Car Insurance workers, help with a stats question please?

[omgus]

Is there anyway i can find out the actual breakdown of % male and female crashes against the number of males/females that are insured? I know men are involved in more accidents, but what is the difference proportionally?

So say male drivers outnumber female drivers 60/40 then what is the proportional accident rate per every hundred male drivers vs every hundred female drivers?

I am arguing that it is probably a lot closer than my friend assumes because they cannot grasp that there isn't an exact 50/50 male/female split of iunsured drivers in the country.

It's for a facebook arguement so it's not mega urgent but i would like to know.

Thanks.

[ZOLLAR]

To be honest it'll vary depending on the insurer, Men have less claims but when they do claim it tends to be a higher cost where as women claim more often but the costs are lower.

Also it'll vary upon age too on some stats I saw recently above the age of 50 men are safer drivers yet with other insurers it will be different.

[omgus]

ZOLLAR said:

To be honest it'll vary depending on the insurer, Men have less claims but when they do claim it tends to be a higher cost where as women claim more often but the costs are lower.

Also it'll vary upon age too on some stats I saw recently above the age of 50 men are safer drivers yet with other insurers it will be different.

Damn it ZOLLAR, i want stats, pie graphs and at least one spreadsheet.

[ZOLLAR]

omgus said:

ZOLLAR said:

To be honest it'll vary depending on the insurer, Men have less claims but when they do claim it tends to be a higher cost where as women claim more often but the costs are lower.

Also it'll vary upon age too on some stats I saw recently above the age of 50 men are safer drivers yet with other insurers it will be different.

Damn it ZOLLAR, i want stats, pie graphs and at least one spreadsheet.

sorry.

[E Ponym]

It would also be very interesting to show crashes (somebody else's fault) and crashes (driver's fault) against gender and also miles driven per annum.

Russ

[ZOLLAR]

E Ponym said:

It would also be very interesting to show crashes (somebody else's fault) and crashes (driver's fault) against gender and also miles driven per annum.

Russ

Unfortunately the details yourself and the Op are asking for are classed as "company sensitive data" so its unlikely you'll be able to get the info.
Sorry!.

[Sgwilliams]

and due to a possible change comming up, the insurance companies would not look at whether the driver was male or female which is good for men as women wont get cheaper rates and bad for women as they can expect a bit of a rise on insurance

Edited by Sgwilliams on Wednesday 23 February 17:16

[omgus]

ZOLLAR said:

E Ponym said:

It would also be very interesting to show crashes (somebody else's fault) and crashes (driver's fault) against gender and also miles driven per annum.

Russ

Unfortunately the details yourself and the Op are asking for are classed as "company sensitive data" so its unlikely you'll be able to get the info.
Sorry!.

ZOLLAR, in that case can you email them to me, i'm sure the bosses will understand. I mean come on i want to win an arguement on the internet.

If you don't help i will start calling you zollar

Sgwilliams said:

and due to a possible change comming up, the insurance companies would look at whether the driver was male or female which is good for men as women wont get cheaper rates and bad for women as they can expect a bit of a rise on insurance

This may be what has started the arguement, my point is that equality should work both ways, if a women is genuinely less likely to cost an insurance company money then i understand her having a lower premuim, but to have a lower premium just because she is a woman is sexist, an 18yo girl being less of a risk than an 18yo boy, yes i agree. But her at 30 being less of a risk than me at 30, no. She is by far the greater risk and is constantly having parking "scrapes".

[Derek Smith]

omgus said:

Is there anyway i can find out the actual breakdown of % male and female crashes against the number of males/females that are insured? I know men are involved in more accidents, but what is the difference proportionally?

So say male drivers outnumber female drivers 60/40 then what is the proportional accident rate per every hundred male drivers vs every hundred female drivers?

I am arguing that it is probably a lot closer than my friend assumes because they cannot grasp that there isn't an exact 50/50 male/female split of iunsured drivers in the country.

It's for a facebook arguement so it's not mega urgent but i would like to know.

Thanks.

I have some stats from some time ago, around 2000 or so. They are broken down, as we all are, by age and sex. The results are quite clear cut.

What they show is that women have more accident claims per mile driven (herinafter accidents) than men whatever age range with one exeception. We'll get to that later.

Even at the youngest age, women have more accidents although the gap is comparitively tight. The gap is statististically significant.

From the age of 21 the gap widens with women reporting around 1/3rd more than men up to around 35 yrs.

The safest person on the road as regards to accidents is a male between the ages of 45 and 60 where the gap is almost out to around 2/5ths that of women. There is then a steady decrease in gap until the age of 75 when men drive like old women.

The accident rate from women and men goes down from the height of the 17-20 year old to that of the 45-60, although in women it drops much less.

The significant difference in costs of insurance is down to factors other than accident rates. For instance, women drive around 2/3rds the distance of men. They also drive the majority of their time in 30-40mph limits where repair costs in accidents is relatively minor. Men are in the majority on motorways and drive long distances on them. Have an accident there and it might well cost a fortune.

Another negative for men is that they frequently exceed the speed limit and commit more offences. But the fact remains that even though they are drunk and drive like a bat out of hell they still have less accidents than women.

The fact that women drive in towns might be the main reson that they have more accidents than men and it is inherently a more dangerous place to drive. (Whether this is because there are more women there or not I do not feel brave enough to speculate.)

The only independent bit of research I've found on accident rates between men and women is in Germany and might not be directly comparable. But there the conclusion of the report is that women had around five times the number of accidents per mile than men. There was no age differentiation.

There is a lot of argument about why this significant difference between men's and women's accident rates should be. None of it is conclusive.

On talking to my source of these stats I was told that the gap between men and women, especially on the younger side, is widening significantly. The insurance company the chap represented had recently significantly increased the cost of insurance for women aged 21 but under 25 not so much to balance the books as to get rid of them.

[ZOLLAR]

omgus said:

ZOLLAR said:

E Ponym said:

It would also be very interesting to show crashes (somebody else's fault) and crashes (driver's fault) against gender and also miles driven per annum.

Russ

Unfortunately the details yourself and the Op are asking for are classed as "company sensitive data" so its unlikely you'll be able to get the info.
Sorry!.

ZOLLAR, in that case can you email them to me, i'm sure the bosses will understand. I mean come on i want to win an arguement on the internet.

If you don't help i will start calling you zollar

You saw that thread then
Don't worry come 1st of march its likely to change so that there won't be any rating on male/female.

[omgus]

Derek Smith said:

Really interesting but sadly (due to ZOLLAR) wanting to keep his job) unprovable stuff

Interesting, i will stop argueing with her for now and just smile knowingly as i am, of course, right.

[Sgwilliams]

omgus said:

Derek Smith said:

Really interesting but sadly (due to ZOLLAR) wanting to keep his job) unprovable stuff

Interesting, i will stop argueing with her for now and just smile knowingly as i am, of course, right.

he doesnt need his job lol keep quizzing him, his defences will fall soon

[ZOLLAR]

Sgwilliams said:

omgus said:

Derek Smith said:

Really interesting but sadly (due to ZOLLAR) wanting to keep his job) unprovable stuff

Interesting, i will stop argueing with her for now and just smile knowingly as i am, of course, right.

he doesnt need his job lol keep quizzing him, his defences will fall soon

Shush or i'll come over to your desk and sort you out :shake fist:

[Sgwilliams]

ZOLLAR said:

Sgwilliams said:

omgus said:

Derek Smith said:

Really interesting but sadly (due to ZOLLAR) wanting to keep his job) unprovable stuff

Interesting, i will stop argueing with her for now and just smile knowingly as i am, of course, right.

he doesnt need his job lol keep quizzing him, his defences will fall soon

Shush or i'll come over to your desk and sort you out :shake fist:

i dont work at a desk, i work at a station of dreams

[carmonk]

From 2007 stats, may or may not be relevant

"In general, women drive about 40% fewer miles than men (4,800 miles per person
as opposed to 7,900 miles per person for males per year). Young men (17–20 years)
drive, on average, about 2,210 miles per person compared with young women who
drive about 1,530 miles per person per year."

"Men were found to be involved in a far greater number of ‘to
blame’ speed-related accidents than women (57% and 31%, respectively). Men were
more likely to commit deliberate risk actions than women and are more likely to
exceed the speed limit or deliberately drive too fast for the conditions. By contrast,
women were more likely to have been ignorant of the correct speed limit or to be
travelling too fast for the conditions rather than deliberately speeding (Clarke et al.,
2007)."

[Derek Smith]

Another stat that may be of interest is that the proportion of females convicted of speeding has increased since speed cameras were introduced, at least down my way. The suspicion is that male traffic officers predominated and this influenced them to become more considerate towards women.

Whoever suggested that obviously has never had anything to do with traffic officers. What is much more likely is that they became confused when confronted by the female of the species and panicked, sending them on their way as sooon as possible.

[carmonk]

Derek Smith said:

Another stat that may be of interest is that the proportion of females convicted of speeding has increased since speed cameras were introduced, at least down my way. The suspicion is that male traffic officers predominated and this influenced them to become more considerate towards women.

Whoever suggested that obviously has never had anything to do with traffic officers. What is much more likely is that they became confused when confronted by the female of the species and panicked, sending them on their way as sooon as possible.

More likely that before the cameras they just pootled along totally oblivious to any attempt to pull them over.

[Silver]

Derek Smith said:

Another stat that may be of interest is that the proportion of females convicted of speeding has increased since speed cameras were introduced, at least down my way. The suspicion is that male traffic officers predominated and this influenced them to become more considerate towards women.

Whoever suggested that obviously has never had anything to do with traffic officers. What is much more likely is that they became confused when confronted by the female of the species and panicked, sending them on their way as sooon as possible.

Serious question though, whereas a motorist doing 35mph in a 30 limit would automatically be fined as the result of a camera would someone doing the same speed in conditions where they weren't causing or likely to cause an incident be automatically stopped by the police?

Isn't there some margin for judgement on the part of the BiB in this?

[Derek Smith]

Silver said:

Serious question though, whereas a motorist doing 35mph in a 30 limit would automatically be fined as the result of a camera would someone doing the same speed in conditions where they weren't causing or likely to cause an incident be automatically stopped by the police?

Isn't there some margin for judgement on the part of the BiB in this?

I was taught that you needed three things to get process past a skipper: an offence, and offender and a reason. Therefore if no danger, inconvenience, poor example, or similar was caused when a car was going at 40 in a 30 then there would be no prosecution.

That said, it went for a number of offences. A drivers licence that had not been renewed for a time, an MoT certificate out of date by a short period of time and no offences found on the car, turning right against a no right turn, all that sort of thing. You needed some reason to report.

It went for crime as well. I had a shoplifter thrown out by a sergeant. I was told by PM that a PC from a provincial force got divisonal discipline for arresting a kid, about 17/18 years, for nicking food - bread and an uncooked pasty which he ate as he ran away - from a supermarket.

I'm not sure when it changed. On my initial course we had a practical to reinforce this as well as a chat from a constitutional lecturer from Canterbury uni (I think) where the role of police as unquestioning enforcers of the law was brought up. One of the few lessons that was of any use to me. We still had a number of ex squaddies joining in those days and many of them had a pragmatic approach to law enforcement, having seen a fair bit of the world.

That said, we are treated to many contributors to this forum justifying prosecuting someone for ultra minor offences but I bet the old blind eye is often turned by the majority of PCs.

I was taught that if you find one offence on a car your stopped just to kill the boredom on nights then if you can't find any more and just advise the driver to get it sorted, everyone is happy (the most important one being your sergeant of course.) I was told by fellow PCs when I just started that if you stick on a reasonable driver and he doesn't thank-you when you tell him he can go after sticking him on for a bit of con and use, you've blown it.

I could be petty in my early years - sticking the cabbie on who was second on a rank but was sitting in the third cab on a rank was fairly low. But PCs then would have a go at you for not doing it right.

Overall the police have changed for the better but there is a lot of micromanaging. It might be the price we have to pay for an honest police force - look up Operation Countryman - but I was honest and after I was beaten into shape I was reasonable as well.

[Noger]

Whilst it may be sensitive, we send our data to the ABI. So you can get UK stats.

For example...

http://www.abi.org.uk/Facts_and_Figures/53708.pdf

Young women are vastly less costly than you men. It equals out a bit via middle age. Old women are costlier than old men. And that is about how the rating works.

That is from 2006 but I expect a further nose around the ABI site will turn up something else.

It won't all suddenly change on the 1st March, I am fairly certain of that.