The K M Links Game - April 2024 Week 4
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
A little controversial this.
32 Answers
http://www.dailymail....-fewer-accidents.html
Is this a victory for sex equality?
Was it ever fair for women to obtain cheaper car insurance?
Were they less likely to be involved in an accident, because male drivers kept out of their way? :0)
Will all female supporters of the EU, now change their views, because of this European ruling?
/// Insurance experts warned that younger women will be hit particularly badly as they will end up having to pay the same premiums as ‘boy racers’. ///
What a sexiest statement to make, is there no such thing as a 'Girl racer'?
/// Motoring groups warn the ruling could lead to more deaths on the roads if young men benefiting from lower premiums buy faster cars.///
So just because the 'criminally' huge premiums that young male drivers have been forced to pay these insurance companies may come down (and I have yet to see that), they are all going to dash out and buy Ferraris or Lamborghinis? I don't think so.
Those small, 'no road tax' cars can already reach incredible speeds.
Is this a victory for sex equality?
Was it ever fair for women to obtain cheaper car insurance?
Were they less likely to be involved in an accident, because male drivers kept out of their way? :0)
Will all female supporters of the EU, now change their views, because of this European ruling?
/// Insurance experts warned that younger women will be hit particularly badly as they will end up having to pay the same premiums as ‘boy racers’. ///
What a sexiest statement to make, is there no such thing as a 'Girl racer'?
/// Motoring groups warn the ruling could lead to more deaths on the roads if young men benefiting from lower premiums buy faster cars.///
So just because the 'criminally' huge premiums that young male drivers have been forced to pay these insurance companies may come down (and I have yet to see that), they are all going to dash out and buy Ferraris or Lamborghinis? I don't think so.
Those small, 'no road tax' cars can already reach incredible speeds.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
2010 statistics are here
https://docs.google.c..._IXe2urWiTxj6PKDjLumQ
(I hope that works). Interestingly, they are broken down according to age and other factors but not sex
https://docs.google.c..._IXe2urWiTxj6PKDjLumQ
(I hope that works). Interestingly, they are broken down according to age and other factors but not sex
<<It's a fact that some (not all) males have more crashes than some (not all) females.>>
Old Git, do you have a suggestion for how insurance companies can avoid grouping people by age/gender/address/offences etc and predict which individuals are going to have more future crashes
If a driver has had a crash or crashes then their premiums will increase dramatically or they may even be turned down. That applies both to male and female drivers.
I don't know what effect NCB protection has on this as i've not claimed in the time since that was introduced and the concept bemuses me anyway.
Old Git, do you have a suggestion for how insurance companies can avoid grouping people by age/gender/address/offences etc and predict which individuals are going to have more future crashes
If a driver has had a crash or crashes then their premiums will increase dramatically or they may even be turned down. That applies both to male and female drivers.
I don't know what effect NCB protection has on this as i've not claimed in the time since that was introduced and the concept bemuses me anyway.
The combined operating ratio of most motor insurers is in excess of 100%. Therefore, they are having to rely in investment income to turn a profit - if they couldn't rely on investment income, everybody's motor insurance premium would be more than it is now.
Insurance works on a common pool basis - the premiums of the many fund the claims of the few - and within the pool, certain sectors of society have to contribute more to the pool because they represent a greater risk.
Statistics prove that young people put more pressure on the pool than older drivers and therefore it is absolutely right that they should contribute more to the pool, which is why their premiums are so high - but not as high as they should be. In fact, if young drivers contributed to the pool correctly, their premiums would be at least 50% greater than they already are and therefore older drivers are subsidising young drivers (the theory being older drivers need to subsidise younger drivers otherwise there would be a detrimental effect on society as more young people would drive uninsured than already are).
Likewise, it is an absolute fact that women cost insurance companies less than men, and therefore, using the common pool principle, should contribute less to the pool than men. This is only fair.
We now have the farcical situation where insurers will not be able to discriminate on gender, despite perfectly valid statistical reasons for doing so, which in reality will mean that insurance costs for women are going to go up. This is not fair.
I'm all for anti-discrimnation laws, but they should not apply to insurance where, as is the case, it is proven women are the 'better risk'.
This is utterly utterly absurd and is, I believe, the thin end of the wedge - it will only be a number of years before age discrimination in insurance will also be illegal.
Bananas.
Insurance works on a common pool basis - the premiums of the many fund the claims of the few - and within the pool, certain sectors of society have to contribute more to the pool because they represent a greater risk.
Statistics prove that young people put more pressure on the pool than older drivers and therefore it is absolutely right that they should contribute more to the pool, which is why their premiums are so high - but not as high as they should be. In fact, if young drivers contributed to the pool correctly, their premiums would be at least 50% greater than they already are and therefore older drivers are subsidising young drivers (the theory being older drivers need to subsidise younger drivers otherwise there would be a detrimental effect on society as more young people would drive uninsured than already are).
Likewise, it is an absolute fact that women cost insurance companies less than men, and therefore, using the common pool principle, should contribute less to the pool than men. This is only fair.
We now have the farcical situation where insurers will not be able to discriminate on gender, despite perfectly valid statistical reasons for doing so, which in reality will mean that insurance costs for women are going to go up. This is not fair.
I'm all for anti-discrimnation laws, but they should not apply to insurance where, as is the case, it is proven women are the 'better risk'.
This is utterly utterly absurd and is, I believe, the thin end of the wedge - it will only be a number of years before age discrimination in insurance will also be illegal.
Bananas.
Didn't this arise following a recent decision about annuities?
For a given payment, annuity rates for women were lower than those for men, on the (generally undisputed grounds) that women enjoyed a longer life span. However, this was judged unfair discrimination, and the authorities ruled that annuity rates should be the same for men and women. If it is accepted that providers of annuities should ignore differences of life expectancy between the sexes, then, for equality, accident insurers should ignore differences of risk between them.
For a given payment, annuity rates for women were lower than those for men, on the (generally undisputed grounds) that women enjoyed a longer life span. However, this was judged unfair discrimination, and the authorities ruled that annuity rates should be the same for men and women. If it is accepted that providers of annuities should ignore differences of life expectancy between the sexes, then, for equality, accident insurers should ignore differences of risk between them.
I've always thought the real reason for the premium discrepancy is that women make fewer and smaller claims. This could be construed as due to safer driving....I've always believed it to be due to less lying :) ie on the 2 or 3 occasions there has been a fairly minor mishap with home or car, any male of my acquaintance immediately instructs me on how to make a claim and bump it up. The females who hear of said mishap never suggest this.
That's all.
That's all.
No they should not.
Premiums should be calculated on the level of risk each class of person brings to the common pool, and therefore sex and age should absolutely be taken into account.
Un until 21st December this year sex will still be taken into account - but after this date, as a direct result of the Test-Achats case, it will not.
This is a ridiculous decision because women cost insurance companies less than men.
Treating women more favourably is most certainly not sexism when, as is the case with motor insurance, it can be proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that women costs insurers less than men.
Premiums should be calculated on the level of risk each class of person brings to the common pool, and therefore sex and age should absolutely be taken into account.
Un until 21st December this year sex will still be taken into account - but after this date, as a direct result of the Test-Achats case, it will not.
This is a ridiculous decision because women cost insurance companies less than men.
Treating women more favourably is most certainly not sexism when, as is the case with motor insurance, it can be proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that women costs insurers less than men.
In the interests of fairness, we should cease to discriminate against criminals, perhaps? The total fines and jail sentences each year should be apportioned over the whole population - maybe just a couple of hours in jail and a tenner or so for each of us?
I bet some faceless, corrupt, unelected bureaucrat is working on it even now.
I bet some faceless, corrupt, unelected bureaucrat is working on it even now.
Latest Posts
Connections 321 - Sat 27 April
Quizzes & Puzzles53 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles61 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles63 mins ago
ChatterBank246 mins ago
