Last week, the EU decided it was time to end cheap car insurance for women. They ruled it was discrimination against men. I have to say, I’ve never understood why women automatically get cheaper car insurance. I’ve never liked the way in which my insurance premium is decided by other people’s mistakes. I don’t care what the statistics say – statistics lie. You can make them say anything you want, which is why they are an advertisers dream.
Yes, statistically, fewer accidents involve women than men. Statistically, fewer women drive than men, and they drive fewer miles. I cover a lot of miles, and I’ve been driving for many, many years. I have an advanced licence, and I haven’t (touch wood) had a serious accident for a decade. I’ve never had an accident that was in any way my fault.
Granted, I haven’t owned a car for about eight years, but I have and do own a motorbike. And my insurance on that gets ramped up because so few women ride that we don’t make into the statistics and my premium is based on what a bunch of petrol-head throttle-jockeys mess up trying to get their kicks.
I have never had a serious accident on the bike (hold tightly to wood). I am not a boy-racer or throttle-jockey and I don’t take stupid risks or ride under pressure. But try telling the insurers that. It’s improving with every year my licence stays clean and I have no claims, but it’s still ridiculous that my age automatically lumps me in with the accident-prone speed-freaks who cost insurers millions every year. And pushes my premium up.
It gets worse when you know that the accident statistics are completely erroneous, because virtually any accident involving a bike gets recorded as a KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) regardless of the actual level of injury, and usually, isn’t subsquently altered when it turns out that nobody died and the most serious injury is a cracked rib/ broken ankle. Which, again, pushes my premium up.
So, feminist though I am, I’m all for ending the automatically cheaper car insurance for women. Insurance should be based on individual driving history as well as blind, generic statistics (in my case, the claim-free car-driving years and advanced car licence should have been enough for bike insurers to get an idea of my riding style – clearly, I don’t take stupid risks, and the lack of an endorsement history on my licence should have told them what I think of paying fines), not on random criteria like gender and star-sign (I kid you not. If I was insured with them, I’d pay more because apparently, the stars say I’m a bad driver, contrary to my entire driving history).
Besides, on the road women cut me up more than men. I don’t know if they assume that, because I’m on two wheels, I must needs be a chauvinist boy-racer, or if they’re just so busy dealing with children/doing their make-up they can’t be bothered to use their mirrors for observation or their indicators as intended, but I reckon it’s half and half.
No comments:
Post a Comment