[crazylemon]

(Original post by midpikyrozziy)
Some of us are, but going back to the OP that doesn't make it right that the rest of us should have to pay the price for a few other's stupidity. What I'm saying is that if it was the same case with race, they'd never be allowed to up the price, so they shouldn't be allowed to with any other predisposition.

If it was discovered that white/black/yellow/blue people are a greater risk I think they should be able to charge them more.

Same with professions. If a doctor is more likely to crash than a lawyer or plumber they should adjust for it.

[mf2004]

(Original post by midpikyrozziy)
How do they get away with charging guys so much more than girls?

I understand that it's based on statistics, and that generally boys are more dangerous when driving, but suppose for a minute that (to use a stereotype) the statistics showed that Asians were more dangerous when compared to other ethnicities. If they tried to charge people more or less dependent on race, there would be uproar. Why's it not the same with gender?

In Switzerland you pay more if:
your car is red (more red cars have accidents)
you're a guy
you're from southern europe (they drive less safe on average)
and the list goes on

I don't see what the problem is ? Women in general cost the insurance less => they pay less. I wouldn't have a problem if this was race based either. If white people had to pay more because they crash more that would be fine by me. Insurances make you pay based on statistics and there's nothing else they can do.

(Original post by crazylemon)
If it was discovered that white/black/yellow/blue people are a greater risk I think they should be able to charge them more.

Same with professions. If a doctor is more likely to crash than a lawyer or plumber they should adjust for it.

completely agree

[Good bloke]

(Original post by midpikyrozziy)
A rather sweeping generalisation don't you think?

Of course, but that is how insurance works, and how it has to work.

People in entertainment professions pay far higher premiums, but not all of them drive while tired or drunk or are bad drivers.

[jellybeanjen]

(Original post by crazylemon)
If it was discovered that white/black/yellow/blue people are a greater risk I think they should be able to charge them more.

Same with professions. If a doctor is more likely to crash than a lawyer or plumber they should adjust for it.

I thought insurers did make some kind of adjustment for profession, otherwise why would they ask about it on the forms? I'm about to take my driving test, and got some quotes to see whether or not I could afford insurance if I pass. Interestingly, the quote for me as a student was cheaper than as a social worker. This is probably because social workers spend a fair bit of time on the road driving to/from visits, meetings, court etc, as well as doing day-to-day bits (e.g. going to the supermarket, getting to/from work). More time on the road means there's more chance you might have an accident. Students will only be doing the day-to-day stuff by comparison.

[crazylemon]

(Original post by jellybeanjen)
I thought insurers did make some kind of adjustment for profession, otherwise why would they ask about it on the forms? I'm about to take my driving test, and got some quotes to see whether or not I could afford insurance if I pass. Interestingly, the quote for me as a student was cheaper than as a social worker. This is probably because social workers spend a fair bit of time on the road driving to/from visits, meetings, court etc, as well as doing day-to-day bits (e.g. going to the supermarket, getting to/from work). More time on the road means there's more chance you might have an accident. Students will only be doing the day-to-day stuff by comparison.

They probably do. I wouldn't know though as I have never had to sort out insurance as I am only the named driver on a policy cause I am in london for most of the year so can't use the car.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by crazylemon)
They probably do.

They definitely do.

[mycodenameis:rosie]

question to all who know more on this than i do: do companies that deal with other type of insurance (ie., home insurance, or insurance for items like phones + laptops...) charge different for age and gender?

[Good bloke]

(Original post by mycodenameis:rosie)
question to all who know more on this than i do: do companies that deal with other type of insurance (ie., home insurance, or insurance for items like phones + laptops...) charge different for age and gender?

Sometimes, but not usually, because age is much less of a factor in those cases. Life insurance, on the other hand, is heavily dependent upon age.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Of course, but that is how insurance works, and how it has to work.

People in entertainment professions pay far higher premiums, but not all of them drive while tired or drunk or are bad drivers.

Why does it "have to work like that"? Why can't they solely base insurance premiums on relevant factors that people can actually control, like driving experience, engine capacity, and claim record.

You wouldn't allow companies to refuse to hire women because "statistically" they achieve less work in a 7 hour day; you would expect them to ignore things like race, age and sex and instead hire people based on more relevant factors.

I don't see any argument why insurers are allowed to get away with discriminatory practice other than "thats the way its always been done, get used to it", which frankly, is the worst possible argument known to man.

Charging me a premium because statistically young men are more likely to be bad drivers is no better than pre-emptively arresting black people because statistically they are more likely to commit a crime.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by py0alb)
Why does it "have to work like that"? Why can't they solely base insurance premiums on relevant factors that people can actually control, like driving experience, engine capacity, and claim record.

The age and sex of the driver are relevant, statistically, and, of course young drivers don't have a useful driving history or claim record on which to base individual premiums but why don't you approach this from a different direction?

Open a car insurance business (with your own money), and charge the same premium for all drivers no matter what their age and sex. I confidently predict that, based on the statistical evidence, you'll fairly quickly find that you are uncompetitive at the older age range and will get little business from them. You will, though, attract lots of young drivers because your price will be lower than that of other companies. You will then go out of business becasue the premium charged won't be high enough to take account of the claims you will receive. Remember, this is your money; do you think this business plan could work? Highly paid and very experienced insurance actuaries don't.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Good bloke)
The age and sex of the driver are relevant, statistically, and, of course young drivers don't have a useful driving history or claim record on which to base individual premiums but why don't you approach this from a different direction?

Open a car insurance business (with your own money), and charge the same premium for all drivers no matter what their age and sex. I confidently predict that, based on the statistical evidence, you'll fairly quickly find that you are uncompetitive at the older age range and will get little business from them. You will, though, attract lots of young drivers because your price will be lower than that of other companies. You will then go out of business becasue the premium charged won't be high enough to take account of the claims you will receive. Remember, this is your money; do you think this business plan could work? Highly paid and very experienced insurance actuaries don't.

You miss the point, I'm advocating we change the law, not the business model. Of course it wouldn't work unless every insurance company was forced to end discriminatory practice by the law. That's the point. A protection racket is a good business model, but it doesn't mean it should be legal.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by py0alb)
You miss the point, I'm advocating we change the law, not the business model. Of course it wouldn't work unless every insurance company was forced to end discriminatory practice by the law. That's the point. A protection racket is a good business model, but it doesn't mean it should be legal.

Then, because more politicians and businessmen (and ordinary members of the public) than not see sense in making those that cause the most costs pay more for a service, you are doomed to disappointment.

By your logic, young people should pay the same for life insurance as 90-year-olds. How would you like that?

[py0alb]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Then, because more politicians and businessmen (and ordinary members of the public) than not see sense in making those that cause the most costs pay more for a service, you are doomed to disappointment.

By your logic, young people should pay the same for life insurance as 90-year-olds. How would you like that?

So your argument boils down to "lots of people agree with me, therefore I'm right"?


Life insurance is actually a very poor analogy, but I'm glad you brought it up because it highlights the logical fallacy at the heart of this issue. You are mistaking causation and correlation, a classic mistake.

Your age directly affects how long you can be expected to live, along with your medical history. There is a direct and undisputed causation between old age and death.

However, my age doesn't affect my likelihood of me having an accident at all. Just because there is a weak correlation between age and sex and accident rate caused by distortion of the data by a fat tailed distribution of boy racers is completely irrelevant to the likelihood of me personally crashing.

"Statistically" is an oft-abused word, because by dividing the data how you like, you can demonstrate absolutely any correlation you wish to. This is why showing a correlation is worthless without a fully tested hypothesis as to the causation mechanism. There is no such causation between being a male in my 20s and a propensity to crash. Hence it is inherrently discriminatory to charge me more for car insurance.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by py0alb)

However, my age doesn't affect my likelihood of me having an accident at all. .

The only people who disagree with the proposition that young men have more accidents than other groups are, wait for it, young men. Denial is in the young male's typical psyche. My own son's car has dents on each corner that weren't there when it was bought, yet he persists in claiming he has never had an accident (while declining to claim that his car has been hit by anyone else).

Your age, in itself, doesn't give rise to a higher risk but the typical behaviour of males of that age is what gives rise to the higher risk - as a group they have noticeably poor self-assessment skills, worse driving skills than they claim, over-assurance in their own invulnerability and they have a strong tendency to drive too fast and too aggressively for the prevailing conditions. I know, I was one once. And, one day, you will agree.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Good bloke)
The only people who disagree with the proposition that young men have more accidents than other groups are, wait for it, young men. Denial is in the young male's typical psyche. My own son's car has dents on each corner that weren't there when it was bought, yet he persists in claiming he has never had an accident (while declining to claim that his car has been hit by anyone else).

Your age, in itself, doesn't give rise to a higher risk but the typical behaviour of males of that age is what gives rise to the higher risk - as a group they have noticeably poor self-assessment skills, worse driving skills than they claim, over-assurance in their own invulnerability and they have a strong tendency to drive too fast and too aggressively for the prevailing conditions. I know, I was one once. And, one day, you will agree.

You speak of young men as if they were all identical in every way. This is the discrimination I speak of. In actuality, the majority of young men are perfectly safe drivers, and just as safe as their fathers and sisters. If they are not, it is probably more due to inexperience than age, and as such I have no problem with a proportionally higher rates for less experienced drivers - but someone who is 40 and has been driving for 5 years should have no advantage over someone who is 22 and been driving for 5 years.

But your grouping all young men together as if they are all identical is inherently unfair and discriminatory. Unfortunately there are a few idiots out there who drive recklessly and put up the premiums for the rest of us. But there is no good reason why I should have to foot the bill any more than you, simply because I happen to be a similar age to them.

Correlation based discrimination of all descriptions should be banned.

[terpineol]

In short, you wouldn't bet on a three legged horse to win the grand national, and as such you can't expect an insurance company to bet that an 18 year old male won't crash.

Its not like you have to spend a fortune on car insurance anyway.

[TShadow383]

(Original post by Hannah45)
Haha, I'm not even old enough to drive yet, and I doubt I'm going to be very good.

I guess it's just because girls in general tend to drive slower and more safely than guys, hence they are involved in few accidents.

I read about this somewhere, apparently the number of accidents on average for women was a bit higher but the number of claims and cost per claim was lower as the crashes were less likely to be write-offs.

Seems to confirm what I saw in my final year of high-school too

[lovely_me]

It is sexism yes; but I doubt it will change anytime soon.

At least the adverts are catchy? 'For cheaper car insurance deals, girls get under Sheila's wheels! etc'

[lovely_me]

(Original post by midpikyrozziy)
Tell that to Lewis Hamilton, Jensen Button, and the rest of the F1 team.

Safer =/= Better

Except is kind of depends on what your definition of 'better' is.