Sexist Car insurance

iceman_2

Astaroth wrote:

The motor market for the first half of 2006 came out with a combined loss ratio of 100.4% - therefore for every £100 they received in they paid out £100.40 in operational and claims cost (ie a 40p loss per £100 written). The motor market as a whole is currently making a loss. Sure there are companies out there that are making a profit if memory serves me correct the best loss ratio was approximately 85% (so £15 profit for every £100 spent) and the worst was bout 160% (so £60 loss for every £100 written).

Perhaps if the insurance companies didn't give some of their staff ridiculous 5, 6 or sometimes 7 figure bonuses then perhaps these profits would be more impressive - or indeed the quotes wouldn't be such a ****ing rip-off!!

magyar

iceman wrote:

Perhaps if the insurance companies didn't give some of their staff ridiculous 5, 6 or sometimes 7 figure bonuses then perhaps these profits would be more impressive - or indeed the quotes wouldn't be such a ****ing rip-off!!

Aside from being extremely rare, companies don't give such bonuses for fun, they do it because you need to pay to bring in talent. It's purely market forces.

iceman_2

lisyloo & Astaroth,

Please answer the following yes/no question.

Do you honestly believe the system would be allowed if it was reversed (ie women pay more than men cos the stats back it up)??

I assume you are not both completely !!!!!! and so realise that it would not. So I can see absolutely no argument in favour of such blatent discrimination.

Just because other men (usually 17yr old chavs with modified Corsa's!) have death wishes, doesn't mean I am any more or less likely to have an accident. I can go to work and am insured to control 60tonnes of aeroplane along a piece of tarmac at 180mph, with absolutely no discrimination whatsoever with regards to age, sex, or even experience. Yet on my drive home apparently I deserve to be ripped-off because I have a penis. Disgraceful.

iceman_2

magyar wrote:

Aside from being extremely rare, companies don't give such bonuses for fun, they do it because you need to pay to bring in talent. It's purely market forces.

Extremely rare??? Rubbish!!

Yes because I'm sure without a 6 figure bonus all these people would leave would they?

magyar

iceman wrote:

Extremely rare??? Rubbish!!

Yes because I'm sure without a 6 figure bonus all these people would leave would they?

Er... yes! Do you think bonuses are given out for the good of the soul?

iceman_2

magyar wrote:

Er... yes! Do you think bonuses are given out for the good of the soul?

Well generally yes, usually to justify someone elses bigger bonus.

magyar

iceman wrote:

Well generally yes, usually to justify someone elses bigger bonus.

It seems like we will have to agree to differ. All I can say is that I work with a lot of people in the City, including investors, traders and lawyers and I can tell you that these six figure bonuses are very rare.

magyar

iceman wrote:

lisyloo & Astaroth,

Please answer the following yes/no question.

Do you honestly believe the system would be allowed if it was reversed (ie women pay more than men cos the stats back it up)??

Women get paid less on average for doing the same jobs, yet 'the system' manages to allow that without collapsing.

Graham_Devon

iceman wrote:

lisyloo & Astaroth,

Please answer the following yes/no question.

Do you honestly believe the system would be allowed if it was reversed (ie women pay more than men cos the stats back it up)??

I assume you are not both completely !!!!!! and so realise that it would not. So I can see absolutely no argument in favour of such blatent discrimination.

Just because other men (usually 17yr old chavs with modified Corsa's!) have death wishes, doesn't mean I am any more or less likely to have an accident. I can go to work and am insured to control 60tonnes of aeroplane along a piece of tarmac at 180mph, with absolutely no discrimination whatsoever with regards to age, sex, or even experience. Yet on my drive home apparently I deserve to be ripped-off because I have a penis. Disgraceful.

LOL like it. Though I'm assuming your also insured to take off!? Would be a little worrying if you were just bombing it down a runway and then decide to slam the anchors on

I'm_With_Stupid

ArchieB wrote:

I find the whole argument that Insurance shouldn't be 'rated' as it is in some way prejudicial, a little juvenile. If you can't rate on statistical fact then we all have flat rated premiums. Great - I drive a slow family diesel car worth £5k and pay £800 whilst Jermaine Penant drives a £150k Ferrari and pays £800.

Who ever said that it shouldn't be rated? You make a choice to buy a Ferrari. You make a choice to park it on the street. You make a choice to use your car for work purposes rather than just social and commuting. You don't make a choice to be a man, nor has anyone in history crashed a car as a result of them being a man. Plenty of people have made a claim or had their claim increased as a result of parking in a high crime area, putting shiny new alloys on a car that's easy to steal, having a lack of experience to deal with the road situation, driving a car that will cost a lot for insurers to repair, and a lot of other factors that are already considered in your application. Certain things are always going to cost more based on choices. What I'm saying is that insurance quote should only take these factors into account. It would be exactly the same as it is currently, except that the box for gender and age would be gone (and like I said, driving experience would still be a factor, so older drivers with experience would get cheaper insurance anyway). I don't see how that simple suggestion seems so difficult for people to get their head around.