Printable View
If you are thinking of taking out life cover may be worth considering doing it now.
In 100 days, the world of insurance will change significantly due to new gender equality legislation from the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
On 21st December, new rules will come into play which prohibit insurers from taking gender into account when pricing up an insurance quote. And this will make a big difference.
Theoretically this should mean lower premiums for males and higher for females in regard to car insurance. In reality I think no one will see a reduction at all, everyone's will just go up. I am against this change as it goes against the whole principle of risk recognition in relation to insurance. Females have a lower risk so why shouldn't they benefit from that? They always have done, soon they won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by monday21
I wonder about the risk factor here.....I know what you're saying Snowy but to be honest it's life insurance........we're all gonna die at some point male or female lol lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I would rather save my money under my mattress.....Paying life insurance premiums for an unfixed amount of years for a lump sum at the end (not guaranteed sum I might add)....I had a Sun Life thing that came out in 15 years or a lump sum if I died in that time.....I didnt and didnt get back the all money i'd paid in !!! :-/ :-/
An ISA or savings account or anything but life insurance. Maybe Im being daft but hey ho...the way i see it all Id be doing is lining the insurance coffers. :) :)
Invest in property is the way forward I believe, I know it will be a lot of hassle selling when I am gone, but well worth it
I was on about car insurance..... ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tina
I’m all in favour of the new legislation. Why should an 18 year old male who has just passed his test and starting of with a clean slate be penalised due to his gender. You are right though Graeme – the insurance companies will use the new law to make a killing.
I really hope that this new ruling gives some clout to women’s right to equal pay too. Big business has flaunted our sex equality laws for too long.
The problem is though Ken is the whole insurance system is based on risk. Female drivers have a lower risk factor but that won't be taken into account anymore. So, yes, the lads will pay less, but the lassies will pay more than previously and that is based on gender rather than risk. Would you be happy to pay more for your insurance because someone decides you can't be ageist anymore when it comes to your bike insurance even though you are a lower risk than and 18 year old?Quote:
Originally Posted by monday21
I was on about car insurance..... ;D[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWGraeme
Oooopppsss my bad lol :-X
Life insurance is usually for a specific term Tina e.g. you might buy a 25 year policy to match your mortgage.Quote:
I know what you're saying Snowy but to be honest it's life insurance........we're all gonna die at some point male or female
For any set age there are different risks for male/female generally the male being higher risk (all other things being equal).
You can buy "whole of life" policies and as you say the chance of claiming is 100% for everyone. These are less common though as most people want to cover a specific term.
It's a good point from Ken though as quotes are often valid for 30 days so it can be worth getting them in advance.
I don't agree with the change but I think women will benefit overall as pension costs for women are higher and that cost is much more than your car or life insurance.
Hehe, why are women lower risk?
Is that cos we don't sit on our brains? ;) :D ;D :o ;D ;D
Life insurance is well worth it if you need to protect those you'll leave behind in the event of an early death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabz
Yeah I get that bit Dabz, to a certain extent...thats why I had the 15 year thing cos it had a massive payout if I died (even bigger if I died on public transport funnily enough) but I didnt and the money I paid in did not match what I got back at the end........I have big issues with all the companies wanting to sell these things ....they dont do it to be nice or to be out of pocket (they all just want to make money out of us) :-? :-?
I have a number of policies, one of which is a "first death" policy.... which isn't linked to a mortgage term.
So the lives assured on the policy are the two of us and should one of us die, it will pay out a lump summto the surviving person.
For those with young children .. I also had a policy with Scottish Provident which was an income protection policy on the life of my wife .... i.e. should my wife die before the youngest child reached the age of 18, the policy would pay me an income of £20,000 per year until the youngest child became 18.
The good thing too is that the monthly premiums stopped 12 months before the policy ended.
(Oh !! I didn't win on this policy as my wife is still alive and my youngest is now 18 !!!!!! ;D ;D :D ;) )
The problem is though Ken is the whole insurance system is based on risk. Female drivers have a lower risk factor but that won't be taken into account anymore. So, yes, the lads will pay less, but the lassies will pay more than previously and that is based on gender rather than risk. Would you be happy to pay more for your insurance because someone decides you can't be ageist anymore when it comes to your bike insurance even though you are a lower risk than and 18 year old?[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWGraeme
Only at the start Graeme. Forget the new law for a moment and I will try and explain.
We all start from go paying the same premium in our first year of driving/riding. This is fair because no one has a track record in terms of claims, convictions etc. From then on in subsequent years the insurance companies judge each individual driver/rider on their own merits and set the premiums accordingly. Of course that’s how it works now and will continue to do so. Those who are deemed to be high risk (i.e. convictions fault claims) will pay much higher premiums.
Insurance is one of those things everyone hates paying until its time to make a claim
The problem is though Ken is the whole insurance system is based on risk. Female drivers have a lower risk factor but that won't be taken into account anymore. So, yes, the lads will pay less, but the lassies will pay more than previously and that is based on gender rather than risk. Would you be happy to pay more for your insurance because someone decides you can't be ageist anymore when it comes to your bike insurance even though you are a lower risk than and 18 year old?[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by monday21
Only at the start Graeme. Forget the new law for a moment and I will try and explain.
We all start from go paying the same premium in our first year of driving/riding. This is fair because no one has a track record in terms of claims, convictions etc. From then on in subsequent years the insurance companies judge each individual driver/rider on their own merits and set the premiums accordingly. Of course that’s how it works now and will continue to do so. Those who are deemed to be high risk (i.e. convictions fault claims) will pay much higher premiums.
[/quote]
Thats not how it works though Ken, there are many factors involved in assessing the risk and the premiums associated with that risk. Age is one of them. Statistically, young female drivers have far fewer accidents than young male drivers do. If you worked on the basis that every other risk factor was the same apart from gender, would it not be fair that a premium for a female driver, taking every other factor as equal, had a lower premium? Thats the fair way of doing it. Insurance companies do not look at individual circumstances as such, they look at the risk of all the factors that are variables for that individual.
I accept what you are saying, but if a young male drives sensibly, carefully and within the speed limits, is it right that he should be penalised because of the actions of other young males?
Whatever happens, the companies will pass on any initial loses to us, that’s for sure.
Bit hard to make a claim when you're dead ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dabz
Bit hard to make a claim when you're dead ;D[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by Swanny
You're not insuring yourself for your own benefit with life insurance...its for those you leave behind ;)
The young male with a good driving record will build up a No Claims Bonus and will therefore pay less than the young male with a bad driving record.Quote:
Originally Posted by monday21
I agree though, I suspect the Insurance companies will be looking to see how they can benefit with the changes.
Bit hard to make a claim when you're dead ;D[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWGraeme
You're not insuring yourself for your own benefit with life insurance...its for those you leave behind ;)[/quote]
Exactly - I want to make sure that those I leave behind don't have to worry about money for a funeral, to pay the bills and keep the house, etc. I also have key man insurance for work so the guys I employ aren't suddenly out of a job and there's money to employ someone to do my role :)
As it stands pre-legislation, in the first year, a female who drives recklessly and without thought for other road users would have paid approx half for her cover compared to a male who drives sensibly and with care. In my view that is sex discrimination and that is my understanding of the thinking behind the new ruling.
I know what you are all saying about the risk statistics and I accept that, but I still think it is wrong that a young male starting off, should be in effect punished for the actions of other young males. And that is why on this occasion I believe the European court has got it right.
Of course in subsequent years, irrespective of gender, both will be judged on their track record, and as you say Graeme, rewarded or otherwise via the no claims bonus system.
This I guess is another subject we will just have to disagree on. All drivers get rewarded for good driving based on their actual history. The risk factors that the premiums are based on, not only in the first instance but also weight the risk throughout everyone's driving history are based on statistical evidence. I agree, everyone gets hit with these at day one but unless someone can actually tell the difference between a good and bad driver before they have actually started to drive I think its fairer than to make all equal until proved otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by monday21
Another different example would involve postcode's and how they affect your insurance. My premiums are lower than someone in exactly the same position as myself except they live in central London. Statistically, there's more risk to theft of a vehicle there than where I live. Because of that my premiums are lower. That in my mind is fair. Of course, that does not guarantee that my bike doesn't and his does get stolen but statistically the risk is lower in my postcode. I think that's the fair way to look at it when there is no actual historical evidence available to make a decision.
Anyway, c'mon, there must be another subject we can mull around on a Friday night ;)
I think there is a subtlety here.Quote:
All drivers get rewarded for good driving based on their actual history.
Drivers get rewarded for not claiming.
If you were unfortunate enough to have to make a claim even if your vehicle was stationary and you were not anywhere near it then you would be penalised for making a claim. It's actually called a "fault" claim even though in the case I described there is no blame on you, it's the fact that there is no-one else to foot the bill that counts.
It's statistical evidence of claims, so not strictly the same as good/bad driving as claims can happen when you are in the supermarket.Quote:
The risk factors that the premiums are based on, not only in the first instance but also weight the risk throughout everyone's driving history are based on statistical evidence.
It's not a fair system.
My insurance is unfeasibly cheap as I suspect yours is Snowy but there aren't that many advantages of being old so fill your boots :)
You are right Graeme, I think we may have exhausted this debate. And as Ducatista rightly points out i'ts not a fair system however you look at it.
May I suggest a couple of small points we could spend the evening mulling over - Kate's t*ts? :o :o :o :-* :-* :-*
I haven't really gone off topic as the heading on this thread reads, "Take it out now" :D ;D
Yes, as far as claims are concerned there is a subtle differentiation between claims and accidents. But there are many other factors such as where you live, speeding convictions, profession etc etc all of which are used to base your premium on. Not forgetting age either and yes, as an oldie I gain in that respect. You could say all that is unfair as well but don't forget I was once a 19 year old on a Honda CB900 so I have paid my dues in the past with regard to insurance premiums. Maybe there isn't a truly fair way, it could be that we just have different opinions on what is the least unfair way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducatista
Sorry Ken, I missed your post as I was busy on the keyboard! Actually I don't want to think about Kate & Will particularly as I'm a republican ;D ;D ;D
Common ground [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by BMWGraeme
I'm not quite as old as you Snowy ;) but I don't believe you faced car insurance premiums of the equivalent of £4K when you were a youngster (probably 1 and 6) :DQuote:
but don't forget I was once a 19 year old on a Honda CB900 so I have paid my dues in the past
The situation is NOT the same now as it was when we were young.
Actually I couldn't afford a car until I was 22, so another difference is that there are more young drivers now. In the 80s youngsters didn't have their own transport unless it was a moped.
I'm not sure how bike insurance compares. I don't think the issue is the same on bike insurance.
With bikes if you are an idiot you tend to kill yourself/other people (on the whole). The problem with cars is the costs of killing/injuring someone else which can run into millions of pounds.
Simple fact is that the insurance companies are screwing us for as much as they can get.