Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sexist car insurance
- Thread starter Mass Hysteria
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
gekko513 said:
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.
Loge said:
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.
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 said:
If you haven't increased the limit by the time you have an accident, the insurance payment will be reduced or simply declined.Loge said:
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.
gekko513 said:
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.
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.MarkCollette said:
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.
gekko513 said:
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?
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.
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.
gekko513 said:
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.
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.
Those factors should spread the cost over time reasonably well among among the people who are most responsible for costly car accidents.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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).
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.