The Great debate : Men V Women drivers.

Saab Ed

Just been talking with a friend of mine about insurance and it seems the old argument that women are superior drivers to men still stands, well atleast as far as statistics are concerened. But is it fair to say that women might not be better drivers than men but that they are safer drivers. I would always have argued that men would be more confident in a car and have better over all control and better spacial awarness in a car than women but that women would be more cautious and less likely to take a risk (i.e overtake someone ). Anyway he's using the wifes good name to his advantage and going on her policy as a named driver and in the process saving hundreds. Now that just doesnt make sense because he's still doing the same driving but he's getting none of the benefit of building up a NCB for himself. Mad....Your opinions please...

Beta Ray Bill

Saab Ed wrote: »

Just been talking with a friend of mine about insurance and it seems the old argument that women are superior drivers to men still stands, well atleast as far as statistics are concerened. But is it fair to say that women might not be better drivers than men but that they are safer drivers. I would always have argued that men would be more confident in a car and have better over all control and better spacial awarness in a car than women but that women would be more cautious and less likely to take a risk (i.e overtake someone ). Anyway he's using the wifes good name to his advantage and going on her policy as a named driver and in the process saving hundreds. Now that just doesnt make sense because he's still doing the same driving but he's getting none of the benefit of building up a NCB for himself. Mad....Your opinions please...

I don't believe women are better than men or men are better than women,as at the end of the day its just a statistic, and there is no truth to it. It's just a way of viewing info.

It's the person not the sex that makes someone a good or a bad driver

However in saying that. if insurance was dearer for women they would be up in arms about it. because it would be sexist.
But unfortunately for men its not this way... and the thing about men is that we are just not bothered to get a big protest on.

Stinger for us. Cause the insurance companies love us for it!

Creamy Goodness

you can use statistics to prove anything.

17% of people know that.

Saab Ed

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

you can use statistics to prove anything.

17% of people know that.

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."
Thanks Homer

Mr.David

I think the statistics are perfectly fair - how can they not be? There are only 2 options for insurance claims - a) male b) female. As the former as a sex claims more often, then taking the "average" male and female drivers, the male is more likely to need to make a claim - hence the higher premiums.

Its not rocket science is it?

Saab Ed

Mr.David wrote: »

I think the statistics are perfectly fair - how can they not be? There are only 2 options for insurance claims - a) male b) female. As the former as a sex claims more often, then taking the "average" male and female drivers, the male is more likely to need to make a claim - hence the higher premiums.

Its not rocket science is it?

Yeah you see I know the stats are probably correct but Im being punished for idiots. Im driving 15 years and I never cost an insurance company squat. And Im sure there are many other lads out there the same. There must be a more equal system!

Quint

Men take chances, and are usually aware they're taking chances.
Women clip your parked car as they drive in the wrong road position and don't even notice.

If cars were GPS restricted to speed limits, men would almost never crash but the stats wouldn't change for women.

Mr.David

Saab Ed wrote: »

Yeah you see I know the stats are probably correct but Im being punished for idiots. Im driving 15 years and I never cost an insurance company squat. And Im sure there are many other lads out there the same. There must be a more equal system!

Im in the same situation, it really is annoying having never had a crash or claim. However, I do conceed that insurance companies cannot feasibly evaluate on an individual basis and so rely on statistics.

On the upside, careful drivers such as us are rewarded by NCBs.

I think the extension of the statistics to race, social demographic and religion would be very interesting. After all, if it can be done for the sexes why not across the board?

kevmy

Mr.David wrote: »

I think the statistics are perfectly fair - how can they not be? There are only 2 options for insurance claims - a) male b) female. As the former as a sex claims more often, then taking the "average" male and female drivers, the male is more likely to need to make a claim - hence the higher premiums.

Its not rocket science is it?

Not necessarily true. Men could make less claims than women overall but the average cost for the claims could be higher. That is one high speed crash costs more than 10 broken wing mirrors and 4 fender benders.

Also I believe on average men drive more than women so over the course of the year the extra mileage adds up to extra risk.

Beta Ray Bill

Mr.David wrote: »

I think the statistics are perfectly fair - how can they not be? There are only 2 options for insurance claims - a) male b) female. As the former as a sex claims more often, then taking the "average" male and female drivers, the male is more likely to need to make a claim - hence the higher premiums.

Its not rocket science is it?

It's not rocket science, you are correct.... and that's the problem

Male to Female.... very broad don't you think?
I'm a male... I'm driving 5 years and I've never had a crash? (and I drive a performance car) I've proven I'm ok on the road. I'm still paying more than my mate who is 2 years older than me has had a crash and she drives an Evo too?

Where's the logic?
The Spectrum is far to broad

If you have men vs women then you may as well have tall vs short?

if shorter people account for 68% of accidents/claims on the road does that mean that short people should have their premium increased because they are more likely "according to a statistic" to have an accident?

What about Fat vs Thin?

What about Country person vs City Person

What about Blue eyes vs Brown eyes

They are just statistics!

pburns

Aren't men (in general) supposed to have more spatial awareness, women better at multi-tasking etc. I'd say men are better drivers technically (accurately placing the car on the road, parking etc.) but that women are less aggressive but more prone to illogical behavior.

*ducks from PC backlash*

Honey-ec

grahambo wrote: »

It's not rocket science, you are correct.... and that's the problem

Male to Female.... very broad don't you think?
I'm a male... I'm driving 5 years and I've never had a crash? (and I drive a performance car) I've proven I'm ok on the road. I'm still paying more than my mate who is 2 years older than me has had a crash and she drives an Evo too?

Where's the logic?
The Spectrum is far to broad

If you have men vs women then you may as well have tall vs short?

if shorter people account for 68% of accidents/claims on the road does that mean that short people should have their premium increased because they are more likely "according to a statistic" to have an accident?

What about Fat vs Thin?

What about Country person vs City Person

What about Blue eyes vs Brown eyes

They are just statistics!

If there were actuarial tables proving that fat/country/blue eyed people were more likely to be involved in an accident then yes, you can bet your @ss that their premiums would be loaded.

It's not just a case of lies, damn lies and statistics or male=bad, female=good when it comes to car insurance.

In my experience, yes, women are far more likely to reverse into a lampost or clip your car while parking or roll their shopping trolley into you, but the fact of the matter is that men are far more likely to be involved in serious crashes, the ones which cause death or serious injury. That's not being sexist, it's stating a fact.

Now, the reasons for this are an argument for a totally different thread.

Flyboy!!!

Yes women cost insurance companies less even though they make more claims. Their spatial awareness isn't as good as men's, they have more carpark accidents. Men take more risks, drive faster and have costlier accidents out on the open road. Women create more traffic jams then men because they the over estimate risk, brake sooner and accelerate slower. Though traffic is genderless, few people seem to realise that our individual behaviour is usually counter productive as a whole. Everyone is out to get home sooner which boils down to getting ahead of others. We all follow our own rules and ignore the possibility that there may be a common way to drive which would benefit everyone.

Point in case is merging on the motorway where two lanes are reduced to one. Now most people are "early mergers," they'll endeavour to get into the continuous lane long before their lane actually ends. To do this, they slow down to find a suitable gap in the continuous lane causing those behind them to slow down. In the other lane, the good Samaritan sees the merging driver slow to look for a gap, they slow down to let them in, more often than not this brings traffic to a stand still yet by helping their comrade in traffic, they are filled with a warm fuzzy feeling of doing good yet as a whole, they're most responsible for the jam. Instead, if we all took it for granted that we merge at the last possible moment, traffic would move faster because we'd automatically adjust our speed to leave a gap between each car and we'd filter at a uniform speed.

At the end of the day, traffic is genderless.

http://tomvanderbilt.com/traffic/the-book/

Get this book, read it. It will save lives, save you money and we'll all get home a little sooner.

Saab Ed

Honey-ec wrote: »

Now, the reasons for this are an argument for a totally different thread.

Well not really. Statisticly women might be the winners but ( and be honest here) ability wise are men better IYO?

Beta Ray Bill

Honey-ec wrote: »

If there were actuarial tables proving that fat/country/blue eyed people were more likely to be involved in an accident then yes, you can bet your @ss that their premiums would be loaded.

You are correct
I'm sure they would. Which proves my point about how wrong it is to base policies on statistics rather than basing them on an individuals driving history

Honey-ec wrote: »

It's not just a case of lies, damn lies and statistics or male=bad, female=good when it comes to car insurance.

As far as the insurance companies are concerned it is
young male=bad
middle aged woman=good

it's as black and white as that.

Honey-ec wrote: »

In my experience, yes, women are far more likely to reverse into a lampost or clip your car while parking or roll their shopping trolley into you, but the fact of the matter is that men are far more likely to be involved in serious crashes, the ones which cause death or serious injury. That's not being sexist, it's stating a fact.

True

Men do cause more serious accidents but that is because they drive longer distances than women. I think in terms of mileage covered in proportion to values of total claims men fair better than women but only marginally. I'll try to dig up that "STATISTIC" :pac:

But the insurance companies aren't interested in that as it will cost them money.

Honey-ec wrote: »

Now, the reasons for this are an argument for a totally different thread.

I totally agree!:cool:

Mr.David

kevmy wrote: »

Not necessarily true. Men could make less claims than women overall but the average cost for the claims could be higher.

Yes exactly, and whichever sex costs the insurance company more (regardless of frequency of claims) shall pay more in premiums.

With regard to the fat vs thin, tall vs short argument, i dont think it would be unfair to make fat people pay more than thin people if the statistics reflected that they were costing insurers more. But its too difficult to police. After christmas everyones claim would rise by about 10% wouldnt it?:P

Jaysoose

Women are obviously better drivers, i see them applying a full face of makeup and driving at the same most mornings, thats some mad driving skillllzzzz.

But then there is also the 'dude on the phone trying to change gears swerve' most mornings so its gotta be a draw.

Zube

grahambo wrote: »

Men do cause more serious accidents but that is because they drive longer distances than women.

Not by nearly enough to balance the statistics. Young men, for example, would have to drive 6 times as far as young women to balance the 6:1 ratio in deaths.

It's true that after the men hit 40 and the testosterone levels drop a bit, the sexes level out, but then us old geezers aren't penalized much on insurance over the ladies. I only paid €302 last time out.

Biro

No women on here, so it's safe to say a woman wouldn't drive a nail!

Par72

Biro wrote: »

No women on here, so it's safe to say a woman wouldn't drive a nail!

There certainly are women on here, I know because I am one!

mach1982

http://bblmedia.com/women_drivers.html

I rest my case

TheElf

There's no point in stating statistics any more, because everyone knows that 70% of statistics are made up on the spot. :pac:

But seriously, I always went by the rule that woman are not better drivers, but safer drivers, less likely to take risks or drive in a "got to get there" manner.

But lately, and no disrespect to any woman drivers here, I'm thinking twice about that whole idea, because every second civic that blares down the ring road in Kilkenny now has a woman behind the wheel, so I think that the difference in Insurance should be thrown out the window.

That's my nickel anyway!

Saab Ed

Ok then before this just turns into a slagging match, can anybody suggest a fairer and more equal way to decide premiums

Honey-ec

Saab Ed wrote: »

Well not really. Statisticly women might be the winners but ( and be honest here) ability wise are men better IYO?

Well I meant the reasons why men are more likely to be killed/seriously injured are another argument.

But yes, on the whole I would have to say that women's driving "skills" (as opposed to behaviour, iykwim) are generally far poorer than mens. I drive about 600 miles a week and the words "blody women drivers" probably pass my lips at least once a day. I have to say, though, that any of the few, genuine oh-my-God-you're-actually-going-to-kill-someone incidents I've witnessed have all been men.

TheElf

Saab Ed wrote: »

Ok then before this just turns into a slagging match, can anybody suggest a fairer and more equal way to decide premiums

Good question, I think that the number of hours of lessons taken should definitely be taken into account, always!

I don't think it's fair when some hard working lad/girl spends the bones of 500 on lessons and pays the same insurance premium as someone who just had a car given to them, with no previous experience.

Biro

Par72 wrote: »

There certainly are women on here, I know because I am one!

Where'd you come outta? :P

Biro

TheElf wrote: »

Good question, I think that the number of hours of lessons taken should definitely be taken into account, always!

I don't think it's fair when some hard working lad/girl spends the bones of 500 on lessons and pays the same insurance premium as someone who just had a car given to them, with no previous experience.

I dunno. I know someone who after 20 lessons are still shockingly poor drivers.

Pedro K

As mentioned before.

Women make more claims, but most of them are tips in carparks, or my personal favourite, reversed into a pillar.

Men are involved in more higher speed crashes, and as such cost the company much more when they do have a smash. Hence, premium loaded.

aoibhebree

TheElf wrote: »

Good question, I think that the number of hours of lessons taken should definitely be taken into account, always!

I don't think it's fair when some hard working lad/girl spends the bones of 500 on lessons and pays the same insurance premium as someone who just had a car given to them, with no previous experience.

Well I suppose Hibernian kind of use that idea with the Ignition course. Makes sense.

L-M

This thread stays open until some one steps out of line.

When you step out of line, you step out of motors for a week.

Just a fore warning

TheElf

aoibhebree wrote: »

Well I suppose Hibernian kind of use that idea with the Ignition course. Makes sense.

That would make more sense than just lessons, as Biro said, some people don't really progress with them! Maybe a general ignition course, not just with Hibernian, some kind of "driving test" where you are given ratings on different sections of your driving and these "ratings" make up what you should pay on your premium, I know there is probably some kinks in a system like that, I'm just throwing out ideas!

Not compulsory of course, but for people who are willing to take a step in their driving can do it.

Saab Ed

Ok heres my idea ( I've got way too much time on my hands :P )

Everybody starts at 10 points . Insurance category to be decided like the UK ( 1-20 )

For every 2 years you go down 1 point to 0 ( so it takes 20 years of no claims to hit the very bottom )

For every accident you gain between 2-10 points depending on the level of pay out.

The points system would stay with you from insurance company to company.

What do ye think?

L-M

Saab Ed wrote: »

Ok heres my idea ( I've got way too much time on my hands :P )

Everybody starts at 10 points . Insurance category to be decided like the UK ( 1-20 )

For every 2 years you go down 1 point to 0 ( so it takes 20 years of no claims to hit the very bottom )

For every accident you gain between 2-10 points depending on the level of pay out.

The points system would stay with you from insurance company to company.

What do ye think?

What would each point increase be? Ie. 5% per point, 1% etc. Sounds fair.

Saab Ed

Limerick man wrote: »

What would each point increase be? Ie. 5% per point, 1% etc. Sounds fair.

Tell the truth I havent brought it that far in my head ,its just an idea I had to try and square up the whole insurance parity thing

Cuddlesworth

grahambo wrote: »

Men do cause more serious accidents but that is because they drive longer distances than women. I think in terms of mileage covered in proportion to values of total claims men fair better than women but only marginally.

From a Actuary mate of mine, he said its to do with the fact that males spend far more time in the car then women, cover more mileage, are more likely to spend continuous time driving in which concentration slips and are more likely to drive on roads with higher speeds resulting in more serious crashes.

Basically women's premiums are at a low because far less of them work in a vehicle during the day and are way more likely to only use their cars for short journeys at lower speeds relating to the areas they are in.

aoibhebree wrote: »

Well I suppose Hibernian kind of use that idea with the Ignition course. Makes sense.

I got 25% off my motorbike insurance from doing a one to one assessment with a qualified instructor who taught me basic principles like forward observation, reading road signs and road conditions, proper entry speed to corners and anticipation of possible reactions from other vehicles for things like upcoming junctions and turns. Things I am still using both in the bike and car when I get to drive one. Things that should be part of our driving test.

When I went looking at the car equivalent I was shocked to say the least. The only thing I could find was the above course, which limits you to a 1200cc motor at most and won't insure you from 11pm to 7am. Which is absolute bull****.

sogood

Insurance companies will tell you that they dont charge males more, but that they charge females less, i.e. the same as males, but with a discount, for belonging to a group, who, statistically are involved in less accidents, resulting in less claims, resulting in less risk to the insurance company.I used to live in Dublin, and my cover cost me X, then I moved to Kerry and it almost halved! Why? Because now I belong to a "group"/ demographic, which costs less to insure,by virtue of reduced claims. Simples!
Having said that, if I had to answer the question as to which gender makes the better driver, thats academic. As a full time driver I notice that men are more impatient and take chances ergo. the potential for accidents. Women tend to be more uncertain and less confident, sometimes over reacting, ergo. the potential for accidents. Its the type of accident, the severity that differs between the genders and given that there are more males, driving more miles, more often, then the odds are stacked against us. But dont regard yourself as being penalised for being a male, that would be discriminatory, rather view the females as being rewarded for being female.

sogood

Just a mad notion that occurred to me. If a guy was paying X for his cover, then got a sex change operation, would an insurance company have to recognise the fact and accept "him" as a female, with the accompanying reduced rate. Or perhaps they'd class the "new" him/her as a first time driver, never having had cover in "her" name before, given that "she" never really existed before, or would they allow any accumulated NCB to be carried over? And please, no answers to the effect " Possibly allow the NCB, after a short period!"

But it could happen, yes? Has it?
Hmmmm....I've just had a cunning plan...........

thebman

I think men are better drivers due to spatial awareness.

I think we probably do take more risks. I think the biggest factor is distance covered. I think men cover more distance per year then women so have more accidents because of that. I'd say that is the biggest factor.

Honey-ec

thebman wrote: »

I think the biggest factor is distance covered. I think men cover more distance per year then women so have more accidents because of that. I'd say that is the biggest factor.

That's not the case. It's already been stated that women make more claims, but they're generally for fender benders and minor tips. The vast majority of fatal and serious collisions, unfortunately, involve men. As someone already stated, the disparity isn't anywhere near balanced by the fact that men tend to drive more. The unlovely fact of the matter is that male driving behaviour is far more likely to cause a serious accident than women's. But, as I've said, the reasons why men (obviously not every single one of them) drive the way they do is an entirely different topic.

dellas1979

Women drivers (and I am a lady) are not better drivers. Men are better drivers BUT drive too fast.

Ive been in the car with some female friends and it was a frightening experience. No control of the car. Cant park. More interested in the mirror. No spacial awareness. Now, its been proven that mens brains (hehehehe) have a larger spacial awarness part which is why you are technically better at parking, directions, general driving than women.

Par72

I don't think either gender are "better drivers", I mean, what does better mean? What are we measuring it on?

I agree, an awful lot of women are terrible when it comes to parking and they do seem much more likely to have fender benders and minor accidents at slow speeds.

Men however, are much more likely to kill themselves and/or others when driving.

These are generalisations, of course there are exceptions. If insurance companies find themselves paying out much more on the basis of accidents involving men then you can't blame them for offering women cheaper rates.