EU sex ruling to drive insurance costs higher

[blaaah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/8289162/EU-sex-ruling-to-drive-insurance-costs-higher.html

 

[Jondot]

Well, I'm sure insurance companies will be horrified to learn that they're being forced to put their prices up.

By the same logic, I'd also like to call for an increase in the insurance costs of everyone not living in the LS2 postcode area to ensure that my neighbours and I aren't being personally discriminated against for living in the 4th worst place for car crime in the British Isles.

 

[Mike0105]

Maybe we should no longer be discriminated for our age either. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. This would also have the unfortunate side effect that everybody would have to pay very high premiums to start off with.

Either way, car insurance is a big problem. It us too expensive because profits need to be made and the average cost of crashes goes up and up. This leads to people stupidly not having insurance which again bumps up the price. And so the cycle continues.

The cost is crippling for young drivers who have to commute to work in rural areas. I have to drive 27 miles to work and average about 750 business miles per year. I am 23 and therefore am (wrongly) considered a higher risk (despite nearly 4 years NCB) and they charge huge amounts.

Add in the fact that the recession is pushing the price up anyway and the whole business is out of control. Yet still record profits are made and nothing is done.

Can you tell this is an emotive subject for me?

 

[Joel]

^

Why should anything need to be done at all? Young drivers have to pay a lot because we suck at driving (I'm 16). Insuranc companies should charge whatever they damn well please, ultimately competition will take prices as low as practical.

I get that you're 23, but 23 year olds are still statistically pretty likely to wrap their car around a tree. Driving's not a right either.

 

[Tornado]

Maybe we should no longer be discriminated for our age either.

You are using that word as a pejorative when it shouldn't be in this situation. See this thread.

 

[Mike0105]

I feel that prices (in the UK at least) are so high that it us really hurting those that have to drive (£800+ per year for a mid size, basic diesel hatchback).

My initial point (before rant) was that this ruling is good on principle, but bad in practice. I agree they have to charge based on risk, but this ruling says they can't differentiate based on gender. Therefore (in the same vein), they shouldn't be able to differentiate based on age either. Young men are higher risks so logically should pay a bit more, but if they can't charge them more because of this ruling, this cost will then be passed to everyone.

I'm just fed up with the cost of driving. It isn't a right I agree, but it is very much a necessity for me to be able to work on my field (social care).

Motoring is my single biggest expense, by a long way and the insurance plays a big part in that.

 

[Mike0105]

You are using that word as a pejorative when it shouldn't be in this situation. See this thread.

I didn't mean discriminating in a negative sense such as racism, homophobia etc, but as differentiating based on gender or age. Reading back over my post it does look that way though!

Maybe I should have used the word 'differentiating' instead.

 

[Joel]

Logically, a private corporation (insurance co.) should be allowed to charge whoever they want whatever they want. The consumer has freedom to go elsewhere.

 

[alexleighton]

Logically, a private corporation (insurance co.) should be allowed to charge whoever they want whatever they want. The consumer has freedom to go elsewhere.

Yes, but our governments shouldn't be forcing us by law to buy coverage from a private, for profit company. We have the freedom to either buy from a handful of companies with no real competition to bring prices down, or face insane penalties if we are pulled over. People say "nobody is forcing you to drive", well, my options happen to be to drive, or walk 12 miles through the snow.

Really, we should be able to simply prove that we have x amount of money available should we need to pay out, and instead of that money going into some insurance companies pocket, it could be invested somewhere where it would grow and actually make money for us. Then, if we never need it, it would be available to us when we stop driving. Insurance shouldn't be forced on people with the means to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[Bob4774]

When I was 16 I got quoted $831 A MONTH for insurance. Luckily my parents put my car under their policy and it got reduced to $400 a month for my dads car + mine. Now I'm 22 with a clean record. My new monthly quote? $574/month. :|

 

[Northstar]

Yes, but our governments shouldn't be forcing us by law to buy coverage from a private, for profit company. We have the freedom to either buy from a handful of companies with no real competition to bring prices down, or face insane penalties if we are pulled over. People say "nobody is forcing you to drive", well, my options happen to be to drive, or walk 12 miles through the snow.

Really, we should be able to simply prove that we have x amount of money available should we need to pay out, and instead of that money going into some insurance companies pocket, it could be invested somewhere where it would grow and actually make money for us. Then, if we never need it, it would be available to us when we stop driving. Insurance shouldn't be forced on people with the means to take responsibility for their own actions.

Thing is, barely anyone has the means to pay for an accident out of pocket. Sure you may be able to pay for the damage to the vehicles, but medical bills are a different story. That is where having insurance is really necessary, if you get in a bad accident the medical bill could easily reach into the 6 figure range(and that's just a 2 car collision with 1 person in each car).

If you happen to have that much sitting around, I don't think a few hundred bucks a year is that big of a deal.

 

[Omnis]

Equality legislation? Lets just eliminate all risk groups and be communists.

 

[niky]

Let's just eliminate insurance altogether and pay for our own damn mistakes.

Actually... the problem is requiring insurance without giving people a choice in how much coverage they have to pay for... Insurance companies have every right to charge whatever they want, but give them a captive market that can't choose to not buy high-priced coverage isn't a good deal for the consumers.

 

[Sureboss]

Equality legislation? Lets just eliminate all risk groups and be communists.

You lot think we are communists anyway!

 

[Mike0105]

Logically, a private corporation (insurance co.) should be allowed to charge whoever they want whatever they want. The consumer has freedom to go elsewhere.

Indeed, but in this case insurance is a legal requirement. They don't have to fight as much as for your business. Not having it is not a (legal) option.

Secondly, many companies are actually underwritten by fewer large corporations or are actually devisions of large insurance groups. This means actually less competition then it would initially seem.

Thirdly, prices have gone up across the board for everyone, by as much as 55% in the last year, before this new ruling.

Motoring costs are rising so fast it is unbelievable and this in turn raises the cost of everything else (transport costs). Insurance will play a part in this if it keeps rising as much as it is.

 

[Tesla]

Same thread. Same Original Poster. Same reference. What's different in this one? https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=188434 Just curious, as to what is a better choice, grave digging a thread or creating a new one?

 

[Robin]

This should be merged with the original thread.