Bye Bye Shiela's Wheels and co.

[Dave20046]

And what happens when they pass the age descrimination ruling ?everyone pays £1500? don't see it to be honest,maybe they'll do something intelligent and copy the Australians system ...or maybe not

it will be a matter of months until they start the age debate, which is a good one, as i know a friend of mine who has recently passed his test, has a lower insurance than me, yet i have 4 years more riding experience than him and 4 years NCB,

hardly see the fairness there, and while we are on to it, im rather fond of a tipple or two, yet when im wobbly and stumbling, they refuse to serve me as its against the law to serve alcohol to a drunk person. Then why oh why can humongous obese people still go into a mcdonalds and buy a super large deluxe meal and stuff their fat faces??

Originally Posted by Dave20046

And what happens when they pass the age descrimination ruling ?everyone pays £1500? don't see it to be honest,maybe they'll do something intelligent and copy the Australians system ...or maybe not

whats australia's system??

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by WeegieBlue

I think this is pathetic. The premiums are based on risk, nothing more, nothing less. Statistically, while women crash more often, they crash at much lowers speeds and the value of their claims is less. Men crash less, but cause far more damage. This is not a matter of sexism, it's empirical data.

The thing men should be concerned about is their pensions. When you buy an annuity it is based on how long you are likely to live. Men die earlier so their fund doesn't need to last as long, meaning they get a larger pension, and women live longer so their fund needs to be stretched, giving a lower pension. This ruling means men will get less out of their pension which coupled with the fact that our insurance premiums aren't going to go down, means we're getting the smelly end of the stick with this one.

I agree, insurance SHOULD be based on risk, and I think everyone accepted that.

But then Sheilas Wheels and co turned up, making a song and dance (literaly) about it.

However, the important thing is that someone once said that it was unfair to discriminate based on gender, so, as this is a broad brush, it makes it illegal to use the weightings that have been used based on statistics.

It doesnt matter if it makes sense etc, its the law, as asked for by us.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by tom-k6

whats australia's system??

Insurance is part of the road tax, everyone pays the same. If you want F+T or comp cover you take that out yourself but the compulsory TP part is connected to the vehicle on the tax disc.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by tom-k6

hardly see the fairness there, and while we are on to it, im rather fond of a tipple or two, yet when im wobbly and stumbling, they refuse to serve me as its against the law to serve alcohol to a drunk person. Then why oh why can humongous obese people still go into a mcdonalds and buy a super large deluxe meal and stuff their fat faces??

Dont see the point in either of these - care to clear things up on how either of those are discriminatory?

It does seem rather pathetic. As its been said the insurance prices are all based on risks. If someone/some group/some sex is a less risk they should pay less.

[Dave20046]

Do chavs have human rights,if we banned feckless little ****s getting in cars and murdering their little friends then the stats may even out...there'd be more chavs about though ...

Originally Posted by The Guru

What about people who are discriminated for staying in a 'high' crime area? How far will these rulings go?

Originally Posted by WeegieBlue

I think this is pathetic. The premiums are based on risk, nothing more, nothing less. Statistically, while women crash more often, they crash at much lowers speeds and the value of their claims is less. Men crash less, but cause far more damage. This is not a matter of sexism, it's empirical data.

The thing men should be concerned about is their pensions. When you buy an annuity it is based on how long you are likely to live. Men die earlier so their fund doesn't need to last as long, meaning they get a larger pension, and women live longer so their fund needs to be stretched, giving a lower pension. This ruling means men will get less out of their pension which coupled with the fact that our insurance premiums aren't going to go down, means we're getting the smelly end of the stick with this one.

Cant agree more. You either do is based on risk or everyone has the same flat fee, no idea what the average fee would be equal to mine. you cant pick and choose. If it is a fact women drivers cost less, then based on the current system they should pay less.

brennan-----Quote"Some sex is less risk you should pay less"
Slightly corrected but in full agreement