Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    what bothers me is the its an individual price apperently

    in which case surely if your a new driver with no previous experience they should take your minors into count

    why does someone like me with 1 minor 1st time pass pay the same as someone with 10 minors on there 3rd try
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Walter Ego)
    So let's remove all reasoning for making those whom deserve to pay higher premiums, thus loading up the premiums of those that don't. Statistics are like theoretical physics, they can be used to prove or disprove anything you want. The fact is, young drivers cause and are involved in more accidents, young male drivers even more so. As age, experience and wisdom kick in, the accident rates drop. Why should perfectly safe drivers in their mid-later life pay higher premiums so that young knobs can razz around slamming into everything in Britain and yet pay the same for their insurance, when it can be proven that they are a greater liability ? Personally, I think the EU was wrong as they didn't discriminate against men because they were men, but because they habitually and incessantly have proven over decades to be less safe and cautious, and the fact is justifiable. Only if it was unjustified would it be discriminatory in my eyes !
    Exactly. The prices should have stayed the way whey were. Males have more accidents, therefore they should pay more for insurance. Its not discriminating or anything- its proven facts. If they are going to be like that and make females insurance higher, then they should make older peoples insurance higher too. Why should females pay more insurance to be level with men when they have more accidents.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    But as someone else pointed out, age is something we all go through. Sex and race isn't. I'm not bothered about age because hopefully one day, I'll reach 50. Without changing my sex, I'll never be female. Companies should offer products to both sexes. Doesn't have to be the same product, or at the same price, but they should still do it.
    but why? thats like saying 'jane norman should design guys clothes'.

    Agree with the age thing vs sex, and therefore it shouldnt be descriminiated b
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by omarion526)
    but why? thats like saying 'jane norman should design guys clothes'.

    Agree with the age thing vs sex, and therefore it shouldnt be descriminiated b
    Difference between clothing is that anyone can wear any kind of clothing they want. Thus, Jane Norman may design clothes for women, but a man can still buy and wear them. A man can't, or couldn't, go to Diamond and ask for insurance with them.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Difference between clothing is that anyone can wear any kind of clothing they want. Thus, Jane Norman may design clothes for women, but a man can still buy and wear them. A man can't, or couldn't, go to Diamond and ask for insurance with them.
    lol don't trivialise it, you get what I was getting at... the average man can't buy clothes for himself at jane norman..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emma:-))
    Exactly. The prices should have stayed the way whey were. Males have more accidents, therefore they should pay more for insurance. Its not discriminating or anything- its proven facts. If they are going to be like that and make females insurance higher, then they should make older peoples insurance higher too. Why should females pay more insurance to be level with men when they have more accidents.
    Where do you draw the line though? If a piece of strong evidence was published showing people of a certain skin colour were more likely to have accidents, do you think they should be made to pay higher premiums?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by omarion526)
    lol don't trivialise it, you get what I was getting at... the average man can't buy clothes for himself at jane norman..
    It's not trivialising. Men can buy clothes at Jane Norman, if they so choose. Men cannot buy insurance with Diamond, or couldn't.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by omarion526)
    lol don't trivialise it, you get what I was getting at... the average man can't buy clothes for himself at jane norman..
    Your point is a little too subtle for TSR, if I'm understanding it correctly.

    Gender being performative, one cannot feel at home wearing clothes that are seen as feminine if they consider themselves to be masculine. Thus there may be odd exceptions where a man can buy clothes that are a woman's, but only when he wishes to not be seen as masculine. But to wear clothes that fall in-line with his performity as someone who is masculine, the man cannot go to such a shop in order to buy clothes?
    Or am I reading too much into it?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    you know what? I give up :lol:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by omarion526)
    you know what? I give up :lol:
    So that wasn't your point then.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What ticks me off is when a 30 year old who has just passed gets an awesome quote, where as a 17 year old who has just passed gets a humongous quote. They both have the same experience!

    It should be based on how long you've been driving - not age.

    Similarly, they use crime statistics to up your quote if you live in a dodgy area. This is another generalisation they use, and folks, they're always going to use them! We're lucky for them to get rid of the gender 'discrimination'. We have more chance of doing a lottery syndicate and winning than we have banking on the insurance companies scrapping their age policies.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It's like saying if you're Asian you've got to pay more insurance because you're worse than Caucasian drivers. There'd be an effing uproar if that happened.

    I'm a girl, and I think it's fairer this way to be honest.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    It's not trivialising. Men can buy clothes at Jane Norman, if they so choose. Men cannot buy insurance with Diamond, or couldn't.
    Yes they can.

    We do not refuse to give insurance quotes to men and are more than happy to provide a quote if requested.
    Men can also buy insurance from Sheila's Wheels.
    While we cater especially for ladies, men are welcome to take out a policy with us but our benefits are ones that women will appreciate.
    In fact, according to this link, it's unlawful (or likely to be) if a car insurance company refuses to provide for men.

    Example:
    An insurance company offers cheaper car insurance to women based on statistical data that shows women have fewer accidents. This is likely to be lawful.

    However, if the company refuses to provide insurance to men at all, this is likely to be unlawful discrimination.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The thing which is also killing the insurance companies isn't the cost of the car repairs in accidents, its flipping personal injury claims which are through the roof!!
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Hazular)
    It's like saying if you're Asian you've got to pay more insurance because you're worse than Caucasian drivers. There'd be an effing uproar if that happened.

    I'm a girl, and I think it's fairer this way to be honest.
    There's probably no biological difference in driving skill/danger of whites/Asians though.

    Whereas guys have higher testosterone etc. than girls, so a better case can be made that biological differences are responsible for the price differences.

    IMO some form of targeting is better than everyone paying high prices. I almost feel sorry for the insurance companies (if such a thing is possible).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am profoundly deaf and personally think the insurance should be cheaper for deaf driver because they react quicker since they rely on eye than ear..

    http://esciencenews.com/articles/201...hearing.people
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michael321)
    There's probably no biological difference in driving skill/danger of whites/Asians though.

    Whereas guys have higher testosterone etc. than girls, so a better case can be made that biological differences are responsible for the price differences.

    IMO some form of targeting is better than everyone paying high prices. I almost feel sorry for the insurance companies (if such a thing is possible).
    I wasn't specifically targeting Asians, they're just the first racial group that popped into my head, heh.
    I dunno, why would testosterone cause blokes to be bad drivers? When I'm driving along, I find that men and women are equally terrible, although usually on different aspects, like men usually speed more but women usually cut across lanes and swerve all over the road-.-
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazular)
    I wasn't specifically targeting Asians, they're just the first racial group that popped into my head, heh.
    I dunno, why would testosterone cause blokes to be bad drivers? When I'm driving along, I find that men and women are equally terrible, although usually on different aspects, like men usually speed more but women usually cut across lanes and swerve all over the road-.-
    If you're talking about driving on the motorway then in all fairness, I think speeding is good, the national limit is well below what it ought to be.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    If you're talking about driving on the motorway then in all fairness, I think speeding is good, the national limit is well below what it ought to be.
    Nah, I'm on about on 30/40 mph roads. I'll admit to speeding myself (doing like 35 in a 30 zone or whatever), but when people tailgate me for several minutes and then overtake me at like 60mph, I think that's a bit much

    But I agree, on parkways and motorways I think 70 is a bit slow.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdamZ)
    I am profoundly deaf and personally think the insurance should be cheaper for deaf driver because they react quicker since they rely on eye than ear..

    http://esciencenews.com/articles/201...hearing.people
    If things were going to be kept fair, a reaction time test would have to be brought into insurer's policies. I'm sure there are some deaf people who have slower reactions than some hearing people. Also there's the fact that the deaf cannot hear sirens, horns, etc.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.