I think the connection of much of the above to an individual's insurance premium is tenuous at best. Please try to keep on topic (and avoid slagging each other off) or this thread will be closed.

Thanks!

I'm waiting to see an age discrimination and sex discrimination case against an insurance company soon.

anyone else just catch bbc news? lol. new eu ruling means no more cheaper insurance for women

edit: now they say its not passed yet :|

Edited 4 October, 201015 yr by J242

Yeah, but the thing that people forget is that it won't mean cheaper insurance for men, it'll mean more expensive insurance for women. And for the record, the chief of the Association of British Insurers said that people pay according to risk, and that men pay more because they cost more. Equality is pointless when it's enforced over something where there isn't an equal - just like someone who has a low IQ applying to be the next Lucasian professor when Hawking pops his clogs and claiming discrimination.

It's not passed yet, the chief advocate wants it passed, but then there have been plenty of other ridiculous EU rulings, so they'll probably go with what he says. Get your wallets out, ladies. G'work, EU... :S

Yeah, but the thing that people forget is that it won't mean cheaper insurance for men, it'll mean more expensive insurance for women. And for the record, the chief of the Association of British Insurers said that people pay according to risk, and that men pay more because they cost more. Equality is pointless when it's enforced over something where there isn't an equal - just like someone who has a low IQ applying to be the next Lucasian professor when Hawking pops his clogs and claiming discrimination.

It's not passed yet, the chief advocate wants it passed, but then there have been plenty of other ridiculous EU rulings, so they'll probably go with what he says. Get your wallets out, ladies. G'work, EU... :S

Works for me... Sheilas wheels should be banned straight off as they have point out they are for women, because they are "better" drivers.

IMHO if it happens, then what will happen is that women's prices will go up but not to where men's currently are and a mans insurance will come down to a medium level.

Not saying that the ins co won't take some more money, but that way at least there will be more in the pot.

If all things are equal on individual history, why should women get cheaper insurance than a man? (No I don't want an answer to this, it's rhetorical)

Edited 4 October, 201015 yr by cheezemonkhai

Works for me... Sheilas wheels should be banned straight off as they have point out they are for women, because they are "better" drivers.

Well, maybe David Auden should be banned straight off as they insure competition cars? Or any other specialist insurance broker who chooses to work with a particular market segment. Oh, and if you think about it, there's no reason why Sheila's Wheels won't be in business if the law does get passed. In fact, I think shares in them would be worth buying at the moment, given that they will instantly become more profitable overnight if the price rise is forced upon them.

IMHO if it happens, then what will happen is that women's prices will go up but not to where men's currently are and a mans insurance will come down to a medium level.

Not saying that the ins co won't take some more money, but that way at least there will be more in the pot.

Wrong again. The insurance will simply be the same for both parties. That way the insurers win, and can point the finger elsewhere; if anything else was the case then they wouldn't be able to insure only men or only women or whatever, as obviously market forces would force their hand. Still, you're finally admitting that insurance is based on risk, and women are statistically a lower risk than men. Which was confirmed by the boss of the industry in question this morning....

If all things are equal on individual history, why should women get cheaper insurance than a man? (No I don't want an answer to this, it's rhetorical)

YET AGAIN, they're not solely done on individual history. They are done on statistics and individual history - that's why you have a NCD and why you have to provide details of accidents you've had in the last 5 years. It's really not rocket science, is it? Oh, actually, I guess it is.

Edited 4 October, 201015 yr by djaychela

Well, maybe David Auden should be banned straight off as they insure competition cars? Or any other specialist insurance broker who chooses to work with a particular market segment. Oh, and if you think about it, there's no reason why Sheila's Wheels won't be in business if the law does get passed. In fact, I think shares in them would be worth buying at the moment, given that they will instantly become more profitable overnight if the price rise is forced upon them.

Wrong again. The insurance will simply be the same for both parties. That way the insurers win, and can point the finger elsewhere; if anything else was the case then they wouldn't be able to insure only men or only women or whatever, as obviously market forces would force their hand. Still, you're finally admitting that insurance is based on risk, and women are statistically a lower risk than men. Which was confirmed by the boss of the industry in question this morning....

YET AGAIN, they're not solely done on individual history. They are done on statistics and individual history - that's why you have a NCD and why you have to provide details of accidents you've had in the last 5 years. It's really not rocket science, is it? Oh, actually, I guess it is.

You know the whole sex discrimination thing?

If you see my previous post, you will see that women are statistically and historically more likely to take time off work to have babies, but due to sexual discrimination laws you CAN NOT pay them less.

Same goes here...

As for your David Auden comment. No because they are not targeting a group based on a breach of the equality laws unlike Sheilah's wheels.

Oh and they are also just a small part of a larger company so there is no money to be made playing shares in them.

I've never said insurance wasn't based on risk, but you can't skew the risk from day one, based on something protected by equalities legislation.

Can you insure somebody for more or less based on their religion or skin colour? Feel free to show that the statistics don't make it likely that people in these groups have more accidents.

Anyway, I believe that insurance is going up up up for a while so quite frankly, if a woman has equal rights to me, she can pay the same as me for insurance in the same circumstances.

I don't give two hoots if she has to pay the same as me and mine doesn't go down, but I think personally it will go down for men by virtue of quelling the rises for a while should it come into law.

Edited 5 October, 201015 yr by cheezemonkhai

Madness??

Madness is £2500 TPF&T on a P plate 1.3 LXi Felly estate we bought for £150 !!!!! (only £1300 this year FC !!)

No wonder there is such a big problem with uninsured drivers!!!

I'm 20 y/o 1 non fault claim last oct and my insurance came up at roughly £2000 on my T reg 1.3LXI. Been without a car for a year so I've figured I'm simply going to pay it and hope the economical climate is better next year :'(

Edited 23 October, 201015 yr by felicia1.3lxi