TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

UK: Men still paying more than women for car insurance five years after EU ruling.

furchfur

September 25, 2017
112 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/insurance/car/men-still-paying-women-car-insurance-five-years-eu-ruling/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title UK: Men still paying more than women for car insurance five years after EU ruling.
Author

furchfur

Upvotes 112
Comments 38
Date September 25, 2017 4:41 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/72dnnz/uk_men_still_paying_more_than_women_for_car/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/uk-men-still-paying-more-than-women-for-car.913862
https://theredarchive.com/post/913862
Top posts by furchfur

UK: Innocent student wrongly accused of rape calls for anonymity for sex assault defendants until they are found guilty.

17408 upvotes
December 18, 2017
/r/MensRights

Thousands of dads are left in shock as DIY paternity tests soar. Up to 30,000 tests are being performed every year, says Alphabiolabs. In the UK about 750,000 babies are born every year. Feminists want the test to be illegal without the written consent of the mother.

4746 upvotes
January 13, 2019
/r/MensRights

Male rape survivors tell of their battle to have their voices heard after being told ‘men are the attackers, women are the victims’

4394 upvotes
April 14, 2017
/r/MensRights

16yo female 'prodigy' developer's app was actually written by a male programmer.

4210 upvotes
February 6, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Mother-of-two, 40, falsely branded a neighbour a sex offender because he 'made too much noise building a guinea pig hutch in his garden'. It seems for many women if they do not get their way they make a false sex allegation knowing a man is not protected by the law.

3937 upvotes
March 4, 2019
/r/MensRights

Female British YouTube vlogger accuses Dublin hotel of bullying her after it refused her request to stay there for free and posted their scathing response saying she 'lacked dignity' online

3871 upvotes
January 18, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Nearly 500 men and boys are freed from 'house of torture' Islamic boarding school where they were chained up, raped by staff and starved 'in the name of teaching them the Koran' in Nigeria. OP: We will see how much media coverage this gets.

3825 upvotes
September 27, 2019
/r/MensRights

Teenager, 18, who lied that ex-boyfriend drugged and raped her after he refused to rekindle their romance is convicted of wasting police time

3747 upvotes
May 29, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

men are still paying more - because insurers' data continues to rate the majority of male drivers as a riskier proposition.

So they can still take gender into account during modeling? What bullshit.

[–]cld8 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it says they are taking gender into account. They may be rating male drivers as a riskier proposition because men buy more expensive cars, get into more accidents, etc.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So your saying a man with a cheap car who has been in no accidents will pay exactly the same as a woman? Doesn't sound that way to me.

[–]cld8 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes, exactly. All other things being equal, a man and woman will pay the same. The reason there is a gap is because all other things are not equal.

[–]DontTrustRedditors 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But they're literally using gender to determine that all else is not equal.

There is no difference between this, and what is already ruled illegal in health insurance. you're just another lying feminist apologist.

[–]cld8 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You clearly don't understand this issue. They are not "using gender to determine that all else is not equal". If you think that is the case, please go back and take a statistics class.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The reason there is a gap is because all other things are not equal.

You're saying there are no men in Britain driving cheap cars and who have clean driving records? Not even one?

[–]cld8 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, that is not what I'm saying. Where did you pull that out of?

Gaps in things like this are calculated by looking at averages over an entire population, not individuals.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So just to be clear, does this hypothetical good male driver pay the same or more than a woman for car insurance?

[–]cld8 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All other things being equal (same driving record, same car, same location, and so on), a male and female driver will pay the same.

[–]DontTrustRedditors 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is literally no difference between doing that, and charging women more for health insurance because women 1) are more likely to use health insurance and 2) typically undergo more costly procedures during their lifetime.

What, do you libertarians have some kind of psychotic obsession with this sub? Because none of you ever go into feminist conversations and pull this shit.

[–]cld8 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Assuming that companies are following the law and not considering gender, I don't see anything wrong with this. If the gap is due to other factors such as men buying more expensive cars or getting into more accidents, then that is fine.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"Men get into more accidents" is exactly what looking at gender means.

[–]cld8 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, it isn't. You aren't understanding how this works.

If an insurance company raises premiums of people who get into excessive accidents, then there is no gender discrimination, even if this happens to impact men more. Gender discrimination would be raising the premiums of all men regardless of their driving record, because they are part of a group that gets into more accidents. That is illegal in the UK and there is no evidence that it is happening.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ah, I didn't realize you meant the statistics were taken after the fact. I agree then, sorry.

[–]cld8 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No problem. Thanks for looking into it rather than getting defensive as some people do.

[+]DontTrustRedditors -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're a libertarian. The only reason you people pretend to care about the men's rights movement, is to hold it back and prevent anyone from doing anything that might be effective.

the movement would literally be better off without you people. You don't believe that the government should do anything at all, so what the fuck business do you have in political advocacy, other than to tell people not to engage in political advocacy?

[–]cld8 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you reply to the wrong post? This is a discussion of car insurance in the UK. I have no idea what being libertarian (which I am not) has to do with any of this.

[–]JohnKimble111 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't have an issue with this, some male drivers are more reckless and obviously men do a hell of a lot more driving than women so there's inevitably going to result in more accidents, even if it's less accidents per mile than women.

Contrary to the tone of the article, there has been a win for men here. Before the ruling insurers were simply charging more to men for being men, whereas now they've been forced to charge more to high risk or higher mileage male drivers.

So, while males as a group might be paying the same overall, individual men will be paying a fairer price based on their their actual driving habits/abilities and not being discriminated against so much.

I suppose there might still be some discrimination in the insurance companies targeting types of cars that appeal to men/women, but it's certainly less blatant than before.

[–]NebulousASK 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Much like with the gender earnings gap, this isn't due to gender discrimination. When insurance companies take vehicle, accident history, and driving habits into account, men on average pay more.

There's nothing nefarious here and the results make sense.

[–]Lethn 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

They are pricing based on gender, that is the very definition of discrimination. I'm beginning to think that the only reason there are people moronic enough to defend this practice is because they know they benefit from young drivers in particular getting fucked on car insurance costs.

vehicle, accident history, and driving habits into account

They don't though do they? Even the Guardian is admitting this, you either believe in gender equality or you don't. You price insurance based on the value of the car, not the driver, if they've fucked up then you can charge them more but this really is a load of shite.

Also, let's not forget, it's all well and good you moaning on about statistics, the facts are very few people especially young people can afford £600 or more a year for a bloody car, they are literally being priced off the road.

[–]Argosy37 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You price insurance based on the value of the car, not the driver, if they've fucked up then you can charge them more but this really is a load of shite.

No, you price insurance based on the chances of the driver having an accident. Various demographic factors might come into play here.

I personally don't have a problem with this in itself. What I do have a problem with is that it's illegal to charge women more for health insurance despite them using more healthcare, but it's not to charge men more for car insurance.

[–]Lethn 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, you price insurance based on the chances of the driver having an accident. Various demographic factors might come into play here.

Yes, demographic factors, in other words gender, it doesn't matter what language you try to dress it up in it's discrimination. It's the equivalent of denying blacks for example who have never been involved in crime a gun because they're so likely to get involved in gang violence.

This is original sin playing out, punishing the individual for the actions of a group they belong to biologically. Yes, my example is ridiculous, but so is the example of using statistics to justify charging young men in particular several times more for car insurance.

If people did this over race, there would rightly be outrage, but as ever as long as it's male bashing it's totally fine, I would say you're correct about it being ridiculous to do this with something that is compulsory, but that is all the more reason to be against it, that is literally the only reason I give a shit about this.

If I want to drive, I have no choice but to accept these ridiculous costs that have come about for no other reason than the fact that I'm young and I happen to have a dick.

[–]cld8 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

They are pricing based on gender, that is the very definition of discrimination.

No, they aren't.

[–]DontTrustRedditors 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Yes, they are. There is no difference between the factors you point out, and the factors that are specifically made illegal to when it comes to charging women more for health insurance.

[–]cld8 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Yes, there is a very big difference. It is illegal to charge more based on gender, but it is perfectly legal to charge more for someone who has a bad driving record. If men, on average, have worse driving records, then on average they will pay more. There is nothing sexist about that.

[–]Tamen_ 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Women, on average, take more sick-leave and have more visits to the doctor than men. Does that justify a higher health insurance in your view?

[–]Lethn 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You can't compare car insurance and healthcare in reality, healthcare has to be priced on the individual and how much they cost to look after, car insurance is 'car' insurance, yet the pricing is done based on the driver and not the vehicle.

[–]Tamen_ 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No insurance is purely based on the individual, there is always a collective element. Also for health insurance.

The pricing on car insurance is absolutely also based on the vehicle. Try to get an insurance quote for a Toyota Prius versus a BMW M4 GTS. Do you really think the price will be the same?

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

No insurance is purely based on the individual, there is always a ** collective element**.

That's you pretty much admitting I'm right.

Try to get an insurance quote for a Toyota Prius versus a BMW M4 GTS. Do you really think the price will be the same?

As a matter of fact there's barely a difference, let's talk numbers and believe me I have them.

So a Toyata aygo ice 2012, possible one of the most standard cars out there you could get, no massive engine or anything.

£1,229.35 Annually, plus £300 in excess fees.

You add telematics on that's £1,080.80 £400 in excess fees, so they actually have the exact same price but they just added extra on to the fucking excess fees to screw me.

Now this is where it gets hilarious.

Mini cooper sport chili 2013, a much better and nicer car, by the logic of people who know nothing I should be charged ridiculous amounts for what is technically a sports car even if it's only a mini but guess what?

£1,189.91 Annually, £300 excess, with telematics, £965.91 and £450 excess, so they've done the exact same thing and tried to hide the price from me in order to make it seem like I'm getting a better deal for telematics but they're sneakily adding the cost onto the excess fees so I'd be way better off just getting regular insurance.

So not only are they charging me as the individual, because the morons are doing that I am actually better off if I buy the really nice mini cooper S they hate so much. While that's great, I'm still being charged ridiculous amounts purely because I'm 27 and I have a dick despite the fact that I have a 2 years no claims bonus. Literally the only thing that happened to me in the time I was driving that was anything to worry about was me reversing into a car in a car park. First real incident of my life but there was no harm done and we did an out of court settlement and there was no issue, there was no one even in the car at the time.

So look at those numbers and I dare you to tell me again they aren't charging on the individual, I think the older drivers in particular have no fucking clue how bad it is for young men when it comes to car insurance because of how cheap they have it. By the way, this is for full comprehensive policies, with third party insurance it actually gets more expensive in some cases or stays exactly the same depending on what car I chose.

This wasn't just me picking out a model by the way either, I do thorough research and pick out cars from ebay and put in their registration numbers, so If I bought either of these cars tomorrow this is what I'd be charged.

[–]Tamen_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You:

healthcare has to be priced on the individual and how much they cost to look after

Me:

No insurance is purely based on the individual, there is always a collective element.

You:

That's you pretty much admitting I'm right.

It did sound like you implied health insurance was priced based only on the individual.

Did you try to see if there was any difference between the Prius and the M4? I must admit I was surprised there was such a small difference between the Aygo and the Cooper S. Might be regional differences though as in my country there is an almost 25% difference in insurance price between a Toyota Aygo first registered in 2013 and a Mini Cooper S first registered in 2013.

Between the Toyota Prius 2017 model and an BMW M4 2017 model the price difference was more than 100% more for insuring the BMW.

[–]cld8 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It justifies a higher health insurance for those individuals (regardless of gender) who take more sick-leave and have more visits to the doctor. If that happens to be mostly women, that's fine. However, the company should not raise the premiums of all women because of this.

[–]Tamen_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The thing is that the extreme outcome of that line of thought is that you only end up taking individual traits and actions into account. And then you no longer have any collectivism and it isn't insurance anymore.

[–]cld8 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but you don't need to take it to the extreme. You can still have collectivism, but it can't be based on protected characteristics like gender or race. You can still adjust the premiums based on other things like driving record, miles driven, location and so on.

[–]DontTrustRedditors -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And this is why this sub is useless. It's full of idiot libertarians pretending to be MRAs, who are here for no other reason than to derail the movement.

[–]cld8 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just because we support men's rights doesn't mean we have to yell "discrimination" at the first sign of potential inequality. Frankly, that is what feminists do. They see numbers like "women make 87 cents to a man's dollar" and conclude it must be due to discrimination and sexism without looking deeper into how those numbers are calculated. Let's not make the same mistake here. Just because the average man pays more for car insurance than the average woman doesn't mean that insurance companies are sexist, just as the "wage gap" doesn't mean that employers are sexist.

[–]NebulousASK 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When feminists care about ideology rather than facts, they are wrong.

When you do it, it's still wrong.

Sorry not sorry that my interest in the truth detracts from furthering your cause at the expense of honesty.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Brexit in two years.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter