http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610

 

Pfft! Might as well start driving like the corsa chavs round here then hadn't I?!

ARRRRRGGGHHH what the actual f**k?

more likely that womens prices will go up rather than mens prices going down

That Michael Winner advert might be making a comeback me thinks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610

 

Pfft! Might as well start driving like the corsa chavs round here then hadn't I?!

ARRRRRGGGHHH what the actual f**k?

 

Our premiums ain't going to be lowered, they are going to raise the cost for women, nice one EU, give even more money to the insurance companies....

Its about time this happend imo.

 

womens should raise a little and the lads should come down a little to compensate each other.

Doesn't kick in until Dec 2012 anyway. And yes its just an excuse to put prices up rather than equalising them. However i do agree with it - its not right to make assumptions based on sex - if it was the other way round there would have been uproar along time ago.

Well except women are actually much less likely to have an accident.

Bloody EU muppets dillhole noobs

Well except women are actually much less likely to have an accident.

Bloody EU muppets dillhole noobs

 

What all women? That's the problem with generalisations. It's like saying that a woman wouldn't make a good manager or plumber.

Well except women are actually much less likely to have an accident. Bloody EU muppets dillhole noobs

 

maybe round your way!!! :lol:

 

dan.:biggrin:

Can of worms...Open!

Doesn't kick in until Dec 2012 anyway. And yes its just an excuse to put prices up rather than equalising them. However i do agree with it - its not right to make assumptions based on sex - if it was the other way round there would have been uproar along time ago.

 

Yep, they will throw the costs up for the women rather than bring down the costs for the men, win win situation for the insurance companies, well done EU.

 

Talking of this subject, when my brother and dad died from cancer, not in the same place in the body, or even the same form of it, my life insurance went up because they say my risk of getting cancer is higher, this must be wrong as well if we listen to what the EU are saying, why should I pay more based on an assumption? There they go with the assumptions again. In my opinion everyone has the same risk, just as much as anyone is going to be in a car accident. You can be the best driver in the world, but you are at the same risk of accident as any of us........:cursing::cursing::cursing:

Well except women are actually much less likely to have an accident.

Bloody EU muppets dillhole noobs

 

Less likely to have an accident, more likely to be the bloody cause of it and drive off none the wiser. like I've seen so many daft bints do around my area. seriously Jane, women scare the pants out of me with there driving.

 

Don't get me wrong, men are not innocent, but men tend to have accidents due to showing off, or just plain territorial aggression, women tent to cause the damn accidents as they seem to lack awareness of whats around them.

 

:devil2:

If they're doing this because it's sexual discrimination to not do, then should they not do the same thing for age? Otherwise it's age discrimination?

Yep, they will throw the costs up for the women rather than bring down the costs for the men, win win situation for the insurance companies, well done EU.

 

Talking of this subject, when my brother and dad died from cancer, not in the same place in the body, or even the same form of it, my life insurance went up because they say my risk of getting cancer is higher, this must be wrong as well if we listen to what the EU are saying, why should I pay more based on an assumption? There they go with the assumptions again. In my opinion everyone has the same risk, just as much as anyone is going to be in a car accident. You can be the best driver in the world, but you are at the same risk of accident as any of us........:cursing::cursing::cursing:

 

Well life insurance is based on family medical history and there is proven links through family generations. they have to assess risk on something.

 

However on car insurance its not fair to assess risk on something so broad as sex. There were twins on the news this morning. Boy and Girl - both had recently passed their tests (both on the third attempt), both living at home, blah, blah. Insurance wanted £1700 for her and over £3k for him. Same experience, car, etc

If they're doing this because it's sexual discrimination to not do, then should they not do the same thing for age? Otherwise it's age discrimination?

 

Absolutley. We all have driving history, no claims etc. Our premium should be based on that. If you've had no accidents in the last 20years a lower premium should refelect that regardless of age or sex. Likewise if you've just passed your test and have little experience - then be male or female the premium will (and should) be higher.

What all women? That's the problem with generalisations. It's like saying that a woman wouldn't make a good manager or plumber.

 

They're probably just making it up then :glare:

Less likely to have an accident, more likely to be the bloody cause of it and drive off none the wiser. like I've seen so many daft bints do around my area. seriously Jane, women scare the pants out of me with there driving.

 

Don't get me wrong, men are not innocent, but men tend to have accidents due to showing off, or just plain territorial aggression, women tent to cause the damn accidents as they seem to lack awareness of whats around them.

 

:devil2:

 

If yu say so

They're probably just making it up then :glare:

 

No i'm not saying they are making it up - but it's not fair to tar all with the same brush.

If yu say so

 

I do say so, so its true, so you have to believe me, its one of the many statistics i made up.......i mean researched :flowers:

Well life insurance is based on family medical history and there is proven links through family generations. they have to assess risk on something.

 

However on car insurance its not fair to assess risk on something so broad as sex. There were twins on the news this morning. Boy and Girl - both had recently passed their tests (both on the third attempt), both living at home, blah, blah. Insurance wanted £1700 for her and over £3k for him. Same experience, car, etc

 

One cannot say that because a family member has had cancer that the next person in the family will get it, it doesn't work like that, if that were the case, then it is a proven fact that women have fewer road accidents than men, so therefore their insurance should be cheaper. Cancer affects 1 in 3 people, and it's random, my mum is 78 and still healthy, My brother was a twin with my sister, and my sister is healthy. so why don't the life insurance companies take their assumption from my mum or sister? Because they like to make money from peoples misery that's why, money grabbing barstewards, they try and wriggle out of any claim anyway.

 

These are assumptions not fact, therefore whatever insurance applied for, motor, life etc, it should not matter if one is male or female, or weather one person in the family has had a certain medical condition, because it doesn't mean to say that the next person will go through the same thing, the medical profession CANNOT prove that I will contract cancer, can you? just as an insurance company cannot now say that a woman is less likely to have a road accident. In 28 years of driving, I have never had a car accident where I was at fault, all two of them, and one of them was an ambulance....lol, but this does not change the fact that it is proven that women are less likely to have a road accident.

 

No insurance should be based on family history, if that were the case, anyone with an epileptic in the family should not be allowed to drive, just in case they have a fit whilst behind the wheel, this is a generalisation, and should not, and would not be used in pricing motor insurance, therefore life insurance should not be priced in this manner.

 

It's like saying that if one person living in a house has had lots of road accidents, that his sister or brother is going to have lots of road accidents, this simply is not the case, and any insurance company stating this would be in trouble, so why are life cover insurance companies allowed to work out their premiums on this basis? :censored::censored:

Edited March 2, 201114 yr by 300ZX_666

Lets be fair though guys,the reason women get cheaper insurance is because if a doris does claim its only cheap compared to a mans,women have scrapes etc,men wipe out if they crash usually due to speed.We all know this really dont we :sneaky2:

Absolutley. We all have driving history, no claims etc. Our premium should be based on that. If you've had no accidents in the last 20years a lower premium should refelect that regardless of age or sex. Likewise if you've just passed your test and have little experience - then be male or female the premium will (and should) be higher.

 

Don't agree....You are generalising. How can a 17 year old have 20 years driving experience? It is unfair to tar everybody with the same brush, I have said this before, and I will say it again, young or new drivers, male or female should be given a chance to prove themselves. This is quite simple to do, give a young or inexperienced driver a reasonable insurance quote, not the thousands of pounds they ask for at the moment, if they then have no accidents give them better quotes on renewal. If however the young or inexperienced driver has an accident and is to blame for that accident, then throw their insurance premiums up.

I agree that someone with 20years, or even 10years NCB should pay less than someone who hasn't had this experience, but how does one get to 10 or 20years NCB when one cannot afford to pay for the silly amounts quoted to our youngsters? The whole system is archaic now, and needs a complete revamp to make it a little fairer imho, it is no wonder so many are driving uninsured given the extortionate amounts quoted, I do not, nor ever will condone driving without insurance, but let's face it, most of the accidents involving young people are accidents caused by uninsured unlicensed youngsters who don't give a fig about anyone or anything, and whom have stolen the car in the first place, and it is wrong to see all youngsters in this light.

 

May I also add that it is wrong to throw up pensioners insurance at a certain age also.

One cannot say that because a family member has had cancer that the next person in the family will get it, it doesn't work like that, if that were the case, then it is a proven fact that women have fewer road accidents than men, so therefore their insurance should be cheaper. Cancer affects 1 in 3 people, and it's random, my mum is 78 and still healthy, My brother was a twin with my sister, and my sister is healthy. so why don't the life insurance companies take their assumption from my mum or sister? Because they like to make money from peoples misery that's why, money grabbing barstewards, they try and wriggle out of any claim anyway.

 

These are assumptions not fact, therefore whatever insurance applied for, motor, life etc, it should not matter if one is male or female, or weather one person in the family has had a certain medical condition, because it doesn't mean to say that the next person will go through the same thing, the medical profession CANNOT prove that I will contract cancer, can you? just as an insurance company cannot now say that a woman is less likely to have a road accident. In 28 years of driving, I have never had a car accident where I was at fault, all two of them, and one of them was an ambulance....lol, but this does not change the fact that it is proven that women are less likely to have a road accident.

 

No insurance should be based on family history, if that were the case, anyone with an epileptic in the family should not be allowed to drive, just in case they have a fit whilst behind the wheel, this is a generalisation, and should not, and would not be used in pricing motor insurance, therefore life insurance should not be priced in this manner.

 

It's like saying that if one person living in a house has had lots of road accidents, that his sister or brother is going to have lots of road accidents, this simply is not the case, and any insurance company stating this would be in trouble, so why are life cover insurance companies allowed to work out their premiums on this basis? :censored::censored:

 

Far be it for me to defent the insurance companies but cancer isn't just random. I work in cancer services, my boss is a consultant oncologist and I know for a fact that there are very very strong family links for certain types of cancer. Women whose female relatives have had breast or ovarian cancer are asked to take part in screening from an earlier age than the general population because the likliehood of getting that type of cancer is genetically much higher.

Edited March 2, 201114 yr by Janus

Lets be fair though guys,the reason women get cheaper insurance is because if a doris does claim its only cheap compared to a mans,women have scrapes etc,men wipe out if they crash usually due to speed.We all know this really dont we :sneaky2:

 

Yeah you're right, us silly women, tch!

almost 20 yrs driving experience, never had a claim, or so much as a speeding or even a parking ticket. Why should my premiums go up? I am careful because i see my license as a priveledge not a right!

Don't agree....You are generalising. How can a 17 year old have 20 years driving experience?

 

Didn't say they could have did I?

 

It is unfair to tar everybody with the same brush, I have said this before, and I will say it again, young or new drivers, male or female should be given a chance to prove themselves. This is quite simple to do, give a young or inexperienced driver a reasonable insurance quote, not the thousands of pounds they ask for at the moment,

 

An insurance company will argue that a quote of e.g. £2k is a reasonable quote based on their lack of provable experience. People moan about why does it cost so much to insure a cheap car - but its more to do with what or who they might hit.

 

if they then have no accidents give them better quotes on renewal. If however the young or inexperienced driver has an accident and is to blame for that accident, then throw their insurance premiums up.

 

Doesn't that happen anyway?

 

The whole system is archaic now, and needs a complete revamp to make it a little fairer imho,

 

It certainly does - why we have to individually insure each car we own is ridiculous

 

May I also add that it is wrong to throw up pensioners insurance at a certain age also.

 

I agree with this on the proviso that the system for assessing their suitability to drive is improved with regular health checks. My next door neighbour has only recently stopped driving at 90. Yet he could barely walk.

 

One cannot say that because a family member has had cancer that the next person in the family will get it, it doesn't work like that

 

Cancer affects 1 in 3 people, and it's random

 

No it isn't - some cancers are proven to be genetically passed. Nobody is saying someone will get cancer based on family history - but the possibility may be increased.

Edited March 2, 201114 yr by PhilP
Can't spell

Yeah you're right, us silly women, tch!

almost 20 yrs driving experience, never had a claim, or so much as a speeding or even a parking ticket. Why should my premiums go up? I am careful because i see my license as a privilege not a right!

 

Annoyingly to say this Jane, but plenty of men in the same position, unfortunately we have been paying higher premiums just because we are men, and its always been like that.

 

So as much as you don't like it, now it gives women a chance to see just how unfair the system was.

 

At the end of the day, people can throw statistics around as much as they like, but the majority of drivers i see on the road during the day are men. so it stands to reason that men are going to have more accidents. most delivery drivers are men, Most long haulage drivers are men, most emergency service drivers are men, its not discrimination, its just a fact of life, and we get penalised for it.