Today's eu ruling***good or bad? - Saxperience

vtr-barn · 1st March 2011, 21:19

The high court for the EU ruled today that insurance companies cannot be discriminative through gender on car insurance. So womens is set to rise 20% and mens drop 10%.

What are you thoughts?

mlawlan69 · 1st March 2011, 21:30

so i should get £160 back then?

or is this going to happen two weeks after i get insurance and no refund

vtr-barn · 1st March 2011, 21:31

Haha if only...December it kicks in buddy

Ryan1992 · 1st March 2011, 21:54

Next December i heard mate

But it sounds good to be me (Y) Women's insurance will still be far cheaper so i dont know why they are kicking up so much fuss tbh.

vtr-barn · 1st March 2011, 22:48

Alot of people will be worse off though. Take I pay my insurance so I'll theoretically get 10% off however my misses insurance will rise 20% so between us it will rise 10% overall

vtr-barn · 1st March 2011, 22:49

So not all is as good as it seems

kristel10589 · 1st March 2011, 23:07

As you say barn, I think it'll make alot of people worse off. Especially couples who share income etc.

why didn't men go down 30% to match and leave it at that?

How is this going to be policed though? Will we actually see a difference wether your man or women?

DanielT92 · 1st March 2011, 23:16

December 2012 it will start. Us guys may potentially see a decrease of up to 10%.

Pieface · 1st March 2011, 23:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by kristel10589

As you say barn, I think it'll make alot of people worse off. Especially couples who share income etc.

why didn't men go down 30% to match and leave it at that?

How is this going to be policed though? Will we actually see a difference wether your man or women?

Because insurance companies are a business, and a fickle business at that. They will use the new rules, rise the prices and blame EU legislation for the prices, when in actuality it will mean more money for them overall.

blackie_2k5 · 1st March 2011, 23:58

at this rate by 2012 no cunt will be able to afford insurance so what does it matter lol

wankers tbh, if we could organise a mass boycot over all motor vehicle usage for 1 week the world would be in shock, and it should be able to help us in fuel/insurance prices

trying to teach my lass to learn to drive, with me being 22 us just having a baby and a house itll really help her with work.. and share the load on me.... how can we afford it at the min never ind when this comes in, bad enough affording myself insurance never mind her :/

Venns · 11th March 2011, 11:47

Seems fair to me...

outrage_uk · 11th March 2011, 19:21

While they're at it.. why doesn't someone complain and get an EU ruling about discriminating against young drivers.... just the same in my opinion.

devilsadvocate · 11th March 2011, 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

While they're at it.. why doesn't someone complain and get an EU ruling about discriminating against young drivers.... just the same in my opinion.

Young drivers making more claims is just a statistic just like the women/men thing, as you say

The problem is that by removing the statistic of women/men, in order to keep things fair they should remove all statistics that they base insurance premiums on.....age, experience, occupation, postcode etc

This is all well and good but how would they calculate prices for 17 year old drivers who have just passed thier test?

Maybe a base price for all drivers who have just passed thier test?
Say £1k per year for ALL new drivers which then comes down as you get NCB....surely that would be fair?

An an ideal world yes but unfortunately we don't live an an ideal world and statistically speaking 17-21 year old drivers cause more accidents than older drivers (irrespective of driving experience) therefore insurance companies are going to charge them more in order to get back the value of the claims they make plus profit on top

Sucks but its the way of the world, no different than other insurance

outrage_uk · 11th March 2011, 20:05

30% off young drivers policies... 30% on older drivers policies.

Cut the percentage discount of NCD.

Government cut insurance premium tax by half and force the saving onto the customer.

^ These would put insurance back on a realistic level but as with most things... the right people are not complaining and the average public just have to lap it up

devilsadvocate · 11th March 2011, 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

30% off young drivers policies... 30% on older drivers policies.

Cut the percentage discount of NCD.

Government cut insurance premium tax by half and force the saving onto the customer.

^ These would put insurance back on a realistic level but as with most things... the right people are not complaining and the average public just have to lap it up

Surely by that logic insurance companies would end up losing money?

I don't profess to know exactly how much profit insurance companies make but younger driver make more claims which means they need to be charged more in order to recoup the money...surely?

I am with you on cutting the tax, this would be benefitial to us.....although the Government would simply increase the price of something else to compensate (probably fuel) anyway.

If younger drivers make more claims (or higher value claims) then insurance companies are going to charge them more. Irrespective of whether its a 'fair amount', logic dictates that a younger person should pay more for thier insurace if statistically they are more likely to claim.

I am not saying the stats are true, just arguing the point

I do disagree on the cutting of NCB percentage......why?
Not having to claim does not make you a safer driver I will admit, however why should insurance companies not reward thier customers for not claiming off them?

I have never had to claim, even though I have paid insurance companies money each year. Why should my insurance not go down as a reward for that?

stevo67 · 11th March 2011, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackie_2k5

at this rate by 2012 no cunt will be able to afford insurance so what does it matter lol

wankers tbh, if we could organise a mass boycot over all motor vehicle usage for 1 week the world would be in shock, and it should be able to help us in fuel/insurance prices

trying to teach my lass to learn to drive, with me being 22 us just having a baby and a house itll really help her with work.. and share the load on me.... how can we afford it at the min never ind when this comes in, bad enough affording myself insurance never mind her :/

Thats the thing by law we are all required to have motor insurance(as a driver)so insurance companies can charge what they like its money for old rope.

Steve.

outrage_uk · 12th March 2011, 02:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Surely by that logic insurance companies would end up losing money?

No. Ive mentioned this before, but I will say it again. Insurance companies will never lose out. Ever.

Around 30 million insured cars in the UK. Average premium - £387 (Source: AA). That is an annual turnover of £11,610,000,000.

Are you trying to suggest by them reducing 'our' premiums - they will all go out of business? I don't think so!

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

If younger drivers make more claims (or higher value claims) then insurance companies are going to charge them more. Irrespective of whether its a 'fair amount', logic dictates that a younger person should pay more for thier insurace if statistically they are more likely to claim.

Well on that basis - shouldn't old people be forced to pay 5 times as much National Insurance because they're statistically more likely to have a heart attack or stroke - therefore more likely to use the services of the NHS? Or young people should be forced to pay more on council tax (particularly to the police) as they're statistically likely to get pissed up on a weekend and locked up? See where I am coming from? How far do you take this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

I do disagree on the cutting of NCB percentage......why?
Not having to claim does not make you a safer driver I will admit, however why should insurance companies not reward thier customers for not claiming off them?

Im not saying don't reward your customers for paying for nothing over a year. I am saying 35% is an excessive discount. I would rather even out the premiums for first time drivers (or at least I will if and when I have kids) and see the NCD changed to a 15% starting bonus but with a first year realistic amount.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

I have never had to claim, even though I have paid insurance companies money each year. Why should my insurance not go down as a reward for that?

Why should a first time driver, who has never been given the chance to prove them self on the road be treated and statistically sectioned in a way that says they are likely to claim. Surely that is more discriminating than not giving 'rewards' for something. I have gone a year without going to the doctors, should I get a 35% discount on N.I? My mum or dad haven't been arrested or had to call the fire service out, should they get a 35% discount on their council tax?

You should see NCD as a bonus not a right.

Realistic insurance should be a right, especially in this politically correct day and age. This is my point.

luthor1 · 12th March 2011, 12:22

Petrol should be increased by a premium and 3rd party insurance should be automatic and covered by the petrol price rise. The more you drive the more 'insurance' you pay, the harder you drive the more you pay (lower mpg).

If you want fully comp, then you buy that as an extra from the insurance companies but basic 3rd party is covered on a petrol levy.

Road tax should be done in this way too, since it would normalise the cost over the distance you cover. If gran only goes to morrisons twice a week, she pays less road tax.

It removes the admin.

Requirements: valid licence, MoT.

Improved driving test, and bhp/tonne modules. You have to pass further driving tests to be authorised to drive cars in various power to weight brackets.

So easy to do, so efficient, but they never will because there is no money in it!

Andy

b0t13 · 12th March 2011, 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthor1

Petrol should be increased by a premium and 3rd party insurance should be automatic and covered by the petrol price rise. The more you drive the more 'insurance' you pay, the harder you drive the more you pay (lower mpg).

If you want fully comp, then you buy that as an extra from the insurance companies but basic 3rd party is covered on a petrol levy.

Road tax should be done in this way too, since it would normalise the cost over the distance you cover. If gran only goes to morrisons twice a week, she pays less road tax.

It removes the admin.

Requirements: valid licence, MoT.

Improved driving test, and bhp/tonne modules. You have to pass further driving tests to be authorised to drive cars in various power to weight brackets.

So easy to do, so efficient, but they never will because there is no money in it!

Andy

well said.

pussmunky · 13th March 2011, 23:01

tbf, a base premium for new drivers should be charged... then if your claimed against your insurance should go up, this way the more careful drivers would be rewarded by not being robbed (i pay approx £5k on a 1.4 furio for 10 months

) and the dickheads who fly about and cause all the accidents will be punished