Car insurers look at the following in making a decision on your insurance premium:
.Level of insurance required
.Who will be driving your car
.The age of the driver(s) to be insured
.Postcode
.Amount of ‘no claims’
.Claim and convictions details for all drivers to be covered
.Occupation
.Sex and marital status
.The length of time you’ve had a full UK driving licence
.Your profession
.Start date of insurance cover
.Date of vehicle purchase
.The age of the vehicle
.Engine capacity
.Engine type
.Vehicle registration number
.Vehicle make and model
.Safety and security features
.Expected annual mileage
.Where the car will kept
.Type of use
Source:
http://www.motor-ins.../calculated.aspNow, someone please explain to me why my profession or my marital status has anything to do with my likelihood of crashing a car? You may say that my profession might be a travelling salesman. Well, that might be the case, but surely this is covered by the expected annual mileage. I'm telling the insurance company that I'm doing 12,000 miles, and it shouldn't matter to them what I do for living.. The fact that I'm not married. Does tha mean that I'm more likely to have an accident driving around trying to get married or does it matter that I might have 3 children in the back of the car who are screaming and distracting me. (As far as I know, it's cheaper if you are married by the way, which makes no sense).
The fact that I've claimed in the past does not mean that I'm going to have another accident either.
Another issue is how claims are dealt with. Insurance companies are quick to cancel a cover (mine was cancelled because due to my card being compromised at a cash point, I had to get a new one and forgot to tell my insurance company that. The first time they reminded was when I got a registered post from them, saying that my insurance with them was cancelled), but they are not very quick to resolve disputes. I would love to find out how much time they spend on 'investigating' claims and how much time they take to decide that it'll be a 50/50 split, further upping the premium on a driver who could have been innocent.
Also, I do a lot of driving on the road, and I find that some female drivers are more aggresive on the road, especially towards bikers. I have no proof of this other than personal experience. But, I did find this interesing article:
http://www.guardian....1326606,00.htmlAn example of the unfairness of the price:
Diamond Insurance quotes a 19-year-old woman driving a 2003 Ford Fiesta in London £1,438 as opposed to £2,263 for a man of the same age.
Source:
http://news.ft.com/c...000e2511c8.htmlAlso, the Consumers Association is also backing the gender equality directive, but are pushing for further research:
Extract of Consumers' Association evidence prepared and submitted to House of Lords European Union Committee. CA recommended further research should include:
. evaluation of the actual relevance of gender when setting premiums. It is not clear whether gender is as important when predicting life expectancy as sometimes claimed by the industry. While the headline figures point to a large difference in life expectancy between men and women, the underlying picture is more complex (see case study below).
. an evaluation of the aggregate position of women in insurance markets ie. analysing the full range of products affected to weigh up the overall position of women.
. the degree to which gender based pricing exacerbates detriment for women eg. women earn less throughout their working lives and face worse annuity rates on retirement.
. the potential as well as existing detriment women face as a result of gender based pricing. As a result of the increasing transfer of risk and responsibility from state/ employers this should focus on the combined effect of greater marketisation of core welfare goods and gender based risk pricing on women. This should assess socio-economic factors such as trends in household composition, incomes, etc.
. an assessment of practices in other member states. Certain other countries operate insurance on mutual basis where risks are levelled out. It is not clear whether this disadvantages insurers to any real extent.
. consumer attitudes to equalising insurance rates. Are consumers in favour, would this affect levels of provision for core needs (pensions etc).
. potential impact on the underwriting process (given that the commission proposes an 8 year transition period after imposition of the directive).
. potential impact on competition, choice and value in the UK insurance market. Would this affect real innovation? Conversely, could this lead to more transparency and simplicity and therefore greater consumer influence and effective competition from the consumer perspective.
. to what extent is insurance a zero sum game ie. would the gains by one set of consumers be offset by the losses of another set? Or would the changes lead to a positive or negative overall impact on consumer welfare.
. the analysis should segment the market to establish which groups gain and by how much eg. in the annuities market would a small number of women gain substantially with a large number of men losing out by a small amount?
. impact on pensioner households. The study should evaluate the insurance industry argument that because more men than women receive annuities a larger number of households would lose than gain.
Source:
http://www.which.net...erequality.htmlAccording to some research done, Capricorns are least likely to have an accident. So, why aren't the inurers taking that into consideration as well? (I'm a capricorn!)
The study is based on 160,000 car accident insurance claims over the last three years. The full list, starting with the most accident-prone star sign, is as follows: Gemini, Taurus, Pisces, Virgo, Cancer, Aquarius, Aries, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius, Scorpio, Capricorn.
Source:
http://www.nickcampion.comLet's talk about Saga. They insure older people who they say are more responsible, hence the lower premiums for over 50's. Well, I had an accident about two years ago on my motorcycle. I was coming out of a petrol station, on the A3 Texaco southbound garage near Roehampton. The car infront of me, joined the A3, and I rode my motorcycle until the edge of the petrol station, stopped and looked to my right to see when I could join in. I was hit from behind and pushed onto the A3. The older gentleman said that he hadn't seen me and thought I'd gone. Well, if it wasn't for the young eagle eyes and quick reflexes of two cars who managed to stop on the A3 before running me over, the relatively cheap claim made by me against the older gentleman could have been a lot more.. I'm sorry, but statistics don't mean a single thing when it effects you in a negative way. Statistics say that it's safer to travel on a plane, rather than a car. Well, tell that to the plane crash victims.
Anyways, I probably haven't proven anything. But, my point is this. We cannot use statistics for everything and that kind of modelling leaves a lot of people disadvantaged. Insure my car, not what you think I'm statistically 'proven' to do.
