MSE News: Insurance costs to soar as gender discrimination banned

lisyloo

It is an epic fail I'm afraid. Lets assume the odds of being in an accident on any given day are 1 in 10. If you are in an accident today and you then go out in your car tomorrow, the odds of you being in an accident tomorrow are still 1 in 10, not 1in 100.

No I don't think they are.

I did a A level in statistics and there is something called "statistical independence".
So tossing a coin (or dice or roulette wheel) is statistcially independent.
If you get heads once, the chances of heads next time are independent from what went before (50/50).
What happens subsequently is independent from what has already happened.

This is not true with car accidents.
Let's suppose you have a bump at the supermarket.
You are more likely to have a bump in future than someone like myself that doesn't have bump there (because I walk and don't take the car).
If you live in a really busy street where parking is limited and you have a bump, you are more likely to have a bump in future than someone else than doesn't live/drive in those difficult circumstances.
So the fact that you've had a bump (whether fault or not) does indicate something about what might happen in future and this is borne out by statistics.

Car accidents are not independent events as they are sometimes something to do with either your style of driving, where you shop, where you park and where you live EVEN if they are not your fault.

It's not 1 in 100 for everyone.
For example as I walk to the supermarket there is absolutely zero chance of my car getting hit there.
Someone that drives there twice a week clearly has a different chance.

starrystarry

lisyloo wrote: »

No I don't think they are.

I did a A level in statistics and there is something called "statistical independence".
So tossing a coin (or dice or roulette wheel) is statistcially independent.
If you get heads once, the chances of heads next time are independent from what went before (50/50).
What happens subsequently is independent from what has already happened.

This is not true with car accidents.
Let's suppose you have a bump at the supermarket.
You are more likely to have a bump in future than someone like myself that doesn't have bump there (because I walk and don't take the car).
If you live in a really busy street where parking is limited and you have a bump, you are more likely to have a bump in future than someone else than doesn't live/drive in those difficult circumstances.
So the fact that you've had a bump (whether fault or not) does indicate something about what might happen in future and this is borne out by statistics.

Car accidents are not independent events as they are sometimes something to do with either your style of driving, where you shop, where you park and where you live EVEN if they are not your fault.

It's not 1 in 100 for everyone.
For example as I walk to the supermarket there is absolutely zero chance of my car getting hit there.
Someone that drives there twice a week clearly has a different chance.

All valid points. I was just commenting on Percy's previous assertion that if someone is in an accident today then the odds of them being in an accident tomorrow are much less because they've already been the unfortunate 1 in 10 today. Clearly this isn't correct.

Percy1983

It suppose it goes with your belief in luck, I am not qualified in this but as a general rule in life (which I am qualified in) the odds on someone being in the wrong place/time twice is less than once. Yes I have brought this on myself by using overly simplisic example, sorry about that.

musicmaker29

whether you like this decision or not, we live in a society which starts the gender argument from the point 'men and women are equally capable'. This cannot then, legally, become 'men and women are equally capable unless statistically proven otherwise in certain areas'.

The key word in the above sentence is 'legally'.

I daresay that I could statistically prove that MOST men would be better at extremely physical jobs than MOST women, but it would be illegal for me to discriminate in this was by, say, only interviewing men for a certain job vacancy or paying a 'manly premium' to blokes. Well actually that could happen, but it would not be legal.

Therefore, whilst you may argue that insurance is different, it is still subject to the premise that we have, as a society, that men and women are equally capable.

KevinG

Percy1983 wrote: »

the odds on someone being in the wrong place/time twice is less than once.

True, but after the first event has happened, it is history and the odds start over again.

Percy1983

KevinG wrote: »

True, but after the first event has happened, it is history and the odds start over again.

So all those crashes in the past by males are all history and shouldn't effect my quote?

I suppose thats where the debate is, and to a point it does display how statistics can be manipulated.

The bigger point is car insurance should be optional anyway, without a captive audience quotes would have to be better. With that my first 3 years I would have just said no thanks I will take the risk and I would be £4k better of for it.

lisyloo

The bigger point is car insurance should be optional anyway

NO WAY.
If you want to drive tons of metal round the streets at speed high enough to kill people you should get insurance so that they can be adequately compesated at least for medical treatment, injuries and on-going costs that might affect them for the rest of their life.

The point is that it's not YOUR risk to take.
You are taking a risk with other people's lives the minute you start driving.

Percy1983

lisyloo wrote: »

NO WAY.
If you want to drive tons of metal round the streets at speed high enough to kill people you should get insurance so that they can be adequately compesated at least for medical treatment, injuries and on-going costs that might affect them for the rest of their life.

The point is that it's not YOUR risk to take.
You are taking a risk with other people's lives the minute you start driving.

Of course it is my risk, I am an adult and understand the idea of actions and consequences.

To which if I am not insured and the worse happens I am paying out for the rest of my life for my mistake, yet again I am happy to take the risk. By all means I think my current costs aren't all to bad so I would take the insurance, but as I say if I had taken that risk it for the first 3 years I would be a lot better off now for it.

starrystarry

Percy1983 wrote: »

Of course it is my risk, I am an adult and understand the idea of actions and consequences.

To which if I am not insured and the worse happens I am paying out for the rest of my life for my mistake, yet again I am happy to take the risk. By all means I think my current costs aren't all to bad so I would take the insurance, but as I say if I had taken that risk it for the first 3 years I would be a lot better off now for it.

So if you crash into me and write my car off would you be able to provide me with 20 grand immediately to replace my car?

Percy1983

Funnily enough yes.

And if I hadn't been forced pay insurance so far I would have about £7.5k anyway.