When you live in a capitalist country, it’s easy to think that free market competition keeps the consumer safe. If anything goes wrong, the consumer can simply change to another supplier and, at a stroke, the problem is solved. Except life does not have to work in a fair way. When large insurance corporations are looking to make a profit to keep their shareholders happy, they do not think of their customers as people with problems. The policy holders are just the means to make a profit. So, government has to step in with regulations to strike a balance. The idea is to limit the companies to a reasonable profit and reduce the risk that consumers will be gouged. Although the GOP is against the idea of any regulation, every state in the union has a licensing system for insurance companies. Only companies with a licence can sell policies in each state, and the condition of getting and keeping a licence is accepting some degree of regulation. How much regulation varies from state to state, but the essence is to offer some protection for the consumers.

In Massachusetts, there has been a rumbling dispute about the extent to which the local insurers should be regulated. Until last year, the state imposed quite strict rules on the type of policies that could be sold and the premium rates. The current system is one of managed competition with the companies having more freedom on the new products and the premium rates at which they can be sold. The problem focussed on the Board of Appeals run by the Insurance Commissioner Nonnie Burnes. If a driver is involved in a collision, the insurer is allowed to decide which driver is at fault and to add a surcharge to the premium payable by the driver in the wrong. This surcharge can be up to 50% of the original premium. Obviously, an insurance company has a direct interest in holding its driver to be at fault so the premium can be increased. Hence the need for an appeal system. The current Board finds that the surcharge is not justified in more than half the cases referred to it.

The people of Massachusetts were therefore shocked when the Commissioner announced the Board would be shut down. This would leave surcharged drivers with nowhere to go. Strangely, when consumers shop round for a change, the other companies tend to rely on the current company’s finding of fault, rate the driver as more of a risk and only offer auto insurance at higher rates. What should be fair competition between the companies producing lower premiums is the sharing of information about drivers resulting in higher premiums. The state legislature was therefore quickly into action to propose legislation ordering the Commissioner to retain the Board. After a stand-off with the bill moving through the legislature, the Commissioner gave in and announced the Board will be retained. Lacking confidence, the legislators are continuing with the passage of the bill. The interests of the consumer must come first when it comes to auto insurance.

There’s a sobering saying, “The female of the species is more deadly than the male.” It first surfaced in a poem by Rudyard Kipling and achieved international recognition through the “shock shock horror” song by Space. Taken literally when applied to humanity, it suggests women are more likely to kill you than men. Except, when it comes to driving, this is almost certainly not true. There’s a myth put about by men that women are bad drivers. Talk to the average male driver and they will pour scorn on women, telling tall stories about dangerous behavior on the roads. Yet this sexist view is not supported by the accident statistics. When you add up all the numbers from around the world, men are three times more likely to die on the roads than women. The truth seems to be that men may have better spatial awareness and so slightly better control of their vehicles. But women have better self-control which makes them safer drivers. The result in the gender stakes is that men, particularly when young, are more reckless than women, driving faster with less attention. Women are more cautious, driving more slowly and causing fewer serious accidents. Even more importantly, women have fewer emotional hang-ups about the cars they drive. Whereas men prefer to be seen in fast, sleek sporty cars, women tend to have more modest (and cheaper) tastes.

Let’s put the big picture together. For now, we’ll assume that women are as good as male drivers and both sexes have the same number of accidents. The cars driven by women will be traveling more slowly when they collide. That means there will be less impact and so a reduced risk of injuries. Now add in the fact that women tend to be driving less expensive cars and the total loss of damage to the vehicles and injuries to the people inside will always be lower. The rest of the statistics from law enforcement complete the picture. When it comes to tickets issued and convictions, women are rarely caught exceeding the speed limit, do not drive recklessly and are less likely to drive while drunk or incapacitated by drugs. Finally, men love their cars and prefer to drive them over long distances. Women make shorter commuter journeys and take the plane or train over longer distances.

This means lower premiums for women drivers. They are more careful, have fewer accidents and cause less damage. Men are less likely to obey the law, and more likely to be injured and cause injuries. Auto insurance premiums are therefore significantly higher for younger male drivers and, on average, higher than the equivalent female drivers over their lifetimes. So, when women go online to use the search engines for the best insurance rates, they are likely to be pleasantly surprised. The only strategy that men can adopt is to build up a trouble-free driving record over time. The longer male drivers go without picking up a ticket, the better. Savings will also flow from buying cheaper, less powerful cars and driving them less. Accepting mileage restrictions saves dollars on auto insurance premiums. In fact, men save money when they drive like women.