It is well publicised that women drivers receive lower premiums than their male counterparts, and apart from the obvious screams of sexual discrimination from some quarters, it would be interesting to know why.
As detailed in the “Motor Insurance Explained” page, insurers use complex (or not so complex) mathematic calculations to arrive at a premium for each product and case that they sell. These are mostly comprised of statistical data obtained through many different channels, not least of all their own and other insurers findings. The premium will also be heavily influenced by the choice of business the insurer is looking for at the time, see the “Why are my quotes so wildly different” page.
After reading the explanation of statistics used, you will see there are many variables. One of which work in women’s favour, they usually spend less time and mileage on the road, and it is often considered that they are also less aggressive, and their shunts are smaller, resulting in less cost.
Although many people crying SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION may think they have a point, and companies such as Diamond or Sheila’s Wheels insurance for women only products may be bordering on being guilty of that accusation, insurance is a business, and insurers are in it to make money. They are NOT in it to do women any favours, they are simply using their statistical modelling and resulting in lower premiums for women. Ask yourselves, when was the last time your insurer liked you so much, without knowing you, to give you a premium that was much better than the next Joe?
Bear in mind also that the Sexual Discrimination Act is clear in that it is not unlawful to treat people of differing sexes different in relation to car insurance:
Excerpt from Sexual Discrimination Act:
45. Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful the treatment of a person in relation to an annuity, life assurance policy, accident insurance policy, or similar matter involving the assessment of risk, where the treatment-
(a) was effected by reference to actuarial or other data from a sourse on which it was reasonable to rely, and
(b) was reasonable having regard to the data and any other relevant factors.
What is bewildering though, is how can they get away with such awful adverts?