Instead of raising women’s insurance, to only benefit greedy insurance companies, I’d like to see a compromise so to speak, lets split the difference. Men get half the benefit and women pay half the difference they would have. As is now, insurance companies will make a tidy profit on this so the likes of a regulatory body of some sort, (useless as they seem) should ensure actual equality.
Men paying 600
Women pay 400…
Both now pay 500!
Why should the Insurance companies get away with making a profit instead of fairly disturbing this equality from this ruling? Fat chance of that happening in Ireland I guess.

Oh Well!……………… and there I was thinking the cost of car insurance for men would come down. Silly me!

We’re so used to being ripped off in this country, I bet there’s guys out there celebrating that women are now getting as ripped off as men. I paid over 5grand in 3yrs with a company with no claims in my mid 20′s and in the 4th yr they dropped the price by 18e, I had a full licence and drove a 1.4l car. I asked them for a better quote and found another insurance company for 480e cheaper

Of course they should be the same for a number of reasons
1. not all male drivers drive like ejits so why should they all be punished?
2. Not all female drivers drive like saints so why should they get the discount?

More importantly, we need risk equalization in the car insurance industry. This is what we have in the health insurance industry and it means that a 20 year old can choose a health plan and pay the exact same price as say a 60 year old.

This is despite the very fact that the 60 year old is much much more likely to actually need services on the plan then a 20 year old is.

Yes it sucks that the 20 year old has to pay that bit more then they otherwise should, but it means that when that 20 year old is in his 60′s he can actually afford some sort of private health care instead of it being twice or three times the price of what the same plan costs for somebody 40 years younger. (America has perfect examples of this higher pricing depending on age)

It should be based on your record of safe driving. And when you’re starting out, the premiums should be the same for everyone both male and female.

Why isn’t the tax and third party insurance built into the petrol pump cost like in other countries? You drive more, you pay more. Easy bloomin’ peasy.

Motor insurance is a for profit, shareholder driven, government legislated scam which COULD be cleaned up if vested interests were controlled.

It’s crazy it took so long. Age will hopefully be next. Experience and your driving record is all that should matter when it comes to your insurance premium.

Calculating insurance premiums based on your sex is blatant discrimination.

Males guilty before innocent.

This is an example where fairness and equality diverge. It has implications for people outside of insurance too – men will be charged more for pension annuities even though statistically they live shorter lives than women. Equality busybodies have made their bed and now we all have to lie in it with them.

Not sure about relying on statistics….simple solution to the problem so that both sexes are treated fairly would be to ask for the first letter of the persons name and full surname…no option to tick a Mr or Mrs….run it for 6 months see how we get on.

Equality is a two way street…

I’ll accept higher car insurance premiums…. But I want cut price health insurance as there is a significant reduction in the risk of me having several pricey pregnacy and maternity claims

A better poll would be
.
Should men and women be treated equally ?

24 years accident free and more qualifications than most, yet I still pay more than most. Statistics my a***

Well if gender discrimination is allowed in the name of statistics then surely race, nationality, hair and eye colour should all be taken into account aswell?

it should be very simple those that drive well and don’t have accidents should get cheaper insurance those that don’t get hit start with a rate that is pretty reasonable and if you have an accident then you get punished by more and more expensive cover

the end

I’d imagine if this was the other way around this sexist inequality would have been abolished years ago…

Can’t believe the poll!! What if in certain work sectors we said men should get more pay that women due to their ability?? You’d have every feminist taking to the streets!! My first year driving I had to €2,888 on a 1.1L car..a couple of years after my sister (we would have been the same age getting our first quote) paid €920!! Where’s the fairness in that? I’ve never made one claim or been in one accident yet as I seem her insurance significantly drop year after year I watch a trickle of deduction on my own!!

There will be no good come from this. The price for women will go up, but the price for men will not come down. At least before this some one got a break. Sharing every thing only means mine and my wife’s insurance bill just went up.

insurance should be based the same for both men and woman over the age of 25. I reckon the insurance companies will hike up quotes for new drivers under the age of 21. Anyway insurance is ridiculous in this country.

premiums are based on statistics. it is a fact that some young male drivers are at fault for raising the premiums for other males. it has nothing to do with equal rights.
if i was to take out a health insurance policy i would expect to pay less than an elderly person again based on statistics.one could argue is it not discrimination regarding age, but in my opinion its again based on statistics on facts.

Well if ppl want gender quotas and feminists fight for equality every day of the week this is only fair too. Equality is a two way street. Now single fathers rights must be gone after.

Everyone’s should be cheap at the beginning and then hiked up once a claim/points go against someone, that way the drivers that are causing the pay outs get penalised! I have my full licence for 7 years and driving 8, no points and no claims, I take care on the roads, why should I pay for someone who doesn’t belong there!!! From my experience in using the roads young men are not the only bad drivers, in fact I rarely see a thing male driver being anything but cautious, get the people that deserve it and not the rest of us!!

So will male premiums drop? I think not!! In an ideal world, premiums would be based on your safety record regardless of gender. The stats do give femal drivers an advantage over us males, but for the right reasons. Most of the idiotic things you see people doing on the roads are by young males. Falling into that age braket myself it is hard to admit, but with recently being undertaking by some muppet in the hard shoulder, Im afraid that a minority costs the majoriy of us males a lot of cash. Not to sound like I’ve lost my balls over the weekend, but women are safer drivers!

This Policy was introduced in the UK long before here in Ireland (mind you the underwriters for irish insures who really are the “insurance Company” …….is more than likely Lloyds of London and owned by the British State !!!!)

Separating the sex’s through insurance policy’s was nothing more than a marketing scam and an inflation of big profits by people and corporations who regard us as numbers or should I say “Peasants” !!! . Years ago before this Sexist system was introduced insurance company’s were trying to figure out a way to get more ladies to drive an concocted this idea to encourage them. Today there are far more females on the road than there used to be and rightly so!!! and yes males should pay the same as females. So insurance premiums should “”"”drop”"”" from being ridiculously high !! Between Insurance, advertising and medical company’s we sit back and let them continuously take are hard earned cash and we say nothing !!!!! as a nation we have the p..s taken out of us everyday right under our noses and were too dumb to notice or do we just go with the flow !!!

This is a business! Nothing to do with equal rights, the premiums wont be balanced to reduce the mens slightly and bring up the womens, because of the lower risk of the females, the only one that wins is the insurance companies as they will bring the premiums up to the male drivers ones. Dont get me wrong I strongly believe in equal rights but this has nothing to do with it, the business is based on risk and if women drivers are a lower risk than that converts to money.

If mens premium doesnt drop then who benefits? Insurance company! And who pays more for wifes car insurance? Hmm …

women can be as men behind the wheel…..

Political Correctness is a load of bollocks. I’m expecting to see premiums for women rising as a result. I’m also not expecting to see premiums for men falling. Insurance companies are not there for the sake of charity. The purpose is to make PROFIT for shareholders.

@disildoforus that article isn’t clear though, I very much doubt that if you and I were to apply for 2 identical position within a company and manages to secure employment I would automatically get a higher wage than you.
It doesn’t take into account certain variants and reasons for men averaging a bigger salary. Lastly, let me just say that if it would be the case that men were getting paid more than women in the exact same positions then I would completely disagree with that

Pfft, statistics. You can use statistics to prove anything that’s event remotely true.

Yes they should be the same starting off, my partner was lucky to be alive after a girl drove so fast through a red light in her tiny little car that she managed to knock his van on its side and make it a right off nearly killing him in the process (thankfully he was ok) they should all start out the same male of female and later on it should be judged as your abilitly to be a good driver, me personally I will stick to walking them mammies on the school runs are fecking dangerous!!!

Only men commenting?

Meh. They play the odds. Insurance is like betting on the horses. It’s not sexism. At least not with a capital S.

This is equality for the sake of equality and nothing more and is most certainly a glaring example of gender legislation gone wrong. Young women in particular were not receiving cheaper insurance premiums due to what they do or do not have between their legs, their policy prices were based on the level of risk statistically associated with their demographic. Young women have less crashes, or at least crashes that are lesser in terms of the damage inflicted, that cost less money to insurance companies and thus received cheaper policies.

Young men on the other hand have been proven to be much more likely to cause massive crashes that cost a lot to cover and often result in the complete destruction of the lives of the people involved and thus drive the price up for other people who fit their demographic. These are facts and are backed by years of data.

People here are suggesting that the price of an individual’s policy should come down to their history and their history only. Well, that is an option but until a person has accrued history, how are they to be charged? Hint: The initial prices would be through the roof. The only feasible way such a thing could be integrated would be using telematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telematics); Placing units in everyone’s car and monitoring their speed, driving habits (acceleration/breaking frequency/etc), routes (whether they’re on black spots often or similar) and charging accordingly – people who drive through black spots frequently would be a higher risk therefore higher premium, people who drive erratically would be a higher risk, etc.

However, Irish people will not ever go for such a thing and thus the insurers are left short of the ability to model on a key statistic – gender – and are left with one option: raising the price for everyone.

People suggesting that they should remove age next should realise one thing: The more data they remove from the models, the more expensive it becomes for everyone. The more questions that can’t be answered about an insurance liability, the more they’ll have to charge.

This is a terrible deal for women and a short sighted, ignorant punt at equality for the sheer sake of it.

Yes ! But reduce it by age and lack of claims. ..

Yes it should because for years women have wanted to be equal so why think different on this?

A lot of the comments from men on this topic seem to be directed at women. If the premiums for men are higher because of statistics proving that men have more accidents, shouldn’t safe, sensible male drivers be directing their ire at the few dingbats who drive like lunatics and thereby raise the premiums for all men? This is not a gender equality issue, it is an insurance issue. Insurance is a business whose purpose is to make money – therefore rates are calculated according to risk. At least you won’t be causing too many road accidents up there on your high horses!

I already have health care to cover my bits and pieces and i could never understand why my motor insurance company charged me more when they found out i had a penis..
Some nightclubs let women (The dickless) in free but to be charged me an admission fee because i have a penis is unfair :(

All joking aside and as some posters stated here..
I don’t think it has anything to do with equality at this point….
The ladies policies will rise but the guys policies wont come down..
Just another way for the insurance industry to screw the public for more profit.

Should they be? probably. do i want them to be? no :L

womens insurance should be a set price… about ?2000 would be enough to keep them off the roads altogether

When I got my first car insured in 2006 it cost 3200 with a tracker in the car, my car was only worth 1000 (this was a 94 mica 1L) because I’ve got a set of ball. This is one of the few equal rights actions that is a good idea.

Why do 20% of the voters bother to click ‘I don’t know’ on an opinion poll? lol

Gender equality gone stark raving mad.

A lot of women up early on the school run this morning voting on this poll

It should not be up to insurance companies to restrict drivers such as young men with huge premiums – that is the Gardai and the governments job – who should be looking at ways to educate drivers properly and sanction poor drivers. The insurance companies are using this as an excuse to make huge amounts of money – nothing else.
The insurance companies should not be charging bigger premiums based on engine size, when the engine size difference is small. A focus 1.4 will make just as big a mess as a 2.0 Focus and the performance difference is not big enough to make the difference they claim (OK the very high performance models might justify a higher premium)

the problem stems from the fact many years ago it was decided to give the little ladies the right to vote. ever since then they thought that meant they were actually equal, yes i know astounding leap of thought. so now , not only do they want equal rights in everything, they think we are interested what they have to say. never will i understand the fairer sex.

Easy way is to insure the car not the driver, so that if a joy rider (male or female) steals your car and plough through 20 school kids its all insured! If someone repeatedly has bad accidents(their fault) then ban em they shouldn’t be on the road easy and all who step into a car are insured. As that little fury fella on the telly says “simple’s”

I reckon there should be a standard premium for a new policy holder for their first year of insurance. Then and only then will it go up or down depending on accidents and claims made. There would also need to be a database set up with collaboration from all insurance companies which would include the policy details about cover and the like and any and all claims made on that policy so that someone couldn’t get a constant low premium by switching to a new company every year.

Just my 2 cents.

If there were actuarial stats that showed woman should pay higher premiums there is no way such a discrimination would be allowed. Equality works both ways, period. People should not be discriminated based on gender.

Insurance in general discriminates. If it’s not male v female it’s claimed v unclaimed, experienced v inexperienced, young v old, that’s the nature of the business. If we apply eu logic, paddy powers should offer equal odds to all bets irrespective of expected outcome. The problem with insurance is they find any excuse to gouge prices and dont portray the statistic fairly, traditionally penalising men. If the statistic were applied fairly they would take into account the number of male drivers v the number of female drivers, the average milage of males v females the fact that the majority of female “crashes” are tips and bumps that go unreported etc. If this was applied fairly this would be a non issue.

I love how asking a question on insurance premiums results in a feminist flame-war. Insurance companies aren’t part of a great feminazi conspiracy. They’re in it to make money. People are weighted unfairly in the insurance industry all the time, but of course in this case it’s an excuse to go “SEE?!! Feminists ARE big hairy sexists after all!” *harrumph* If you have an issue with it, get organised and campaign like the rest of us and stop stamping your feet and pulling your pigtails while ultimately doing nothing about it. Still though, well played Journal. How’s the analytics looking? ;)

‘Statistics can be used to prove anything, 80% of all people believe this’ (Homer Simpson)

how about the cars get the little black boxes fitted which record your driving style which will give a realistic oppinion of peoples driving ?

Let’s face it, you place to much testosterone in a body and you are bound to see stupidity in all its’ glory. Have you ever watched a video where someone has uttered the words., “watch this…” it is almost always followed by someone getting hurt. I have yet to see a woman uttering those words. Perhpas that is why men SHOULD pay more for car insurance. to much testosterone and to little caution

Political correctness getting in the way of statistical facts. lols.

this is political correctness gone mad, and feeding in to the crass materialism of the insurance companies- I have a great idea- let’s invest in prostate screening for women and breast cancer screening for men….

They should regulate the prices Insurance Companies are allowed to charge. Oh wait, Fine Gael are free market capitalist… Spot the similarity to Fianna Fail.

Great article but it could have said , decrease in insurance costs for male drivers lol!!! If the women do take a hike in insurance I guarantee that male premium charges will not change, it’s a win win again!!!

I have no problem with equality in insurance as soon as I’m treated equally and paid the same as male co-workers. How’s that lads? How is it fair that women are still paid 21% less than men in the same position but yet we, as safer drivers statistically, will be made pay more due to it being sexist allowing us to pay less! How is that equality when women are clearly unequal in men’s eyes and paid as such!! Why should we pay more if we are safer drivers and also why should we pay more when we get paid less for equal work??? Would it not be fairer to everyone that individual premiums only go up due to unsafe driving, excessive penalty points etc instead of blindly tarring everyone with the same brush?

they will be looking to vote next

when pay etc is equal then insurance can be equal!

If you drive on any major road, and stay inside the speed-limit, 9 out of 10 times when you are overtaken by another car, the overtaken car is driven by a younger woman. and often, you will see the driver with a phone glued to the ear, so the sooner we get full equality in the insurance field, the better for all.
But do not get me wrong, most of the women are good drivers, they just like to stay ahead of the crowd. I think it is the ‘Catch me — if you can’ mentality they bring to the road.

I have brought this topic up before without a word of response from The Journal, apart from all their staff red-thumbing the query. But, I’m not that easily put off. If nothing happens, we can always write to the Irish Times, a real live paper.
The Big Question is: ‘what is the purpose of all these perpetual polls?’ We never get to see the results, so it is not for our edification. Advertising is big business and they rely on poll results to find their target audience. So it would seem that the Journal is selling on its results and not informing us of the facts. I am sure this must be covered by the Data Prevention Act in a peripheral sense. The Journal have neither denied or admitted that this is the case. Should they not do a revealing article about the subterfuge, as they are only too willing to about their oppositions transgressions?