Looks like Sheila's Wheels have to change their adverts then.

That's ridiculous.  Surely the whole basis of insurance premiums is based on statistical risk factors?    There's a reason that young men pay more for insurance than young women.    This is like saying it's not fair to charge more to insure a high powered race car than a nissan micra...

Thank dog for that............  I bliddy hate that advert.

To be fair, I always thought that was a bit dodgy... though the comments on BBC seem to be split with men thinking it's a good thing, and women thinking it's unfair

Insurance is always a complete rip-off anyway, so this ruling just  helps insurers to rip more out the public generally

It's still a Market though, or a Meercat! **hold sides and chortles** if you can't negotiate yerself a decent deal yer don't deserve to drive.

I blame The Spice Girls.

Don't see why Men should have had to pay more in the first place. Its all about equality. Now we need to work on Women playing more SETS in Tennis

Oh effing typical!  I am not opposed to men and womens insurance being equal, but why put the woman's UP?!  Why not put the mens DOWN?!  Bastards!  FFS, we ALL end up paying more, because at the end of the day, many peoples household budgets will go up.  Nobody will benefit from this.  Me and my Other half's money all goes into one pot: none of this 'your money, my money' shit, we share everything, so this is just going to cost the whole FAMILY extra money.  Insurance companies are pure unadulterated scum. 

If the DMs to be believed (yes.. I know...)  Men's will come down 10%, but women's will go up 25%?    I'm no mathematician but something reeks a bit there......

Hmmmm, I wonder whether younger drivers will be able to claim age discrimination, as well, or whether pet owners will be able to claim species discrimination, in pet insurance. 

The European Court of Justice needs some common sense being knocked in to them.

it's a ridiculous ruling,  the premiums arent based on whether you are male or female but on whther you pose a greater risk to the insurance company, it's been proven over and over that young men have mor accidents and cause  far more damage than women.

 its  almost as stupid  as the decision to resolve the fish dumping( due to quotas) by making  fish dumping illegal, do they not understand  that the dumped  fish haven't read the latest EEC directive and don't understand that  aren't allowed to swim along with the cod and whiting...

Well it's on all the forms that your premiums for insurance are much higher if you're a smoker .If you live in a high crime,flood area  etc.Insurance companies always assess on risks.

Jackson B the seas are being over fished,the quotas don't work as the "rarer" species are being still being destroyed,also there  is millions to be made landing illegal catches.There wa a case up here (scotland) this  where the skippers of large trawlers,millions of black market fish were fished illegally  and the factory that processed them too.It's short sighted,they don't care what happens in the future as long as they can make money.The seas will  be empty of fish in less than 50 years.

Christ almighty....there aren't many perks to being a woman..... let us have this one at least!

This is a bit mental.  The retirement age thing I got, this I don't.  Womens insurance is cheaper because we are statistically safer drivers who make less claims.  Not saying we're better than men (or more skilled,) but we make less claims.  So this makes no sense whatsoever! 

I am a 'second driver' on my hubby's insurance anyway as we share the car and he is the main named driver, so I doubt it'll make much difference to us, but for the single ladies or attached ones with their own car, this will make a massive difference. 

I mean what is the POINT?!  We may as well make micras and corsas the same insurance as lamorghinis and mercs now!  That would be equally as stupid and pointless.  I am all for people being treated equally and fairly, but this insurance thing is ridiculous and does not even make sense. Women's insurance is cheaper for a reason.  So are they going to make over 65s the same as everyone else too?  IE; 5 times more expensive!  Because it's not fair that theirs are cheaper!  Or why not make us ALL pay the same as 18 y.os?  ie: £2,500 a year!!!  And put petrol up to a fiver a litre, drive every working class ordinary person off the road altogether!

I've had Sheila's Wheels advert  in my head since i read this thread. 





Well, Not literally.

Oh great ... I mean years of fighting for equal pay and many of us are still way behind men doing the same damn job and we now have to subsidise their inclination to drive their penis extensions like complete planks.


One way around it is to weight some professions I guess so nurses may get lower premiums at the expense of professions considered more "masculine".


And in the UK age discrimination legislation is in place (though not in the rest of Europe as I understand it) so maybe it IS only a matter of time before a 67 year old grandmother without a blemish on her 50 year record of driving a Corsa is quoted a premium of £2,000 to subsidise the arsewipe of a 21 year old bloke who's already written off two cars.


Oh I know I shouldn't moan. My son turns 17 in September and the insurance will kill me. And to be fair he's pretty sensible in that way (we won't mention the "teaspoon" incident) so is it any fairer to penalise him than it is me for the idiots on the road? The trouble is it's the idiots who will benefit as well and right now we don't have anyway of predicting who they are in advance.

At a guess (I haven't checked the numbers) it's probably because there are a lot more male drivers at the younger (i.e. more expensive insurance) age-group than female...

The problem is that gender is a very blunt instrument to base insurance premiums on, just as basing it purely on car model doesn't take into account factors like driving ability.

What's annoyed a lot of young male drivers is the way in which the majority of them who generally drive safely get tarred by the "boy-racer" brush. Also, you get the potential scenario of a young man with 6 years of safe driving still having to pay a lot more insurance than a 18-year-old woman who's already has a couple of accidents. Not fair, surely?

I would imagine that "no claims" bonuses will become more significant over time.

I haven't been following this story too closely, but one interview I did see suggested that the insurers might make use of technology such as "spy in the cab"s. This would allow safer drivers to prove it: not just by having fewer accidents, but by proving they drive more consistently, don't brake so hard, don't go over the speed limit, etc, How many people would agree to such "spys" is perhaps debatable, though...

Should I not ask? 

I don't want to get too involved with the sexist angle since all car drivers are, what the Norwegians would term as, "dritseks!" Yet to be fair, chicks tend to live longer, retire earlier, and are stress carriers. IMO.

And people carriers, on occasion. 

We often disagree but on this occasion I think you're right. The cost of insurance should be directly related to the mental well-being of the driver imo, regardless of gender. For example, the thought of you driving around without a chaperone horrifies me in ways you wouldn't believe.

lol

*** makes adjustments to Prom's forum insurance quote *** 

I tend to dissagree with this decision, it's all about assessing risk rather than making sexist assumptions.  If female drivers are of less risk they should pay smaller premiums, if men die earlier they should pay less for their annuities.  A general insurance fact is that men have higher rates of mortality and women, higher rates of morbidity.  That means women live longer but tend to be ill for longer periods before they die.  This will also impact on life insurance.

On balance, I'd expect women's car insurance to go up more than men's goes down, because on balance, more men are drivers.  As far as motor insurance goes, a way of discriminating by the back door may be to discriminate on jobs and hours traditionally associated with females although I'd expect that would be a blunt instrument.

I'd have thought that insurance company data would have to have the male/female flags removed now because otherwise actuaries could just ask for a report filtered on sex and apply a indirect filter on, say, occupation or title or put a greater bias on age (if it's assumed that female in a marriage is often younger, for instance).