurance company but thats a missed opportunity to twist legislation for their benefit Taking the whole legal requirement / equality issue further why not introduce some sort of state run "basic" 3rd party only insurance as part of the road tax, fuel costs etc? That way everyone is equal in terms of complying with the law and free to chose a provider to top up to comprehensive cover if desired Cheers Gluggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Figures are way off. Your talking £200 month female. £400 month male. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Did you not read my post or the BBC article? As for statistics, years and years ago when this forum was a nipper there was a discussion (which oddly didn't end up locked as a result of trolling / name calling / playing the race card) about driving. I did a bit of FOI research for the thread from the DVLA and ABI and it turned out: There are more male drivers than female. Of the drivers that are female, a large percentage are a named driver on a male's policy - meaning if a claim is made it goes against the man, his policy and skews the statistics. Males have more "major" crashes. Women have more "minor" crashes, usually reversing out of parking spaces. That sounds a bit stupid to me. If women get cheaper policy quotes than men, why would women be named drivers on a blokes policy. Surely it would be more sensible for women to put their fella on a policy as a named driver. But if like you claim "Males have more "major" crashes. Women have more "minor" crashes, usually reversing out of parking spaces, wouldn't it be sensible to allow insurance companies to charge different amounts as their ins clearly not equality of risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Figures are way off. How can figures in a hypothetical example be "off?" I imagine it is only a matter of time before a class action lawsuit is brought against this law by males, on the grounds that it discriminates against them. A man who is likely to live for no more than ten years after retirement, must now pay the same amount towards his pension as a woman who is likely to live for nearer twenty, even though she will draw far more money in return. It's hard to imagine how any setup could be more discriminatory than that. As it applies to car insurance, precisely the opposite is true. This new law discriminates against women in that regard, by forcing them to pay the same premium as a group which has far higher costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Figures are way off. Your talking £200 month female. £400 month male. Really..we pay circa £200 /YEAR for our car no matter who is the policy holder,me or my wife...suggest your figures are way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluggy Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Figures are way off. Your talking £200 month female. £400 month male. It was an example simply to illustrate a point - don't really think the actual numbers matter too much but for what its worth i certainly don't pay anywhere near £200 a month never mind £400 and yup, last time i checked i was male Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Really..we pay circa £200 /YEAR for our car no matter who is the policy holder,me or my wife...suggest your figures are way out. You have no idea how ridiculous insurance is for the male youth. Now women can pay as much as them. Soon you can too. We can't have age discrimination can we now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 That sounds a bit stupid to me. If women get cheaper policy quotes than men, why would women be named drivers on a blokes policy. Surely it would be more sensible for women to put their fella on a policy as a named driver. It depends on car ownership and usage. I'm on my OH's car policy and she's on mine. At one time we both had very different cars (me a 2 seater MG and she a Punto), so we were frequently swapping and changing depending on usage. In theory you could put her down as the main driver on both cars and add me as a named driver, but that would be "fronting". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.