It may not be fair to young women drivers. But it’s also not fair that I, with 20 years of unblemished driving am forced to pay 1/3 more than my wife who has 8 years of driving experience (also clean) in am equivalent car for equivalent cover. And it’s been that way for probably the last 5 years, when she had 3 years and I had 15 years experience.

It should have nothing to do with gender or age . It should go on your driving record. Drivers starting off should have high premiums that should go down once you have a few years no claims. It’s all just a money racket anyway

it’s a insurance scam to rip off a sector of society. most of the crashes are on B roads and insurance companies don’t pay out the highest claims for a single car crash where driver goes off the road and is killed… why don’t the insurance companies state the facts in terms of ? that is paid out in % of what was taken in for the sector of society they ripped off… AA has lost my respect long ago as they participate in this unfair practice. it took Europe to correct ! isn’t time our insurance was inline with UK pricing ?

I’m 32 with 7 years no claims bonus. I’ve never been in a crash. Yet, my insurance goes down when I put my ex on as a named driver. How on earth does that make sense?

On the other hand… if we’re to carry the logic of this to its full extent, insurance companies should have no right to load people for age, or for having pre-existing disease, in health insurance and life insurance.

This is all a joke. If there is to be no discrimination in society then that applies to ALL aspects and levels. Simple. Insurance companies make a fortune, so they could easily be made to just decrease rates to males so as to match those already in for females. But they won’t. Don’t get mad about the discrimination going away, get mad that they’re allowed to continue with reckless profiteering.

Also, there are bad drivers on both sides of the fence, male and female. So stop this “women suck at driving”/”young men should be banned” bullsh!t sniping. This kind of sexism doesn’t float anymore.

we should be able to buy 3rd party from the state who could make a small % and run for the benefit of all motorists and optional additional cover from insurance companies. this would soon have insurance companies competing for business instead of flecing a
captive audience

I presume the AA would like to represent motorists and back a proposal like this ?

I consider myself to be a good driver. The only crash I’ve been involved in was when i was stopped and a lady driver crashed into the back of me. Why should her insurance be cheaper than mine?

how far do we go if we are going down this route?

A cynic might suggest that we go to the point where it starts to cost you money and no further.

This should be an issue about statistics, not about gender.

One reason never really mentioned is that more men drive on the roads. Most men are lorry drivers or use work vehicles then women. And most women who do driving are doing so for shorter distances usually locally. So when they say more men are in accidents it’s because men are doing over 75% of the driving.

Actually the ignorance of this article suggests it is just an inflammatory piece – pretty lousy journalism if it is.

“shows that male drivers are three
times more likely to die in a traffic crash
than female car drivers”
how is this data compiled? if i a male driver get t boned by a female driver failing to stop at a t junction, and i am killed. would i be added to the statistic because i’m a dead male driver even though i’m not at fault?

I’ve always wondered about this. While women are proved to be safer drivers most statistics in include a per ratio figure. So while I agree women are safer drivers I ask what amount of young women drivers are there to young men. If the ratio of men is more then statistically men are more likely to have more accidents than women. Also who does more mileage. If men do more then statistically again they are more likely to have an accident.

There are a number of points that show the ignorance of a statement like “Statistically women are better drivers and there is no denying that fact.”

Statistically women are less aggressive than men – that doesn’t mean they are better drivers. Whilst aggressive driving certainly is linked to fatal collisions, there are plenty of collisions caused by other psychological traits like timidity, ignorance and stubbornness.

Women are less likely to notice a damaged tire and perform checks on their vehicles – relying instead on annual or biannual checks by mechanics. Does that make them better drivers? Are there statistics for this?

Is it right that a person should be precluded from driving – possibly denying them the opportunity to work – because insurance is heavily loaded against them simply because of their gender? If young men are priced out of the market for insurance – they are simply not going to get insurance. That increases the load on the state to cover uninsured drivers.

If you’re going to insist on using statistics, use a full range of arguments rather than just complaining about the rebalancing of an unjust and discriminatory policy. Equality and balance doesn’t work by taking and removing from only one side of the scales.

I would be very interested to see what the columnist’s response would be to research comparing driving skills by ethnicity. What if it turns out that Asians are better drivers than Europeans?

Equality only when it suits eh? Call me when fathers have some rights with regard their children

I heard that 90% of all statistics are wrong.

A totally unbiased and not at all sexist report there? All them years of women campaining for equal rights and now choosing which items they wasn’t equality on,. Although the insurance companies could have just lowered men’s insurance to level the cost but no profit on that for them

I would have no problem with them equalising loading for gender, if it meant that a male driver’s premium came down. Using this as an excuse to ramp up womens’ policies by up to 50% without any reduction in mens’ policies is a moneymaking exercise. People should focus less on the “my gender is a better driver” arguments and more on the fact that the insurance companies will be making a huge profit due to this ruling. There is nothing in the ruling to suggest that premiums shouldn’t be reduced for men as part of the equalisation procedure, yet it seems that mens’ premiums will remain as high as ever.

This a textbook example of statistical discrimination!! Would people be ok if employers opening used statistical discrimination? Imagine women being told that they are not getting the job because statistics show they will miss more time due to maternity leave and looking after their children when they get sick. That would not be right.

And the winner is …….

Wait for it……..

Insurance companies

It’s terrible that sexism still exists in this day and age.

You cannot generalise by gender as much as you cannot say that all people with Brown hair are better drivers. By the way haven’t women being looking for gender equality ?

well said Kevin
it’s time it’s called what it is. a scam to exploit a sector of society.

it’s a shame it had to be brought to a European court to have corrected as our government and justice system failed to address a blatant abuse…. fine all the insurance companies now and pay off the national debt…

“Statistically women are better drivers and there is no denying that fact.” You know what they say about statistics? About 6 years ago we researched this exact subject in college and we found similar statistics but when we looked a little closer we found that in fact more women were having more accidents than men but their accidents were costing less to put right. Just so you know like! ? :)

Miriam, your position on this subject is absolutely outrageous, I could not believe what I was reading, especially from your platform as the communications officer for the AA.

You are actually advocating that an INDIVIDUAL should be treated accoring to the statistical dmographic to which they belong, regardless of their individual characteristics and track record?

Using statistics to predict outcomes over large populations is fine, and it does make sense from a business perspective for the insurance companies, but it is a major leap to apply that data to the treatment of an INDIVIDUAL.

An example, so since the majority of prisoners in the USA are black males, we should treat all black males as criminals, regardless of their individual circumstances, is that what you are trying to tell us? That is EXACLTY your logic.

Another example closer to the topic, using the same research and applying your logic, Dublin Bus should be allowed to discriminate against female drivers and refuse them a job because stattistically they are not as good at low speed manoevering and spatial awareness as men, which is a more relevant factor in that type of driving. Is that what you want to say?

I am male, I have been driving for 20 years and I have never had any type of accidednt, not even a “knock”, nor any penalty points and I have covered over 200,000 miles. Yes you think I should be treated as a dangererous driver because of my gender.

Sorry, Miriam, but I thought that was called sexism.

I tihnk you owe the male customers of the AA a public apology .

How come pilots are given credit for the amount of hours they have flown instead of being penalized for being more likely to be involved in a crash?

Why is it that women’s insurance is going up and not men’s insurance coming down ???

That’s your chances of ever getting my business gone! Instead of increasing women’s premiums insurance companies should be lowering the premiums of male drivers who have had no claims. Thus rewarding their good driving!

There is technology available to remotely monitor average speed between two points. With the use of GPS this data is compared to local speed limits. This tech should be mandatory for high risk drivers. It’s win for insurance companies (less claims) and win for drivers (smaller premiums and safer roads).
As a young male driver I’ve been forced to pay annual premiums of up to €2000 even though I have never been in an accident. The small initial cost of installing this tech would have saved me thousands of euros.
I know some atrocious drivers, male and female. I am not one of them. Please stop penalising me.

I have been thinking about this since it was on the journal on monday
Safe driving is not based on a person’s gender I know crap men drivers & crap women drivers it really depends on the person, though apparentlys statistics show women are more likely to be involved in fender benders than men who tend to go the whole hog and write the car off when they are in accidents!

Personally, I think an insurance premium should be based on the following criteria:

A) The amount of mileage you do every year (the more you drive the more you pay because someone driving long hours every day covers more miles and fatigue is a factor in accidents)

B) Your age (the younger the driver the higher the premium, young people of either gender do not have much driving experience)

C) The number of AT FAULT accidents you have had in the last 10 years (you should not be penalised for accidents where the other driver is 100% at fault like for example where moron ran a red light and ploughed into the side of your car) This should include Fender Benders just as much as write offs

D) The number of penalty points you have (all of them should be included no disregarding the first 2 and points should be weighted so if you have points for dangerous driving/careless driving or speeding they should cost more than points for no seatbelt for example)

E) The engine size and value of your car (the more expensive your car the more the insurance has to cough up if it is written off and engine size is a factor a 1litre car is less likely to be involved in a high speed collision that a 2l diesel I would think)

F) Your profession (on the road sales people or those who would be driving at night should face higher premiums)

G) Where you live (A car in the backs of beyond in Leitrim is less likely to get stolen than one in Limerick city and theft is one of the risks covered by insurance)

I honestly don’t think any other factors should matter really

Men agreeing with this change in policies are really biting their nose off to spite their face. The insurance companies will be loving having to charge females more due to EU law. Any man celebrating that his wife or girlfriend has to fork out more money for old rope needs to take a step back here and realise that men aren’t the winners here – the insurance companies are.

They structure their premiums in a blantantly unfair manner. Instead of loading for higher risk, they discount for lower risk so males don’t pay more, females pay less. And that is no longer going to be the case. So all the claims of who is better at what is completely missing the point that thousands of households are now going to be down the equivalent of a household charge per year because the females within that household will no longer qualify for a discount for being part of a gender that makes fewer claims.

And FYI – that’s the correct way to talk about this. It’s not about who is a better driver – that’s down to the individual person. Women result in fewer claims statistically and that’s all the insurance companies care about. Anyone who wants to use that to score points on the opposite sex is as sexist as that sexist they know and hate.

That is a complete load of nonsense.
“The Road Safety Authority Collision Fact Book shows that male drivers are three times more likely to die in a traffic crash than female car drivers. That is a huge discrepancy. Statistically women are better drivers and there is no denying that.”
That is a massive jump to make from the statistics show that male drivers are three times more likely to die than female drivers and therefore females are “better drivers”, and shows the danger of statistics. Can the Road Safety Authority tell me what is the average mileage travelled per year for males and the same for females? I bet you any amount of money they can’t and therefore that statistic above is completely without context and is therefore meaningless.

Statistics produced from psychological studies show the opinions of men tend to be more convincing and held in higher regard by the general population…

So Miriam why should the journal bother asking you to write an opinion piece when its been proven a man would be more effective at doing the job of convincing us of the point… It’s just bad business. Should they not at the very least be allowed to pay you less?

Has any research been conducted into whether black or white drivers have less crashes? I assume the AA would support discriminatory premiums based on race? How about gay/straight drivers? Christian/Muslim? If you’re going to do this, do it right.

Your statistics are clearly skewed anyway. Have you taken into account miles driven by men per year vs miles driven by women per year? If the ratio was (for instance) 7:3, your claim that women are better drivers, based on fatalities, would instantly become completely invalid. It’s pretty much invalid anyway, as fatalities from road accidents have very little to do with the number of accidents that occur. Let me give you an example.

In one accident, a woman is driving at 65km/h on a 100km/h road, on her phone, doing her make up, whatever, and crashes into a car that is slowing down in front of her. Due to her low speed, she doesn’t die.

In another, a man is driving at 100km/h in a 100km/h limit, a tyre blows out, he crashes into a tree and dies. Based on your statistics, he is the worse driver. Is that accurate?

That’s not to mention how many accidents are caused by women drivers, even if they are not themselves involved in them. Allow me to give you another case- the only major accident I have ever been involved in:

Pulling out onto an 80km/h road, a young female driver came around the bend after I had pulled out. By the time she had caught up with me I was doing maybe 70, but she flew past nevertheless, easily doing 100, and overtaking on a blind corner with a solid white line. As we came around the corner, a car was approaching from the opposite direction, so she pulled in about 4 feet from my front bumper and slammed on the brakes. The ’2 second rule’ out the window, I had no possibility of stopping in time, and went into the back of her. I was liable.

Tell me who was the bad driver in that case?

A final point: feminists are always screeching for equality. You’ve got it. Stop complaining about it.

Totally agree with the EU directive. To me I think it’s totally discriminatory for women to get cheaper insurance. Not all men are risk takers or careless when driving. People should be assessed individually and not be judged stereotypically. But, then again, I’m a man. Lol

Men make better politicians… scrap gender quotas in the Dail.

No one can say that women are better drivers, that’s just a moronic thing to suggest as it has no basis in fact and cannot be factually proved either. I have heard alot of feminists complain about this move this week which has made me laugh a little. There is no doubt about it, young men cause more accidents on our roads and as a 28 year old male driver driving motorbikes and cars since I was 17 I know all about being discriminated against because of my sex, even with zero penalty points and an 11 year no claims bonus.

What I find amusing is feminists wanting to use facts when it suits them and disregard them when it suits them as well. Two weeks ago I was blocked by a feminist who I questioned and suggested was being dramatic by suggesting that saying a business woman was also a mother in a profile interview was sexist. When a woman has a child, she is commonly referred to as a mother, that is a fact. Men make of 50% of a new life, that is a fact, yet the courts and ppl of this land don’t treat men as 50% involved in a childs life in a seperation context. Less women enter politics, another fact which is being manipulated by the gender quotas. I could go on and on. I think this is a moronic move and in fact because I have always paid such high insurance because of my sex I actually couldn’t give two hoots, however, what is good for the goose is good for the gander I am afraid. The OTT PC equality chickens are coming home to roost, feminists complaining now when it doesn’t suit them just looks silly, proof of that in this very article!

So Miriam, you want equality when it favours woman and “fairness” when it favours woman. If there were stats that loaded woman’s premiums solely based on gender you would no doubt be the first to be up in arms. Equality means just that and discrimination based on gender has no place in modern society. Your arguments do the feminist cause no justice but rather reinforce stereotypes.

How does the number of crashes relate to the number of km/hours behind the wheel? It seems that 95% of commercial drivers are men and while it’s not like the 1950s any more, men are still more likely to drive on family trips etc. Basically, men do more driving. So, if crashes are proportional to distance driven, this needs to be the factor that decides premium.

If you are a male your risk of being in an accident is higher. These statistics take into account the higher number of males on the road and numerous other adjustments because it is in the insurance companies interest to have an accurate assessment of risk. Our gender’s propensity to take risks is the same trait which led explorers across oceans, social revolutions and new enterprise for centuries but we have to accept that statistically it makes us less safe.

That said double standards do exist. For example if it was discovered that a women between 25-30 were being charged a higher insurance policy because of the higher probability that she would have a baby at this age and therefore require far more healthcare, well you could imagine the backlash. And most men would probably be outraged as well. Even if the roles were reversed, and if women were found to be costing insurance companies more in high volume, low cost claims, I can’t help but imagine that this court ruling would have happened a lot sooner, and be more quickly accepted as fair and just.

Hopefully this will at least force insurance insurers to gather more relevant data when giving quotes. For example the driving assessments offered by some companies which are linked to discounts will probably become more widespread. Perhaps online personality assessments etc. and these things can only be fairer than sweeping generalisations based on gender, no?

The premise of this article is that it is unfair to charge female drivers more because they are involved in fewer crashed than men: true. So why is it not unfair to charge all the sensible young male drivers more for insurance when they have never been in road accidents, and may never be in the future?

It’s women that cause the men to crash By not driving it on

What a disgusting, arrogant article.

“We” are better drivers. Really? You assume you are a better driver than me just because of the way you were born? Well, I am a part of the gender that produces all the best Forumla 1 drivers, so I must be a better driver than you, right? My gender also cured polio and invented the ipod, so I must be a better inventor too. I’m also a better poet, novelist, playwrite and musician, and I’m a far better pilot. So maybe you should defer to me on all matters related to the arts, science, aviation and medicine as well as motoring.

Or, we could judge people for who they are instead of what they are

I pride myself on being a safe and cautious driver and after 10 years accident free I think I’ve proven that so I’m glad that I will no longer be discriminated against for being a male driver when paying for insurance. Ok, the premiums have come down over the years and are a lot more manageable now but when I stared driving at the age of 23 my first insurance policy cost around ?4,300 from Quinn Direct, and they were the only insurance company who were willing to insure me! I’ve been robbed blind paying for insurance over the years to cover me for accidents I never had or that I’m highly unlikely to have in the future.

bottom line is in the end women will probably end up paying the same as men for insurance from next year, its not like men will end up paying the same as women, you can be sure the insurance companies will just up there prices for women and blame it on the EU, at the end of the day some men won’t feel as discriminated againest but you can be sure you will still be paying the same next year as this year or perhaps slightly more.

women get pregnant and take long stints off for martenity leave. they expect to get paid as does the temp who is replacing them Women should get paid less. how does that sound Miram?
you can’t pick and choose when to be P.C.

Also in your Second last paragraph you quote percentages of 22% of males will tailgate and 17% of female said they would tailgate. How many people did you questions, how many males, how many females. In what age groups, locations…

The Mayans predicted it! End of the world for female drivers.

Any chance of judging a driver on their driving history. From what I’ve seen having penalty points makes darn all difference to an insurance quote. Insurance companies need to penalise drivers more when they have penalty points, for example losing a year or 2 off their no claims discount.

This lady needs to climb down off her high horse, take a good sniff of the ‘feminist’s-equality-drive-legacy-coffee’ and suck it up. Based on this display, I genuinely hope that her driving is better than her communications skills.

It’s not as if as an AA employee she wouldn’t get a nice big discount on her own premium is it? All her feigned empathy with the female motorists which her employer’s insurance division are about to rip off, strikes me as nothing but crocodile tears.

If woman have less money for make up that you put on while driving, that’s a good thing, isn’t it?

I agree middled aged men are arseholes on the road

Where is this poll you refer to where 20 percent of males said they would race on a public road? Did you take it outside a courthouse?

You talk about fairness. How is it fair that I have a flawless driving record for 12 years yet still get penalised based purely on the fact tha I can stand up when I use the toilet. You think gender should be a valid reason. So what about race? Many of those driving who are not white are coming from a different country with different driving rules. So should the insurance company be able to able to discriminate based on race and country of origin too?

You mentioned where people live being a factor in loading. I know for a fact that the loading placed on people in relation to where they live is completely random and fabricated with no though put into it. I’ve been the victim of it twice, each time moving from to a place with a lower crime rate and each time being loaded with an extra premium based on made up statistics.

All you’ve demonstrated in this article is that insurance companies will take any opportunity they can to screw you for more money. I suppose I owe you thanks though as i now know not to bother going to the AA for my insurance renewal. If insurance companies want to be believed in any way they should be more open with their customers. Completel disclosure of your premium calculations in relation to area, experience, car type. Show us these statistics that you like to shout about all the time.

It’s a touchy subject whatever way you look into it, just remember that the real enemy is neither men nor women but the insurance companies.

If men think they are better drivers then women why is it that women’s insurance is going up and not men’s insurance coming down ???

in California, a young black male is statistically more likely to end up in jail than his white male counterpart. However, it’s illegal to discriminate along these lines for the same reason it is now illegal to discriminate along gender lines here. I should not be discriminated against because I have a penis any more than I should be discriminated against for the colour of my skin.

Good article. I read somewhere that women do have more minor accidents but men kill and are killed much more on the roads. It’s hard not to see how when you see the armies of skangers in their souped up ’98 Imprezas modified to oblivion, using roundabouts , dual carriageways and housing estates as their personal racing tracks every night.

I said the exact same thing in a comment on another Journal piece – equality and fairness are NOT the same thing. For years politicians, the media and the new leftist consensus that exists between them have been pushing the equality message down our throats, and while I agree with it on some levels ( equal pay for both genders etc), it often fails to acknowledge people ARE different, have different abilities, outlooks and circumstances.

Unfortunately, equality is a cheap political point scoring tool for politicians, so we can expect this type of thing to continue. Men will also be penalised under the new legislation as pension annuties will be harmonised as well even though men die younger than women statistically. A small elite have made their equality bed but we all have to share it with them.

Speak for yourself! One of my best talents is parallel parking and overtaking slow coach men.

So therefore men should be paid more then women across the board. Men are not going to take 6 months leave after having a child and are therefore the better workers. Write a Column on that and see what happens.

I have a perfect driving record for 25 years. Why should I be victimised by insurance companies for being a man? The only reason for the uproar is because equality is now being applied to men. For years women didn’t like being discriminated against, quite rightly too. This is the other side of that coin.

The whole system is flawed. Old people are extremely dangerous to themselves mostly on the road but they have the lowest premiums. Our driving test is very outdated, you can pass your test without being able to parallel park. Madness.

As a motorcyclist I can tell both men and women in cars are in equal danger of killing me by not looking. Even with two headlights on, a light coloured bike and reflective jacket. I still hear I didn’t see you

I’ve no problem with the insurance hikes I don’t think gender should be a factor. However I do think inexperience should be. Why not limit new drivers or those under 25 to 80kph? Make it a legal requirement for their cars to have a speed limitation device like some trucks?

go back to bed and switch off your computer

Miriam, you’re right. Women are better drivers. That’s why they dominate world motor sports..oh wait!!….

Wow. The thing that I can’t believe these days is how you’re able to get away with saying things like that.
If I was to judge an entire race, creed or gender based on a minority I would be rightly criticized but here you are saying that all men should be punished based on the few.
Admit it, the only reason you think it’s right is because you were getting cheaper premiums. If it was the other way around based on your parking statistics there would be uproar. I am a careful driver, never been in an accident and will fight to not be judged based on other members of my gender. The same as I would fight for your rights to equal pay. Women spent decades fighting for equality. Take the good AND the bad or take nothing.

I think all women should be banned from driving

Similar arguments:

Certain areas have a higher crime rate than others. Therefore, we should tax people in these areas to pay more for prisons as these people are more likely to use them, a ‘crime’ insurance.

Older people should pay far more for health insurance as they are more likely to use it.

Women should be taxed more as they use maternity services.

The point of anti-discrimination laws has nothing to do with statistics and majorities. It is about protecting those who may be tarred with the same brush due to factors outside of their control.

This is a win/win situation for the insurance ‘ bookies ‘ since they are merely raising women’s premiums, instead of bring men’s down & women’s up, to meet at a median point, – which would be much fairer, in the context of the EU directive, – with which I am not in total agreement. The EU have simply given the insurers an excuse to screw even more money out of us in these tough times.
I

The roads would be safer if the following categories were banned from driving cars on the roads: 1) all males under 25 years of age 2) all females

” Women really ARE better drivers “…..Really…??
- Why are ALL the best drivers in the World men..?? – Formulas 1, 2 ,3. Rally drivers, Can-Am, stock car racers,…etc..etc.
Men LIKE driving, & clock up far more miles than women, thus exposing them to greater risk.
Younger males tend to view their car as an extension of their masculinity, driving aggressively to impress the girls, or their mates, & it takes a long time for them to mature out of this behaviour, – hence the higher mortality rate.
Young women are SAFER drivers, – I’ll grant you that…

A pretty massive consensus against this article in the comments.

Completely agree and exactly what I said on Monday…men take more risks and their crashes are more serious due to speeding, etc.

In women, the capability is just not there but as most of them are conscious of that limitation, they drive more slowly and their crashes are limited to “touches”.

theres a reason why God invented buses..women can apply their make-up,talk on phone,text,drink coffee and chat,safe in the knolwedge that their female bus driver is doing the exact same.

If women are better drivers where are all the professional female drivers. I have known only about 6 or 7 female truck drivers & they normally only last 4 maybe 5 years. If the men are doing all the driving then we must be expected to do all the crashing as well. I dont know that many females driving taxis or buses or any professionals vehicles for that matter. I think we should see more of them before we take these statistics serious.

All that article says is women are safer drivers (if its the number of crashes that determines safer drivers) not that they are better drivers. And going with the logic in this, men are bigger and stronger statistically and therefore should automatically be paid more in manual labour jobs so by default despite their abilities just because they’re men. Women shouldn’t get a better insurance deal just because they’re women, a drivers ability is what should determine the cost.

Men pay higher premiums because women are less likely to claim their insurance therefore reducing the amount of claims and reducing the premiums for women

This was bound to be changed as I could smell a court case on the horizon. The next one is ageism. Does insurance get more expensive also when you’re 80 years old, half blind with dodgy ticker and prone to sleep apnea? Do you have to produce your license from the ’40′s to prove you passed your test? Motor insurance as a whole is the main culprit here. It’s a conflict of interest to make having motor insurance as a legal requirement, policed by the state when its priced and run by the private sector. It’s a lovely little club, heaping the the highest premiums on to the sectors of society who need their cars the most to provide for their families.

Women are worse drivers. They are involved in more crashes. Men are better drivers in general but the gobsh1tes who drive dangerously ruin lives. Almost all car crashes are avoidable. I find it is absolutely crazy that there are any deaths on the road knowing this.

Got rear ended by a woman this morning…

They do this with health premiums too, why should car insurance be different plus if you going to say men and women should be treated equally when it comes to car insurance then shouldn’t we young drivers be treated equally to older drivers? I’ve been driving almost a year and take huge care when in the road and found myself to be more careful than the older drivers who have caused numerous accidents due to their relaxed approach to driving.

“The Road Safety Authority Collision Fact Book shows that male drivers are three times more likely to die in a traffic crash than female car drivers. That is a huge discrepancy. Statistically women are better drivers and there is no denying that fact.”

The fatality numbers do not necessarily mean that women are better drivers than men. If, for example, there were 3 times as many men on the road than women, or men spent in total 3 times as long as women on the road, then anything less than 3 times the fatality rate would necessarily mean that female drivers are statistically more dangerous than male. Additionally you would have to correct for the type of vehicle used, I’d imagine that in general men are more likely to be driving vehicles, like heavy industrial vehicles, which simple momentum would dictate should escalate the seriousness of any accident. Additionally as we are one of the countries with the very highest difference between the insurance rates of male and female drivers, it would be nice to see the statistical figures that support this.

I’m not aware of the figures that accurately represent this data, though I’m sure they exist (and if somebody knows them I’d appreciate a pointer in the right direction). But if you base your argument off statistics, then it might be a good idea to quote the statistics which reflect the argument you are trying to make instead of the more attention grabbing ones you actually used.

I stopped reading after the headline.
Women are certainly NOT better drivers

Statistics can point to anything you want, but prove nothing. They are a tool for lazy journalists. What about the amount of non fatal accidents involving women?

As soon as any column uses the words ‘women are better ‘ you know its false

And I am not being sexist…sexist was god, who mad men better drivers!

Insurance, particularly car insurance, is a very bizarre form of gambling.

Essentially you are betting against a company that you’ll have an accident. You are saying, “OK I’m pretty sure I’ll have an accident and if I do you have to pay out to me.”

So they look at the risk, and they look at the statistics and they take a base rate and they factor in your age, your gender, your driving history and all sorts of other segmentation factors and they take the bet at their rate because if they pay out they might have to pay out big style, like if you render the O’Connell Bridge unusable for six months (or as with one of my mates render the busiest road in Cyprus unusable for 3 days over New Years, yes, really, you don’t want to see his premiums). Then that will get factored into other people who fit that profile and their rates will go up and that is fair because it is them that is taking the risk. You are mitigating your risk by making that bet in the first place.

And this is why saying that they can’t factor in gender is utterly risible. It is, if you like, Political Correctness gone stark raving mad.

It is their risk. You are mitigating your risk by passing it to them.

Take regular gambling, when you make a bet with a bookie they don’t want to pay out. Imagine if you were betting on a match between the Irish men’s team and the women’s team, in any sport except possibly hockey. What if the odds offered favoured the men’s team. Would that be a sexually equality issue?

And when did regulation from on high without considering the impact really do anyone any good?

Yes, Women are safer drivers, but no, insurance shouldn’t reflect this.

Men are on average better workers (taking less time off when they start a family for example), but we do not allow salary, or promotability to reflect this. Same thing.

(Remember this EC ruling, also means that men will pay more for life assurance, since women live longer they sometimes pay more. this ruling applies the same logic and forces men to pay more.)

About time it’s coming in, actually makes it fair for the sensible young male drivers!!!