Sexist Car insurance

I'm_With_Stupid

Gorgeous_George wrote:

I am guessing when I say that joint insurance policies are more likely to be in the males name. Maybe this is not so significant in today's enlightened world.

I have no doubt that the statistics support the insurance company's claims. But that doesn't mean that I believe for one second that they're not milking it for all it's worth to ramp up the prices of young drivers to far beyond what the actual risk is. In fact I saw a guy from Norwich Union recently saying that they were actually about to inflate their prices for young people so that they could offer their older drivers more competitive prices. And this it's what happens by allowing this sort of age discrimination. It give them a green light to use one group to subsidise another, rather than everyone paying an amount comparible to their risk (even if you did assume that age could be a deciding factor in this).

I'm_With_Stupid

lisyloo wrote:

If anything needs to be changed it's the law to change the way that businesses are run.
Businesses will not change their model unless their is MASSIVE public pressure which I don't think is gonna happen in this case.

Well exactly. It's up to the law to ensure that fair business practices are followed, and that it not the case at the moment. And unfortunately, I don't think 18-25 year old men are the biggest group of voters, so discrimination against this particular group is deemed acceptable because the majority of voters are getting their cheap car insurance.

gazza975526570

lisyloo wrote:

To be perfectly practical the role of a business is to make profits for it's investors/shareholders.
They will come up with a business model that makes them money but is also not SO unacceptable that they get boycotted.
This is the nature of pure business.

You will find over the last few years very few insurers make any kind of profit out of the their motor book. This was due to the amount of new insurers and competitive pricing to obtain a larger share of the market

They tend to use this to cross sell more profitable products, ie home insurance.

I'm_With_Stupid

lisyloo wrote:

They DO go on your driving record.
What makes you think they don't?

But there are also other factors as well.
For example with theft it's important where you park your car.
If you live in a nice area with a garage then clearly you are at less risk than someone who parks their car on street in the "rough" part of a city center.

Thefts are nothing to do with driving so there are OTHER factors as well as just your driving record.

It should go purely on your driving record, and your behaviour (which would include how many miles you drive and where, where you park your car, whether you have an alarm system) and not assumed behaviour based on discriminatory factors. Again, I'm not talking about a business model, I'm talking about what should be fair business practice. Don't get me wrong, if I owned an insurance company, I'd do exactly the same thing. Of course most people seem to accept unfair or immoral business models if it doesn't affect them.

Annando

Well I have been to the cashback sites again, and twicked the quotes they gave for OH's insurance, although he is unemployed at the moment, he is a full time mature student... So guess what? Fot Lloyds this is even better than being employed! So the insurance quote has just gone down by £5!!! :j
The quote came in at £200.60 minus the £120 cashback from quidco this means that his insurance this year comes in at £80.60 !!! VICTORY!!! :j

lisyloo

Of course most people seem to accept unfair or immoral business models if it doesn't affect them.

I don't have evidence that my insurance company has acted unfairly or immorally .
That's because I'm female, not young and have a good driving record.
I'm not sure how I would work out whether they had been unfair as an individual.

So two (serious) questions:

If I were interested in it, then how would I asses whether my insurance company had acted unfairly or immorally?

If I did want to challenge that then what would you suggest I do about it?
Should I find a more expensive but fairer insurer?
How would I go about that as a lay person i.e. no inside industry knowledge.

i.e. What would you have me do?
or is this jsut a hypothetical discussion about how we would like the world to be?

I'm_With_Stupid

Annando wrote:

Well I have been to the cashback sites again, and twicked the quotes they gave for OH's insurance, although he is unemployed at the moment, he is a full time mature student... So guess what? Fot Lloyds this is even better than being employed! So the insurance quote has just gone down by £5!!! :j
The quote came in at £200.60 minus the £120 cashback from quidco this means that his insurance this year comes in at £80.60 !!! VICTORY!!! :j

:mad: Jealous. Though I should be getting a car tomorrow if all goes well, so I'll be happy again then. Well, until they quote me for the insurance that is.

I'm_With_Stupid

lisyloo wrote:

I don't have evidence that my insurance company has acted unfairly or immorally .
That's because I'm female, not young and have a good driving record.

The "good driving record" is fair enough, but I don't see how the other two are relavent, unless you believe that those factors actually make you personally a better driver. Like I said, I don't blame you for taking the advantages these factors give you, or the insurance companies for using them to maximise their profits, just the law for allowing them to. It's discrimination plain and simple, and to try to claim otherwise is ridiculous. It's assuming behaviour based on a group that you've chosen to put someone in. It's like saying a black person is "more likely" to commit a crime, because statistics show that a larger percentage of black people are involved in crime. That doesn't mean that an individual black person is more likely to commit a crime, or that the colour of his skin is any way a factor in what choice he makes in this regard. Similarly, a drivers age or sex isn't in any way a deciding factor in how dangerously they might choose to drive. Driving experience, past records or where they drive on the other hand, is. And that is why it is morally acceptable to base insurance quotes on these factors in my opinion.

I'm not trying to say anything except that people who try and justify this as somehow not being discrimination are living in a dream world, and are more often than not, the very people who aren't being discriminated against.

inmypocketnottheirs

lisyloo wrote:

I think it is very unlikely to be UK corporations getting fat on profits as it's a very competitive market place.

Hmmm really......:rolleyes:

lisyloo

Hmmm really......

Yes, see post #125 from gazza

You will find over the last few years very few insurers make any kind of profit out of the their motor book. This was due to the amount of new insurers and competitive pricing to obtain a larger share of the market

Do you know otherwise?
If so pray tell us about the massive profits they make from motor insurance and what return this represents on their investment.
Something more concrete than dots and smileys will be required to back up your point.