International Women's Day

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361190/EU-equality-ruling-cost-British-taxpayer-1bn.html

EU equality ruling 'will cost British taxpayer £1bn': Young women drivers and retired men to suffer


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/27/article-1361190-03D808220000044D-218_468x385.jpg



European judges are expected to pass an equality ruling tomorrow that could cost British taxpayers almost £1billion. They are poised to make it illegal to assess insurance premiums and pension payouts on the basis of a policyholder’s sex. Research shows this will make car insurance much more costly for young women, and cut retirement annuities for men by up to 8 per cent. The Open Europe think-tank estimates insurance firms will have to raise £936million more capital to cover themselves against the ‘uncertainty’ caused by the ruling. Insurers say these costs will be passed on to customers.

Open Europe estimates that, on average, a 17-year-old woman driver will have to pay £4,300 more in premiums by the age of 26. In a worst-case scenario, the figure could hit £9,300. Stephen Booth of Open Europe said: ‘Giving EU judges free rein to rewrite laws that the UK government has signed up to in good faith can cause hugely damaging and unforeseen consequences. ‘That these judges would magically rule that young women should pay more in the name of equality is simply perverse.

Today is 'International Women's Day', a ludicrous and patronising day of which militant women with a thorn in their side celebrate their crusade against sexism even though sexism is rational (and yes sexism is rational, as the sexes are different whereas the races are not yet thanks to equality laws we are supposed to pretend that the sexes are equal and are both capable of the same things).

The insurance ruling from the EU is expected to hit normal young, working women just as all the other equality rulings do, its such a shame that women everywhere are represented de facto by such zealots who as usual implement ridiculous policies via the EU and central government and ends up as 'the laws of unintended consquences'. Although that said, at least this 'equality' is being applied fairly for once (as in not one-sided against men as it usually is) but as it stands - it is still totally ridiculous.

Godfrey Bloom sticks it to them here in the first minute or so, Happy International Women's Day.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O41N0BlUWM&feature=player_embedded

The same nonsense laws from people who have no grasp of the real world, 'hands up if any of you have had a real job'.

Thoughts?

[Conservative,]

What a load of ****. It's COMMON SENSE. Insurance is calculated on RISK. RISK IS CALCULATED THROUGH SEVERAL MEANS INCLUDING GENDER. If they can't calculated the full risk then it will be inaccurate. Ugh this is infuriating.

[Hecktix]

The women's car insurance ruling is the fairest thing political correctness has ever brought to us, girls I know pay half the car insurance I pay and have A) faster and B) newer cars than I could afford to insure. I know six people who have been involved in serious road collisions with new drivers being behind the wheel and at fault, in four out of six of these the new driver was female. Equal insurance is fair, however within this capitalist world we live in the insurance companies are bound to say "ok if it's equal, womens insurance can go up". I don't mind taxpayers money being used to fund moves for equality in any manner.

I find it ludicrous that you say sexism is rational because the sexes are different, yes they may be biologically and aesthetically different however that's where it ends, a woman is a human being and is entitled to the same rights, wages and opportunities as a man. If you actually bothered to take a look at why women were seen as below men in the past then you would see it was down to religion which in the most simple, shortened down terms ever - thought women were dirty because they bled once a month and this was considered "unnatural". Many know that this kind of old fashioned, strict, traditional religion is gone and therefore the oldfashioned, strict, traditional values should go away with it.

Just because the biological structure is different doesn't mean women should be looked upon as below men, nor should men be looked upon as below women. Equality is the way forward Dan and if you can't see it you are quite clearly blind.

[Conservative,]

The women's car insurance ruling is the fairest thing political correctness has ever brought to us, girls I know pay half the car insurance I pay and have A) faster and B) newer cars than I could afford to insure. I know six people who have been involved in serious road collisions with new drivers being behind the wheel and at fault, in four out of six of these the new driver was female. Equal insurance is fair, however within this capitalist world we live in the insurance companies are bound to say "ok if it's equal, womens insurance can go up". I don't mind taxpayers money being used to fund moves for equality in any manner.

I find it ludicrous that you say sexism is rational because the sexes are different, yes they may be biologically and aesthetically different however that's where it ends, a woman is a human being and is entitled to the same rights, wages and opportunities as a man. If you actually bothered to take a look at why women were seen as below men in the past then you would see it was down to religion which in the most simple, shortened down terms ever - thought women were dirty because they bled once a month and this was considered "unnatural". Many know that this kind of old fashioned, strict, traditional religion is gone and therefore the oldfashioned, strict, traditional values should go away with it.

Just because the biological structure is different doesn't mean women should be looked upon as below men, nor should men be looked upon as below women. Equality is the way forward Dan and if you can't see it you are quite clearly blind.

It's based upon risk though. Acturial work is about calculating risk and statistically men cause MORE accidents than women. If you can't factor that in you can't make fair insurance premiums so may as well just have the same insurance premiums for 18 year olds as 50 year olds, and the same life insurance for a soldier as a secretary.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The women's car insurance ruling is the fairest thing political correctness has ever brought to us, girls I know pay half the car insurance I pay and have A) faster and B) newer cars than I could afford to insure. I know six people who have been involved in serious road collisions with new drivers being behind the wheel and at fault, in four out of six of these the new driver was female. Equal insurance is fair, however within this capitalist world we live in the insurance companies are bound to say "ok if it's equal, womens insurance can go up". I don't mind taxpayers money being used to fund moves for equality in any manner.

Young men are more likely to crash hence why the insurance is higher because women are better driver statistically. Insurance as Conservative says is calculated on risk, and it is a fact that young boy racers (whether you and I am or not) are more dangerous on the roads so their insurance is higher. This will only serve to push the prices up for all of us in the medium term thanks to the insane idea that the sexes are equal to one another.


I find it ludicrous that you say sexism is rational because the sexes are different, yes they may be biologically and aesthetically different however that's where it ends, a woman is a human being and is entitled to the same rights, wages and opportunities as a man. If you actually bothered to take a look at why women were seen as below men in the past then you would see it was down to religion which in the most simple, shortened down terms ever - thought women were dirty because they bled once a month and this was considered "unnatural". Many know that this kind of old fashioned, strict, traditional religion is gone and therefore the oldfashioned, strict, traditional values should go away with it.

Women have been emancipated (it occured many decades ago), as for wages it is not the job of the state to tell businesses what to pay people because that is in other words nationalising business and we know that that model fails. We are not equal at all, for example with firefighters now we have quotas to ensure that a certain percentage are firefighters when men make better firefighters as they are stronger than women. It is fair and rational to pick a man over a woman to be a firefighter because a man is better at the job - the same for insurance, women are statistically safer drivers. The same goes for paternity leave, men should not be entitled to it - a man does not give birth as a woman does.


Just because the biological structure is different doesn't mean women should be looked upon as below men, nor should men be looked upon as below women. Equality is the way forward Dan and if you can't see it you are quite clearly blind.

Equality is not the way forward and often has the opposite result of the desired result, as shown with the video example of small businesses now refusing to take on women of child bearing age because they cannot afford it. Thats discrimination, but they haven't a choice as they simply cannot afford the costs. I take it you agree with sex quotas then? which itself is state discrimination, something the Labour Party partakes in itself.

[cocaine]

What a load of ****. It's COMMON SENSE. Insurance is calculated on RISK. RISK IS CALCULATED THROUGH SEVERAL MEANS INCLUDING GENDER. If they can't calculated the full risk then it will be inaccurate. Ugh this is infuriating.

sorry but women call for equality in the workplace, equality in opportunities, equal treatment everywhere, yet when they can save a few quid suddenly its not at all equal? thats just greed. and whats to stop a women driving drunk and hitting another car and/or damaging public assets - just because a woman is a woman doesn't mean that the risk of damaging a car will be reduced?

[FlyingJesus]

I think it's hilarious because it doesn't affect me negatively

[GommeInc]

I think it's hilarious because it doesn't affect me negatively
Damn you being sexless :@

As far as I am aware, women pay less for their insurance because statistically there are fewer accidents including women than there are men, which is fair - why should women have to pay more for man's mistakes? :P Having everyone pay the same for insurance for the sake of equality is so odd and random :S Whatever happened to being fair on people who are proven to be "better" than a certain group? It sort of reminds me of companies giving jobs to people who are no more qualified than others just to make up a statistic, though that front died down months ago.

It's pointless meddling again. I'm not sure why these countries (UK and any other involved) must be forced to change their laws, despite surviving long enough without the EU. I could probably of mentioned the war in this post somewhere, but couldn't find a suitable place :/

[Hecktix]

Dan you talk absolute crap, the statistical significance of "boy racers" being more likely to crash is miniscule - in terms of car insurance I believe it should be calculated on two things: years as a driver and number of incidents the driver has had. For instance, if a 34 year old male passed their test today they would be offered an insurance premium half the price of a 20 year old who passed his test when he was 17, on the exact same car. This is because the majority of 34 year old men aren't out causing RTCs - why? Because the majority of 34 year old men have been driving for over 10 years yet this isn't taken into account as much as gender or years driving. I'm pretty certain the statistics insurance companies refer to are quite old too actually, i'm fairly certain that nowadays girls and guys are just as likely to have accidents, if we want to get specific you could say chavvy boy (and girl) racers.. yet they wouldn't start adding that onto insurance premiums would they? The statistical signifance is minimal at the end of the day and it's just a scam by insurance companies to get more money. Oh and another thing, of course more young guys have collisions than girls, statistics also show that more young guys drive than girls, yet this is just another statistic ignored by insurance companies.

I believe in equality full stop, you give the example of a man being a better firefighter than a woman - I know several women who are stronger and fitter than any guy I know, jobs such as firefighters should be given on a basis of personal fitness, generally yes women are weaker than men however there are women that are stronger than most men and there's no reason these women shouldn't get jobs as firefighters - it's not based on sex it's based on the individual. Perhaps women are "weaker" than men because the "ideal" woman is slim and petite? Women aren't going to work out to get their strength up if they don't think they'll be attractive to men - that's the ugly truth of how these things work.

You really do have very old fashioned views on women Dan and it's quite disturbing. In terms of paternity leave I believe a father is entitled to paid time off work when they have a baby although this should not be as long as the mother is entitled to, unless the mother chooses to go back to work before her maternity entitlement is up and then the father should be entitled to the rest of the "Maternity" leave to look after the child.

[GommeInc]

Dan you talk absolute crap, the statistical significance of "boy racers" being more likely to crash is miniscule - in terms of car insurance I believe it should be calculated on two things: years as a driver and number of incidents the driver has had. For instance, if a 34 year old male passed their test today they would be offered an insurance premium half the price of a 20 year old who passed his test when he was 17, on the exact same car. This is because the majority of 34 year old men aren't out causing RTCs - why? Because the majority of 34 year old men have been driving for over 10 years yet this isn't taken into account as much as gender or years driving. I'm pretty certain the statistics insurance companies refer to are quite old too actually, i'm fairly certain that nowadays girls and guys are just as likely to have accidents, if we want to get specific you could say chavvy boy (and girl) racers.. yet they wouldn't start adding that onto insurance premiums would they? The statistical signifance is minimal at the end of the day and it's just a scam by insurance companies to get more money. Oh and another thing, of course more young guys have collisions than girls, statistics also show that more young guys drive than girls, yet this is just another statistic ignored by insurance companies.

I believe in equality full stop, you give the example of a man being a better firefighter than a woman - I know several women who are stronger and fitter than any guy I know, jobs such as firefighters should be given on a basis of personal fitness, generally yes women are weaker than men however there are women that are stronger than most men and there's no reason these women shouldn't get jobs as firefighters - it's not based on sex it's based on the individual. Perhaps women are "weaker" than men because the "ideal" woman is slim and petite? Women aren't going to work out to get their strength up if they don't think they'll be attractive to men - that's the ugly truth of how these things work.

You really do have very old fashioned views on women Dan and it's quite disturbing. In terms of paternity leave I believe a father is entitled to paid time off work when they have a baby although this should not be as long as the mother is entitled to, unless the mother chooses to go back to work before her maternity entitlement is up and then the father should be entitled to the rest of the "Maternity" leave to look after the child.
One worrying thing about this change is what happens to the "experience" and "accidents" factors. There appears to be no mention of it. At the moment you do not get much reduced from the cost of your insurance as it is, so would change bring forth reductions? Talking of statistics, it is believed men are more likely to be involved in accidents as there are more men on the road than women at any given time, so it is the fault of no-one, just how they tally up at the end of the day. Going back to the "fair use" argument, should women be given reduced car insurance because statistically there are less women on the road - is it unfair that they are charged the same when they use their cars less? Equality isn't a bad thing, and it isn't a good thing - equality for the sake of it is where it becomes unfair. You could argue that may be insurance should be based on miles done, which I think it is done by some insurance companies who request the details of the trip computer on a car.

There are hundreds of factors that need to be looked at here. At the moment, it just seems like mindless meddling over trivial matters which were considered fair to begin with. The argument to keep the old system at least comes with statistics to back up why it worked, than this proposed idea which just wants to see equality, with no reason as to why.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan you talk absolute crap, the statistical significance of "boy racers" being more likely to crash is miniscule - in terms of car insurance I believe it should be calculated on two things: years as a driver and number of incidents the driver has had. For instance, if a 34 year old male passed their test today they would be offered an insurance premium half the price of a 20 year old who passed his test when he was 17, on the exact same car. This is because the majority of 34 year old men aren't out causing RTCs - why? Because the majority of 34 year old men have been driving for over 10 years yet this isn't taken into account as much as gender or years driving. I'm pretty certain the statistics insurance companies refer to are quite old too actually, i'm fairly certain that nowadays girls and guys are just as likely to have accidents, if we want to get specific you could say chavvy boy (and girl) racers.. yet they wouldn't start adding that onto insurance premiums would they? The statistical signifance is minimal at the end of the day and it's just a scam by insurance companies to get more money. Oh and another thing, of course more young guys have collisions than girls, statistics also show that more young guys drive than girls, yet this is just another statistic ignored by insurance companies.

Sorry but you talk complete nonsense as all of the equality Labour luvvie warriors on here do, young men are more reckless and thus pay more in insurance as insurance is based on risk. What next Oli, that charging more for younger drivers is age discrimination? the facts show that the younger men are the biggest danger on roads just as older men are much safer on the roads - they are the facts and even if they were the total opposite from the truth, it is down to the insurance industry to decide how to charge and what to charge, not a group of unelected politicians sitting in Brussels with no knowledge or experience of the real world.


I believe in equality full stop, you give the example of a man being a better firefighter than a woman - I know several women who are stronger and fitter than any guy I know, jobs such as firefighters should be given on a basis of personal fitness, generally yes women are weaker than men however there are women that are stronger than most men and there's no reason these women shouldn't get jobs as firefighters - it's not based on sex it's based on the individual. Perhaps women are "weaker" than men because the "ideal" woman is slim and petite? Women aren't going to work out to get their strength up if they don't think they'll be attractive to men - that's the ugly truth of how these things work.

Of course some women are better than men at firefighting, but on the whole men are better - the idea that we should have quotas (turn down a suitable man for the job for a woman) is ridiculous and is discrimination. I haven't a problem with women becoming firefighters, I wish them all the best - provided they get there on merit and provided others who are better than them are not put at a disadvantage. Women's body structure (bones, muscle etc) is weaker than that of a mans, and a job which involves manual work (such as firefighting, police, builder etc) is more suited to men than most women. That is simply rational common sense.


You really do have very old fashioned views on women Dan and it's quite disturbing. In terms of paternity leave I believe a father is entitled to paid time off work when they have a baby although this should not be as long as the mother is entitled to, unless the mother chooses to go back to work before her maternity entitlement is up and then the father should be entitled to the rest of the "Maternity" leave to look after the child.

Nothing old fashioned about me, infact you are the one stuck in the 1970s with this ridiculous equality nonsense thats gone over the top, coupled with your last-century view that everything should be controlled via the state. I will not be called old fashioned just because I believe that people should be hired based on their ability, not their race, sex, sexuality or gender.

And as for maternity leave - interesting isn't it that Labourites are always the ones to bang on about unemployment, yet the laws you advocate only lead to more unemployment especially in poorer areas where the only real work is small business (usually shops).

[Hecktix]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: you really do get boring, in terms of discriminating drivers upon age - I think this is quite true a lot of drivers are discriminated on age, for instance like I said if someone of the age of 34 passed their test today they could get an insurance policy half the price of a 20 year old who has been driving for 3 years and not had one incident based on the flawed statistics. Car insurance is a scam, the fact that some young drivers pay double sometimes triple what their car is worth on insurance, but that's another story nothing to do with equality.

In terms of the EU dictating this to insurance companies - well somebody bloody needs to do it - insurance companies and many other businesses take advantage of customers and there is nothing wrong with the EU trying to stop this. I don't agree with many of things said and done by the EU however trying to improve the welfare and fair treatment of consumers is something I'd be willing to give them all my bloody tax for, as it's these modern day companies that have ruined this country getting greedier and greedier.

I agree with you completely in terms of sex quotas and that people should be hired on ability and sex, age shouldn't be used when deciding upon who is best for a job. Jobs should be given to people based on whether they are the best person or not. Equality is not something that can be forced upon in terms of sex quotas as that's not equality, equality is not giving a man the job over a better qualified woman just becuase she's got a pair of **** and a vagina.

[FlyingJesus]

young men are more reckless

I'm not.
I'm aware that the statistics do go against young male drivers but the premiums added simply for being a certain age and gender far outweigh the risk difference, it's not at all proportionat. I have nothing (other than personal preference because I like not paying much) against the idea that young men are more likely to have a crash therefore pay out more in insurance, but it ought to be done to a far more reasonable scale than the current costs.

Just done a Churchill quote (who I'm with) with the exact same details but one as Tom and one as Tina. The quote for what I'd be paying on my next term of insurance if I was a girl is £540.60, whereas I'll be paying £656.14 - 21% more for being a male, and that's with 3 years under my belt rather than a new driver. I hate to think what a new driver would have to fork out simply for having an extra gearstick

[Niall!]

As a misogynist I'm more than fine with this.

[AgnesIO]

Fantastic. Always have thought what a joke it is that you can have car insurance JUST for women.

Dan you probably don't like this, just because it is the EU.

I do not believe total equality is the way forward, and personally do not want global inequality to be solved.

[Catzsy]

So, Dan you believe that Men are more superior than Woman?

[Conservative,]

sorry but women call for equality in the workplace, equality in opportunities, equal treatment everywhere, yet when they can save a few quid suddenly its not at all equal? thats just greed. and whats to stop a women driving drunk and hitting another car and/or damaging public assets - just because a woman is a woman doesn't mean that the risk of damaging a car will be reduced?

Because women workers are as good as men. Women are still humans who deserve equal opportunities. HOWEVER it is SCIENTIFICALLY proven that MEN cause more crashes than women therefore - based on risk (the whole point of insurance) - MEN should pay more. I am annoyed that in years to come I will have to pay more for life insurance when I'm older, however I think it's completely STUPID and RIDICULOUS to say you can't calculate RISK on one of the main factors.

Risk is the chance something will happen in a certain situation. Risk changes between sexes (example - men have younger average age of death therefore they should be allowed higher pension payouts because statistically I'm less likely to live as long as a woman earning the same amount and on the same pension).

It's not about equality in insurance. It's about risk. I'm sorry but the EU shot themselves in the foot.

[Hecktix]

Because women workers are as good as men. Women are still humans who deserve equal opportunities. HOWEVER it is SCIENTIFICALLY proven that MEN cause more crashes than women therefore - based on risk (the whole point of insurance) - MEN should pay more. I am annoyed that in years to come I will have to pay more for life insurance when I'm older, however I think it's completely STUPID and RIDICULOUS to say you can't calculate RISK on one of the main factors.

Risk is the chance something will happen in a certain situation. Risk changes between sexes (example - men have younger average age of death therefore they should be allowed higher pension payouts because statistically I'm less likely to live as long as a woman earning the same amount and on the same pension).

It's not about equality in insurance. It's about risk. I'm sorry but the EU shot themselves in the foot.

You are absolutely disillusioned lol. Insurance companies use a minor statistic which isn't fully correct to charge men an on average nearly 30% more than women. The only way that a man is 30% more likely to have a crash than a woman is that there are more men on the road. If you look at it proportionally, i.e. look at the percentage of young men that causes crashes based on the amount of young men driving and then the percentage of young women that cause crashes based upon the amount of young women driving you find the figures much more equal. You cannot charge a man more because more men drive. The statistics aren't scientific so it's not scientifically proven, when looking at proportional representation men cause slightly more crashes than women, therefore insurance should if anything be slightly more, not as much as it has been. It makes much more sense to charge the same and then penalise people when the crashes actually happen. These companies are a scam and this ruling has made one step further to stop them scamming consumers. Please come back when you have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

[Conservative,]

You are absolutely disillusioned lol. Insurance companies use a minor statistic which isn't fully correct to charge men an on average nearly 30% more than women. The only way that a man is 30% more likely to have a crash than a woman is that there are more men on the road. If you look at it proportionally, i.e. look at the percentage of young men that causes crashes based on the amount of young men driving and then the percentage of young women that cause crashes based upon the amount of young women driving you find the figures much more equal. You cannot charge a man more because more men drive. The statistics aren't scientific so it's not scientifically proven, when looking at proportional representation men cause slightly more crashes than women, therefore insurance should if anything be slightly more, not as much as it has been. It makes much more sense to charge the same and then penalise people when the crashes actually happen. These companies are a scam and this ruling has made one step further to stop them scamming consumers. Please come back when you have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Maybe they DO overcharge, I have never said they don't or denied that they do. However you have just admitted what I was telling you. Men cause more accidents, stastically, proportionally, whatever, any way you look it men are the cause of more accidents therefore their premiums should be higher. I have several relatives/friend's parents that are actuaries and my Godfather whom I am in close contact with I emailed about this and he said it's ludicrous because he now has to change everything he does to fit it.

Trouble is. This doesn't just apply to car insurance. It applies to all insurance. So really, it's not about crashes. It's about women & men statistics in general. As I have pointed out - women live, on average, longer than men, so their pensions will be less annually because they need to make it last longer. And life insurance.

Oli, I understand what you're saying but I can't agree because you're wrong. It is completely unfair to do this because risk is risk and you can't alter the statistics to fit your every need.

Lets make it so that disabled people have to have the same premiums as non-disabled people yeah? And houses in Chelsea the same house insurance as ones in rough parts of Manchester, yeah? And 40 year old women the same life insurance as a 90 year old man yeah? No. No. No. No.

Maybe a clamp down on UNFAIR premiums. But absolute equality? Another step towards the doom of a socialist republic and communist EU super-continent. I'm leaving as soon as I can.

[Hecktix]

Maybe they DO overcharge, I have never said they don't or denied that they do. However you have just admitted what I was telling you. Men cause more accidents, stastically, proportionally, whatever, any way you look it men are the cause of more accidents therefore their premiums should be higher. I have several relatives/friend's parents that are actuaries and my Godfather whom I am in close contact with I emailed about this and he said it's ludicrous because he now has to change everything he does to fit it.

Trouble is. This doesn't just apply to car insurance. It applies to all insurance. So really, it's not about crashes. It's about women & men statistics in general. As I have pointed out - women live, on average, longer than men, so their pensions will be less annually because they need to make it last longer. And life insurance.

Oli, I understand what you're saying but I can't agree because you're wrong. It is completely unfair to do this because risk is risk and you can't alter the statistics to fit your every need.

Lets make it so that disabled people have to have the same premiums as non-disabled people yeah? And houses in Chelsea the same house insurance as ones in rough parts of Manchester, yeah? And 40 year old women the same life insurance as a 90 year old man yeah? No. No. No. No.

You are an absolute fool Robbie, the statistics I have seen show nothing near the reason to charge a man anymore. If anything men and women are just as likely to have car accidents, I haven't even gone into the fact that you shouldn't base anything on statistics really, afterall it's all correlation you simply cannot claim causation from a correlation. I'd say there's a positive correlation between HabboxForum and gay boys, would you say that HabboxForum turns boys gay? No, so by saying that there's a positive correlation between men and car accidents is the exact same, there's no evidence that the car happened because the driver was male and there's no way of ever claiming that the accident was caused because of the drivers sex. This is why it is unfair.

There's a clear reason for disabled people having higher premiums, because they are at a disadvantage upon control of the car - there is no proven disadvantage between males & females. Houses are insured based upon how much the house is worth - not who owns them (providing the owner has a good credit rating). I do not mean this in a rude way robbie but you are very young, I fail to believe you have a full grasp upon the knowledge involved in some of this stuff - so give up whilst you can because you are just making yourself look stupid.

[Moh]

I agree that women should have to pay the same amount as men.. to an extent. Both shouldn't have to pay the amount men have to pay, but insurance should be assessed on individuals and not "groups".

Things like theory tests & practical tests should have a greater impact on insurance tbh. A women would take several attempts to pass a driving test and a man could pass it in one - yet the women will still get cheaper insurance. Maybe evaluations on the driver too? When you apply for insurance, you state the reasons you're wanting to drive and then a few months later you submit to them your usage, such as how many miles you have driven and your average speed.. although I guess cars would need a device that can't be tampered with, which would cost a bit of money. But anyways, they match these up to your reasons to drive and see if they're sticking to it.

Which would mean heavy car drivers would have to pay more as they would be traveling more at higher speeds than the lighter users who may only be driving to and from work.

[Niall!]

I like you Hecktix, you be schooling Robbie right now.

[Ajthedragon]

I think this is fairer, and I hope my insurance will go down now. ;)

[Eoin247]

I don't know what the true statistics for the men/women ratio of vehicle accidents. However if it is what i've been told all my life (that women are less likely to have an accident) then it is only fair that like all other risks that is taken into account when calculating a premium. This equality thing, may turn out to be a good thing for me. However looking at it from a third party point of view, i think the insurance companies should be able to calculate their own premiums using the various risks.

Women and men are very different. We are all human beings, however it is wrong to try and make absolutely everything be equal for both sex. For example women tend to be better at things like multi tasking, whilst men tend to be better at physical things. Why employ two men at a factory when one woman could multi task and do it just as well? Or why employ two women at a coal mine when one man with his strength could do the job just as well? We should use these differences to our advantage.

[Conservative,]

You are an absolute fool Robbie, the statistics I have seen show nothing near the reason to charge a man anymore. If anything men and women are just as likely to have car accidents, I haven't even gone into the fact that you shouldn't base anything on statistics really, afterall it's all correlation you simply cannot claim causation from a correlation. I'd say there's a positive correlation between HabboxForum and gay boys, would you say that HabboxForum turns boys gay? No, so by saying that there's a positive correlation between men and car accidents is the exact same, there's no evidence that the car happened because the driver was male and there's no way of ever claiming that the accident was caused because of the drivers sex. This is why it is unfair.

There's a clear reason for disabled people having higher premiums, because they are at a disadvantage upon control of the car - there is no proven disadvantage between males & females. Houses are insured based upon how much the house is worth - not who owns them (providing the owner has a good credit rating). I do not mean this in a rude way robbie but you are very young, I fail to believe you have a full grasp upon the knowledge involved in some of this stuff - so give up whilst you can because you are just making yourself look stupid.

I'm standing my ground. I have a full grasp on this concept. I have looked into it and really, it's stupid Oli. You don't understand what I'm trying to say.

Regardless of who has the most crashes, RISK is they key. RISK RISK RISK. Do you understand that? It's on the RISK, or in other words the CHANCE of you having a crash. Men and women are NOT identical. Whoever causes more accidents doesn't matter. One gender will cause more than the other. And that's UNFAIR.

The other point I pointed out (which you strangely ignored) is that it's not just car insurance. It's ALL insurance as well as pensions. Surely if the average life of a woman is 80, and man is 77, surely the man should be allowed a higher pension annually because the CHANCE he will die earlier than a woman of the same age is higher. ALL insurances are effected by this, which is stupid. Travel insurance, car insurance, home insurance, life insurance. They're all effected by this change.

You may be what, 4 years, 5 years older than me Oli, but I can assure you age has no part in knowing how premiums work. Premiums are based on the chance something will happen. That IS - like it or not - effected by gender. This "everybody is equal in all ways" is not true. I am totally for equal pay for women and equal opportunities but women and men must be differentiated when calculating insurance premiums.

I think insurance premiums unfair and should be controlled or capped but this is going the wrong way about it.

And don't tell me I'm making myself look stupid Oli. I understand how insurance premiums are calculated as both my Godfathers are actuaries and as I said - I contacted one of them on this matter, and I have also considered a career in actuarial work and I looked into it in some detail.

People need to understand, yes, Men and Women deserve to be equal, but only when it effects them in a discriminative way. Premiums are purely based on chance/risk. You cannot accurately calculate risk/chance if you are not allowed to take into consideration all the factors (which gender is one).

[Hecktix]

I'm standing my ground. I have a full grasp on this concept. I have looked into it and really, it's stupid Oli. You don't understand what I'm trying to say.

Regardless of who has the most crashes, RISK is they key. RISK RISK RISK. Do you understand that? It's on the RISK, or in other words the CHANCE of you having a crash. Men and women are NOT identical. Whoever causes more accidents doesn't matter. One gender will cause more than the other. And that's UNFAIR.

The other point I pointed out (which you strangely ignored) is that it's not just car insurance. It's ALL insurance as well as pensions. Surely if the average life of a woman is 80, and man is 77, surely the man should be allowed a higher pension annually because the CHANCE he will die earlier than a woman of the same age is higher. ALL insurances are effected by this, which is stupid. Travel insurance, car insurance, home insurance, life insurance. They're all effected by this change.

You may be what, 4 years, 5 years older than me Oli, but I can assure you age has no part in knowing how premiums work. Premiums are based on the chance something will happen. That IS - like it or not - effected by gender. This "everybody is equal in all ways" is not true. I am totally for equal pay for women and equal opportunities but women and men must be differentiated when calculating insurance premiums.

I think insurance premiums unfair and should be controlled or capped but this is going the wrong way about it.

And don't tell me I'm making myself look stupid Oli. I understand how insurance premiums are calculated as both my Godfathers are actuaries and as I said - I contacted one of them on this matter, and I have also considered a career in actuarial work and I looked into it in some detail.

People need to understand, yes, Men and Women deserve to be equal, but only when it effects them in a discriminative way. Premiums are purely based on chance/risk. You cannot accurately calculate risk/chance if you are not allowed to take into consideration all the factors (which gender is one).

You are absolutely crazy, you're a 14 year old who pretends to know everything - please Robbie, go and get some life experience and then try arguing things like this. I'm trying not to offend you but you are really really disillusioned here by what you've seen on paper and not in reality. The equality issue aside insurance companies are a scam, you can't seem to understand that.

You haven't listened to a word I am saying, there is only a risk if you can prove that more men cause accidents than women - there is no proof that the cause for the crashes are the gender of the person behind the wheel. You simply cannot say "oh that guy crashed his car, must be 'cause he's male" - mistakes are mistakes and men and women are just as likely to make the same mistakes. The statistics really do show nothing at all - I'm pretty certain if full insurance statistics were published then insurance companies would get a rude awakening. You cannot base premiums on statstics that were gathered a number of years ago and statistics that are flawed because more men drive than women, if you have 20 men on the road and 10 women on the road and 20% of each group cause accidents, just because more individuals caused accidents doesn't affect the probability, the probability is quite simply 20% for each groups. You are so reliant on these "statistics" yet I'm telling you now these statistics are not accurate and when you get on the road yourself you will quite clearly see this, there are less boy racers on the road than there were 6-10 years ago and there are more girls driving around doing their make up (I see that so often, it's unreal) - I'm telling you now the chances of a man and a woman having an accident are the exact same and unless you can scientifically prove a disdavantage which makes someone a more dangerous driver - insurance premiums should not be higher.

In regards to the other insurance premiums you refer to, life insurance is very individual and not based upon sex, a man shouldn't be entitled to a higher pension just because there are 3 years difference in the average live expectancy of women and men - if it was ten years I'd agree but three years, considering it's an average - shows very little difference to me. You are over reliant on statistics and are too blind to open your eyes and actually look at the real life situation.

[HotelUser]

It costs my sister $100 to be insured to drive a vehicle at 16 and if I wanted to purchase insurance when I was 16 it would have cost me $1,200 dollars. It's the absolute most unfair and sexist outrage I've ever seen in Canada.

[Conservative,]

You are absolutely crazy, you're a 14 year old who pretends to know everything - please Robbie, go and get some life experience and then try arguing things like this. I'm trying not to offend you but you are really really disillusioned here by what you've seen on paper and not in reality. The equality issue aside insurance companies are a scam, you can't seem to understand that.

You haven't listened to a word I am saying, there is only a risk if you can prove that more men cause accidents than women - there is no proof that the cause for the crashes are the gender of the person behind the wheel. You simply cannot say "oh that guy crashed his car, must be 'cause he's male" - mistakes are mistakes and men and women are just as likely to make the same mistakes. The statistics really do show nothing at all - I'm pretty certain if full insurance statistics were published then insurance companies would get a rude awakening. You cannot base premiums on statstics that were gathered a number of years ago and statistics that are flawed because more men drive than women, if you have 20 men on the road and 10 women on the road and 20% of each group cause accidents, just because more individuals caused accidents doesn't affect the probability, the probability is quite simply 20% for each groups. You are so reliant on these "statistics" yet I'm telling you now these statistics are not accurate and when you get on the road yourself you will quite clearly see this, there are less boy racers on the road than there were 6-10 years ago and there are more girls driving around doing their make up (I see that so often, it's unreal) - I'm telling you now the chances of a man and a woman having an accident are the exact same and unless you can scientifically prove a disdavantage which makes someone a more dangerous driver - insurance premiums should not be higher.

In regards to the other insurance premiums you refer to, life insurance is very individual and not based upon sex, a man shouldn't be entitled to a higher pension just because there are 3 years difference in the average live expectancy of women and men - if it was ten years I'd agree but three years, considering it's an average - shows very little difference to me. You are over reliant on statistics and are too blind to open your eyes and actually look at the real life situation.

Okay, first I'm 15.

Anyway I'm not relying on staistics Oli, I'm telling you the truth. YES - insurance companies are scams, I agree with you. That's out of the way. Cool? But the EU are dealing with it in completely the WRONG way.

The better way would be to cap or control the insurances so they don't get out of hand.

And what you're saying there's only a risk if it can be proven? What does that even mean? There is ALWAYS a risk. Every time someone drives a car there is a RISK they will crash. Doesn't mean they will, but that's why people buy insurance. Because of the RISK. I don't think you really took notice of my post because I again said that it doesn't matter if guys cause more crashes, or girls. It shouldn't be equal regardless because insurance is different for everyone.

Insurance should be based on the risk/chance of something happening. If the chance a guy gets in his car and crashes is 1 in...1,000 and the chance a girl gets in her car and crashes is 1 in 500 - the girl should be charged more.

Personally I think insurance is an individual thing and most premiums are based on an individual basis. But what I'm trying to say is you shouldn't be allowed to force insurance companies to give the same premiums to a boy as to a girl if their risk of crashing is greater. It's stupid.

You say I'm repeating myself but really, I'm only doing it in the hope you read it and understand what I'm saying. No matter WHAT insurance it is. WHAT age the person is. Insurance should purely be based on the risk. If that involves gender (which it clearly does - even if you disagree with how the statistics are taken, or with the statistics themselves, you cannot deny gender does play a part) then gender should recognised as part of the risk.

Risk = chance of something happening. Chance of something happening is calculated by how often it occurs compared to how often it doesn't. (example) 1 in 3 accidents are caused by men. Therefore 2 in 3 are caused by women. 1 in 4 accidents are caused by younger drivers and 2 in 4 by elderly drivers. In this circumstance who should pay the most? The elderly women of course. Because they're the most likely to crash.


I don't know why I'm taking part in this though because it won't effect me for another year and even then I get free insurance so it's all good.

[-:Undertaker:-]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: you really do get boring, in terms of discriminating drivers upon age - I think this is quite true a lot of drivers are discriminated on age, for instance like I said if someone of the age of 34 passed their test today they could get an insurance policy half the price of a 20 year old who has been driving for 3 years and not had one incident based on the flawed statistics. Car insurance is a scam, the fact that some young drivers pay double sometimes triple what their car is worth on insurance, but that's another story nothing to do with equality.

Indeed it is a scam and a scam which is held together by government, as far as i'm aware - you have to have car insurance in order to drive which in reality is not needed and would bring prices crashing down in order to get people to adopt insurance, but as usual - the state with its good intentions brings about the opposite result. But as it stands, its sensible to have it based on statistics until you consult the bigger issue as I pointed out above, question is; would you be for de-regulation of the insurance industry or not?

The problem with the EU becoming involved (as this is always the problem) is that no successive election or government can change any of these rules to suit Great Britain if we needed to in the future, and that is fundementally undemocratic. It also adds to the red tape, with yet another layer of government being added to the legislative process.


In terms of the EU dictating this to insurance companies - well somebody bloody needs to do it - insurance companies and many other businesses take advantage of customers and there is nothing wrong with the EU trying to stop this. I don't agree with many of things said and done by the EU however trying to improve the welfare and fair treatment of consumers is something I'd be willing to give them all my bloody tax for, as it's these modern day companies that have ruined this country getting greedier and greedier.

Companies which are held in those positions by government itself, of which you pay tax to 'battle' these companies who are in the pockets of government. All big companies and government monopolies are in bed with government itself hence why they lobby Brussels along with Westminister and Washington.. and until you break the monopolies (by removing the state from the equation) then it will just continue on and on while becoming more and more complicated. Often the left calls for regulation in order to battle big business, when it is government regulation itself which is there soley to help their friends in big business. I've gone off topic a bit to the bigger issue, but to sort companies such as insurance you need to de-regulate and get government along with the EU out of it.

They play smoke and mirrors.


I agree with you completely in terms of sex quotas and that people should be hired on ability and sex, age shouldn't be used when deciding upon who is best for a job. Jobs should be given to people based on whether they are the best person or not. Equality is not something that can be forced upon in terms of sex quotas as that's not equality, equality is not giving a man the job over a better qualified woman just becuase she's got a pair of **** and a vagina.

Agreed on that point then.


So, Dan you believe that Men are more superior than Woman?

In body they are yes, they are born (the majority of men) superior to women in that aspect.

But Rosie remembering; you are fully for state discrimination, you told me in the past that you supported quotas.

[HotelUser]

Okay, first I'm 15.

Anyway I'm not relying on staistics Oli, I'm telling you the truth. YES - insurance companies are scams, I agree with you. That's out of the way. Cool? But the EU are dealing with it in completely the WRONG way.

The better way would be to cap or control the insurances so they don't get out of hand.

And what you're saying there's only a risk if it can be proven? What does that even mean? There is ALWAYS a risk. Every time someone drives a car there is a RISK they will crash. Doesn't mean they will, but that's why people buy insurance. Because of the RISK. I don't think you really took notice of my post because I again said that it doesn't matter if guys cause more crashes, or girls. It shouldn't be equal regardless because insurance is different for everyone.

Insurance should be based on the risk/chance of something happening. If the chance a guy gets in his car and crashes is 1 in...1,000 and the chance a girl gets in her car and crashes is 1 in 500 - the girl should be charged more.

Personally I think insurance is an individual thing and most premiums are based on an individual basis. But what I'm trying to say is you shouldn't be allowed to force insurance companies to give the same premiums to a boy as to a girl if their risk of crashing is greater. It's stupid.

You say I'm repeating myself but really, I'm only doing it in the hope you read it and understand what I'm saying. No matter WHAT insurance it is. WHAT age the person is. Insurance should purely be based on the risk. If that involves gender (which it clearly does - even if you disagree with how the statistics are taken, or with the statistics themselves, you cannot deny gender does play a part) then gender should recognised as part of the risk.

Risk = chance of something happening. Chance of something happening is calculated by how often it occurs compared to how often it doesn't. (example) 1 in 3 accidents are caused by men. Therefore 2 in 3 are caused by women. 1 in 4 accidents are caused by younger drivers and 2 in 4 by elderly drivers. In this circumstance who should pay the most? The elderly women of course. Because they're the most likely to crash.


I don't know why I'm taking part in this though because it won't effect me for another year and even then I get free insurance so it's all good.

Greetings friend,

please refer to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype) page and then conclude that you are stereotyping a situation which should be on a per basis scenario.

[Conservative,]

Greetings friend,

please refer to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype) page and then conclude that you are stereotyping a situation which should be on a per basis scenario.

I said example. It was an example, not a real life situation I did not intend for it to be taken literally it was just a way of putting my way of thinking for those to see.

[Catzsy]

Indeed it is a scam and a scam which is held together by government, as far as i'm aware - you have to have car insurance in order to drive which in reality is not needed and would bring prices crashing down in order to get people to adopt insurance, but as usual - the state with its good intentions brings about the opposite result. But as it stands, its sensible to have it based on statistics until you consult the bigger issue as I pointed out above, question is; would you be for de-regulation of the insurance industry or not?

The problem with the EU becoming involved (as this is always the problem) is that no successive election or government can change any of these rules to suit Great Britain if we needed to in the future, and that is fundementally undemocratic. It also adds to the red tape, with yet another layer of government being added to the legislative process.



Companies which are held in those positions by government itself, of which you pay tax to 'battle' these companies who are in the pockets of government. All big companies and government monopolies are in bed with government itself hence why they lobby Brussels along with Westminister and Washington.. and until you break the monopolies (by removing the state from the equation) then it will just continue on and on while becoming more and more complicated. Often the left calls for regulation in order to battle big business, when it is government regulation itself which is there soley to help their friends in big business. I've gone off topic a bit to the bigger issue, but to sort companies such as insurance you need to de-regulate and get government along with the EU out of it.

They play smoke and mirrors.



Agreed on that point then.



In body they are yes, they are born (the majority of men) superior to women in that aspect.

But Rosie remembering; you are fully for state discrimination, you told me in the past that you supported quotas.

No I do not support quotas generally(they do not have quotas in the fire service). What I do support equal opportunities and diversity and I have to say that this thread and your posts in it have the to be the most bigoted bollocks I have ever seen you post and that is saying something.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No I do not support quotas generally(they do not have quotas in the fire service). What I do support equal opportunities and diversity and I have to say that this thread and your posts in it have the to be the most bigoted bollocks I have ever seen you post and that is saying something.

Ahh and so the petty name calling begins from the high priestess of fairness and equality (but not mentioning the fact that the high priestess herself supports dishing out jobs to people based on their race, sex and sexuality on the altar of 'diversity' rather than who is best suited to the job) but I do look forward to some examples of my bigotry being presented.

A bigot? a sexist? a racist? a xenophobe? a homophobe? i'm not the one who cares about all of those things, only you do. I judge people based on their merit and ability rather than which politically correct group they belong to. I couldn't put it better than Ron Paul does here, and it can apply to all them examples I listed;

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racists . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” - Ron Paul

[Hecktix]

There is ALWAYS a risk. Every time someone drives a car there is a RISK they will crash. Doesn't mean they will, but that's why people buy insurance.

Sums up my entire point Robbie, no matter who gets in a car there is always a risk and whether it's a guy or a girl the risk is pretty much equal. The only fair way to deal with insurance is by years driven and miles driven - sometimes that happens sometimes it doesn't - it's a step forward making women pay the same amount as men as it's quite clear that any statistics that suggest men cause more crashes than women are flawed. There are many discriminatory bias within car insurance, as I mentioned to Dan earlier a 34 year old could pass their test tomorrow, get the same car as me and pay half the insurance despite the fact I've been driving 3 years longer than he has and I've driven 14,000 miles with no incidents whatsoever. But y'know that's how insurance works.

You give an example of an elderly woman being more likely to crash, well this is where we can get scientific, it is scientifically proven that reflexes decrease after the age of 65, it is also scientifically proven that over the age of 65 cognitive abilities begin to decrease - therefore obviously this elderly woman is at a disadvantage driving and is more dangerous - that's scientific proof if you want it and yeh she should be charged more.

There is no scientific reason for a man being more likely to crash than a woman and unless you can prove the link then there shouldn't be different charges based upon sex.

[Conservative,]

If there is real, independent statistics that men crash more than women - they should pay more. If there is not, they shouldn't. If it shows women crash more, they should pay more. That is my view. My view works both ways - if men crash more, so be it and they should pay more. If women crash more - they should pay more, and if they are both the same - they should pay equal. However I highly doubt any reliable statistics show that men and women are equally likely to crash - as Dan said there are a lot of "boy racers". First time drivers aged 17/18 who want to show off to their mates then crash into a lamp post. Not saying anyone here is one, but I've seen it, and that is why insurance is higher for men, rightly or wrongly. However insurance should be "how likely are they to (example: Crash)" "X(1) times, costing X(2) much over X(3) period" then pay (X(1) x X(2)) / X(3) and then add 5% on because obviously the insurance company needs to make a profit.

[benjamin]

read through all of this thread and it's been a good read, but i definitely have the same/similar opinions to oli on this one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I missed this part out;


(they do not have quotas in the fire service).

Yes they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4001399/Politically-correct-brigade-demands-one-woman-on-each-fire-engine.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1102359/A-woman-engine---latest-demand-PC-brigade.html

[Hecktix]

If there is real, independent statistics that men crash more than women - they should pay more. If there is not, they shouldn't. If it shows women crash more, they should pay more. That is my view. My view works both ways - if men crash more, so be it and they should pay more. If women crash more - they should pay more, and if they are both the same - they should pay equal. However I highly doubt any reliable statistics show that men and women are equally likely to crash - as Dan said there are a lot of "boy racers". First time drivers aged 17/18 who want to show off to their mates then crash into a lamp post. Not saying anyone here is one, but I've seen it, and that is why insurance is higher for men, rightly or wrongly. However insurance should be "how likely are they to (example: Crash)" "X(1) times, costing X(2) much over X(3) period" then pay (X(1) x X(2)) / X(3) and then add 5% on because obviously the insurance company needs to make a profit.

Yet again you go back to statistics which I say are flawed, there are more men on the road therefore in terms of single figures yes more men crash than women but when you put this into proportions, looking at the percentage of men who drive that crash and the percentage of women that drive who crash these are quite similar. You say there are a lot of boy racers, I agree - not as much as there used to be and I'll tell you that now, I've covered 14,000 miles in my 3 years driving and I've not seen one crash involving a boy racer (and I've seen a fair few crashes) - that's not to say that boy racers don't crash, I agree boy racers are more likely to crash however I'd happily say there's an equal amount of barbie girls (at least proportionately) who do their make up in their mirrors whilst driving through busy cities, I saw a crash the other week involving a woman doing her mascara whilst driving in heavy traffic, didn't see the guy infront had stopped - bang.

First time drivers yes want to show off although this applies to girls as much as guys - and this is why it should be equal and depend upon how long you've been driving and not the sex, I've known just as many girls make stupid mistakes showing off as guys. The statistics may have been fair one day but I'm telling you, now they aren't.

[Conservative,]

Yet again you go back to statistics which I say are flawed, there are more men on the road therefore in terms of single figures yes more men crash than women but when you put this into proportions, looking at the percentage of men who drive that crash and the percentage of women that drive who crash these are quite similar. You say there are a lot of boy racers, I agree - not as much as there used to be and I'll tell you that now, I've covered 14,000 miles in my 3 years driving and I've not seen one crash involving a boy racer (and I've seen a fair few crashes) - that's not to say that boy racers don't crash, I agree boy racers are more likely to crash however I'd happily say there's an equal amount of barbie girls (at least proportionately) who do their make up in their mirrors whilst driving through busy cities, I saw a crash the other week involving a woman doing her mascara whilst driving in heavy traffic, didn't see the guy infront had stopped - bang.

First time drivers yes want to show off although this applies to girls as much as guys - and this is why it should be equal and depend upon how long you've been driving and not the sex, I've known just as many girls make stupid mistakes showing off as guys. The statistics may have been fair one day but I'm telling you, now they aren't.

If the statistics are flawed they need to use new, fair statistics and use proportions to work out the insurance as you have said. But making it illegal to have men & women different is ridiculous. The statistics may show men and women cause equal amount of accidents proportionally, I don't know. However that can, and probably does change daily, weekly, monthly, annually etc. I just think it's the wrong way to deal with the problem. The problem is the insurance companies charge too much. A cap will prevent and controlling it will help this.

Lets do it your way okay Oli? You want it to be proportional. Alright. Example: 40 million people have cars in England, 25 million men, 15 million women.
Annually, there are 5 million accidents, 3 million caused by men. 2 million by women. The chances of them crashing are worked out like so: Men: 3/25 x 100 (percentage) = 12% or 0.12 or 12/100, 6/50, 3/25. Whatever. Women: 2/15 x 100 = 13.3 percent recurring. 2/15 0.13 recurring etc. Therefore in this EXAMPLE women should pay more. Do you agree? Obviously this not taking into account age or anything but before going any further I want to see your reply.

[Hecktix]

If the statistics are flawed they need to use new, fair statistics and use proportions to work out the insurance as you have said. But making it illegal to have men & women different is ridiculous. The statistics may show men and women cause equal amount of accidents proportionally, I don't know. However that can, and probably does change daily, weekly, monthly, annually etc. I just think it's the wrong way to deal with the problem. The problem is the insurance companies charge too much. A cap will prevent and controlling it will help this.

Lets do it your way okay Oli? You want it to be proportional. Alright. Example: 40 million people have cars in England, 25 million men, 15 million women.
Annually, there are 5 million accidents, 3 million caused by men. 2 million by women. The chances of them crashing are worked out like so: Men: 3/25 x 100 (percentage) = 12% or 0.12 or 12/100, 6/50, 3/25. Whatever. Women: 2/15 x 100 = 13.3 percent recurring. 2/15 0.13 recurring etc. Therefore in this EXAMPLE women should pay more. Do you agree? Obviously this not taking into account age or anything but before going any further I want to see your reply.

No I don't agree women should pay more in that situation as the thing is, as you said one week more men could cause accidents the next week more women could cause accidents - it's chance and there's no way anybody can say that being a man makes you cause more accidents than being a woman as there is no scientific evidence that there is anything different about men that makes them less able to control a car.

[Conservative,]

No I don't agree women should pay more in that situation as the thing is, as you said one week more men could cause accidents the next week more women could cause accidents - it's chance and there's no way anybody can say that being a man makes you cause more accidents than being a woman as there is no scientific evidence that there is anything different about men that makes them less able to control a car.

That would be from the previous year's statistics. I can sort of see where your coming from but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[HotelUser]

The price for men and woman should be the same, and simply increase dramatically when you cause an accident.

[alexxxxx]

i'd like to see the pure facts including all the averages (ie median insurance pay-out and mean insurance pay-out) plus serious road accidents and minor road accident statistics NOT supplied by insurance companies.

my personal suspicion is that insurance companies might put up their prices up for young men because young men are more eager to drive than women (in my experience).

[Hecktix]

i'd like to see the pure facts including all the averages (ie median insurance pay-out and mean insurance pay-out) plus serious road accidents and minor road accident statistics NOT supplied by insurance companies.

my personal suspicion is that insurance companies might put up their prices up for young men because young men are more eager to drive than women (in my experience).

You are absolutely right Alex, which is why these stats shouldn't be listened to. As I've demonstrated throughout this thread, the statistics are going to be flawed and there is no way you can attribute "causing car accidents" to males - as there's nothing different between the ability of men and women behind the wheel.

[GommeInc]

You are absolutely right Alex, which is why these stats shouldn't be listened to. As I've demonstrated throughout this thread, the statistics are going to be flawed and there is no way you can attribute "causing car accidents" to males - as there's nothing different between the ability of men and women behind the wheel.
There are quite a few interesting articles taking in all these different factors such as Traffic Accident Advice UK (http://www.trafficaccidentadvice.co.uk/are-women-worse-drivers-than-men.html). They too share a similar understanding that gender should not play a role and that there are so many statistics about the number of crimes in a male to female ratio. Unfortunately, Insurance companies do not give out their information and the Government have very little jurisdiction when it comes to road accidents due to insurance existing for that very reason to deal with accidents in a tangled web of break down cover, insurance, police and so forth - so any Government Statistics appear to be non-existent.

They do appear to have some results from surveys they have done, but annoyingly they never really post how they survey was undertaken or give the full details of the research. Men drive more than woman so it seems more likely for men to be involved in accidents, rather than men being more likely simply due to the fact they're men - if there were an equal number of men and women drivers in the UK then you'd get a better picture.

The only argument against this does seem to revolve around finding out exactly how many miles and times a woman drive versus a man - because then the insurance could cater for individual uses and IF women drive less than men then they would get cover that reflects this - which could work out cheaper for them, but such a system would be such a waste of money and barely exists. The only insurance companies that tend to care about miles done monthly or yearly are those that insure specific makes such as Ford Insure.

An interesting discussion none the less.

[Catzsy]

I missed this part out;



Yes they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4001399/Politically-correct-brigade-demands-one-woman-on-each-fire-engine.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1102359/A-woman-engine---latest-demand-PC-brigade.html

No they haven't - read the headline.


A woman on every fire engine ... the latest demand from the PC brigade

All these comments that you have made are just nonsense:


Today is 'International Women's Day', a ludicrous and patronising day of which militant women with a thorn in their side celebrate their crusade against sexism

This is your opinion only which if true makes you a militant misogynist.


Sorry but you talk complete nonsense as all of the equality Labour luvvie warriors on here do

You are also always making personal remarks about some of us on the forum so perhaps it is about time it was dished back to you.


Of course some women are better than men at firefighting, but on the whole men are better

In body they are yes, they are born (the majority of men) superior to women in that aspect.

Blatent sexism.

Definition of Bigot - English Oxford Dictionary.


person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics, or race

[Niall!]

Catzsy, I have nothing but respect for you but I have to correct you on one matter.

What he says is true, men are indeed born physically superior to women. We are equal on every other level that matters. It's just the way nature designed us. When Dan says "but on the whole men are better) he is referring to the fact firefighting is a very physical activity and best suited to men. That's not to say a woman can't do the job however.

One other thing I will agree with Dan on however is that "International Womens Day" is completely idiotic. I was joking about being a misogynist before and treat all men and women equal (except for chavs, obviously). But what I thought was a day to appreciate womens rights quickly turned into a feminist march in Belfast which completely defeats the purpose of the whole celebration of equal rights thing. If we had a "Men appreciation day" it would be branded as sexist and some women would go on a rampage.

[JACKTARD]

Don't worry gents, they have this day, the other 364 are ours