Women drivers: EU rules against lower premiums for females

Bullseye1

Why don't hey just limit the size and power of a car for first time drivers like they do with motorcyclists.

Raze_them_all

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Why don't hey just limit the size and power of a car for first time drivers like they do with motorcyclists.

Wouldn't work, How many first time drivers use vehicles to store stuff for work? You'd be making sure any apprentice plumbers etc can't drive

Stheno

What really gets me with insurance is the fact that you get your premium loaded if you do high mileage.

How can my four years no claims of 120k miles be the same as someone with the average of 36k miles when I've driven more than three times as much and if I was them would be on a 10 years no claims? (if you extrapolated out that for them to drive as much as me claim free it would take them that long?)

Now I've changed jobs and embraced (sarcastic face) the joys of public transport, so I do piddling mileage now, but don't expect my policy to go down, in fact I'll be interested if it does.

Therein in my opinion lies the problem with statistics, actuaries look at the likelihood of you having an accident based on multiple factors and therefore apply a loading.

This ruling impacts far more than insurance for driving it affects all sorts like pensions, life assurance etc.

Bullseye1

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Wouldn't work, How many first time drivers use vehicles to store stuff for work? You'd be making sure any apprentice plumbers etc can't drive

Do these guys have a full license? If your carrying tools are you not more likely to have a small van like a Golf or Focus?

Otis Driftwood

The mileage doesnt effect prem4um however how you are rated does.Alot of people need Class 2 (business use) on their policy because their employer insists they (the employer)are indemnified on the policy.The employer pays the travelling expenses but ensures if you crash going to a meeting they arent held responsible.

Its also illegal for an insurer (as someone on the previous page suggested) to purposfully quote a driver a premium that is so expensive that it is not reasonable to expect anyone to pay it.If it were that simple insurers could quote young drivers 10 grand or whatever for insurance so as to avoid the risk of having them as clients.Its not nearly as black and white as some people may think.

Stheno

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

The mileage doesnt effect prem4um however how you are rated does.Its not nearly as black and white as some people may think.

Why then do insurance companies ask what mileage you do?

I have had policies for years which include occasional business use as I travel with work and always tend towards such policies

I went onto axa.ie and put in my identical details with mileage of 12k kilometres and 40k kilometres per year and you are of course correct! My mistake there.

Otis Driftwood

Its for statistics and to help with dodgy risks.Eg,if you say you use your car for mainly social and domestic use but are clocking up 25,000 miles a year,something doesnt quite add up!

daenerysstormborn3

Well two years left to be a very good girl and not be involved in any catastrophe and get your premium down then I guess.

Stheno

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Its for statistics and to help with dodgy risks.Eg,if you say you use your car for mainly social and domestic use but are clocking up 25,000 miles a year,something doesnt quite add up!

Well I used drive 52 miles each way to work and back each day

52x2 5 x 48 = 24960 even before I drive to the supermarket to do the weekly shop, which statistically is more dangerous as most accidents according to ads occur within three miles of home?

A few years ago that figure of 52 was 75, with the odd 300 mile trip each week!

So lets say 75 x 2 x 5 x 48 = 36000 before I go to the supermarket not including the odd 300 mile each way trip

Normal people do those mileages too they are an exception, and actuaries are unable to deal with any deviations imo

It's just a point to say that high mileage can be safe mileage, were I to drive the twelve odd miles to my current job, I'd reckon the chances of a collision on Dublin roads/streets for that duration of journey are far higher than my previous 52 mile journey all of which bar two miles was motorway

So technically in my individual instance, given the change in my driving patterns, my insurance should go up as the risk is higher

Otis Driftwood

Coincidently,its cheaper to insure a car in Dublin,and in different areas in Dublin the rates vary.

Next thing people outside of Dublin will be up in arms! :pac:

Stheno

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Coincidently,its cheaper to insure a car in Dublin,and in different areas in Dublin the rates vary.

Next thing people outside of Dublin will be up in arms! :pac:

Ha, gotcha there, when I moved from bogland to Dublin, my premium went up by 14 euro a month, so 168 a year

That said it was moving from Portlaoise which has more police per capita than anywhere else in the country

Logical Fallacy

bluewolf wrote: »

As I've posted elsewhere, I think this is stupid

If it's what the stats show, then that's how it is

It's actually not really what the stats show at all, from what i can gather.

More men have accidents, but men also tend to drive further and for longer, clocking up a lot more road time.

This isn't taken into account so as an example if a woman drives for 1 hour and crashes once and a man drives for 24 hours and crashes twice he will be deemed a great risker, despite an hour crash rate that is far lower than the female drivers.

I gotta be honest and say i think insurance companies are awful statistical bending **** and there was no just cause for the huge differences in insurance premiums charged to male drivers all these years.

Sadly women are now going to feel the full brunt of the insurance sectors greed as well.

Otis Driftwood

When was that though?

The reason its cheaper is because in Dublin there is a much higher volume of traffic travelling at greatly decreased speeds so any accidents are likely to be relatively minor damage claims without injuries.

Stheno

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

When was that though?

The reason its cheaper is because in Dublin there is a much higher volume of traffic travelling at greatly decreased speeds so any accidents are likely to be relatively minor damage claims without injuries.

Last year with the 52 miles a day round trip!

Now this is one instance where I agree with the stats as given the fact I was travelling on motorways for 95% plus of my driving, it was safer.

When I asked about it, I was told they grade areas in Dublin on theft, third party damage etc, and load more so on that.

Otis Driftwood

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It's actually not really what the stats show at all, from what i can gather.

More men have accidents, but men also tend to drive further and for longer, clocking up a lot more road time.

This isn't taken into account so as an example if a woman drives for 1 hour and crashes once and a man drives for 24 hours and crashes twice he will be deemed a great risker, despite an hour crash rate that is far lower than the female drivers.

I gotta be honest and say i think insurance companies are awful statistical bending **** and there was no just cause for the huge differences in insurance premiums charged to male drivers all these years.

Sadly women are now going to feel the full brunt of the insurance sectors greed as well.

I work in the industry and Ive seen 2 big claims,both involving young male drivers that have paid out around 1.8 million between them.Thats 2 claims in one company for 2 drivers.The problem is that the average person on the street doesnt know things like this and reckon that its simply some conspiracy to rip the consumer off.

Stheno

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I work in the industry and Ive seen 2 big claims,both involving young male drivers that have paid out around 1.8 million between them.Thats 2 claims in one company for 2 drivers.The problem is that the average person on the street doesnt know things like this and reckon that its simply some conspiracy to rip the consumer off.

Wow.

I've had one claim in four plus years that was for €180 that I settled myself.

Just a personal comparison against yours. I'm female, mid thirties.

Logical Fallacy

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I work in the industry and Ive seen 2 big claims,both involving young male drivers that have paid out around 1.8 million between them.Thats 2 claims in one company for 2 drivers.The problem is that the average person on the street doesnt know things like this and reckon that its simply some conspiracy to rip the consumer off.

I am not entirely sure i the relevance to the point i have made?

You are talking about two very specific cases where the recipients of the payments quite clearly were not in the wrong, as if they were...the company would not have made any payout.

I am talking about the measures taken into account by companies to establish the apparent risk of a driver and how they may, just may, be angling to make as much money from said "stats" as possible.

Not being a wanker here, just honestly cannot apply the relevance of your post to the one you quoted.

zuroph

Before I say this, please be advised it is not an attack on women, or an invitation to gender war.

It can also be statistically proven that men are more adept to heavy lifting and manual labour, should they therefore be paid more?

IMO, everyone should be judged on their own merits, and not on their genitals. Hibernian are a step in the right direction with ignition testing and discounts for advanced driving courses completions. Insurance companies have traditionally made their highest profits on the young male market, hopefully this ruling will start to weed that out.

Yes, statistically young male drivers may be more of a risk, but its now up to the insurance companies to work out which ones are the higher risk, instead of using the lazy "he's got balls, mark him up".

fullstop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are girl equivalent of 'boy racers' too you know, and up until now they've been paying pittance for insurance compared to their comrades.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again, this is a generalisation. I know girls who are absolute lunatics on the road whereas I'm male and would tend to be fairly cautious, so why should I pay more for my insurance than a girl who can't successfully negotiate a carpark?

bluewolf wrote: »

As I've posted elsewhere, I think this is stupid

If it's what the stats show, then that's how it is

Why is it stupid? Do you only want equality when it suits women?

coffee_cake

fullstop wrote: »

Why is it stupid? Do you only want equality when it suits women?

I'm all for women paying higher annuity rates too, so no

If they want to stop risk pooling as much, then do like Hibernian and have that Ignition course and various other ways of proving yourself. Do more stats and do them per mile as someone else has said and see what happens and load up based on THAT. But ignoring the stats we do have just in the name of wishy washy fairness, I don't like that

Otis Driftwood

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I am not entirely sure i the relevance to the point i have made?

You are talking about two very specific cases where the recipients of the payments quite clearly were not in the wrong, as if they were...the company would not have made any payout.

I am talking about the measures taken into account by companies to establish the apparent risk of a driver and how they may, just may, be angling to make as much money from said "stats" as possible.

Not being a wanker here, just honestly cannot apply the relevance of your post to the one you quoted.

I think you've misinterpreted my post,I probably should have been clearer.

In the two instances I mentioned above,the two young drivers did not receive a cent from the insurance company.

The "duty of care" for any insurance company always does and always will lie with the third party.When you,me or anyone take a car insurance policy out,we arent covering ourselves,we are covering potential injuries to pedestrians or other motorists.

Its a common misconception that if someone was to write off their car tomorrow and say end up paralysed that they would get a big fat compo cheque from their insurer,this isnt the case (unless you have an additional and seperate personal accident policy).

In one of the instances I mentioned above,the young driver was drunk and ended up knocking over and fatally injuring two pedestrians.Even though he was completely in the wrong as he was driving the car drunk and without a passanger that had a full licence,the insurance company is still 100% liable to pay compensation to the injured parties.

This is why the MIBI (motor insurance bureau of Ireland) was set up.

If someone is driving a car uninsured and crashes into someone else,why should the insured person have to foot the bill?There has been a huge increase in MIBI cases over the last number of years which has also pushed up premiums.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Not being a wanker here, just honestly cannot apply the relevance of your post to the one you quoted.

Theres 2 reasons for the just cause of men having to pay higher rates.

Its by no means a perfect system as everyone gets tarred with the same brush however its just not feasible for everyone to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

zuroph

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The category was flawed though. "male" shouldnt be a category. It should be down to engine size, milegage, driver competency as tested by courses like ignition. To use gender as a category is intrinsically unfair and lazy.

For Otis's sotry which has apparently proven your point I can tell you of two women to cancel those two men out. The statistics have been scewed quite a bit by not taking into account factors such as time spent on the road, miles covered, and area covered by drivers. Yes, there is young boy racers. There is also young girl racers. You and I should not be footing their bill, it should come down to figuring out which ones they are and charging them more, using advanced driving courses and testing.

zuroph

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Its by no means a perfect system as everyone gets tarred with the same brush however its just not feasible for everyone to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Why not, its very simple. engine size, Modifications to car, penalty points, ignition driving course, any advanced driving courses taken, mileage covered, day or nighttime driving, etc, this is all available to insurers currently, and much better than the "what genitals have you" standard we've allowed become set for testing.

astrofool

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It's actually not really what the stats show at all, from what i can gather.

More men have accidents, but men also tend to drive further and for longer, clocking up a lot more road time.

This isn't taken into account so as an example if a woman drives for 1 hour and crashes once and a man drives for 24 hours and crashes twice he will be deemed a great risker, despite an hour crash rate that is far lower than the female drivers.

I gotta be honest and say i think insurance companies are awful statistical bending **** and there was no just cause for the huge differences in insurance premiums charged to male drivers all these years.

Sadly women are now going to feel the full brunt of the insurance sectors greed as well.

How much someone drives doesn't make a difference in this case.

1 day 1 crash will cost less than the 1 day 2 crash driver.

panda100

I for one welcome the ruling by the EU yesterday.Men have been discriminated against for years regards car insurance.
But I still don't understand why my insurance has to go up though?!Greedy insurance companies!

I need my car for work as I work with young disabled people in the community;with tax, petrol, insurance at the moment im barely covering car costs, I definatley won't be able to afford a hike in insurance costs!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

zuroph

so you arent aware of the scheme one insurance company already ran where they would fit a tracker to your car and monitor your propensity to break speedlimits, how much mileage you did, and where you did it? Its already out there, and can be done, and is a fairer system than presuming because i have the same genitalia as that muppet speeding on a backroad, that im the one responsible. People are assholes, regardless of gender, and it shouldnt fall on only some of us to foot the bill. all of us should share a bit of the burden, and the insurance companies should try harder to figure out the ones that are high risk. with a new gatso van network, using penalty points alone would help work this out.

The RSA is even trying to get these gadgets made mandatory

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Little Acorn

zuroph wrote: »

so you arent aware of the scheme one insurance company already ran where they would fit a tracker to your car and monitor your propensity to break speedlimits, how much mileage you did, and where you did it? Its already out there, and can be done, and is a fairer system than presuming because i have the same genitalia as that muppet speeding on a backroad, that im the one responsible. People are assholes, regardless of gender, and it shouldnt fall on only some of us to foot the bill. all of us should share a bit of the burden, and the insurance companies should try harder to figure out the ones that are high risk. with a new gatso van network, using penalty points alone would help work this out.

I think that was AXA? Did they not stop doing them though? Come to think of it they sound like a very good idea, but I haven't heard about them in years. Could people remove them?

I agree with what Bluewolf said earlier. Perhaps new statistical data is needed that takes into account other things apart from the risk of reckless driving. However as it stands, from what Permabear wrote above, that is why the statistics are the way they are today, men are just proven to be a higher risk regarding having big accidents that cost alot of money.
As Tinkerbell pointed out earlier, insurance can work against both sexes. In some cases the stats are in your favor, and in others they are not.
It is as simple as that, because that is how insurance works, otherwise they would be out a fortune.

If the stats were reversed, and I as a woman had to pay higher even though I was a safe driver, it would bug me but I wouldn't think I was being unfairly discriminated against because of my sex, because in my mind I would just be a statistical figure to the company.
It wouldn't make any difference whether I was male or female, it just so happened that one of these groups gets charged more and I belong in that group that is on average a higher risk. I wouldn't take it as a personal attack against my sex as it could have gone either way.

So yeah, maybe new statistics are needed, but unless/until they are produced it is unfair to expect all females to start paying more, contrary to the fact that the stats at the moment are in their favor. That is just not a fair insurance system, and goes against the whole idea of how insurance works.
We can only go by the stats that are available right now.

If they want to change the costs, then do it because of some new evidence or fairer statistics. Don't do it just for the sake of "everyone being equal", because obviously when it comes to driving everyone is not equal. Some are already proven to be higher risks than others.
The speed tracking thing sounds like a good idea, and there must be some other good ways that this could be done fairer too for the males who are good drivers.