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?

Me and Becks passed our test the same time. becks on her 2nd atempt and me on my 1st as well as me doing the advanced driving to lower my insurance.

 

i now have 2 more year no claims due to her chaning cars etc. We have no fine and points etc.

 

On the same car becks paid £400 less than me. and i have 2 years more then her and its all because i have a dick :rolleyes:

Janus - fear ye not, your premium won't be affected by this, its only younger persons who will be affected.

 

As for who are the safest drivers, well its entirely down to the individual. Men are better suited physiologically to driving, but unfortunately, have a tendancy to make decisions using their groin area. Women lack spacial awareness (and common sense :laugh:) and are prone to slight bumps and dings - 'will my car fit through there? (CRUNCH) I guess not!' :laugh: Technically this is still much safer than hitting a tree at 50mph without your seatbelt on (like I did..) :blink:

 

 

As for age, it stands to reason the younger/less experienced you are, the more you should pay. I felt persecuted when I got my insurance, but then I had about 5 serious accidents that all resulted in cars being written off. Point proven. Humble pie eaten, I now enjoy a sensible premium again - having learned the hard way. I don't think it makes any difference if you are male or female. Reading the road and various hazards takes years to judge effectively and even then, we can all make mistakes.

 

Life gets more expensive, it will always be this way - just think what our grandkids will be paying.. (or great, great grandkids for some of you old farts out there!)

If women are meant to be equal with men, sex should not come into it. You should pay the same - end of story.

 

I can't wait for those Shelia's Wheels ads to stop

If women are meant to be equal with men, sex should not come into it. You should pay the same - end of story.

 

I can't wait for those Shelia's Wheels ads to stop

 

Pointless company to be honest, they pray on the fact that women think they get cheaper insurance yet women can get cheaper else where. my friend said that her quote was £1000 dearer with sheilas wheels than the company she eventually ended up with.

They dont insure men. Sexist or what :lol:

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.

 

I agree Janus, I was stating (and I should have made my point a bit clearer than I did). My dad and my brother died of two completly different types of cancer, I realise also coming from a medical background that some cancers have genetic tendencies, but for me to pay more on life insurance when in my case it was two completly differing cancers that killed my brother and my dad is wrong, and is wrong for anyone in the same situation. As you have rightly said, only certain types of cancer have been linked with genetics, not all of them have, a lot are random, or stem from the workplace, before my brother died of skin cancer, we had no-one in the family that had ever had skin cancer.

 

But also, if a family has never had a case of cancer in their relatives, doesn't mean that someone from that family will not get cancer does it? If you are going to get it, you are going to get it. I think it's great that it's all put down to genetics though, when Chernobyl went up, the radio active fall out reached here, don't see anyone standing up and saying that it's because of this, or all the other cr*p released into the atmosphere that has caused the upward trend in cancers of various different types.

 

A person with let's take your example of breast or ovarian cancer in their family history, this does not mean that they won't develope a different type of cancer, or that they will without a doubt contract either breast or ovarian cancer, surley if that were the case then a lot more could be done to prevent it than what is being done at the moment with screening. I realise that there are lots of women now having mastectomy's to avoid the trauma that they may go through with their increased chances of contracting breast cancer, and it is great to see advances edging ever nearer to a cure.

 

An awful lot of cancers are also proven to stem from the work environment, asbestosis and the cancers caused by this, rubber and the cancers caused by this. Anyone suffering from these types are not going to have passed it on genetically.

 

 

These types of cancers are random, they are not genetical. It does not always follow that I am at any more risk of certain types of cancer than anyone else because we were unlucky enough to have two people in our family die of two such different types of cancer, there has never been any heart conditions in our family, but this does not mean that I won't die of a heart attack.

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!

 

The chances are that it won't Jane....

 

....The current premuin difference between male/female drivers mostly only affects those under 25 (or perhaps 30 with some insurers). The news was carefully reported to avoid that issue!!

 

Once you are over that age then there is very little difference in insurance premiums between the sexes. It's only because statistically men under 25 are more at risk of having accidents.

 

I pay far less in car insurance than most women I know, and I have an expensive high performance car! Julia and I both insure our cars on an Admiral Multi Car policy and surprise surprise, my £30k SLK350 costs less (at £300 p/a) to insure than Julia's £8k Rav-4 2.0.

 

Plus all of the women in my office (aged 30+) pay far more than me as well.

 

Richard:yes:

You were saying PhilP that insurance should be taken on driving experience alone, and a 17 year old newly qualified driver is not likely to have 20 years driving experience under his/her belt. You also state that it is based on what or who they might hit. How can you tar eveyone with that same brush? Not all 17 year olds are going to hit anyone or anything, I take it you have 20 plus years NCD, how did you get that? You must have been 17 once, who did you hit or what did you hit at that age, or whatever age you passed your test at? How old are you? What if insurance companies suddenly decided that your age group is more likely to have an accident, so your insurance is going to go up to £3000.00 per annum, I think you would have something to say about that.

 

A lot of the accidents involving young drivers are caused because that driver is too young and doesn't even hold a driving license, never mind insurance and the car is stolen in the first place. This should not be recorded as a young persons accident, it should be recorded as a di**heads accident.

 

I think you will find that 99.9% of young drivers that insure their car and run it the way it should be run are going to be sensible enough to drive their car with common sense, and to their ability. Not all young drivers are idiots.

 

No it doesn't happen anyway, young drivers are not treated fairly by insurance companies, they pay an extortionate amount for their first car, this should not be the case, they should be given reasonable quotes, not a quote of 3000.00, but ok let's take £1000.00 as a base figure, charge them £1000.00 and then if they hit anyone or anything, then throw their premiums up to the extortionate rates, and recoupe their money after the accident has happened, not before it might happen, do not judge people before they have an accident, do insurance companies say at the end of 12 months insurance premiums here is some money back as you didn't hit anyone or anything, and we will also reduce your premium because you now have 1 year NCB, they are charging for something that might happen, but what if it doesn't happen? You stated this "Absolutley. We all have driving history, no claims etc". How does a newly qualified driver have any driving history or NCB, they like us have to earn it, but it shouldn't have to be earned while paying teriffic extortionate prices.

 

I totally agree with the point about us paying for all cars on an individual basis, but yet again this is driven by money. Any of us can only drive one car at a time, so all cars should be on one policy. I don't know about yours, but my insurance policy states that I can drive any motor vehicle with the owners consent, as long as it doesn't belong to me or hired to me under a hire purchase agreement, now that says to me that if in an emergency or something similar should crop up that I could drive someone elses car, and I would be covered, although to a limited extent, they have now decided that even though it states this on your insurance policy, that the vehicle also has to be insured either by us or the owner of the vehicle. How wrong is that, if you can't drive any other vehicle, it shouldn't state that you can on your insurance policy.

 

I also agree that older people should have to prove their ability to drive on a regular basis, and that one would hope that if they feel as though it is time to give up, then give up.

 

And that someone with 20years driving experience and NCB should have a lower premium than someone with no experience or NCB. But this could still be achieved and bring down the price young people have to pay.

 

As for the cancer quote, not all cancers are genetic, some are very much random, or workplace related, please see my reply to Janus on this one.....lol

 

Please don't think I'm having a go at you, I just like a good debate with no nastiness or malice involved, and good friends afterwards.

 

Cheers mate

 

.....:wheelchair:.....the old crock.....lol

Edited March 2, 201114 yr by 300ZX_666

You were saying PhilP that insurance should be taken on driving experience alone

 

No i didn't - it's one of many things that the car insurance premium should be based on.

 

and a 17 year old newly qualified driver is not likely to have 20 years driving experience under his/her belt. You also state that it is based on what or who they might hit. How can you tar eveyone with that same brush? Not all 17 year olds are going to hit anyone or anything,

 

It's all a calculated risk and returning to the orginal point of this thread, using the broad category of gender is now correctly unlawful. However other factors experience, location, type of vehicle are much more personalised and reasonable.

 

What if insurance companies suddenly decided that your age group is more likely to have an accident, so your insurance is going to go up to £3000.00 per annum, I think you would have something to say about that.

 

Then that would be age discrimination. Maybe the EU will rule that is unlawful as well

 

 

do insurance companies say at the end of 12 months insurance premiums here is some money back as you didn't hit anyone or anything, and we will also reduce your premium because you now have 1 year NCB, they are charging for something that might happen, but what if it doesn't happen?

 

No they don't but it is a reasonable idea. Perhaps they should charge as highish figure for a new driver - lets say £2k. With the understanding that if there is no claim an agreed amount is refunded to reflect a fair amount. That was the insurance company has the money initially should there be a claim, but doesn't get to keep it if there isnt one.

 

 

You stated this "Absolutley. We all have driving history, no claims etc". How does a newly qualified driver have any driving history or NCB, they like us have to earn it,

 

They have the driving history from the time as a provisional driver and as a learner, but obviosuly no ncb. My reference to "We all have..." was actually directed to the users of this forum and in particular the people who have posted in this thread rather than the car driving population.

 

 

As for the cancer quote, not all cancers are genetic, some are very much random, or workplace related, please see my reply to Janus on this one.....lol

 

some cancers are proven to be genetically passed.

 

Didn't say they were. I was very careful to say "Some"

No i didn't - it's one of many things that the car insurance premium should be based on.

 

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.

 

This is what you said "we all have driving history, no claims etc. Our premiums should be based on that". Can't see any mention of any of the other things you say they should be based on.

 

If you are a new driver is this fair? Is it fair that they should pay 1000,00s in insurance premiums? There must be a better fairer way.

 

 

 

It's all a calculated risk and returning to the orginal point of this thread, using the broad category of gender is now correctly unlawful. However other factors experience, location, type of vehicle are much more personalised and reasonable.

 

Sorry I may have wandered slightly from the original post, but it was all to do with insurance. There are 19 year olds on here who have a clean driving record, but still face very large insurance bills.

 

Then that would be age discrimination. Maybe the EU will rule that is unlawful as well

 

So it's age discrimination when it's against you, but fair enough when it's against a younger or older person? It should be made unlawful to age discriminate, against anyone.

 

 

 

 

No they don't but it is a reasonable idea. Perhaps they should charge as highish figure for a new driver - lets say £2k. With the understanding that if there is no claim an agreed amount is refunded to reflect a fair amount. That was the insurance company has the money initially should there be a claim, but doesn't get to keep it if there isnt one.

 

Yeah, but they would have to agree up front the money refundable and not try to wriggle out of it.

 

 

 

They have the driving history from the time as a provisional driver and as a learner, but obviosuly no ncb. My reference to "We all have..." was actually directed to the users of this forum and in particular the people who have posted in this thread rather than the car driving population.

 

Yes, but their driving whilst learning as you say does not earn them NCD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Didn't say they were. I was very careful to say "Some"

 

Therefore it should be ilegal to charge someone extra premiums just because two members of the same family have had two different forms of cancer that are not genetic in origin.

Therefore it should be ilegal to charge someone extra premiums just because two members of the same family have had two different forms of cancer that are not genetic in origin.

 

On what grounds should it be illegal?

The insurance issue has arisen from the Equality Act 2010 and the protected nature of sexual discrimination.

 

There are other protected areas but not, to my mind, anything that would cover your complaint.

i think its a good thing that this has arisen aslong as it stays as its intended not just an excuse for insurance companies to make even more money.... im 24 so do i drive more sensibly than i did when i was 17, hell yeh. does my gf whos 21 drive more sensibly than i did at that age hell yeh. has she crashed her car well shes on her third now since last year. the fact that her brother who is only 18 and has been quoted nothing short of 2k to insure a £300 fiesta(average was closer to three) is obsene. the reality is taht when we start driving at 17 the majority of us are crap..... over exiceted, over confident and under experienced..... i think guys are more likly to write a car off but girls are more likly to go up the back of something else, they simply dont pay attention. all the girls i know have reversed into a lampost or cut a corner and ****ted a lampost etc etc etc. they tend to spend more on a first car because they want it to be realiable. and therefore are more likly to claim. guys generally will fix it themselves or scrap it. claims only really occur when someone else is involved. who then claims like buggery. the long and the short of it is that statistics lie, they say whatever you want. everyones knows boys are "crazy drivers" the media tells us so so we accept this "fact" and pay out. a guy being twice as expensive to insure as a girl really is a bit excessive a slight difference yes, but not that big.

and just for the record ive got one claim on my liecense that ive had since 17 which was for a bmw that i rear ended, i thought he was going and he didnt basicaly and i rolled into him at 0.02mph and scratched the rear bumper. didnt even leave a mark on my car, the guy was a complete a hole about it and the insurance ended up giving him a new bumper and new bumper mounts etc etc etc witha total bill of £900.... pathetic for a scratch taht really probally would have polished out.

ive had a few bumps and knock mostly from ****ting about but ive never claimed for them ive only got myself to blame when i spin out and hit a curb havent i?

i believe from my experince girls claim more regularly, and have a few minor bumps boys tend to claim less frequently and tend to write cars off.

really the goverment should be concentrating less on stupid speed limits, and the like. and concentrating more on a driving test that teache syou to drive in the real world not just pass a test.

On what grounds should it be illegal?

The insurance issue has arisen from the Equality Act 2010 and the protected nature of sexual discrimination.

 

There are other protected areas but not, to my mind, anything that would cover your complaint.

 

On the grounds that it was two very differing illnesses that members of my family suffered from.