Opinions split over insurance change (From Swindon Advertiser)

young females drivers will pay more for motor insurance for a few years but they will be getting better pension annuities for many decades
If I was woman, I'd say it is an excellent trade off!!!

Yet again, the European Court of Justice actually go against the entire fundamental basis of the way something works.
.
Insurance is based on risk, which is based on experience and established evidence. Insurance, by it's very nature, will be discriminating unless every single person (of every age, gender, location, car type etc.) is identical, policies will vary in expense.
.
As it stands, the European Court of Justice have set a precedent that effectively says we must all either:
.
(a) be considered as the very worst and most dangerous driver on the road (even though we're not).
.
(be) be considered as bad as the very best and safest driver on the road (even though we're not).
.
I would like my policy to be as cheap as the 72 year old lady with a 0.9L Micra who drives 10 miles per year and has never had an accident or made a claim. Anything else is pure discrimination, obviously.

Firstly I have to agree with some of what Mr B says, at the end of the day insurance companies fight among themselves to give the lowest possible quotes to get our business. The reason young male drivers are quoted so heavily is because statistically they are far more likely to have an accident. That’s not a discrimination issue it’s a fact – simple and straight forward really.
Now if they were over quoting people who say had freckles…….

@Just a thought: precisely. Reality and the truth, which can be backed up with evidence and factual statistics, cannot be 'discriminatory' in themselves.
.
Insurance companies WOULD be discriminatory is if they knew male drivers were a worse risk yet gave them the same, or lower, premiums than female drivers.
.
So, what we're actually seeing here is the European Court of Justice forcing insurers to operate discriminatory policies on the basis of trying to make them non-discriminatory. Sadly, that type of 'logic' is all too common from the European Court of Justice.

Mr Blackwell wrote:
@Just a thought: precisely. Reality and the truth, which can be backed up with evidence and factual statistics, cannot be 'discriminatory' in themselves. . Insurance companies WOULD be discriminatory is if they knew male drivers were a worse risk yet gave them the same, or lower, premiums than female drivers. . So, what we're actually seeing here is the European Court of Justice forcing insurers to operate discriminatory policies on the basis of trying to make them non-discriminatory. Sadly, that type of 'logic' is all too common from the European Court of Justice.

you can't be that stupid......
People fighting side by side with insurance companies, this must be some sort of joke.
Anyway, the real reason is that insurance companies are not making money out of car insurance!!
Statiscally, there are a lot more cars on the road today than ever before yet the death toll is not increasing, I would say that Statiscally it has never been safer to drive.
So why is it that premiums go up?
Fact is car insurance is unprofitable for finance / insurance providers, car insurance is mainly a loss making business, the main reason behind this trend is not the "dangerous young men behind the wheels" but the number and overall cost of personal injury claim companies / Lawyers which has more than doubled over the last 2years!!!
I know that and the EU know that too, this is why UK average insurance premiums have gone up by 40% and young men drivers being specially hard hit.
You should read less daily mail and get better insider knowledge.

@politicrat: unsurprisingly, you're clearly wholly unable to comprehend the reality and logic of the situation. Still, we've come to expect it of you.

Mr Blackwell wrote:
@politicrat: unsurprisingly, you're clearly wholly unable to comprehend the reality and logic of the situation. Still, we've come to expect it of you.

statiscally young men are more at risk, but statiscally it has never been safer to drive....yet premiums go up despite the fact that deathtoll and casualties are at their lowest.
Fact is that car insurance is a loss making business, and insurance companies are trying to recoupe as much money as they can on the most vulnerable and easy target: young male drivers.
I never knew people and media were so in love with their insurance companies....obvious
ly they must be doing something right for you.

@politicrat: we are not discussing why premiums are going up. We are not discussing which era is most statistically safe to drive in. We are not discussing the commercial viability of insurance companies. We are not discussing young male drivers. We are not discussing the media.
.
What we are discussing the European Court of Justice over insurance companies using gender as an aspect of determining premiums, ie, what the article is about.
.
Now, if you've got no comment to make on the actual topic at hand, kindly go and post your drivel on any number of other threads on which you're also wrong.

Politicrat – I endeavour not to get involved in personal remarks or tit for tat messages on here, we are all entitled to our opinion, it’s supposed to be a free country. I have sometimes found your comments thought provoking However when you start a post off with “You cant be that stupid” I think you are revealing more about yourself and as you mostly do you are going completely off subject. You seem to use these forums to consistently moan about the state of this country or try to wind people up.
Maybe your particular viewpoints would be better suited to twitter or something similar. Please do not bother to respond to this as I have no intention of carrying on.

Mr Blackwell wrote:
@politicrat: we are not discussing why premiums are going up. We are not discussing which era is most statistically safe to drive in. We are not discussing the commercial viability of insurance companies. We are not discussing young male drivers. We are not discussing the media. . What we are discussing the European Court of Justice over insurance companies using gender as an aspect of determining premiums, ie, what the article is about. . Now, if you've got no comment to make on the actual topic at hand, kindly go and post your drivel on any number of other threads on which you're also wrong.

you want to discuss how insurance companies are determining premiums?
simple:
If insurance companies are using the same data (driver details, car details, address details, road data: accidents deaths etc..) in their statistics to determine premiums, then how do you explain the huge difference in prices from one insurance to the next for the same car, same person, same address, same cover!
There is only you that believe that insurance premiums is based on "statictics", you should walke up!

Politicrat – I endeavour not to get involved in personal remarks or tit for tat messages on here, we are all entitled to our opinion, it’s supposed to be a free country. I have sometimes found your comments thought provoking However when you start a post off with “You cant be that stupid” I think you are revealing more about yourself and as you mostly do you are going completely off subject. You seem to use these forums to consistently moan about the state of this country or try to wind people up.
Maybe your particular viewpoints would be better suited to twitter or something similar. Please do not bother to respond to this as I have no intention of carrying on.

Just a thought wrote:
Politicrat – I endeavour not to get involved in personal remarks or tit for tat messages on here, we are all entitled to our opinion, it’s supposed to be a free country. I have sometimes found your comments thought provoking However when you start a post off with “You cant be that stupid” I think you are revealing more about yourself and as you mostly do you are going completely off subject. You seem to use these forums to consistently moan about the state of this country or try to wind people up. Maybe your particular viewpoints would be better suited to twitter or something similar. Please do not bother to respond to this as I have no intention of carrying on.

"dont get involved in personal remarks" ......you should stick to it

Another politicrat classic. What an utterly uncouth and childish response to a perfectly balanced and sensible post. You actually do not even deserve the level of courtesy shown to you by Just a thought.
.
You appear to believe that the more people despise you, the more your warped opinions might become somehow valid.
.
As ever, you're completely wrong.

And, before you bother, spare us the, 'I'm not here to be popular' drivel.
.
I think we've figured that out for ourselves.

Mr Blackwell decisions by the ECJ rarely can be defined as logical, but their decision is of course mindful of the HRA.

politicrat wrote:

Mr Blackwell wrote:
@politicrat: we are not discussing why premiums are going up. We are not discussing which era is most statistically safe to drive in. We are not discussing the commercial viability of insurance companies. We are not discussing young male drivers. We are not discussing the media. . What we are discussing the European Court of Justice over insurance companies using gender as an aspect of determining premiums, ie, what the article is about. . Now, if you've got no comment to make on the actual topic at hand, kindly go and post your drivel on any number of other threads on which you're also wrong.

you want to discuss how insurance companies are determining premiums?
simple:
If insurance companies are using the same data (driver details, car details, address details, road data: accidents deaths etc..) in their statistics to determine premiums, then how do you explain the huge difference in prices from one insurance to the next for the same car, same person, same address, same cover!
There is only you that believe that insurance premiums is based on "statictics", you should walke up!

So you can't figure that out and yet you call others stupid!!!

Tell you what, I'll let you think about it for a while and see if you can figure it out on your own. I appreciate that some people can be very slow, so give your self some time.

If you still can't figure it out then get back to me and I'll explain it in really simple terms -perhaps include a few diagrams.

Jeez, are you for real!

Phantom Poster wrote:

politicrat wrote:

Mr Blackwell wrote:
@politicrat: we are not discussing why premiums are going up. We are not discussing which era is most statistically safe to drive in. We are not discussing the commercial viability of insurance companies. We are not discussing young male drivers. We are not discussing the media. . What we are discussing the European Court of Justice over insurance companies using gender as an aspect of determining premiums, ie, what the article is about. . Now, if you've got no comment to make on the actual topic at hand, kindly go and post your drivel on any number of other threads on which you're also wrong.

you want to discuss how insurance companies are determining premiums?
simple:
If insurance companies are using the same data (driver details, car details, address details, road data: accidents deaths etc..) in their statistics to determine premiums, then how do you explain the huge difference in prices from one insurance to the next for the same car, same person, same address, same cover!
There is only you that believe that insurance premiums is based on "statictics", you should walke up!

So you can't figure that out and yet you call others stupid!!!

Tell you what, I'll let you think about it for a while and see if you can figure it out on your own. I appreciate that some people can be very slow, so give your self some time.

If you still can't figure it out then get back to me and I'll explain it in really simple terms -perhaps include a few diagrams.

Jeez, are you for real!

since risk / statistics seem to condemn young male drivers to higher premiums I really would you to explain how risk / statistic can invite such differences for the same driver / same cover / same care/ same address.....could it be something to do with greed?
Which is likely why the EU has told the UK insurance companies that enough was enough!

@politicrat: earlier you argued that the European Court of Justice ruling was made to enable insurance companies to charge higher premiums and make more money, now you appear to be arguing that the European Court of Justice ruling was made to prevent insurers charging higher premiums to some customers in order to make more money.
.
Seriously, have you been off your meds today because you've really outdone yourself. And that's saying something.