Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Sexist car insurance

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.
 
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.
 
thedude110 said:
Should insurance companies charge flat rates across all policy holders? I'm up for that. Then again, I'm also up for socialism.
Click to expand...

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
 
Mass Hysteria said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
katie ta achoo said:
Me, too.
He's quite debonair.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Onizuka said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
Chaszmyr said:
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."
Click to expand...

Yep, Teenaged girls get into more accidents (fender benders), but teenaged boys get into more serious accidents.
 
Moof1904 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-3 copy.jpg
    Untitled-3 copy.jpg
    53.9 KB · Views: 88
  • Untitled-4 copy.jpg
    Untitled-4 copy.jpg
    64.4 KB · Views: 85
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.
 
raggedjimmi said:
I hate all this. There should be an insurance company who give cheaper insurance to better drivers full-stop.
Click to expand...

There is.
 
gekko513 said:
Yeah, that was probably it. It's a pity it didn't go through. I don't like discrimination in either direction.
Click to expand...

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?
 
MarkCollette said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
kiwi-in-uk said:
Sheila's Wheels is one example in the UK - lots of advertising aimed solely at women.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
gekko513 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MarkCollette said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back