The Male/Female Car Insurance Rates Debate
Recent changes to car insurance laws have seen changes to the previous situation in which being a female driver would always be cheaper. It even allowed for certain insurance companies to be founded specialising in nothing but insurance products for women. However, this is no longer possible, with the exception of younger drivers – under the age of 21. Here, women still pay less than men. So within the male/female car insurance rates debate, it this fair? 43% have said yes in a recent poll, but 57% have said no. This is pretty neck on neck, but it seem the majority does believe that gender should not be what decides what the price of insurance should be. Let’s take a look at the arguments for and against.
Arguments For – Why Women Should Have Cheaper Insurance
• The basis for insurance prices is statistics. This means that an insurance company looks at how likely it is for someone to put in a claim. Males are more likely than females to be involved in a car accident, so they should pay more. Placing women in a high risk payment group would be unfair.
• Men are more likely to engage in risky behaviour. They like speed, they like hot rods, they like to show off their vehicle and how fast it can go. Women are more timid and use their car to get from A to B rather than getting there before anybody else.
Arguments Against – Why Men and Women Should Pay the Same
• It simply isn’t fair that men should pay more than women. It is certainly true that life isn’t fair, but that doesn’t mean we should accept this. Insurance companies look at nothing but numbers and statistics, which suggests that making car insurance higher for men might be sensible. Sensible though it may be, it is not fair at all.
• Charging men more than women is in direct violation with the law. Gender discrimination is illegal as a human right. Charging men more than women is a form of discrimination and thereby in violation of the law. This law applies to all parts of our public life, which includes education, employment, services, the provision of goods, facilities, sports, accommodation and the administration of law. Hence, it beggars belief that an insurance is allowed to get away with this.
Both sides provide compelling arguments and it is not surprising that the yes/no tally is so close. It seems men are more likely to get into accidents, but should all men be tarred with that same brush, or should their premiums simply go up tremendously if they do indeed get into an accident?