I read this in the Independent, and just had to share it with you. Is the writer a misogynist, or does he have a tale to tell? Perhaps the lady BRs would like to comment. I wonder if he has had a difference with his SWMBO.
?We should welcome the EU directive that the lower motor insurance premiums offered to women should be withdrawn. Presumably this benefit afforded to women drivers was predicated on the fact that they have fewer accidents than men. What has been ignored is that women cause more accidents than their male counterparts, through their general indecision, unpredictability, poor anticipation and slow reactions
Yours etc.?
|
?We should welcome the EU directive that the lower motor insurance premiums offered to women should be withdrawn. Presumably this benefit afforded to women drivers was predicated on the fact that they have fewer accidents than men. What has been ignored is that women cause more accidents than their male counterparts, through their general indecision, unpredictability, poor anticipation and slow reactions Yours etc.?
playing Devils Advocate for a moment and assuming that he is correct about the difference between women not being involved in accidents, but possibly being the cause of them - the insurance companies have therefore got it spot on.
Doesn't matter a jot if women cause every single accident on the road: If they're not involved in the ensuing crash then they cause and sustain no damage, have no insurance claim, and cost the insurance company no money. Therefore lower premium.
There are arguments for the gender difference in insurance premiums being 'unfair', but the one he has chosen to use is totally nonsensical.
|
"and cost the insurance company no money"
But not if the other party is insured with the same outfit! Overall, the insurance co's take a hit whatever the causation, and they benefit however the accident rate decreases.
As it happens, I'm sure the original directive wasn't predicated on such thinking - it's just another bit of EU barminess!
|
There is plenty of research around to show that men are the more dangerous drivers (95% of dangerous drivers taken to court are men iirc). Insurance companies are in it to make money so if women cost them more they'd pay more. If a man & a women have an identical crash history then I'd be inclined to believe that they should pay the same premium. With young drivers males are much more likely to have an accident so they should pay more when first starting out. Every single one of them complains and says they are the safest driver blah blah then promptly reports how they were racing some nova or how they nearly ran up the back of someone while they were ogling some woman with an impressive rack.
Some bloke's argument was that women were involved in less risky activity eg lower mileage, using local roads (they're in fact the most dangerous so this guy was way off beam) or not overtaking as much. Well, duh! That's why men have the big accidents: they're not cautious enough. The road conditions are the same out there for both groups so how can you explain the difference in anything other than gender behaviour.
Women might be ditherers sometimes but it is better to dither and miss pulling out of a junction than to rush it and crash into someone. The pressure of having someone sitting up your chuff in traffic can lead to hasty behaviour. I expect women to be more inclined to give in to peer pressure and hence do the stupid 'you pulled right out in front of me you dozy bird' accident that these men are complaining about ironically because they are believing men telling them they are too cautious.
Women aren't as spatially aware as men which is why they are more cautious in the first place. If men are so fab at judging speed and distance why are they involved in more serious accidents anyway?
teabelly
|
I think point was certain insurance co`s. give discount to Women.Adverts as seen on tv.mention accidents. Ie. womens.cost much lower than mens.?.I dont see where this applies. As a smashed up motor still costs the same to repair. No matter who has it.Women arent as daft as you make out. or as sensible.I dont think men any different.Mobile phones dont help/distrations off kids fighting in back seat/any wonder accident occur??
--
Was mech1
|
Statistically women have less accidents per time period. That's a fact.
Arguably that does not equate to less accidents per mile drive, but sine insurnce is time based that is not relevant.
The cause is also arguable since it may be related to the type of drivng, time of driving, or environment in which driven as much as it is a result of inherent driving style or ability.
Nonetheless, women cost insurance companies less and they charge them less. It doesn't matter how many times I look at that I can't see a problem.
Although I guess the world would have a problem with it if insurance companies used a persons colour as a means of idntifying different risk profiles and then charged accordingly. Although I would have thought that just about any factor was reasopnable, including race, creed, colour, sex, provided it is directly related to claims experiece.
|
Statistically women have less accidents per time period.
>>
[pedant mode on]They certainly have fewer accidents[/pedant mode off]
Nonetheless, women cost insurance companies less and they charge them less. It doesn't matter how many times I look at that I can't see a problem.
In any other walk of life if you buy a service that costs the provider less, you would expect to pay less for it. A chap and his female partner go into a restaurant and sit for the same length of time having a meal. He has steak and all the trimmings, she has pate on toast; each meal costs the same. I don't think so.
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
Yeah but who wants to bet that premiums for females go up but premiums for men do not come down.
EU nonsense but will as always be used as another excuse for the insurance industry to fleece us.
|
As little ago as 5 years that was not the case. I'd be slightly suprised if they were now making a profit, but you may well be right.
In fact its measured in two ways - claims & expense versus premiums is called an underwriting profit, which is what they use to judge their risk profile, and frequently is the figure they advertise.
However, that excludes investment revenue which is quite considerable. (essentially your premiums invested until you make a claim).
Motoring was always seen as acoomodation business and tehrefore a neccessary evil. I should think its more attractive than that these days, but I shouldn't think it would be more profitable than H&C.
|
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, to lump all men in together as having an equal and raised level of risk compared with that of women is plainly ludicrous. Many men will from day one be far safer and more capable drivers than your average woman yet will continue to pay an increased premium throughout life purely as a result of being male.
|
How long before someone decides the charging teenagers more than older drivers is age discrimination?
Too many people with too much time on their hands, methinks.
|
|
Justifiable surely as a result of their lack of experience; the same cannot be said about men and women.
|
|
Why should women have cheaper premiums, from what I've seen they are certainly no better drivers than men, especially when it comes to parking! On the same subject, women's only insurance companies are by law still obliged to insure men if you so wish.
|
|
I agree. If they want to continue with sex-based insurance premiums why don't they start asking for sex-based taxation too? It is clear that they are the major consumers of health care in this country (when was the last time you were dragged to the GP?) and as a result perhaps they should be paying more in tax as a direct result.
|
Insurance companies are businesses, not a branch of the social services. If they think women drivers cost them less then they are entitled to charge less in premiums, or more to the point, if male drivers cost them more then they would be stupid not to make the premium for men reflect this.
|
|
The insurance companies are effectively saying men are a homogenous mass of similarly behaving creatures that are all equally likely to be more dangerous drivers than the average woman. If that is not discrimination I don't know what is. As for your comment about social services, the point I was making was clearly tongue in cheek and not meant to be taken seriously. If, however, being facetious is some kind of crime on this web site then I will desist immediately.
|
The only way to do this fairly is to compare new drivers of both sexes and compare them on the basis of age, education level etc . If the pairings show that the men have more accidents compared to the women of the same type then men should pay more. But if it is shown that there are pairings where this is not the case then the premiums should be adjusted accordingly. Insurance premiums are calculated on the basis on lots of things. You pay more for certain types of car even if you are personally a safe driver on the grounds that the car attracts a type of driver. You might not fit the stereotype but you get lumped in with others that do. Perhaps the only real fair way is to calculate insurance on a personal basis. You have a base line and everyone pays exactly the same for the first year. Accidents rocket the premium, safe driving cuts it drastically.The only argument is whether in the first years women should pay less than a man in the same circumstances. If evidence shows (insurance companies should know) that women aren't going to have the claims then they shouldn't be bank rolling the men.
If premiums get hiked for women I can expect some will get annoyed and start driving like men thinking if we're paying the same we may as well drive as badly as them ;-)
teabelly
|
If premiums get hiked for women I can expect some will get annoyed and start driving like men thinking if we're paying the same we may as well drive as badly as them ;-)
Teabelly, maybe we should try to arrange lessons for women drivers in how to drive as badly as men. Things like tailgating, driving too fast around blind corners, shooting out at junctions (and probly lots of other vices too)
It could make lottsa new jobs, as stressed sales reps join forces with young tearaways to teach their nums and sisters how to drive more dangerously ... and, crucially, how to indignantly blame someone else when there is a crash.
[/tongue-in-cheek]
|
I'd say women tailgate just as much as men....well almost. The difference is that tailgating men eventually overtake (often dangerously), then tailgate the next car, while women tailgaters are happy to stay 2 metres from your bumper for 25 miles!
Among the worst female tailgaters are those driving car parts delivery vans. Just an impression, I must add - I'm sure many of the parts van drivers are courteous and patient!
Cheers, SS
|
Well I'm not convinced that premiums are that much cheaper for women anyway, whatever the adverts say. Certainly the companies that target their advertising to women have always been more expensive in my case than Direct Line etc.
But I can't understand the fuss about this issue anyway. If I lived in central Portsmouth, my postcode would generate a higher premium than it does now, living 10 miles away. The difference presumably reflects the percieved risk of that area. I could be lucky and never have my car broken into, damaged or stolen, but I would still pay the higher premium as statistically I am more likely to make a claim based on my postcode.
How is that so different to the male/female issue?
|
|
|
