Is there a website? (Follow on from "Women Crashing Their Cars")

Epicpriest

Is there a website in ireland that lobbies against high insurance premiums for male drivers? Or shall we try and put one together nad get it voted on.

Nothing to do with women etc, just a website like (irelandoffline.org) which tries to make an impact on the high costs of insurance for us compared to women. Keep womens premiums the same, but try to reduce premiums for male's in general. Not all of us drive like maniacs.. And my dad paying more insurance then my girfriend is a bit upsetting. He's not a boy racer!!

Just an idea.

If there is one already, is there any links you can give me so i can sign it?

As at the moment i can't get properly insured on my car which i need to get to work as it will end up costing me over 150 quid a month ontop of what i'm already paying for my car. (i'm 3rd Party F/T) and it's costing me well over a grand a year. This type of insurance doesn't offer me insurance that i'll be covered even if i am a dangreous driver, it simply offers me the money back for my car if someone steals it or sets it on fire. How has that got anything to do with what sex i am?

Vegeta

well the insurance company will still have to pay out if you crash into a third party which is where the high premium comes in

AdrianR

I reckon there's a big imbalance in the statistics which says that more men have crashes than women, this stat info is based on who the insurer of the car was and not who was driving at the time. I've been driving 20 years, in all that time I've had 2 accidents, both times the other driver was to blame both times the other driver pulled out in front of me, both times the other driver was female, both times these women were driving under their husbands insurance. Statistically both of the claims were recorded as a claim on a mans insurance:mad: .

Boggle

There's a site called mijag.com run by a Mick Murphy - but he only seems to appear at election time!!

Thats a bit unfair actually - he does a fair amount of work on the subject and has done for quite a while but he just gets ignored... It would be worth setting up a new one with som new impetus though. Trouble is you are fighting against vested interests. MAybe a petition to be sent to the EU is a better way than lobbying our (attentive) government...

Personall I believe the only way to get noticed and to get action is to lock up Dublin once a month until we are listened to but most people think this is a bit drastic as their ONLY discriminating against males...

(insert black/female/poor into that and see how their attitudes change...)

mike65

We have a whole forum here!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=229

Tis very quiet these days.

Mike.

Eoin

Boggle wrote:

There's a site called mijag.com run by a Mick Murphy - but he only seems to appear at election time!!

I think there's a mijag forum on boards actually?

Boggle wrote:

Personall I believe the only way to get noticed and to get action is to lock up Dublin once a month until we are listened to but most people think this is a bit drastic as their ONLY discriminating against males...

(insert black/female/poor into that and see how their attitudes change...)

I would say that - rightly or wrongly - public perception of young male drivers isn't great, especially as they (we) are featured as the person at fault in most road safety advertisements.

Locking up Dublin will turn the public more against the cause, and rightly so. I would think there are a load of other alternatives to pìssing off the public. Also, the chances are that a lot of the young male drivers who would attend this type of protest would be in modified cars. This certainly won't help public perception.

For all the indignant complains, can anyone prove that the road statistics quoted by insurance companies are not correct, and that young male drivers are not in fact the most likely to crash? (Not a rhetorical question, would be interested to know if the risk is justified).

Finally, I have said this on many an occasion on this forum, but some of the young male drivers seem to be getting very competitive quotes compared to as recently as 3 or 4 years ago when I was in my early 20s. I seem to regularly hear quotes of < 2K for a 21 year old bloke with little or no driving experience, which to me is very reasonable.

Boggle

I think there's a mijag forum on boards actually?

The site's been around for years - I assume its still being updated...

Locking up Dublin will turn the public more against the cause, and rightly so.

Half of Dublin is male. WHat makes you think they like being discriminated against?

I would think there are a load of other alternatives to pìssing off the public.

Its actually businesses you need to piss off - their gripes are the ones the govt may listen and force them into paying a bit more than lip-service to the issue.

Also, the chances are that a lot of the young male drivers who would attend this type of protest would be in modified cars. This certainly won't help public perception.

Are they not allowed to vent their anger? Just cos they drive modified cars??

For all the indignant complains, can anyone prove that the road statistics quoted by insurance companies are not correct, and that young male drivers are not in fact the most likely to crash?

See the other thread. They do not crash more - they have higher claims made on their policies. What about young males with college degree's compared to those who left school early? Not implying that those who left early are any higher a risk but it would be better to make distinctions other than whether you are male or not.

Finally, I have said this on many an occasion on this forum, but some of the young male drivers seem to be getting very competitive quotes compared to as recently as 3 or 4 years ago when I was in my early 20s.

Discrimination is discrimination. Telling me that its not as bad as it was changes nothing in my mind...

Eoin

Boggle wrote:

Half of Dublin is male. WHat makes you think they like being discriminated against?

Its actually businesses you need to piss off - their gripes are the ones the govt may listen and force them into paying a bit more than lip-service to the issue.

And you will be causing a bigger disturbance to the public and lose public support.

Boggle wrote:

Are they not allowed to vent their anger? Just cos they drive modified cars??

Of course they are, but it's all about public perception, and the public perception of modified cars and their owners is not good.

Boggle wrote:

See the other thread. They do not crash more - they have higher claims made on their policies. What about young males with college degree's compared to those who left school early? Not implying that those who left early are any higher a risk but it would be better to make distinctions other than whether you are male or not.

I don't know if that is indeed the case, but even if it is then the end result is the same. They are a higher risk to the insurance company. I genuinely would be interested to know if this can be disproven by anyone. Insurance companies do ask what profession you are in, so age and gender are not the only factors they use, however I would think that they are probably the most relevant.

Boggle wrote:

Discrimination is discrimination. Telling me that its not as bad as it was changes nothing in my mind...

I agree to a point - this is only for an example: if black people were proven to be a higher risk, and they were loaded then I am sure there would be outrage, and I can see why people think there is no difference between this. This may be a case of being overly PC though, as it is not discrimination if they can prove that a certain segment of the market is a higher risk to them.

However, a 2K quote for a male under 21 with little or no driving experience is quite reasonable in my opinion.

Boggle

And you will be causing a bigger disturbance to the public and lose public support.

If you wanna make an omelette...

Insurance companies do ask what profession you are in, so age and gender are not the only factors they use, however I would think that they are probably the most relevant.

No need for assumptions - its blatantly the case.

This may be a case of being overly PC though, as it is not discrimination if they can prove that a certain segment of the market is a higher risk to them.

There's no such thing as discrimination when it comes to profit eh?? I could refer to my own stats proving that women cost me more in unpaid leave and as such refuse to hire any... but that would be wrong and illegal. What the insurance companies do, however, is only wrong.

Epicpriest

eoin_s wrote:

And you will be causing a bigger disturbance to the public and lose public support.


Of course they are, but it's all about public perception, and the public perception of modified cars and their owners is not good.



I don't know if that is indeed the case, but even if it is then the end result is the same. They are a higher risk to the insurance company. I genuinely would be interested to know if this can be disproven by anyone. Insurance companies do ask what profession you are in, so age and gender are not the only factors they use, however I would think that they are probably the most relevant.



I agree to a point - this is only for an example: if black people were proven to be a higher risk, and they were loaded then I am sure there would be outrage, and I can see why people think there is no difference between this. This may be a case of being overly PC though, as it is not discrimination if they can prove that a certain segment of the market is a higher risk to them.

However, a 2K quote for a male under 21 with little or no driving experience is quite reasonable in my opinion.

And how about a 2300 euro quote, for a 25yo male (fully grown man) on 2nd provisional waiting for test who uses it to drive to work. (Me) compared to a 19yo female friend of mine getting insured at the same time as me getting a quote of 1000. Thats pretty much like a young adult paying 130% less then me, and me being 6 years her senior and in a respectable line of work.

If you add my current details to any online quote system, i will get an error saying we're unable to quote you. I'm not a BOY racer. I don't have a BOY racer car.

Thats thing about "Select your occupation" has no impact on your quote.

Epicpriest

Here is a statement which will probably get me shot.


Just imagine if from the get go in Ireland, as shown that women have more frequest accidents as a percentage (be it minor or not), So women from the start had to pay premiums like as men pay now. And men had low insurance because they are "better drivers", i wonder how long that would last?

I think there would be civil war, there would be a womens rights movement and me would all be hailed as pigs. Imagine a 25 year old woman trying to get insured on a car and they wouldn't quote her, and there was ads on TV with 3 fellas in a car wearing pink singing about how this particualr insurance company only insure men...

Jesus, we'd all be castrated!

*by the way, thats just an example, i have nothing against women drivers, it's the insurance comapanys i'm mad at, and i'm just stating that women probably wouldn't stand for it like men wouldn.

Carb

eoin_s wrote:

However, a 2K quote for a male under 21 with little or no driving experience is quite reasonable in my opinion.

2K is a lot of money if you don't have it, and it a lot of cases will repesent over 10% of after tax income.

BTW, my borther was 21, and it cost him €2600 last year, it's going to cost him another €1750 this year. So thats one nice liitle earner for Quinn.

In my case, my first year I paid €2650, in year two I paid €2800, I was not driving for a couple of years, then I had to pay nearly €2k last year and this year they were looking for €1350. That would have been a total in 4 years driving of €8,800. Does that seem "quite reasonable" to you.

My wife started driving last year for the first time on a provisional and she paid €1K

maidhc

Both this thread and the other one make me feel warm and fuzzy. It is good to know there are guys out there who are not mindless fops and who don't buy everything women tell them.

Eoin

Boggle wrote:

If you wanna make an omelette...

No need for assumptions - its blatantly the case.

There's no such thing as discrimination when it comes to profit eh?? I could refer to my own stats proving that women cost me more in unpaid leave and as such refuse to hire any... but that would be wrong and illegal. What the insurance companies do, however, is only wrong.

I doubt that employment law is the same as the particular laws that govern insurance. If an insurer can prove that a segment of the market is a higher risk based on actuarial evidence, then they are entitled to load that segment accordingly.

epicpriest wrote:

And how about a 2300 euro quote, for a 25yo male (fully grown man) on 2nd provisional waiting for test who uses it to drive to work. (Me) compared to a 19yo female friend of mine getting insured at the same time as me getting a quote of 1000. Thats pretty much like a young adult paying 130% less then me, and me being 6 years her senior and in a respectable line of work.

If you add my current details to any online quote system, i will get an error saying we're unable to quote you. I'm not a BOY racer. I don't have a BOY racer car.

Thats thing about "Select your occupation" has no impact on your quote.

That does not seem fair - I agree with you, though I would say it is more a case of her paying too little, I presume she is also unlicensed?

I am not saying that all young males should pay premiums that high, I am saying they should still probably be the highest as they are a higher risk.

Epicpriest

eoin_s wrote:

I doubt that employment law is the same as the particular laws that govern insurance. If an insurer can prove that a segment of the market is a higher risk based on actuarial evidence, then they are entitled to load that segment accordingly.



That does not seem fair - I agree with you, though I would say it is more a case of her paying too little, I presume she is also unlicensed?

I am not saying that all young males should pay premiums that high, I am saying they should still probably be the highest as they are a higher risk.

Agree, young males. I'm 25, i can go to jail, i can vote, i can go to war and die for my country, i make thousands every year for my country in tax from work. If i drive for the next 4 years inluding this one, insurance companies will probably make around 8k off of me. If i crash, i will probably not claim, as i don't want to pay 8 thousand euro's for my next insurance quote, so thats clear profit for insurane companys.

18-21 should pay maybe 1500 quid. 22-25 maybe 1000, and then 25+ should pay 500.

The percentage of claims are probably very very small from males. As they know they will get raped next year. so they must be making absolutely collossal profits.

2.5x insurance cost for a new driver simply being male compared to female is not discrimination, it should vbe a criminal offense.

Eoin

Carb wrote:

2K is a lot of money if you don't have it, and it a lot of cases will repesent over 10% of after tax income.

But being honest, how many young males actually need to drive their own car? I know I started to drive just because I wanted to. I wasn't happy paying the £2700 (€3430) for TPFT insurance, but it was a choice I made.

Carb wrote:

BTW, my borther was 21, and it cost him €2600 last year, it's going to cost him another €1750 this year. So thats one nice liitle earner for Quinn.

In my case, my first year I paid €2650, in year two I paid €2800, I was not driving for a couple of years, then I had to pay nearly €2k last year and this year they were looking for €1350. That would have been a total in 4 years driving of €8,800. Does that seem "quite reasonable" to you.

My wife started driving last year for the first time on a provisional and she paid €1K

Like I said (we posted pretty much at the same time), I don't agree with the huge premiums, but certainly higher premiums.

Epicpriest

eoin_s wrote:

I doubt that employment law is the same as the particular laws that govern insurance. If an insurer can prove that a segment of the market is a higher risk based on actuarial evidence, then they are entitled to load that segment accordingly.



That does not seem fair - I agree with you, though I would say it is more a case of her paying too little, I presume she is also unlicensed?

I am not saying that all young males should pay premiums that high, I am saying they should still probably be the highest as they are a higher risk.

Agree, young males. I'm 25, i can go to jail, i can vote, i can go to war and die for my country, i make thousands every year for my country in tax from work. If i drive for the next 4 years inluding this one, insurance companies will probably make around 8k off of me. If i crash, i will probably not claim, as i don't want to pay 8 thousand euro's for my next insurance quote, so thats clear profit for insurane companys.

18-21 should pay maybe 1500 quid. 22-25 maybe 1000, and then 25+ should pay 500.

The percentage of claims are probably very very small from males. As they know they will get raped next year. so they must be making absolutely collossal profits.

2.5x insurance cost for a new driver simply being male compared to female is not discrimination, it should be a criminal offense.

Epicpriest

eoin_s wrote:

But being honest, how many young males actually need to drive their own car? I know I started to drive just because I wanted to. I wasn't happy paying the £2700 (€3430) for TPFT insurance, but it was a choice I made.



Like I said (we posted pretty much at the same time), I don't agree with the huge premiums, but certainly higher premiums.

Ye you're right Eoin. 21 year old males don't need to drive to work, they can walk sure. It's only 25 year olds who have to drive to work as they are older and the ould legs probably aren't as good as they were...

Eoin

Epicpriest wrote:

Ye you're right Eoin. 21 year old males don't need to drive to work, they can walk sure. It's only 25 year olds who have to drive to work as they are older and the ould legs probably aren't as good as they were...

That wasn't my point at all, no need for smart comments. It was in response to how 2K can make up a considerable part of someone's wages.

My point was that in my opinion, a lot of young male drivers are driving only because they want to, not need to. This means they are making a decision to buy a product that is expensive.

Epicpriest

eoin_s wrote:

That wasn't my point at all, no need for smart comments. It was in response to how 2K can make up a considerable part of someone's wages.

My point was that in my opinion, a lot of young male drivers are driving only because they want to, not need to. This means they are making a decision to buy a product that is expensive.

I know what you mean but it's the same for everyone. Pretty much every girl i know has a car. The reason being that they are needed. Not many people live so close to their job that they can walk or get the bus (because of lateness etc). Girls get them because they want them also.

For a first time girl driver to get a say beginner 96 car and get on the road etc, should cost them about 2500 for the car, 1000 to get insured, say 3 months tax. Thats roughly 3600 euro. For a fella (even 5 years older) it will cost 2500 for car, 2200 for insurance and 70 for tax. That = 5000 euro.

I'd presume more girls would get cars at a younger age simply becaue it costs less.

this would be the costs for a 19 year old woman, and a 25 year old man. 1400 euro difference. (not accurace of course, but a guideline) - How's that fair?

Carb

eoin_s wrote:

But being honest, how many young males actually need to drive their own car? I know I started to drive just because I wanted to. I wasn't happy paying the £2700 (€3430) for TPFT insurance, but it was a choice I made.

It wasn't a choice I made, or a choice my brother made, or any of family, neighbours etc. Anyone that makes comments like that oviously never stops to think that not everyone lives along a dart line or has a bus service ie lives in Dublin or other large city. I was 19 when I paid my second years insurance of €2800 and was earning €11500, which means a quarter of my wages was going on my insurance. Although this was a few years ago, the quotes for new drivers do not seem to have changed that much, and I'm not aware of any major advances in public transport that would get somebody from the middle of the country to another location in the middle of the country 10/20 miles away.

As for choice, when I say I was not driving for a couple of years, it was because I moved to Dublin and chose to use Dublin bus, even it was s**t.

Eoin

Carb, I didn't say that it applied to everyone, just a lot.

Admittedly I did say that under 2K wasn't too bad, but without getting into the specifics of the prices, my points are:

Do people accept that young males are a higher risk to insurance companies? Until I see evidence to the contrary, then I will have to assume that this is the case.

If you do accept that, then how can you not accept that their premiums should not also be higher?

Boggle

Did a quick check there with QD: Apparently I (male 26, 5yrs+ ncb, license 4yrs) am the equivalent risk as a 25yo woman with just 2 years ncb and a Full license just 2 years.

No one can tell me I'm that much more of a risk than your average female.

Quote: Do people accept that young males are a higher risk to insurance companies?

Do you accept that not all young males are hotheads? Could it be possible that experience could make up for alot of what their age denies? Could it be possible that those who tend to tend to be wreckless belong to a subgroup?

And why at the grand old age of 26 am I still considered a danger when I'm clearly not? (based on experience, mileage, licence, no pp, no speeding fines... perfect driving record in fact.)

Epicpriest

eoin_s wrote:

Carb, I didn't say that it applied to everyone, just a lot.

Admittedly I did say that under 2K wasn't too bad, but without getting into the specifics of the prices, my points are:

Do people accept that young males are a higher risk to insurance companies? Until I see evidence to the contrary, then I will have to assume that this is the case.

If you do accept that, then how can you not accept that their premiums should not also be higher?

Of course they should be higher for young males. But it appears that ALL males pay more then females. Thats like saying that "More males get drunk in pubs and cause fights then females, so they should have to pay 250% extra for their drink, so instead of paying 4.50 for a pint, they have to pay 11 euro's. As they MAY cause some more dmagage" it's ludicrous.

HelterSkelter

http://www.mijag.com

The site is not updated that much anymore. The problem is young drivers moan about the cost of insurance but most are not willing to get off their arse and do anything about it. Not many young drivers were interested in helping out the MIJAG campaign, especially when a candidate was run in the General Election 2002.

MIJAG did organise numerous car protests in Dublin & Cork in 2000/01, some photos here:
http://www.mijag.com/other/protest_pics.asp

mike65

Boggle the reason you (and I) are continuing to payer higher rates
is simply cos we a not insured as true indivduals but as a class, so a woman will always get cheaper quotes than the equivelant male. We can moan but we will be paying for the sins of our "younger brothers" all our lives.

Mike.

Boggle

Actually, my moan is that "male" covers too broad a spectrum to be truly representative.

mike65

If insurance was honest and true we would only be judged by our record and what we drive where we live etc ie whats relevant to each individual.

Mike.

peasant

You don't even have to be young to get done by the insurance, being male is enough.

Here's a crass example:

I'm driving since 1983, I'm claim free since 1992, I have no points, no speeding tickets ...clean as a whistle. On top of that i have a full licence for (and driven) cars, bikes, trucks and trailers.

At the time of the example I was driving a 2 litre Saab, 36 years old and paying 550 pounds in insurance.

Then my wife (39 at the time) decided to learn how to drive. She had no previous driving experience whatsoever and just a provisional licence (pre-theory test) bought.

We got her a little one litre car and guess what she paid in insurance?

180 pounds !!!


She duly drove the car into our fence three weeks later and gave up on driving...whereas I have now driven another 5 claim free years and am currently paying 600 Euros for a puny 1.3 litre car.

Now ...somebody explain to me how that is not discrimination??

HelterSkelter

I think they should base your quote on their statistics (i.e. Male being more dangerous) for the first couple of years. But once you have build up driving experience with no claims or accidents your quote should be based solely on your driving history.

HelterSkelter

eoin_s wrote:

My point was that in my opinion, a lot of young male drivers are driving only because they want to, not need to. This means they are making a decision to buy a product that is expensive.

You are missing the point. Insurance is compulsory, you have to have it, there is no two ways about it. If you look at the stats the insurance companies are making huge profits out of a service we are forced to buy. Nobody is making a choice to buy insurance, we make a choice to buy a car.