Male/female insurance rant

Xios

Ok, so checking for a renewal on my insurance, i wanted to see how much i'd save if i was female. As a male i was quoted €2450, as a female (with exact same details) i was quoted €1375, 'rough figures'. This is probably a very common thread, so sorry if it's a broken record, but i was wondering is there any legal basis that they can discriminate people based on age/gender?
My policy roughly costs 70% more more than the females, so if they were using statistics, males are 70% more likely to make claims?

As for the stats themselves, where do they get them? And how accurate are they? Are they very clear cut statistics or do they take situations into account? (such as a wife on a husbands policy crashes the car, so does it count as a male claim or a female claim?) Is this information available to the public, if not then why? If yes then where?

Berty

You're quoting statistics.

Insurance companies have loads as well = Reason they can discriminate.

Did you not know that you are a KILLER ON THE ROADS?

djimi

Apparently every bloke has the potential to be a bloody murderer every time they get behind the wheel of a car, whereas no woman has ever caused a car crash or made an insurance claim in the history of mankind... :rolleyes:

Its shocking, but they have some kind of twisted stats to back it up, and we have no option but to accept it and pay if we want to drive cars (other than having gender reassignment) so its probably best not to think about it...

Berty

I'll put it another way. We ALL went through it and you just have to accept it. I will NOT change. The older you get, subject to you remaining claim free, your premiums will come down.

Im 29 and my insurance rates would be €320 fully comp on a 2004 Renault Megane 1.4.

El Guapo!

djimi wrote: »

Apparently every bloke has the potential to be a bloody murderer every time they get behind the wheel of a car, whereas no woman has ever caused a car crash or made an insurance claim in the history of mankind... :rolleyes:

Its shocking, but they have some kind of twisted stats to back it up, and we have no option but to accept it and pay if we want to drive cars (other than having gender reassignment) so its probably best not to think about it...

On that note, I wonder how the insurance companies would class a person who had a sex change....would they still pay the extortionate male premium, or the female??

This really pisses me off about insurance companies. Fair enough they're saying men are involved in more accidents therefore our insurance is higher but its blatant discrimination.
I wonder what would they do if the statistics showed that (for example) black people were involved in the most accidents. Would they give white people the cheap insurance while piling on the cost of the premium for a black person? I think not.
Its blatant sexist discrimination and I don't know why we have to put up with it and bend over for these insurance companies.:mad:

/Rant

Xios

Berty wrote: »

...you just have to accept it.

But do we really? It's quite unfair and it's blatant inequality. I'd rather not prove how well i can drive on a year to year basis whislt paying insane premiums that are twice the price of the car itself. (i do understand that the car isn't the issue with insurance claims, but more so the injury caused by the offending driver to others)

djimi

Dean09 wrote: »

On that note, I wonder how the insurance companies would class a person who had a sex change....would they still pay the extortionate male premium, or the female??

This really pisses me off about insurance companies. Fair enough they're saying men are involved in more accidents therefore our insurance is higher but its blatant discrimination.
I wonder what would they do if the statistics showed that (for example) black people were involved in the most accidents. Would they give white people the cheap insurance while piling on the cost of the premium for a black person? I think not.
Its blatant sexist discrimination and I don't know why we have to put up with it and bend over for these insurance companies.:mad:

/Rant

Because they know they have us in a no win situation. Whats the alternative; drive with no insurance and potentially end up in prison? Go without a car? Its the same as petrol prices; we have no alternative but to suck it up and just accept it. I agree, its incredibly frustrating and very wrong, but Im not sure what the alternative is.

djimi

Xios wrote: »

But do we really? It's quite unfair and it's blatant inequality. I'd rather not prove how well i can drive on a year to year basis whislt paying insane premiums that are twice the price of the car itself. (i do understand that the car isn't the issue with insurance claims, but more so the injury caused by the offending driver to others)

Whats your alternative?

Berty

Xios wrote: »

But do we really? It's quite unfair and it's blatant inequality.

Let us know how you get on fighting the Corporate beast. :eek:

Xios

djimi wrote: »

Whats your alternative?

Organise an 8 car accident (possibly on a roundabout), where everyone is at fault, each with a different insurance company.

El Guapo!

djimi wrote: »

Because they know they have us in a no win situation. Whats the alternative; drive with no insurance and potentially end up in prison? Go without a car? Its the same as petrol prices; we have no alternative but to suck it up and just accept it. I agree, its incredibly frustrating and very wrong, but Im not sure what the alternative is.

The alternative is to have it fair and even accross the board. If the cost of all the insurance claims was spread out evenly between everybody, male and female alike, then the premiums would be fair for everybody. Nobody pays astronomically high premiums and nobody pays dirt cheap premiums. kind of a medium level premium for everyone which drops if you keep your no claims bonus.
It doesnt take a genius to solve the problem and to stop being discriminative.

TestTransmission

Go on OP,have your rant.
What age are you?whats the car?How long do you have your licence?

djimi

Dean09 wrote: »

The alternative is to have it fair and even accross the board. If the cost of all the insurance claims was spread out evenly between everybody, male and female alike, then the premiums would be fair for everybody. Nobody pays astronomically high premiums and nobody pays dirt cheap premiums. kind of a medium level premium for everyone which drops if you keep your no claims bonus.
It doesnt take a genius to solve the problem and to stop being discriminative.

Of course thats the alternative situation in an ideal world, and thats what we should be striving to achieve. I meant whats the alternative to the OPs compaints; he either pays the asking price or what...? There isnt really any alternative that will result in him legally driving his car.

You can fight it all you want but you will be doing a lot of walking/cycling/public transport in the meantime...

Twin-go

djimi wrote: »

Whats your alternative?

Risk equalisation accross Male/Female in each age bracket.

E.g. Based on OP figures:

• Male €2450
• Female €1375
• Risk Equalisation = both should pay €1912.50

Xios

Doing a little research i found this

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/car-crash-men-woman.html wrote:

Men are more than twice as likely to die in a car crash than women, consider the yearly statistics shown below. In fact, studies have shoiwn as many as 73 percent of all people killed in car accidents are male. Since record keeping began: male fatalities significantly outweigh female fatalities. However men and women do not drive the same number of miles under the same conditions- men do about 60-65% more driving than women. Studies show that woman take shorter trips and female drivers have a greater number of minor crashes than do men. However men are still 70% more likely to be in a serious crash.

Zubeneschamali

Men are more than twice as likely to die in a car crash than women

Young men are far more likely to break the law and end up in jail than young women, or older men, but we don't double the sentence just for being a young man.

R.O.R

Dean09 wrote: »

The alternative is to have it fair and even accross the board. If the cost of all the insurance claims was spread out evenly between everybody, male and female alike, then the premiums would be fair for everybody. Nobody pays astronomically high premiums and nobody pays dirt cheap premiums. kind of a medium level premium for everyone which drops if you keep your no claims bonus.
It doesnt take a genius to solve the problem and to stop being discriminative.

And why should I pay higher premiums for you and the OP? Is this communist Russia where car insures you?

biko

OP ring your company and put your foot down.

Xios

R.O.R wrote: »

And why should I pay higher premiums for you and the OP? Is this communist Russia where car insures you?

And why should i pay a much higher premium for some young boyo doing 150 down the road to mullingar?

H8GHOTI

Xios wrote: »

Organise an 8 car accident (possibly on a roundabout), where everyone is at fault, each with a different insurance company.

Genius




How will that help exactly?

Max Power1

Xios wrote: »

And why should i pay a much higher premium for some young boyo doing 150 down the road to mullingar?

+1

so what we are essentially saying is that discrimination is fine, once you discriminate against the white male 18-24?

Ridiculous. Replace the words "young male" in the below with any of your choosing from "black" "jewish" "a traveller" "gay" and you get my point

"they increased my insurance premium because i am a young male."

biko

Max Power1 wrote: »

+1

so what we are essentially saying is that discrimination is fine, once you discriminate against the white male 18-24?

Ridiculous. Replace the words "young male" in the below with any of your choosing from "black" "jewish" "a traveller" "gay" and you get my point

"they increased my insurance premium because i am a young male."

I think you'll find that young male jews and young male blacks also have to pay higher premiums.

Xios

H8GHOTI wrote: »

Genius




How will that help exactly?

It'll make me a happier person, just eliminating my frustration and disolving this is whole discrimnation issue for a while. Plus it'd make one hell of a new story.

R.O.R

Xios wrote: »

And why should i pay a much higher premium for some young boyo doing 150 down the road to mullingar?

Because, until you can prove that you aren't that young boyo, then you get lumped in with them.

Is that fair? Not really, but life aint fair.

I won't rub in what I'm paying, but it's the lowest it ever has been. In the past though I paid over £3,500 IRP a year for insurance, 2 years in a row. Is your quote at that level?? (€4,500)

Max Power1

biko wrote: »

I think you'll find that young male jews and young male blacks also have to pay higher premiums.

pedant :rolleyes:

You get my point- its blatant ageism and if it was another group being victimised there would be uproar.

TheInquisitor

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Men are more than twice as likely to die in a car crash than women

Young men are far more likely to break the law and end up in jail than young women, or older men, but we don't double the sentence just for being a young man.

However men and women do not drive the same number of miles under the same conditions- men do about 60-65% more driving than women.

Men are more than 70 % more likly to die than females while driving 60-65% more than females!!! So the actual like for like risk is more like 7.5% more risk for males while on the other hand females have much more minor accidents than males.

af_thefragile

Where are all the feminists with their equality crap when it comes to stuff like this?!

Cookie_Monster

af_thefragile wrote: »

Where are all the feminists with their equality crap when it comes to stuff like this?!

to busy spending the money they saved on jeans

Henry Ford III

I think it's a little disengenuous to accuse insurers of blanket discrimination.

Young males have heavier claims so therefore should pay more. In that group there are some better risks and some worse risks. There's no way of identifying which are which, so what other option is there only to charge them an appropriate rate to the sex and age group?

Some insurers will actively not want your business, and their quote will demonstrate that. The answer as always is to shop around.

p.s. Many won't know this but females pay 50% more for permanent health insurance. They claim more frequently and for longer too. It was challenged legally and the insurer won.

ha-ya-said-what

af_thefragile wrote: »

Where are all the feminists with their equality crap when it comes to stuff like this?!

Nah their sat thinking, "We are equal, but we just write the cars off & daddy fixes it or buys a new one so the insurance doesn't find out"


Genral thing I have noticed with RTAs:
Man - Crashes car, claims on insurance, takes the hit

Woman - Crashes car ... runs to daddy or partner so solve it, crying she doesn't want her insurance to go up or anyone to know she crashed, generally 17- mid 20s

Xios

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Men are more than 70 % more likly to die than females while driving 60-65% more than females!!! So the actual like for like risk is more like 7.5% more risk for males while on the other hand females have much more minor accidents than males.

I agree hugely on this, If you take the raw data, meaning the number of accidents involving men, and the number involving women, of course men are going to have a much much higher count because there are much more male drivers on the roads. This information should be taken on a % basis, how much % of males crash vs how much % of females.

This may not count, but there's also much more males using their vehicles for works, such as taxi drivers, service men for ESB/Bord Gás and all the sparks and carpenters that require them to be on the road for much longer times and distances. I'm not saying that no women work on the road, just saying (without evidence) that there is a lot more men doing it.

R.O.R

Xios wrote: »

I agree hugely on this, If you take the raw data, meaning the number of accidents involving men, and the number involving women, of course men are going to have a much much higher count because there are much more male drivers on the roads. This information should be taken on a % basis, how much % of males crash vs how much % of females.

This may not count, but there's also much more males using their vehicles for works, such as taxi drivers, service men for ESB/Bord Gás and all the sparks and carpenters that require them to be on the road for much longer times and distances. I'm not saying that no women work on the road, just saying (without evidence) that there is a lot more men doing it.

If insurance was on a cent per mile basis, all the above would be relevant.

Eoin

ha-ya-said-what wrote: »

Nah their sat thinking, "We are equal, but we just write the cars off & daddy fixes it or buys a new one so the insurance doesn't find out"


Genral thing I have noticed with RTAs:
Man - Crashes car, claims on insurance, takes the hit

Woman - Crashes car ... runs to daddy or partner so solve it, crying she doesn't want her insurance to go up or anyone to know she crashed, generally 17- mid 20s

You can leave that crap at the door please.

Eoin

Xios wrote: »

I agree hugely on this, If you take the raw data, meaning the number of accidents involving men, and the number involving women, of course men are going to have a much much higher count because there are much more male drivers on the roads. This information should be taken on a % basis, how much % of males crash vs how much % of females.

This may not count, but there's also much more males using their vehicles for works, such as taxi drivers, service men for ESB/Bord Gás and all the sparks and carpenters that require them to be on the road for much longer times and distances. I'm not saying that no women work on the road, just saying (without evidence) that there is a lot more men doing it.

And therefore males are a higher risk to the insurance company, no?

ha-ya-said-what

eoin wrote: »

You can leave that crap at the door please.

It is how it is with the RTAs we get, reason being the women tend to have cars of a lesser value than males, in most cases cheaper just to sell for breaking, repair or replace rather than claim on the insurance.

Xios

eoin wrote: »

And therefore males are a higher risk to the insurance company, no?

Well no, if you have 70 males and 35 females insured, the odds are 2 to 1 for the for crashes to be male. Just because there's more of us, doesn't mean we have to pay twice as much.

djimi

I dont know how much of a factor it is also, but I know of the two accidents I have been involved in, both times they were caused by the incompitence of women drivers. The first time the driver owned up and paid, no excuses, but the second time the woman caused the accident but refused to accept the blame, but of course in an accident between a 21 year old bloke in a Honda Civic and a 40odd year old woman in a Ford Fiesta it couldnt be seen that the woman was at fault so I ended up getting loaded with an insurance claim for an accident that wasnt my fault, but I had no way of proving otherwise (it ended up 50/50 fault officially).

Im not saying that this is always the case, and Im not saying that male drivers (young ones in particular) arent complete morons at times, but I am saying that from my ten years or so driving experience I have seen a lot of women do some terribly stupid things behind the wheel of a car, and generally display a complete lack of ability when driving, and I very much doubt that the inequality is anywhere near as big as the insurance companies and their stats would have you believe.

Xios

ha-ya-said-what wrote: »

It is how it is with the RTAs we get, reason being the women tend to have cars of a lesser value than males, in most cases cheaper just to sell for breaking, repair or replace rather than claim on the insurance.

I don't agree with you either, this can swing either way, my car is worth ****e all, so if i crash it, i ain't claiming for it to be repaired.

And i believe the biggest $$$ part of insurance claims is injury to others, not really the vehicles themselves.

Eoin

ha-ya-said-what wrote: »

It is how it is with the RTAs we get, reason being the women tend to have cars of a lesser value than males, in most cases cheaper just to sell for breaking, repair or replace rather than claim on the insurance.

That's different to saying how they "run off to daddy for a new car" or whatever. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I don't think it's as offensive a post as your first one.

Men can't complain about insurance companies discriminating against young males, and then make sweeping statements like yours.

Eoin

Xios wrote: »

Well no, if you have 70 males and 35 females insured, the odds are 2 to 1 for the for crashes to be male. Just because there's more of us, doesn't mean we have to pay twice as much.

That's not the same thing as you said earlier. If you have 35 males and 35 females, but the males do twice as much driving, then the males are a higher risk.

Viper_JB

R.O.R wrote: »

And why should I pay higher premiums for you and the OP? Is this communist Russia where car insures you?

Missing the op's point here - he's not suggesting that the entire ncb system be over written - the only difference this would make to your premiums would be to lower them as they'd be more inline with the female pricing and you lose the loading for being male.

Nice idea but it'll never happen women crash more but also slower so much less damage to claim on probably much fewer even claimed on - I'm not too sure driver deaths come into it, if a driver on 3rd party crashes into a wall and kills himself do the insurance company pay anything?

ha-ya-said-what

eoin wrote: »

That's different to saying how they "run off to daddy for a new car" or whatever. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I don't think it's as offensive a post as your first one.

Men can't complain about insurance companies discriminating against young males, and then make sweeping statements like yours.

Well I can't very well bring all my paper work of cars wrote off by young women to the insurance companies & say well this young one wrote off her car & never claimed.. nor did this one or this one, on the other hand here is the list of males ... by the way they all claimed.

I would in no way say women are better drivers than men cos I see first hand what they do & the wrecks they leave behind em, but at the end of the day the insurance companies stats are based on the amount of claims they get and what not & I can't see the prices changing anytime soon.

Sleepy

Doesn't it swing the other way later in life? I'm pretty sure I remember hearing before that a mid-forties male pays less for insurance than a female of the same age?

Eoin

ha-ya-said-what wrote: »

Well I can't very well bring all my paper work of cars wrote off by young women to the insurance companies & say well this young one wrote off her car & never claimed.. nor did this one or this one, on the other hand here is the list of males ... by the way they all claimed.

I didn't ask you to do that, I asked you not to make sweeping statements about women running to daddy or their partner to buy them a new car. Let's leave it at that please.

astrofool

This was brought to court a few years ago, and the case was dismissed.

However, if men drive more, and cause accidents resulting in higher payouts, then yes, they should pay more. If we stopped having these high payout accidents, premiums would fall.

Xios

Sleepy wrote: »

Doesn't it swing the other way later in life? I'm pretty sure I remember hearing before that a mid-forties male pays less for insurance than a female of the same age?

This will change in the next decade, the reason i believe this is true now is that 15-20 years ago there were much fewer female drivers, so all the middle aged women driving now are learning to drive at much later age while men have always started younger, of course this has changed now with many young girls getting cars. I may be wrong, but this is how i can make sense of it.

Eoin

Personally I would like to see what would happen if a different group of people had to pay higher premiums based on statistics. I do agree that young white males are the easiest to discriminate against without public uproar, but I don't find it hard to believe that they are the highest risks for insurance companies either.

Zubeneschamali

eoin wrote: »

I don't find it hard to believe that they are the highest risks for insurance companies either.

There's no doubt about it - just check the deaths vs. injuries for young men vs. young women. In 2008, age 21-24, dead/injured:

Men: 32/547 or 5.5%
Women: 9/448 2%

That doesn't mean it makes sense to allow insurance companies to discriminate against them, though.

Eoin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There's no doubt about it - just check the deaths vs. injuries for young men vs. young women. In 2008, age 21-24, dead/injured:

Men: 32/547 or 5.5%
Women: 9/448 2%

That doesn't mean it makes sense to allow insurance companies to discriminate against them, though.

Those stats don't mention the average cost of claims to the insurance company.

If the average cost per claim is higher for males, then I think it does make sense to charge a higher premium.

Cookie_Monster

But in health insurance the average cost of an OAP is much much higher than a young person but due to risk equalisation this is compensated for (somewhat)

Why is the same not done for motor insurance?

Henry Ford III

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

But in health insurance the average cost of an OAP is much much higher than a young person but due to risk equalisation this is compensated for (somewhat)

Why is the same not done for motor insurance?

"Community rating" doesn't apply to motor insurance.