Sexist car insurance

[Mass Hysteria]

How come insurance companies are allowed to get away with charging different rates based on gender?

[iGary]

"Statistics." :rolleyes:

[2nyRiggz]

Because they say teenage/young men drive like asswipes and tend to get in accidents more than ladies.


Bless

[vniow]

Erp, when I saw this title I thought it said "Sexiest car insurance" and I was thinking, you know, that pink-haired cartoon chick from the Esurance commercials is pretty cute...

[iGary]

Erp, when I saw this title I thought it said "Sexiest car insurance" and I was thinking, you know, that pink-haired cartoon chick from the Esurance commercials is pretty cute...

I thought it said sexiest, too. :D

[2nyRiggz]

I also saw it as that but i'm blind and i'm not wearing my glasses and i cant trust my sight right now.


Bless

[Mass Hysteria]

"Statistics." :rolleyes:


yeah, probably

Generalised on something you are born with and cant do anything about, not on how you are.

what would happen if it was based on ethnic origin?

[Loge]

Because they say teenage/young men drive like asswipes and tend to get in accidents more than ladies.


Bless

A way of saying different genders represent different risks.

[Blackheart]

yeah, probably

Generalised on something you are born with and cant do anything about, not on how you are.

what would happen if it was based on ethnic origin?

The ACLU would be up the the faces of insurance companies.

[iBlue]

I thought it said sexiest, too. :D

me three. :o


everyone knows teenage boys are lousy drivers.

:D i keeed i keeed.... or do i?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Erp, when I saw this title I thought it said "Sexiest car insurance" and I was thinking, you know, that pink-haired cartoon chick from the Esurance commercials is pretty cute...

I thought it said sexiest, too. :D

Glad I wasn't the only one to take that read of the title.

Now we know where our minds are located. :D

A way of saying different genders represent different risks.

As well as age and marital status too.

The ACLU would be up the the faces of insurance companies.

Not if the insurance companies could show through actuarial tables that certain ethnic groups show a greater risk.

[Mass Hysteria]

Not if the insurance companies could show through actuarial tables that certain ethnic groups show a greater risk.

Yeah, imagine the adverts for that! especially if they were based around the themes used for women - wonder why they dont do it!!

I cant believe that big companies get away with this without a fuss. Could I use the same criteria if say employing someone? for example:

- sorry love, youre female you see, and therefore statistically youre going to drop a sprog at sometime in the near future and want loads of time off, so im going to give the job to a man instead. Dont take it personally, I dont know if he's good enough for the position, all I know is hes male and youre not.

Is this analogy right or am I extreme ranting due to tiredness

Still, shouldn't complain, cant see em putting the price for men down, probably just put the womens up in line and call it being fair!:rolleyes:

[Aarow]

me three. :o



Me four. :o

[thedude110]

Is this analogy right or am I extreme ranting due to tiredness


No, it's not right.

First of all, insurance rates have much less to do with gender than age and driving history. Should insurance companies charge flat rates across all policy holders? I'm up for that. Then again, I'm also up for socialism.

Or, to look at it another way, why shouldn't a teenage driver have to prove themselves a safe driver before they are rewarded with reasonable rates? I have no problem with teenagers having to earn discounts on car insurance, just as one has to earn a raise in one's employment.

I fail to see any connection between a teenager having higher insurance rates and an issue so fundamental as equal opportunity to employment for all people. One is a minor annoyance over which the individual has control (safe driving will gradually bring rates down), the other is an act of large scale social oppression that seeks to preclude individuals from taking any control over their own lives (and which would, in effect, "keep women in the kitchen").

More simply: The insurance company doesn't refuse to cover teenagers, and women are generally paid less than men (http://www.radford.edu/~gstudies/sources/wage_gaps/wagegap.htm#backslide). So, no. Your analogy doesn't work.

[Blackheart]

I'm beginning to think some people are serious about the "flat rate for all" concept. Are there actually people who think this would work?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Yeah, imagine the adverts for that! especially if they were based around the themes used for women - wonder why they dont do it!!

I cant believe that big companies get away with this without a fuss. Could I use the same criteria if say employing someone? for example:

- sorry love, youre female you see, and therefore statistically youre going to drop a sprog at sometime in the near future and want loads of time off, so im going to give the job to a man instead. Dont take it personally, I dont know if he's good enough for the position, all I know is hes male and youre not.

Is this analogy right or am I extreme ranting due to tiredness

Still, shouldn't complain, cant see em putting the price for men down, probably just put the womens up in line and call it being fair!:rolleyes:

You are not far off, at least here in the US. Our age, race, and sex discrimination laws are there; but it is hard to prove. A company only has to prove they hired the best candidate. And as long as there is some diversity in that workplace, then all is well.

A growing number of people over 40 are being "downsized", and passed by for jobs. Why? Because they represent a growing cost to benefits.

Our company was hit with a 29% increase in health insurance costs. I attribute it to the fact in the last year we had a stroke victim, an associate that fought a battle to cancer and lost, a difficult pregnancy, and major back surgery - and these are the ones that I know about.

Add to that the company currently rewards longevity, so the average age of the employees is probably near 40+ years old. Heck, I have been there six years and I am still the "baby" of the company!

An aging workforce is a drain on medical costs. Hence you are seeing other companies that are trying to limit their "exposure" by using "downsizing" and hiring practices to reduce their costs.

There are many questions that can't be asked directly in the hiring process. But there are ways around it. And in the eagerness of wanting a job, we tell it all.

Example:

Interviewer: So how do you unwind after a stressful day? I love going out to the park with my two boys and practice some soccer moves.

Interviewee: My daughter is into swimming. (Or I take my dog out the dog park each and every time I can).

Interviewer: That is so great. How old is she? Mine are 7 and 10

Interviewee: Well, she is our first. And she is 5 yo. (warning sign - she is our first - more to come)

You get the idea. Yet, holding back on personal details during the relationship building of the interview can back fire too.

A tough road ahead, where $ and not the people matter for many companies.

[OutThere]

me three. :o


everyone knows teenage boys are lousy drivers.

:D i keeed i keeed.... or do i?

Allow me to defend myself.

I don't know how to defend myself.

Drat.

*goes off to find some gears to grind and some shopping carts to sideswipe*





Actually...I've only ever ground the gears once and it was last night...:o

[clayj]

me three. :o


everyone knows teenage boys are lousy drivers.

:D i keeed i keeed.... or do i? Me four.

[XNine]

It really is ********, And I beg to differ that men are the worst drivers. I have never had a friend, or myself, that wasn't involved in an accident caused by a woman. All three of mine were caused by women. Every one I see on the road involves a women, whether they caused it or not, I don't know.

Let's not forget more woman read books, do their makeup and hair, and chat on cell phones in the car than men do. It's lies. LIES I TELL YOU!

[katie ta achoo]

Allow me to defend myself.

..
Actually...I've only ever ground the gears once and it was last night...:o

What's gear grinding?

[OutThere]

What's gear grinding?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_transmission_driving_technique#Grinding_Gears

[Chaszmyr]

I was talking to my mom one day when I was in high school, and I was like "I don't get why boys have more expensive insurance, all of the girls I know are horrible drivers." She responded something to the effect of: "Girls are more likely to do something like run over their mailbox, but boys have the whole testosterone thing so they're more likely go 120mph and get themselves killed."

[rdowns]

Erp, when I saw this title I thought it said "Sexiest car insurance" and I was thinking, you know, that pink-haired cartoon chick from the Esurance commercials is pretty cute...

I'm partial to the gekko.

[katie ta achoo]

I'm partial to the gekko.

Me, too.
He's (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=22838) quite debonair.

[bemylover]

***

[Abstract]

I thought it said sexiest, too. :D

I feel that I was duped........duped harder than Oprah.

*sob*

[Abstract]

Not if the insurance companies could show through actuarial tables that certain ethnic groups show a greater risk.

I'm Chinese........oh......my precious, low yearly insurance rate..........I'm DOOOOOMED!!! :eek:

[MarkCollette]

Sometimes discrimination makes sense.

I know that when I transitionned from being single to having a common law wife, I did drive safer. And, as I've aged, I drive safer.

And, when a lot of women I know drive, I feel like they're 3cm from getting in a scrape. But, when I was younger, I got a _lot_ of speeding tickets (cops on foot hiding behind corners of buildings). Sure, I felt more technically skilled because I had a lot of control over my car, even at high velocities, but all it would have taken is one mishap, and I'd be dead now. Plus, there'd be a hell of an expensive mess wrapped around my corpse. Anyone driving a decent speed can afford to have accidents every couple years, and just repair their bumper. Dead people can't do that.

In Alberta, Canada, where I live, they're moving more towards a system based on your personal driving history, and less on your demographic. In some ways that's probably fairer.

[stoid]

I think that people use the the terms like sexist and racist far too loosely. I don't think that you are wrong in pointing out gender differences, racial difference, or religious difference. Being a male white Lutheran, I know that I am different from people that don't share those traits (as well as being different from people that do share the traits as well.)

However, it is racist or sexist if you use those differences in a argument as proof that one category is inferior or superior or in some way less or more a person because they belong to that group.

[Metatron]

Should insurance companies charge flat rates across all policy holders? I'm up for that. Then again, I'm also up for socialism.

Not to make it political, but I anything from ol' Karl I am completely against.

But I do agree that a flat rate should be applied. Statistics are most of the time wrong because the data is to localized. The rate should come from your record.

Oh, and me six. Clay, you missed one bud, you were 5.
:p

[devilot]

Yeah, imagine the adverts for that! especially if they were based around the themes used for women - wonder why they dont do it!!

I cant believe that big companies get away with this without a fuss. Could I use the same criteria if say employing someone? for example:

- sorry love, youre female you see, and therefore statistically youre going to drop a sprog at sometime in the near future and want loads of time off, so im going to give the job to a man instead. Dont take it personally, I dont know if he's good enough for the position, all I know is hes male and youre not.That happens. It really does. And Chip is right too about 'ageism,' even though technically there are laws against it. At my mom's company, they just fired a slew of skilled people-- guess what? They were all 50+ in age. Look at all their newest employees-- engineers fresh outta college. Glad to get meager earnings since they have nothing to measure it up against and they won't be cashing in on retirement money anytime soon.

[gekko513]

Me, too.
He's (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=22838) quite debonair.
Yay, a thread about me! Just me!

Thanks all! ;)


I think this very subject (not me, the car insurance thing) was debated here in Norway last year. It seems there is some kind of EU directive that forces Norway to make discrimination on insurance based on sex illegal by 2007.

[gekko513]

It really is ********, And I beg to differ that men are the worst drivers. I have never had a friend, or myself, that wasn't involved in an accident caused by a woman. All three of mine were caused by women. Every one I see on the road involves a women, whether they caused it or not, I don't know.
That BS, I hope you're joking. The insurance companies knows their statistics. It's what they make a living on.

If women cause most "male accidents" and still women have fewer accidents per driven kilometer, then there's something wrong with the way the men involved drives. Because if women caused most accidents for all accidents whether men or women actually were involved, then women would have more accidents per driven kilometer. And the latter is obviously not the case since young women enjoy cheaper insurance than young men.

[whocares]

Me four.

No, you five ;)


And me, pedantic :D

[Moof1904]

To add fuel to this fire, I get really pissed off at insurance companies who charge higher rates for people with poor credit ratings, no matter the person's payment history with that insurance companies.

Some states have laws against it, but most do not, so it's completely legal.

I hate insurance companies.

[Melkor]

Dear God don't get me started on insurance companies. Here in Ireland it's gone beyond a joke motor insurance is so bad.

There are only two companies that do motorbike insurance in the country (wtf happened to free trade I'll never know). I rang one of them up today asking for a quote on an 80cc crappy bike and they said they'd charge me €4120 a year. (!!!!)

I first asked them about getting a quote on a 250cc bike and they said they wouldn't even insure me. (I know there is some legal way around this, but they can give you a huge quote to make up for it).

As soon as I get my degree I'm out of this country, that's for sure. What a load of ****.

/stupid rand I hope no one read :p

(Just had to leave some steam off)

[OnceUGoMac]

I was talking to my mom one day when I was in high school, and I was like "I don't get why boys have more expensive insurance, all of the girls I know are horrible drivers." She responded something to the effect of: "Girls are more likely to do something like run over their mailbox, but boys have the whole testosterone thing so they're more likely go 120mph and get themselves killed."

Yep, Teenaged girls get into more accidents (fender benders), but teenaged boys get into more serious accidents.

[Chip NoVaMac]

To add fuel to this fire, I get really pissed off at insurance companies who charge higher rates for people with poor credit ratings, no matter the person's payment history with that insurance companies.

Some states have laws against it, but most do not, so it's completely legal.

I hate insurance companies.

Completely forgot about that one. Evidently those with poor credit have higher claims. Or so I was told by my agent when I referred a friend (who is my age, and similar driving record), when I found out his rate would be higher than mine by a large amount.


I am not sure that at this point in my life, that I would want flat rate car insurance. I think in the end I would be paying for lead footed idiots who are bent on cheating the insurance company.

Like this "person" that I kissed bumpers with on the Dulles Toll Road a few years back. The rescue squad was called by this "person", as well as the police. They arrived and asked where the other vehicle was, for they were told that medical attention was needed. This "person" demanded to be extracted from their car on a board. The rescue squad was pitching up a storm for wasted time. And the officer declined to issue me a ticket, he said the hassles with the insurance company would be enough, and just shook his head.

BTW, I was told by the phone adjuster that this "person" had multiple claims in the recent past for "accidents". I guess for the $2000 plus actual expenses, it was cheaper to pay off than to go to court to stop needless claims.

Here are the photos from that accident:

[Loge]

I think this very subject (not me, the car insurance thing) was debated here in Norway last year. It seems there is some kind of EU directive that forces Norway to make discrimination on insurance based on sex illegal by 2007.

If you mean the EU Gender directive, it looks like car insurance will remain an exception.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4142115.stm

[Nermal]

Me four. :o

Me five.

Six if you count Clay's screw-up :p

[Dagless]

I'm annoyed at that yes. Why do they bother with all this generalisation, I mean my cousin, albeit the only female member in the close family who can drive, has crashed 5 times! She has claimed 5 times. My dad, my granddad, my uncles and my cousin have never crashed once.

I hate all this. There should be an insurance company who give cheaper insurance to better drivers full-stop. everyone starts off low (same as these women car insurance brokers) and each crash or claim adds more and more. maybe thats what happens now, I dunno. I dont have a car or car insurance :)

EDIT: All this said, I know of about 3-4 lads being killed in car accidents locally. in newspapers like. only time I've heard of a woman being killed is when a car slid and hit her.

[Lau]

I hate all this. There should be an insurance company who give cheaper insurance to better drivers full-stop.

There is.

[kiwi-in-uk]

Sheila's Wheels (http://www.sheilaswheels.com/) is one example in the UK - lots of advertising aimed solely at women.

[gekko513]

If you mean the EU Gender directive, it looks like car insurance will remain an exception.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4142115.stm
Yeah, that was probably it. It's a pity it didn't go through. I don't like discrimination in either direction.

[MarkCollette]

Yeah, that was probably it. It's a pity it didn't go through. I don't like discrimination in either direction.

All this anecdotal evidence aside, are you saying that, if we have clear statistical data showing that two groups behave quite differently, that we should still treat them the same? Even when it's a matter of life and death. Because you don't like discrimination?

[gekko513]

All this anecdotal evidence aside, are you saying that, if we have clear statistical data showing that two groups behave quite differently, that we should still treat them the same? Even when it's a matter of life and death. Because you don't like discrimination?
No, but the individual differences within the groups male and female is for most purposes, including driving habits, bigger than the differences between the two groups.

A better statistical indicator than gender must exist, but if that's too hard to find, too hard to measure or illegal to measure, then I don't think discrimination based on sex should be used instead legally.

Edit:
I'm pretty sure that the statistical correlation between sensation-seeking hormone levels and car accidents would be better than the correlation between gender and car accidents.
Testosterone correlates particularly with the disinhibitory types of sensation-seeking--those associated with drinking, drugs, sex and antisocial behavior. It is also associated with normal traits like dominance, sociability and activity. As testosterone levels drop, men's aggressive, antisocial tendencies begin to mellow. Sensation-seeking scores of men aged 50 to 59 are half those of males aged 16 to 19.

Women also have testosterone, but less of it. Still, the hormone is linked to behaviors in women similar to those in men, such as assertiveness, aggression and sexual arousal.

Another biological correlate of sensation-seeking is the enzyme monoamine oxidase (MAO), active in the brain. Monoamine oxidase functions as a regulator, keeping neurotransmitters in balance. It could also contribute to the gender and age differences in sensation-seeking and risk-taking.

A form of monoamine oxidase called type B is particularly related to sensation-seeking--and to regulation of dopamine. The link between MAO and dopamine is notable in light of the fact that the dopamine-4 receptor gene has been connected to sensation-seeking, and another dopamine receptor, D2, has been connected with substance abuse, a particular form of risk-taking behavior.

The enzyme monoamine oxidase is low in high-sensation-seekers, implying a lack of regulation. What is more, levels of MAO are known to be higher in women than in men, and MAO levels in brain and in the blood rise with age. Further evidence that MAO is involved in sensation-seeking is that low MAO levels are also found in forms of psychopathology characterized by impulsive tendencies to seek immediate rewards without regard for consequences.
Measuring hormone levels as a way of determining insurance fees is probably neither practical or legal, but in my opinion it would be more fair.

[iGav]

Sheila's Wheels (http://www.sheilaswheels.com/) is one example in the UK - lots of advertising aimed solely at women.

Diamond are worse... I can only begin to imagine the uproar from the feminist gaggle if such blatantly discriminatory twaddle was peddled in their direction.

It's the same with the Women Only gym and swimming sessions at sports centres :rolleyes: the other week I went to my gym only to be told that it was 'Womans Hour' :rolleyes: so I couldn't use the services that I pay for basically because of my gender. :eek: (I didn't notice Men Only sessions on the schedules though).

Though that said, I was reading an article the other week, regarding a soul gentleman whom had recently complained to his local authority that women only sessions at his local swimming pool were discriminatory, and as such the local authority have since rescinded these sessions. :p

[jared_kipe]

I find teenage girls to be the worst drivers. And old people.

My sister has totaled 2 cars. Backed into cars. Gotten stuck in like 3 inches of snow. Driven into a ditch. Parked her car on a hill and SOMEHOW it rolled down the hill and into a tree.

I know girls who have backed into stop signs. Knocked their doors off by ACCIDENTALLY backing out of a garage with their door open. And drive a distance it takes me 2 hours going the speed limit, in 1 hour flat.

[MarkCollette]

No, but the individual differences within the groups male and female is for most purposes, including driving habits, bigger than the differences between the two groups.

A better statistical indicator than sex must exist, but if that's too hard to find, too hard to measure or illegal to measure, then I don't think discrimination based on sex should be legal.

Well, it's actually both sex and age together that is the clear indicator. The alternative would be a personality test, which would be more intrusive and expensive. Saying that an alternative "must exist" is useless. Saying that if an alternative does not exist, then we should make it illegal to use the only thing that does work, is quite insane. I hope you just made a typo or I read you wrong.

Plus, businesses tend to require making money before paying expenses, to remain profitable. If they use statistics to determine your likelihood of being in an accident, then they can charge you that money before you get in the accident. If they go by track record, then they can only charge you that money after you've had the accident. And if you then change companies, or move elsewhere, then they never get that money back.

Plus, in effect, after a couple years you are charged by track record, since your record puts you into different statistical classes. If they legislated against sex and age discrimination after, say, a 5 year driving period, then maybe that would be fair.

EDIT: Adding in this about testosterone. I'd rather the impersonal discrimination against my age and sex than the invasive requirement of blood test. Who knows how that would eventually be abused. Witness how the Patriot Act allows the government to access all that information about you, and whoever they get it from are not allowed to tell you? Do you want whoever to have access to your genetic information? Or if hackers get that info off of the FBI's computers, or the much less protected insurance company's computers, and any criminal has that info?

Also, that in no way makes fairer the situation of people in these groups who make the conscious decision to drive safe, no matter their sex, age, or hormones.

[gekko513]

Well, it's actually both sex and age together that is the clear indicator. The alternative would be a personality test, which would be more intrusive and expensive. Saying that an alternative "must exist" is useless. Saying that if an alternative does not exist, then we should make it illegal to use the only thing that does work, is quite insane. I hope you just made a typo or I read you wrong.

Plus, businesses tend to require making money before paying expenses, to remain profitable. If they use statistics to determine your likelihood of being in an accident, then they can charge you that money before you get in the accident. If they go by track record, then they can only charge you that money after you've had the accident. And if you then change companies, or move elsewhere, then they never get that money back.

Plus, in effect, after a couple years you are charged by track record, since your record puts you into different statistical classes. If they legislated against sex and age discrimination after, say, a 5 year driving period, then maybe that would be fair.

EDIT: Adding in this about testosterone. I'd rather the impersonal discrimination against my age and sex than the invasive requirement of blood test. Who knows how that would eventually be abused. Witness how the Patriot Act allows the government to access all that information about you, and whoever they get it from are not allowed to tell you? Do you want whoever to have access to your genetic information? Or if hackers get that info off of the FBI's computers, and any criminal has that info?
Well, yes, that's what I said. If the only thing they can easily find to discriminate on is gender, then I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate on that.

I agree that a blood test is much more invasive and can be abused, but discriminating on gender isn't fair. Men have very varying levels of risk-taking behaviour and it's not fair that the risk-takers among men causes a higher fee for non-risk-taking men, while risk-taking women are let off easy.

[Loge]

One reason why women pay less for car insurance is that on average men drive more than women.

[gekko513]

One reason why women pay less for car insurance is that on average men drive more than women.
I'm pretty sure that these numbers are per insured kilometer(mile).

[Loge]

I'm pretty sure that these numbers are per insured kilometer(mile).

In the UK, premiums are usually charged the same regardless of mileage, although some do offer lower rates if you agree to do low mileage. But charging directly by mileage is not really practicable, hence any group that tends to drive more tends to pay more.

[MarkCollette]

In the UK, premiums are usually charged the same regardless of mileage, although some do offer lower rates if you agree to do low mileage. But charging directly by mileage is not really practicable, hence any group that tends to drive more tends to pay more.

I don't know about other companies here in Alberta, Canada, but mine uses mileage. I have a short commute, so am in a cheaper group.

[gekko513]

In the UK, premiums are usually charged the same regardless of mileage, although some do offer lower rates if you agree to do low mileage. But charging directly by mileage is not really practicable, hence any group that tends to drive more tends to pay more.
In Norway all car insurance that I know of is calculated based on an upper milage limit that you set beforehand. You decide the choice of mileage limit yourself based on how much you think you're going to drive. That's why I said insured kilometeres, which isn't exactly the same as actual driven kilometers when the end of the year comes.

[Loge]

In Norway all car insurance that I know of is calculated based on an upper milage limit that you set beforehand. You decide the choice of mileage limit yourself based on how much you think you're going to drive. That's why I said insured kilometeres, which isn't exactly the same as actual driven kilometers when the end of the year comes.

What happens if you go over your limit, do they expect you to pay an additional premium?

[gekko513]

What happens if you go over your limit, do they expect you to pay an additional premium?
If you haven't increased the limit by the time you have an accident, the insurance payment will be reduced or simply declined.

Edit: Interesting, I did online premium calculations on two Norwegian insurance companies just now and neither of them appeared to base the premium on gender. One definitely didn't ask for gender in any way, and the other asked for my social security number which implicitly contains information about my gender, but none of the writing suggested that they used the gender in the calculation.

[MarkCollette]

Well, yes, that's what I said. If the only thing they can easily find to discriminate on is gender, then I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate on that.

I agree that a blood test is much more invasive and can be abused, but discriminating on gender isn't fair. Men have very varying levels of risk-taking behaviour and it's not fair that the risk-takers among men causes a higher fee for non-risk-taking men, while risk-taking women are let off easy.

I think you're failing to see why discrimination actually helps the discriminated, in this case. Let's say that we ignored statistics, and simply used our charter rights to not be discriminated against, be it by race, sex, age, etc. What would then happen is that the greater whole of society would then subsidise the more dangerous subgroups. The economic bar of entry into this useful endeavor, driving, would be lowered for the dangerous subgroups, and effectively raised for the safer subgroups (*A*). That would effectively make it easier to be dangerous, and harder to be safer. When people get in accidents, they can hurt others, but they also tend to hurt themselves. So now we're double punishing the safe, because they're at greater risk of being hurt, and we're penalising the dangerous, because they're at greater risk of being hurt. In this case, with young males, that means a much higher fatality rate. By not discriminating against young males, you end up with more dead young males. That alone should be reason enough to reconsider your ideas, since it's in their interest, let alone the double punishment against safer drivers. True that some safe young males will economically benefit, but they're still penalised by the greater risk of being hurt by dangerous young males.

So, by not discriminating in dangerous activities, we actually punish everyone, especially people who are safe.

Also, as I mentionned earlier, the blood test would only show a propensity to drive unsafe, but would not be an exact indicator. So, you'd still end up with unfair situations, but now with huge problems added on for everyone.

Now, here's my suggestion. We see why young males drive more dangerously. We see if that can be molded into a safer situation:


Do studies where we see if young males who have access to race tracks get in more accidents or less. Are the race tracks good places to vent, or do they encourage fast driving elsewhere. Or is that just a self-selecting sample?
Are guys driving dangerously to impress others? Girls or other guys? Can this be reduced through propaganda to the target groups?
Would it be more effective to stipulate a requirement for ABS brakes? You'd be surprised how many new cars don't have them standard.
How much safer are winter tires than summer or all-season tires? In each season. Maybe drivers could get a break on insurance rates if they use special tires.
More young males get their own cars then other groups, including young women, who tend to be given cars by their parents. Young males have less purchasing power than older people. Could these cheaper cars simply be less safe than more expensive cars. Could it be that, given access to these better cars, that even with riskier behaviour, accident rates would fall?



(*A*) The insurance companies have to cover their costs, so if they can't charge the group that incurs the cost, they have to charge everyone else that much more. On a tangent, remember how everyone's simple insurance rates went up after 9-11, and the insurance companies claimed it was several reasons, like mould? One way or another, they'll charge who they have to, to make a profit.

[gekko513]

I think you're failing to see why discrimination actually helps the discriminated, in this case. Let's say that we ignored statistics, and simply used our charter rights to not be discriminated against, be it by race, sex, age, etc. What would then happen is that the greater whole of society would then subsidise the more dangerous subgroups. The economic bar of entry into this useful endeavor, driving, would be lowered for the dangerous subgroups, and effectively raised for the safer subgroups (*A*). That would effectively make it easier to be dangerous, and harder to be safer.
But that line of thinking would be even more valid for higher correlated factors like hormone levels, genetics and personality tests. To protect the dangerous subgroups more effectively we would have to base the statistics on the more invasive indicators.

I'm not saying that we should start doing the blood tests and personality tests, mind you, I'm just saying that this particular argument suggests that we should.

[bugfaceuk]

A way of saying different genders represent different risks.

Women come pre-fitted with dual airbags

[MarkCollette]

But that line of thinking would be even more valid for higher correlated factors like hormone levels, genetics and personality tests. To protect the dangerous subgroups more effectively we would have to base the statistics on the more invasive indicators.

I'm not saying that we should start doing the blood tests and personality tests, mind you, I'm just saying that this particular argument suggests that we should.

Yes, that line of thinking, a recognition of cause and effect, does support that. My argument supports a choice between discrimination or invasion of privacy. Constitutionally, we have rights to not be discriminated against based on our race, sex, and age. Also, we have the right to privacy. Insurance premiums are an example of a situation where different accident prediction strategies, and their resulting cost targetting, creates a conflict between our rights.

I believe I've demonstrated the practical benefits of the statistical approach. I have also outlined potential improvements to that system that, within a framework of discrimination, could reduce the affects of the discrimination. The caveat is that my choice holds a preference for upholding my right to privacy over my right of non-discrimination.

Is your choice the status quo of discrimination, or a reduction of your existing privacy?

[gekko513]

My choice is to value the principle of not discriminating based on gender, race, religion and sexual preference and so on over protecting young men from themselves by charging higher car insurance premiums.

The other suggestions you have for discouraging reckless driving among young men and increasing driving safety in general are interesting and I think it's the society's and governments' responsibility to try out such measures whether insurance companies can discriminate based on gender or not.

[MarkCollette]

My choice is to value the principle of not discriminating based on gender, race, religion and sexual preference and so on over protecting young men from themselves by charging higher car insurance premiums.

I agree with your sentiment against a granny state of trying to protect people from themselves. Unfortunately, this is not an arbitrary penalty, but a choice for who pays for real costs. And since this is about insurance, by definition it is about spreading these costs at least over time, if not also over other people who are not currently responsible for them.

You've not described any alternative to discrimination, except for one that infringes our privacy rights, and you have successfully avoided mentionning that in your "choice". As such, you have not stated a choice, but rather a wish or a desire.

You've also ignored the question of who bears the economic and health costs for your wish.

I applaud your standing up for your rights, especially since you're standing up for my rights as well. But, I fail to see the point of this discussion anymore.

[gekko513]

My alternative is to base the premium only on age, personal history of driving safety, car model and year of making, parking facilities, car security installments , location, mileage and similar indicators. (Edit: those were the questions I got when I did the online premium calculations on two car insurance companies here in Norway)

Those factors should spread the cost over time reasonably well among among the people who are most responsible for costly car accidents.

[Mass Hysteria]

Insurance and pension costs hit by ECJ gender ruling (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610)

[HacKage]

One of the examples the BBC gave was a pair of twins, boy and girl, both same age, stay at same address, both took 3 attempts to pass their test, and the boys insurance costs were DOUBLE that of the girls. That is outright shocking, and with women getting equal rights, surely they have an equal right to get shafted like the rest of us?

[iStudentUK]

One of the examples the BBC gave was a pair of twins, boy and girl, both same age, stay at same address, both took 3 attempts to pass their test, and the boys insurance costs were DOUBLE that of the girls. That is outright shocking, and with women getting equal rights, surely they have an equal right to get shafted like the rest of us?

I also saw that on the BBC- yes they are twins, but so what? The insurance company don't interview people! There is a reason why insurers asks questions like your job, your relationship status, your postcode etc. They are used to predict your risk of crashing.

The simple fact of the matter is this- men crash more than women. Especially young men. When an insurer agrees to insure a 18 year old male they expect to pay out more than if he were a 18 year old female. So they charge more. I don't see a problem.

I'm normally very liberal, pro-equality, pro-Europe/Human Rights etc. However, this is crazy, it isn't discrimination if it is based on statistical evidence!

[HacKage]

It was mainly to point out that they are both the same age, stay at the same address, drive the same car, and because of statistical evidence you say, then he has to pay double what his sister has to? I think it amounts to stereotyping and punishment for younger drivers who have had no experience who get punished for the actions of those before you. I'm sure I heard or read somewhere that OAPs are 3 times more likely to have an accident than under 21s. I can't remember if it was Jeremy Clarkson or where I saw it, but when I'm out on the road, it's usually the OAPs driving poorly that I spot before any young people driving poorly.

[iStudentUK]

It was mainly to point out that they are both the same age, stay at the same address, drive the same car, and because of statistical evidence you say, then he has to pay double what his sister has to? I think it amounts to stereotyping and punishment for younger drivers who have had no experience who get punished for the actions of those before you. I'm sure I heard or read somewhere that OAPs are 3 times more likely to have an accident than under 21s. I can't remember if it was Jeremy Clarkson or where I saw it, but when I'm out on the road, it's usually the OAPs driving poorly that I spot before any young people driving poorly.

The point is the 'stereotype' is true! Based on the evidence available to the insurance company (which will be data from millions of people) the boy was likely to cost them twice as much of the girl. So they charged double. Seems fair to me.

If the standard of driving amongst young people improves premiums will drop. That is how the market works. They are not being punished due to previous young drivers records, they are simply being fairly and accurately compared to them.

Remember, it isn't how many times you crash, but how much damage you cause. Just as an example (I have no evidence for this, it is just a thought) it may well be that women crash twice as often as men. But women have minor scuffles that cost the insurance company a few hundred pounds. Whereas men crash less often but write off their cars and the person they crashed into, injuring the driver and costing many thousands of pounds!

[HacKage]

I just feel that as a young driver with no experience you get hit harder than you should. Those who cause the crashes, I feel that instead of their premiums going up a wee bit, they should be put to the level of a young, starter driver and basically start again. This protected no claims business is pretty unfair as while they may have 6-7years no claims, if they crash it is protected, but those costs are then passed onto new drivers who haven't done anything yet to deserve it.

[QuarterSwede]

I just feel that as a young driver with no experience you get hit harder than you should. Those who cause the crashes, I feel that instead of their premiums going up a wee bit, they should be put to the level of a young, starter driver and basically start again. This protected no claims business is pretty unfair as while they may have 6-7years no claims, if they crash it is protected, but those costs are then passed onto new drivers who haven't done anything yet to deserve it.
Insurance companies are taking a risk (gambling in essence) when they insure someone. What they're doing is using as much information as possible to minimize possible loss. It's basically an educated guess.

You've got to remember that this is based on decades of information.

[HacKage]

Yes I totally see where you and the insurance companies are coming from, but I just feel that those who crash don't really get punished enough. Putting the culprits premiums up £100-200 the next year really is nothing compared to the £2000-4000 first year premium for a young male driver who hasn't drove yet. I know they have no experience and I'm not saying for those premiums to fall, just for the premiums of those who crash to drastically rise and basically be made to start again on the insurance ladder in order to cover the costs.

[QuarterSwede]

Yes I totally see where you and the insurance companies are coming from, but I just feel that those who crash don't really get punished enough. Putting the culprits premiums up £100-200 the next year really is nothing compared to the £2000-4000 first year premium for a young male driver who hasn't drove yet. I know they have no experience and I'm not saying for those premiums to fall, just for the premiums of those who crash to drastically rise and basically be made to start again on the insurance ladder in order to cover the costs.
That's part of the marketing. Make it too high and people won't bother buying it and they'll go elsewhere. The free market has helped make insurance what it is today. They figure that males under 25 will pay for insurance no matter how high it's priced (to and extent) because they want to drive and have the freedom that's associated with it.

[robbieduncan]

Yes I totally see where you and the insurance companies are coming from, but I just feel that those who crash don't really get punished enough. Putting the culprits premiums up £100-200 the next year really is nothing compared to the £2000-4000 first year premium for a young male driver who hasn't drove yet. I know they have no experience and I'm not saying for those premiums to fall, just for the premiums of those who crash to drastically rise and basically be made to start again on the insurance ladder in order to cover the costs.

The fact remains that the statistics show that your average experienced driver is unlikely to crash again soon after a crash. So their risk profile has not really changed much. A new/inexperienced driver is, unfortunately, statistically quite likely to crash again quite soon after their first crash. So their risk profile also has not changed much.

You need to stop thinking that insurance premiums are calculated for individuals: they are calculated for huge populations groups (like say males aged 17-21).

[iStudentUK]

Yes I totally see where you and the insurance companies are coming from, but I just feel that those who crash don't really get punished enough. Putting the culprits premiums up £100-200 the next year really is nothing compared to the £2000-4000 first year premium for a young male driver who hasn't drove yet.

The most expensive part of a claim is often not the cars themselves. A young driver crashes their car and writes it off and the car they hit. Young driver's car, maybe £1500, average family car they hit maybe £1000. Peanuts to an insurer.

However, the driver of the car they hit is injured and can't work for 2 months. Has to visit hospital a lot. The insurer is now stuck paying compensation for the injury itself, loss of earnings, costs to go to hospital etc. Then imagine the driver's spouse is also injured. Imagine their child is injured. Lots and lots of money going around.

So say the insurance company took the view of giving young drivers premiums only, say 20%, more than those over 25 then really bumping premiums if they crash. The premiums for those who have crashed would have to be £10k, £20k, £30k- who knows?! They would just not renew and the insurer would never recover their losses.

The simple fact of the matter is the people who crash their cars don't have the money to cover the losses of the insurer by paying higher premiums in following years. The insurance companies cannot afford to trust people until they crash- they must spread the risk. So young males all get high insurance.

[HacKage]

QuarterSwede said that if it is too high, they will go elsewhere, but if it is put across the board that if you have an accident then all companies reset your insurance as it were, then they will just need to deal with it. If there was a bit more at risk when you crash other than premiums going up by a small amount and instead go up by a massive amount, people may pay a bit more attention to their driving and be a bit more careful.

I just feel that in regards to younger drivers, and more on the topic, the gender division, that if women are wanting equality across the board, then gender shouldn't come into it. With car insurance the thins that come into it should be age, location, car, occupation, years experience etc. etc. The whole blanket stereotype of all young males should be punished for a small amount of idiots is a bit unfair imo. I'm 24, will be 25 in Nov which will put me into the "adult" group of insurance and my premiums will fall, I have never had a crash, and I am being punished for the actions of some idiots in their Corsas with loud exhausts etc.

Statistics may say that women are the safer drivers, but there are some idiot women drivers just like males, albeit not as many as statistics may show, but if we are all to be totally, 100% equal, then there should be no discrimination at all. I am also a believer that the women only shortlists and the plans for mandatory numbers of women in certain jobs is also discriminatory and feel that companies may take on women who are lesser qualified just to fill quotas, but there are no doubt companies who would rather employ a male in a position for a number of reasons. If there is to be total equality, then it has to be across the board, and take the good with the bad. This, unfortunately for females, is one of the bad points of equality.