Car insurance 17 year old

Jaco70

Inbetweeners said:

Jaco70 said:

An update on this.
We realised that a huge saving was possible by changing his job description. Not lying about it, but making it sound more trainee managerial, than purely manual. Which it is, but we hadn’t thought it particularly relevant. 

Anyway, he has insurance, and a black box, and the cost was nearer 2000, than the 3500 we were originally looking at.
I can’t help thinking that this kind of discrimination (ie, if you’re an 18 yo labourer you’ll have to pay more than an 18yo bank teller) wouldn’t be acceptable anywhere else.
Imagine if they discriminated on more controversial grounds. There’d be uproar, and rightly so. 

It's not discrimination when the statistics show that the typical 18yo labourer has more accidents than his 18yo bank teller counterpart.

Yes it is. Might be justified discrimination, but still discrimination.

If I owned a shop, and I felt rightly or wrongly that 15 to 25 year olds, or Audi drivers, nicked more stuff, so I stopped them coming in, I’d have a lawsuit on my hands.

Most discrimination is outlawed, whilst some isn’t. That’s the point I was making, and it stands. 

Inbetweeners

Jaco70 said:

Inbetweeners said:

Jaco70 said:

An update on this.
We realised that a huge saving was possible by changing his job description. Not lying about it, but making it sound more trainee managerial, than purely manual. Which it is, but we hadn’t thought it particularly relevant. 

Anyway, he has insurance, and a black box, and the cost was nearer 2000, than the 3500 we were originally looking at.
I can’t help thinking that this kind of discrimination (ie, if you’re an 18 yo labourer you’ll have to pay more than an 18yo bank teller) wouldn’t be acceptable anywhere else.
Imagine if they discriminated on more controversial grounds. There’d be uproar, and rightly so. 

It's not discrimination when the statistics show that the typical 18yo labourer has more accidents than his 18yo bank teller counterpart.

Yes it is. Might be justified discrimination, but still discrimination.

If I owned a shop, and I felt rightly or wrongly that 15 to 25 year olds, or Audi drivers, nicked more stuff, so I stopped them coming in, I’d have a lawsuit on my hands.

Most discrimination is outlawed, whilst some isn’t. That’s the point I was making, and it stands. 

If that's your belief then are you personally happy to pay more to subsidise the groups that you think are being discriminated against?

Or we let the insurance companies price on risk.

Jaco70

Inbetweeners said:

Jaco70 said:f

Inbetweeners said:

Jaco70 said:

An update on this.
We realised that a huge saving was possible by changing his job description. Not lying about it, but making it sound more trainee managerial, than purely manual. Which it is, but we hadn’t thought it particularly relevant. 

Anyway, he has insurance, and a black box, and the cost was nearer 2000, than the 3500 we were originally looking at.
I can’t help thinking that this kind of discrimination (ie, if you’re an 18 yo labourer you’ll have to pay more than an 18yo bank teller) wouldn’t be acceptable anywhere else.
Imagine if they discriminated on more controversial grounds. There’d be uproar, and rightly so. 

It's not discrimination when the statistics show that the typical 18yo labourer has more accidents than his 18yo bank teller counterpart.

Yes it is. Might be justified discrimination, but still discrimination.

If I owned a shop, and I felt rightly or wrongly that 15 to 25 year olds, or Audi drivers, nicked more stuff, so I stopped them coming in, I’d have a lawsuit on my hands.

Most discrimination is outlawed, whilst some isn’t. That’s the point I was making, and it stands. 

If that's your belief then are you personally happy to pay more to subsidise the groups that you think are being discriminated against?

Or we let the insurance companies price on risk.

You are, either deliberately or because you genuinely don’t understand, missing the point.

We live in a society obsessed with discrimination, or the eradication of it, but here we have an example of it being willingly accepted.

If you are a 17yo manual worker, for example, who sticks rigidly to the speed limit, leaves your car on the driveway and gets the bus to work, and only uses it to take your mother to choir practice, you will pay at least a thousand pounds a year more because of your job. Your personal good character has to be proved over a good few years, and you won’t be refunded the difference once it’s established. 

Whether I think it’s right or wrong is irrelevant. It’s a type of discrimination that wouldn’t be allowed in many other scenarios I can think of 🤷🏻‍♂️

theoretica

Some years back insurers were told they could no longer take gender into account in their pricing. Some jobs still being more prevalent with one gender of the other, I wonder if some of the difference in price depending on job could be challenged as indirect gender pricing. 

Also some professions may make a good claim for higher expenses/loss of earnings if they are injured - some jobs you can do while healing from a broken bone, others you can't as well.

BarelySentientAI

Jaco70 said:

Inbetweeners said:

Jaco70 said:

An update on this.
We realised that a huge saving was possible by changing his job description. Not lying about it, but making it sound more trainee managerial, than purely manual. Which it is, but we hadn’t thought it particularly relevant. 

Anyway, he has insurance, and a black box, and the cost was nearer 2000, than the 3500 we were originally looking at.
I can’t help thinking that this kind of discrimination (ie, if you’re an 18 yo labourer you’ll have to pay more than an 18yo bank teller) wouldn’t be acceptable anywhere else.
Imagine if they discriminated on more controversial grounds. There’d be uproar, and rightly so. 

It's not discrimination when the statistics show that the typical 18yo labourer has more accidents than his 18yo bank teller counterpart.

If I owned a shop, and I felt rightly or wrongly that 15 to 25 year olds, or Audi drivers, nicked more stuff, so I stopped them coming in, I’d have a lawsuit on my hands.

You wouldn't.  Well, certainly not the Audi drivers anyway.

If you're going to use "discrimination" to mean taking statistical account of variations in likely risk, then to remove that would mean all insurance policies for all people in all situations would have to be identical prices.

Most people would think that this is not a great idea.

Jaco70

BarelySentientAI said:

Jaco70 said:

Inbetweeners said:

Jaco70 said:

An update on this.
We realised that a huge saving was possible by changing his job description. Not lying about it, but making it sound more trainee managerial, than purely manual. Which it is, but we hadn’t thought it particularly relevant. 

Anyway, he has insurance, and a black box, and the cost was nearer 2000, than the 3500 we were originally looking at.
I can’t help thinking that this kind of discrimination (ie, if you’re an 18 yo labourer you’ll have to pay more than an 18yo bank teller) wouldn’t be acceptable anywhere else.
Imagine if they discriminated on more controversial grounds. There’d be uproar, and rightly so. 

It's not discrimination when the statistics show that the typical 18yo labourer has more accidents than his 18yo bank teller counterpart.

If I owned a shop, and I felt rightly or wrongly that 15 to 25 year olds, or Audi drivers, nicked more stuff, so I stopped them coming in, I’d have a lawsuit on my hands.

You wouldn't.  Well, certainly not the Audi drivers anyway.

If you're going to use "discrimination" to mean taking statistical account of variations in likely risk, then to remove that would mean all insurance policies for all people in all situations would have to be identical prices.

Most people would think that this is not a great idea.

And I would agree that they have the right to feel it isn't a great idea. It doesn't really alter the facts though. If I were a manual worker charged much more for insurance because of my job, I would feel hard done by. 

I also feel its quite an outdated way of assessing risk, and I wonder if the data is actually a good few years old. Manual work attracts a different type of person now, as it can be so well paid.

BarelySentientAI

Jaco70 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Jaco70 said:

Inbetweeners said:

Jaco70 said:

An update on this.
We realised that a huge saving was possible by changing his job description. Not lying about it, but making it sound more trainee managerial, than purely manual. Which it is, but we hadn’t thought it particularly relevant. 

Anyway, he has insurance, and a black box, and the cost was nearer 2000, than the 3500 we were originally looking at.
I can’t help thinking that this kind of discrimination (ie, if you’re an 18 yo labourer you’ll have to pay more than an 18yo bank teller) wouldn’t be acceptable anywhere else.
Imagine if they discriminated on more controversial grounds. There’d be uproar, and rightly so. 

It's not discrimination when the statistics show that the typical 18yo labourer has more accidents than his 18yo bank teller counterpart.

If I owned a shop, and I felt rightly or wrongly that 15 to 25 year olds, or Audi drivers, nicked more stuff, so I stopped them coming in, I’d have a lawsuit on my hands.

You wouldn't.  Well, certainly not the Audi drivers anyway.

If you're going to use "discrimination" to mean taking statistical account of variations in likely risk, then to remove that would mean all insurance policies for all people in all situations would have to be identical prices.

Most people would think that this is not a great idea.

And I would agree that they have the right to feel it isn't a great idea. It doesn't really alter the facts though. If I were a manual worker charged much more for insurance because of my job, I would feel hard done by. 

I also feel its quite an outdated way of assessing risk, and I wonder if the data is actually a good few years old. Manual work attracts a different type of person now, as it can be so well paid.

And that's the crux of it most times.  "I would feel hard done by".  Not that it's wrong, just that you would be on the 'wrong' side of it from your perspective.

I assume, given that anything else would be discrimination, that you would be happy to pay the same price for your own insurance as required for your son's?

Lets see - to cover all the risks, including hundred thousand pound cars and personal injuries to surgeons needing 40 years of salary replacement, taking account of inflation....

Somewhere around £2000pa flat rate for everyone, for ever, sound good to you?