International Women's Day

[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 page and then conclude that you are stereotyping a situation which should be on a per basis scenario.