Sexist Car insurance

I'm_With_Stupid

gazza975526570 wrote:

But then younger people would be subsidising the older people who are more likely to need to claim. Isnt this an even worse scenario???

Possibly. I'm just talking about what I believe is ethical. I happen to believe that companies should legally have to operate without discrimination towards any customers, and companies shouldn't be allowed to refuse service or change charges based on race, sexuality, age or gender (and probably a few other things I can't think of right now). That's all.

Astaroth

Discrimination is differentiation without foundation. Insurance has foundation for the differentiation and therefore does not discriminate.

The one exception is disability where the law prevents differentiation too

I'm_With_Stupid

Astaroth wrote:

Statistically they are proven to affect the average claim more than where you live or what car you have. Why not therefore go the whole hog and simply charge everyone £750 a year irrespective of any criteria?

Showing that more expensive claims are made by young men isn't the same as showing that being a man has an effect on the amount of money you claim or the likeliness to claim it. Unless you can demonstrate any accident which was cause as a direct result or the driver being a man, it is irrelivant who make the most claims. Most crimes are committed by young men, but that doesn't mean that the fact that someone is a young man in any way influences their decision to commit a crime. Parking on the street in a high crime area does have a direct risk to it, being a man doesn't. But again, you are missing the point. It's not about statistics, or which groups are most likely to claim. It's about giving customers equal treatment regardless of factors which they have no control over. Otherwise we would still be refusing the employ women in their 20's because statistically, they are more likely to take extended time off work. If you believe that private companies should be allowed to do what they want, then fine, but don't complain at someone being refused entry to a restaurant because of their race. I personally believe they should have to adhere to guidelines regarding discrimination.

I'm_With_Stupid

Astaroth wrote:

Discrimination is differentiation without foundation. Insurance has foundation for the differentiation and therefore does not discriminate.

So it's not discrimination to refuse to employ a woman or pay her less, in a job where statistically women are less productive than men? What a load of crap.

Astaroth

But the whole basis of insurance is on statistics.... if your car is broken into and you have to make a claim why does that directly mean you are more likely to have your car broken into again? If you have driven without insurance in the past why does that mean you are more likely to make a claim now you have seen the errors of your ways?

Parking your car anywhere does not directly mean that something will happen to it (short of parking it in a crusher) but it increases the chance of something happening to it. Exactly the same as the gender and age affect the chance of you having an accident... anyone can try and guess why this is the case and most would side on the basis that directly because you are young and immature (more so for males) you are likely to try and show off and without the experience to handle it which is a direct result.

I understand your point about it being something we have no control over however age - well we all get older and therefore get the cheaper insurance at some point (though past a certain age insurance starts going back up again) and with gender, well there are simply other advantages and disadvantages of being either gender (in all the insurers I have worked for old age men pay lower premiums than old age women - though of cause less men live to old age)

It is not as if there is no other differentiation in the world either - age: only children are forced to school, you can only die for your country after a certain age, you cannot claim benefits until a certain age, you can only claim a pension after a certain age, you have to retire after a certain age, minimum wage is age dependant. Gender... I am sure many would say the glass ceiling certainly still exists, may jobs are very much orientated to one or the other gender (doubt there are many male bikini line waxers), women are much more likely to win custody battles.

I'm_With_Stupid

Astaroth wrote:

Parking your car anywhere does not directly mean that something will happen to it (short of parking it in a crusher) but it increases the chance of something happening to it. Exactly the same as the gender and age affect the chance of you having an accident... anyone can try and guess why this is the case and most would side on the basis that directly because you are young and immature (more so for males) you are likely to try and show off and without the experience to handle it which is a direct result.

That's the point though. There is no proof that age has a direct affect on your ability to, well, not crash. It's just one of those things. Someone measures a statistic, then assumes a link, but they haven't shown any causality because it doesn't necessarily exist. There could be any number of reasons why young and male drivers have higher average claims, some of which have been touched upon (inexperienced drivers are more likely to make a mistake for example, and the majority of newer drivers will be young). And I accept that discrimination does still widely exist. But that's different from systematic legal discrimination that occurs in the insurance industry. I mean I can't say I stay awake at night thinking about this, I was just confused by people defending it. I thought most people agreed that it was a pretty awful system?

Astaroth

There are many things in life where people accept that something is true without actually knowing the cause. Whilst my example to follow may well be a lay persons there are plenty of other "truths" that are simply proven through statistics and not theory (probably concerning this includes much in the life sciences & pharmaceuticals)

I certainly know that my knowledge of physics is no way near enough to know how gravity works - all I remember is that it has something to do with the mass of an object and the distance between two objects but that there was a "rival" theory on the existence of gravitons when I was at school. Simply because I cannot explain the cause does not mean that I dispute that gravity exists because I have the statistical evidence that every time I have dropped something it falls towards the ground.

In exactly the same way people can hypothesis all they want as to why young drivers have more accidents than an older person with exactly the same amount of driving experience. What remains the truth is that year in year out a male driver of the age of 18 on average will have 2.1 times the cost in claims as a female driver of the age of 40 with exactly the same car, address, length of driving experience etc.

I cant understand anyone thinking, realistically, that a system based on statistics rather than prejudice can be anything but fair - as previously pointed out by others, the cost involved in making a truly personal quote for everyone would never be possible.

magyar

Astaroth wrote:

There are many things in life where people accept that something is true without actually knowing the cause. Whilst my example to follow may well be a lay persons there are plenty of other "truths" that are simply proven through statistics and not theory (probably concerning this includes much in the life sciences & pharmaceuticals)

I certainly know that my knowledge of physics is no way near enough to know how gravity works - all I remember is that it has something to do with the mass of an object and the distance between two objects but that there was a "rival" theory on the existence of gravitons when I was at school. Simply because I cannot explain the cause does not mean that I dispute that gravity exists because I have the statistical evidence that every time I have dropped something it falls towards the ground.

In exactly the same way people can hypothesis all they want as to why young drivers have more accidents than an older person with exactly the same amount of driving experience. What remains the truth is that year in year out a male driver of the age of 18 on average will have 2.1 times the cost in claims as a female driver of the age of 40 with exactly the same car, address, length of driving experience etc.

I cant understand anyone thinking, realistically, that a system based on statistics rather than prejudice can be anything but fair - as previously pointed out by others, the cost involved in making a truly personal quote for everyone would never be possible.

I might just add that the sort of thing which may make it possible would be schemes like putting GPSs into our cars to monitor our every move and tax us all based on usage.

But (rightly, in my opinion), most people think this is both a violation of basic rights and most crucially, will cost far too much.

inmypocketnottheirs

Astaroth wrote:

Facts that you seem unable to substantiate against facts provided by well known and reputable sources which are to the exact contrary to what you say.

No, not really. I have substantiated the facts through my own premium in the UK, and altering the vehicle that I insure in the US (Charlotte, North Carolina) to match the UK.

Astaroth wrote:

The big difference with USA insurance is the fact there are fairly low limits to the cover. The highest cover I could find from the site you linked to was £100,000 of property damage and £300,000 of injury (to third parties) plus further low limits on other elements of TP claims. Back in my claims days every case in my portfolio would have exceeded one or both of these limits.

Under my UK policy I have unlimited cover for both and yet the USA policy is $1234.80 and my UK policy is £553.40 and includes legal expenses insurance which wasnt an option to be added.

In my current US policy I have $3,000,000 TP injury claims and $1,000,000 property claims for example, so you are not comparing apples with apples.

Even though these limits may be less than the UK, as lisyloo points out, one way of reducing premiums is by not overinsuring. Perhaps this is another method insurers use to further justify increased premiums?

With regards lisyloo's comments regarding profitability. Has anyone ever seen a Motor Insurer operating from run down premises on a tatty trading estate? No more like plush glass offices in some prestige location, with nice carpets and wonderful furniture. Executives on high bonus schemes and champagne expense accounts. Luxury limousines in the car park. Who pays for all this? The motorist through their premiums.

lisyloo

No, not really. I have substantiated the facts through my own premium in the UK, and altering the vehicle that I insure in the US (Charlotte, North Carolina) to match the UK

They are not providing the same things at all.
To make a proper comparison you would need to compare not only the accident statistics but aklso the tax regime, staff costs in these varying countries.
This is not a valid comparison at all and even if it was providing one anbeecdote is meangliess.
The articles and statistics provided by myself and Astaroth were industry wide not one single persons premium.

Even though these limits may be less than the UK, as lisyloo points out, one way of reducing premiums is by not overinsuring.

It's also important not to be underinsured.
It's a trade-off.
The incident where Gary Hart drove his landrover onto a railway line cost £30 million.
Obviously you need to draw a line somewhere or you will end up paying far too much for a remote possibility.

Has anyone ever seen a Motor Insurer operating from run down premises on a tatty trading estate? No more like plush glass offices in some prestige location, with nice carpets and wonderful furniture. Executives on high bonus schemes and champagne expense accounts. Luxury limousines in the car park. Who pays for all this? The motorist through their premiums.

I do not expect the people I pay to work in terrible conditions on low pay.
I think what you have said above is complete fantasy.

Which companies are providing this?

I have paid 2 figures for both my bike and car insurance so I doubt very much that anyone is getting fat on my account.

Of course if people don't shop around then they might get ripped off.........
This is not exclusive to the car industry, it's true if you buy a house, car, kitchen or anything.