Women drivers facing higher insurance premiums because of EU equality

[shoes]

This is a good one.

I'm sure no one here has any problem whatsoever with men and women having equal rights. I'm also sure no one here can dispute that women make less car insurance clams than men (let's not start a debate on women drivers, lets look at the facts and figures here). Thirdly, I'm sure every one agrees than discriminating against someone because of their gender is wrong. With me so far?

Then why do women get cheap car insurance simply because they are women? Now I have no problem with a lower risk group of people paying lower premiums - in fact I'm very pro this - however, the above three statements cannot all be satisfied if women get lower premiums for being women.

The EU have had little to do recently so thought they would address this issue - see the story here.

So, what's going to happen do you think? Men's premiums coming down or women's premiums going up? Well, we already know what's going to happen!

Thank you EU!

 

[Pie & Ale]

bout time!

 

[shoes]

bout time!

You haven't thought this through - if women's premiums are brought into line with men's then couples who share such costs, families etc. will be worse off over all - the insurance companies will make more money for literally nothing, as will the treasury - again for literally nothing.

It is the consumer who suffers, with again, literally nothing to show for it.

But the equality issue makes this tricky. In this case* I'd chose money over equality any day - let low risk groups have lower premiums.

*I do not believe this across the board, for example I believe the opposite for salaries.

 

[Pie & Ale]

You can't have one or the other. If its equal it must be equal in every way. I agree with the EU. Yes it will cost more but either youre for equality or not.

 

[shoes]

Well it won't cost me any more money, I'm a single bloke, but there are a lot who will suffer at the hands of their own equality fight. Quite ironic really, I suppose lol

 

[tek-monkey]

So will they go after age discrimination next? 17 year olds should pay as much as 45 year olds etc?

 

[zebidee]

They should probably do a meta-study to figure out who really has fewer risks of accident rather than basing a call for equality purely on gender equality. I think 'under 25' is a pretty arbitrary factor too, not all drivers start driving at 17, some start after 25, what is that cut off point based on? If the figures point towards a lower risk it makes sense. If they don't, then fine, change it, but really this is just another way for the DM to make people bash each other over their ideology.

 

[shoes]

but really this is just another way for the DM to make people bash each other over their ideology.

Yup, it's definitely not an issue which could potentially affect 50% or so of the population of this country caused by membership to a union we never had a referendum on......

 

[John Marwood]

As a bloke if you can get to around 22 years of age you have missed the age when you are most likely to die ( after child birth ) which is between 17 and 21 , up until your late sixties where we start to fade away more naturally...

It is also a fact that a teenage girl is far safer ( in terms of keeping her life ) if she walks home from the night club at 2 in the morning than if she takes a lift with her boyfriend

Writes a man in the insurance office..

 

[shoes]

As a bloke if you can get to around 22 years of age you have missed the age when you are most likely to die ( after child birth ) which is between 17 and 21 , up until your late sixties where we start to fade away more naturally...

It is also a fact that a teenage girl is far safer ( in terms of keeping her life ) if she walks home from the night club at 2 in the morning than if she takes a lift with her boyfriend

Writes a man in the insurance office..

Another relevant post brought to you by the JM...

 

[Vault_girl]

Women get paid less on average than men. Perhaps they should focus on this first if addressing the problems of equality before charging us more for things like insurance ESPECIALLY as we're a lower risk group than men. I personally think equality is an extremely poor excuse to argue that women should be charged more for insurance.

 

[tek-monkey]

Some of that will be taken up with career breaks though, many women have a kid so take time off work, often starting back again in a worse position than they left unless they get to keep their job. I'm not saying this accounts for all, but I'd be interested to see a study of women who never had kids and their pay compared to men who also didn't.

Applying preconceptions based on gender, race or age are illegal in many areas, such as employment. I'm not sure why insurance hasn't been targetted before TBH, its an obvious choice.

 

[shoes]

Women get paid less on average than men. Perhaps they should focus on this first if addressing the problems of equality before charging us more for things like insurance ESPECIALLY as we're a lower risk group than men. I personally think equality is an extremely poor excuse to argue that women should be charged more for insurance.

Well, no, it's not though, that's the point. Gender equality, which is what you want with voting, salaries etc. is fine because you're better off. But suddenly something equality based comes alone and makes you worse off and you're not happy about it - what a surprise. I happen to agree with you as far as the end game goes, but for different reasons.

As P&A stated earlier you cannot have it both ways and I'm for equality, so pay up IMO. If we could have it the other way I would retain equality as we know it but go the other way on this issue, as stated earlier, and allow women to keep their lower premiums.

I liked this story, it gets you thinking. Or...er... bashing people based on the ideologies

But yes, I think insurance is fine as it is.

 

[Vault_girl]

Women get paid less on average than men. Perhaps they should focus on this first if addressing the problems of equality before charging us more for things like insurance ESPECIALLY as we're a lower risk group than men. I personally think equality is an extremely poor excuse to argue that women should be charged more for insurance.

Well, no, it's not though, that's the point. Gender equality, which is what you want with voting, salaries etc. is fine because you're better off. But suddenly something equality based comes alone and makes you worse off and you're not happy about it - what a surprise. I happen to agree with you as far as the end game goes, but for different reasons.

As P&A stated earlier you cannot have it both ways and I'm for equality, so pay up IMO. If we could have it the other way I would retain equality as we know it but go the other way on this issue, as stated earlier, and allow women to keep their lower premiums.

I liked this story, it gets you thinking. Or...er... bashing people based on the ideologies

But yes, I think insurance is fine as it is.

I was going more from the angle if you're going to go addressing equality issues and getting things fairer then perhaps insurance is not one of the places to start. I get where you're coming from though "all these women folk moaning about things and for once they have it better than us men and moan when we want to make it fairer". [edit: not meant to sound like a sarcastic comment or to offend you! - realised it sounded a bit like it when re-reading!]

It is a fact though, that women are safer drivers and thus claiming less on insurance, it is not fact however that women don't work as hard as men (I know many women would claim to work harder, but we are biased). I know what you mean about career breaks and kids tek but I'm fairly sure (without having the drive to get hard facts) that there are far less women in high power and high paying careers than men. Perhaps this will be something we will see change in the future as we get more house husbands and career-driven women. It is a shame that women have to give up on having a career to have children whilst men are able to do both. I know there are certain things in place to help women so that they can have careers and families so perhaps it is a cultural thing rather than a physical barrier. I think men should get longer paternity leave if they want it - two weeks is ridiculous! Would they take it though? Would it be seen as "weak" or "feminine" by others to want to spend time with your baby? I know women have actual medical grounds for maternity leave but still. Perhaps government needs to change these sorts of things to help women get better careers.

I've derailed slightly with my pay comments... apologies.

as Shoes said, insurance is fine as it is. I pay more than vault boy because of my age (it's cheaper to add him as a named driver even though there's only 3 years difference in our ages but still costs a lot more than his) so it's not working in my favour at the present time anyway.

 

[shoes]

I think this all needs to be addressed with some good old fashioned common sense, which as you all know I am a big fan of.

So insurance - business deal. Business is based on risk and investment. Women are a lower risk than men - an undisputed fact. So they should pay lower premiums.

So the workplace - women are just as capable as men of doing 99% or jobs and vice versa - I'm sure there are exceptions where men/women are measurably better, i can't think of any examples - I'm sure gramaisc can google one lol. They should therefore be given the same opportunities in both personal advancement and renumeration.

So children - we're all tired of scrotes and young thugs, most of which, apparently, are a product of an unbalanced upbringing. I think it would make sense for the home, but not for the company, for men to also have longer leave post birth. As a capitalist it pains me to say this, but as a human being it's obvious. Parents need to be able to work, and earn a decent living whilst raising their children properly. This benefits us all in the long run, even the shareholders, as when this generation hits their teens they won't be breaking into your car or busting your mum's face in for her purse. And of course gives these kids the best chance in life. Smaller businesses will find this much harder to absorb that the large nationals / multinationals however so some kind of system would have to be put in place to redress the balance I guess. Tax, probably.

Other things which have been sorted for years include, voting, women in the church, women as soldiers etc. - all of these should boil down to one key fact; we're ALL human beings. Gender is irrelevant in this day and age and should be treated as such.

I'm sure women here can cite a million other inequalities, if you'd like a shoes common sense take on it

 

[Withnail]

You appear to have become a Socialist over the course of an afternoon -

To atone for this you will now have to dump some toxic waste in the nearest river and sell some milk formula to a developing country.

 

[shoes]

No it's just common sense - there's nothing sensible about socialism. I still won't pander to the pathetic masses, I still won't condone lazy people benefitting from the wealth of those who have worked their bollocks off for it, I still think that medicine and the study thereof is having a negative impact on us as a society and that left wing policies are, in general, useless. But I don't think anyone should be singled out for reasons beyond their control.

You can choose to be a priest but not that you are gay etc.

Children is an issue which irritates the hell out of me, rewarding people to have kids is obscene in my opinion, but at the same time depriving kids of parents is only going to have a negative impact - especially when the parents have jobs and clearly good ethics about how to live one's life independently. Frankly I don't give a toss about the parents, but I do care about whether their kids will be living out of my pocket or not in 20 years.

 

[FiendishJack]

I still think that medicine and the study thereof is having a negative impact on us as a society

Sorry, what? Are you calling for a return to the days when an infection was a death sentence, the average life expectancy in the mid-thirties, and you could only expect one in five of your children to make it to working age?..

 

[Gramaisc]

I still think that medicine and the study thereof is having a negative impact on us as a society

Sorry, what? Are you calling for a return to the days when an infection was a death sentence, the average life expectancy in the mid-thirties, and you could only expect one in five of your children to make it to working age?..

I remember a teacher splitting off all the pupils who had had stitches or anti-biotics and informing the group - the majority of the class- 'If you'd been born when I was, then half of you would be dead now'.

 

[zebidee]

but really this is just another way for the DM to make people bash each other over their ideology.

Yup, it's definitely not an issue which could potentially affect 50% or so of the population of this country caused by membership to a union we never had a referendum on......

Yer, well I'm not talking about the actual content of the article, I'm on about the DM framing of it i.e. "haha look women, this is what equality gets you" and the age old DM favourite of "EU gone mad". They're just tropes to get people up in arms on either side of the fence. Like I said, if there's less risks associated with a certain group, give them cheaper insurance. If that proves to be ungrounded, make it equal. If they prove themselves to go against the trend their premiums go up anyway.