Interestingly, the best lady driver policy the AA could find from its panel of insurers was pounds 422.30 from Provident, which came in at second place.The lady driver policies performed worse as age increased. For a 30-year- old in the same circumstances, the best quote was pounds 156.83, against pounds 165.03 for a 30-year-old male. The best lady driver policy was Link Ladies, eleventh best at pounds 197.36.And for a 50-year-old the best lady driver policy was Provident again, in fourteenth place at pounds 158.88.The size of the premium is obviously not the only point to be taken into account when choosing a policy, but the examples make it clear that not all insurers take sex into account and some of those which don't can still offer a cheaper deal."Try to put the lady driver element on the back burner because they are often only competitive in certain niches," said Rebecca Hadley, of the AA. In common with many insurers, General Accident gives its female customers the equivalent of a 15 per cent discount up to the age of 30. The company actually adds a notional two years on to the age of female applicants to reflect its view that "women in the younger age group tend to be more mature and more sensible."Over 30, things tend to even out. According to the AA, the safest motor insurance bet is a 55-year-old woman who drives a small or mid-range car of about 10 years old, although by that age, the insurance cost for a man in the same circumstances would be about the same.

From aged 75 onwards, men finally have the pleasure of being regarded as a safer risk.But while the reduced risk associated with female drivers has prompted some insurance companies to launch special lady driver schemes, these do not always offer the best value for money. "Young girls tend to use their cars as a mode of transport, boys tend to use them as something to pose around in. Our research does back that up," says the AA.Women will always tend to get a better deal up to the age of about 30. The vehicle has to be extensively repaired or even written off. Women tend to have the bumping into somebody type of accident or reversing into the garage wall - mistakes which follow an error of judgement, rather than driving too fast or driving without proper control of the car."Women also tend to have a different pattern of driving.

They drive a lower annual mileage than men in total and tend to take shorter, local trips. "They are out and about delivering children to school, going shopping, that sort of thing," said a spokesman for General Accident.It might all sound very sexist, but the insurance industry is based on such generalisations.And it is true that men are convicted of 92 per cent of all driving offences, including 98 per cent of all convictions for dangerous driving, 93 per cent of all those for drink driving, and 92 per cent of all those for speeding.The differences in premiums between the sexes is most pronounced in the late teens and early twenties. Research conducted by the AA last year found that 54 per cent of women admitted to "aggressive driving behaviour" compared to 64 per cent of men, but women are still seen as safer drivers. "Women have about the same number of accidents as men - but generally the severity is very different," says Rebecca Hadley, from the AA."When a man crashes a car he does a pretty good job of it. Women are almost as likely as men to commit acts of "road rage" when they get behind the wheel of their car, according to the AA, but young women are still regarded as a lower risk by insurers and can generally get cheaper cover. According to Andrew Black, marketing manager of Standard Life, the insurance companies that market portable pensions and managers of company schemes see pension- splitting as fairer and cheaper than earmarking because it is a one-off charge..

This may leave ex-spouses as "shadow" members of funds, with tiny entitlements they can neither add to nor consolidate.The inclusion of pensions in divorce settlements is generally welcome, although there may be a risk that men in particular may find contributing to pension funds less attractive when they can no longer be put out of the reach of former spouses, and there will be increased administrative costs But the delay will disappoint most reformers. One consequence is that until then all divorcing couples will have to rely on earmarking, and once earmarking has been applied in individual cases it will not be possible to re-open the settlement and switch to pension-splitting. Under the Government's preferred options ex-spouses can be awarded a separate entitlement in pension funds which have not been fully funded (for example, the pensions of civil servants and local authority workers) but they will not be able to transfer these rights to a portable pension because putting up the lump sum would cost the Treasury millions. The main stumbling block seems to be that splitting entitlements to the state earnings-related pension scheme will not be feasible until at least the year 2000 because the existing DSS computer cannot cope, and the Government claims 2000 must therefore be the earliest date for comprehensive legislation. The Green Paper published this week is open for comment until 29 November, and a White Paper will be produced next spring. But the junior social services minister, Lord Mackay, has made it clear that this government believes pension-splitting will have to wait until at least the year 2000. Anyone who hoped to see the Government's legal eagles rush to come up with a quick plan to implement its promise to split the pension funds of divorced people into two separate portable "pots" at the time of divorce (as opposed to earmarking the actual pensions so they are shared when they come due) was always in for a disappointment.