Should Insurance Be Sexless - Martin's Blog & Site Vote

andysuth

Loanranger wrote: »

No chip on your shoulder though?

Look at the work fatalities statistics: 20 men killed in 2008, 19 killed in 2009. Women work place fatalities: 0.

Why don't the feminists ever campaign for equality in safety too?

They are more than happy to get the shared advantages of men taking risks, but not to take the risks themselves.

-AS

**Kat**_2

I think that you should take any risk factors into consideration. I am 25 (was 24 at my last renewal). I have had 7 years no claims, have always been on my own (fully comp) insurance with my own car. I do protect the claims (just in case an uninsured driver hits me!) as there is no way I could afford for my premiums to go up.

I have a Seat Leon 1.4s. The "s" refers to "sport, i.e. 16 valve not 8, however, it is slower than a slug. I pay nearly £40 per month due to my age (btw I am a woman in case you couldn't tell from my username).

My dad has had accidents in the past 10 years but can't remember when (his fault), so we therefore have approx the same amount of years not claimed, has a 2l Nissan Pulsar GTIr which has had a full engine rebuild to make it not far off 600 bhp. He pays LESS than me. We live next door to each other so postcode is the same (nice area, sod all crime car or otherwise).

Please tell me how I am getting a good deal here "because of my sex" when to be frank, I'm getting a lousy deal because of my age.

A.Jones

There has been equality in insurance for a while for some forms of insurance. Take ill-health and the NHS. Everyone pays an amount based on their salary only, no matter what their gender, their age, their race or their location. And factors such as parents health and genetics are ignored.

For those that want different levels based on risk, maybe similar risk factors should be applied to the NHS, looking at what gets spent on different groups based on sex, age, race, location, then charge those that are more likely to use the NHS a higher proportion of their salary. They could also take genetics into account.

I've spent thousands on the NHS, yet I don't think I've used it once in at least the last ten years. I'm a low risk, so why should I be charged the same as someone else that uses it regularly?

Funding of the NHS works massively in the favour of those who are ill at the expense of those who are not, yet everyone pays at the same rate. Apply that to other forms of insurance, and people would think you are crazy.

lad22

Of course insurers should be allowed to charge according to risk - that's the whole point! Mind you, as a female (extremely safe) driver, I've never found the so-called 'women's insurers' eg Sheila's Wheels cheaper at all! Let's face it, they'll always want to charge as much as they can!

SueC_2

I really don't get it. Gender and age are clearly issues that need to be taken into account in lots of situations, and it should be perfectly acceptable to do so without accusations of discrimination.

Women over the age of 50 are automatically referred for a mamogram. Is this sexist AND ageist? Or simply prudent because statistically they are at higher risk of breast cancer?

Let's play hypotheticals for a moment...

On the basis of yesterday's ruling, the European Court would presumably decide the above situation is indeed discriminatory (please god, don't let anyone ever bring that case). In the absense of funding and resource availability to screen every single person of every single age and gender, screening would presumably be withdrawn altogether in order to ensure absolute equality of treatment.

And that's progress?

A.Jones

maryb wrote: »

Interesting that Martin says he feels discrimination based on biology should be OK but not behaviour. I would say it is the other way round - and that is why we do not allow discrimination on the basis of something you can do nothing about, like race. Behaviour on the other hand is within the control of the individual biology notwithstanding. The difficulty here is that biology and behaviour intersect. However, we don't accept the argument that young men are ruled by their hormones when it comes to crime, why should we for driving?

Read it again. Behaviour means the behaviour of a group (ie. male behaviour or female behaviour), not of an individual. I cannot do anything about the behaviour of other men. But just because I am male does not mean that I will behave the same as all men (or indeed that all men behave the same). I can behave responsibly, whilst others may behave poorly. That is the same for men and women. In my opinion behaviour has more to do with your growing up environment, rather than your sex.

moggylover

tbourner wrote: »

Unfortunately they group together, so the plonkers have plonker mates who think it's really funny and cool to drive like a twonk. None of my mates drove like that and neither did (do?) I, and I'm sure I would have protested had they driven like a loon when I was in the car.

:rotfl::rotfl: I know it does tend to be like that and I suspect you are right, but I know my own sons friends are quite varied, some that I dread ever seeing let loose with a car (as does my own son who swears he is never getting in a car with them) and those I suspect will be cautious.

SueC_2

andysuth wrote: »

I was absolutely shocked when the insurance company wanted £1,200 for just me on the car insurance, but £500 when I had my wife as a named driver.

This basically means a man, 30 years old and 12 clean years of driving experience is considered a higher risk than a woman who is 31 and been driving for 2 months.

Or perhaps they 'risk assess' that the existence of a wife means that, at least some of the time while you are driving, there will be someone in the passenger seat crying "slow down", "be careful", "look where you're going" and alerting you to the numerous perils of which you would be otherwise unaware!

brokeinwales

Why don't the feminists ever campaign for equality in safety too?

Why don't you do it yourself?

It seems awfully lazy to ask "the feminists" to do your campaigning for you.

(sorry, I just always find it amusing when certain men complain about "feminists not doing anything about sexism when it affects men." Well a) actually a lot of the time they do, there have been many feminists campaigning for fairer paternity leave rights recently and b) since when was that their job anyway? If it bothers you that much, do something yourself.)


Back on topic:
I'm actually of the opinion that insurance is, by nature, based on risk, and insurers are entitled to use any factor that has a bearing on risk, provided they can back it up using statistics. And yes, that should include race, if by some bizarre turn of events, it turned out that a particular race was more/less accident prone than others.

moggylover

A.Jones wrote: »

Read it again. Behaviour means the behaviour of a group (ie. male behaviour or female behaviour), not of an individual. I cannot do anything about the behaviour of other men. But just because I am male does not mean that I will behave the same as all men (or indeed that all men behave the same). I can behave responsibly, whilst others may behave poorly. That is the same for men and women. In my opinion behaviour has more to do with your growing up environment, rather than your sex.

Well that would mean the statistics suggest that young men are rather more badly brought up than young women;)