Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Car Insurance... The last overt form of sexism? Watch

    • Offline

      14
      Why are you ok with other variables being factored in? Why are they any less discriminatory than gender?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by OmegaSeamaster)
      Car insurance is completely unfair full stop.

      I've been driving 3 years all over the country without so much as a scratch and yet my premium is barely any lower than it was 3 years ago because i'm still pigeon holed into a 'likely to have an accident' category by my age and gender.

      Something really needs to be done about it. IMO insurance companies should have to drastically drop their premiums year on year (providing you have little-no accidents) because atm they just massively exploit compulsory insurance.
      You may have become a victim of the ;credit crunch' in the last 2 of those years assuming we are talking about the last 6 years

      I have been driving around 6 years and each year my insurance went down significantly (from 1200ish to 400ish) - but in the last 2 years the drop rate has stopped and i think this year i paid slightly MORE than last year

      my original insurers (direct line) actually quoted me £150 MORE this year than last - so clearly the insurance industry has changed a bit the last couple of years
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Sorry d00d, it's just stats.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      The service provided by the insurance company is acceptance of financial risk.
      A man is more likely to be involved in a traffic collision* requiring money to repair the damage, and therefore carries a greater financial risk.
      The insurance company is providing the man with a greater service than it is providing to a woman in a similar position.
      Because the insurance company is providing the man with a greater service, it charges more money.

      Simples.


      *Yes, some individual men might be really awesome drivers. But the insurance company doesn't know that until they actually prove it, by driving without claiming (after which, they're entitled to a no claims bonus). Short of receiving a divine revelation, statistics and generalisation is the only method in existence to evaluate the risk someone poses.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by felt_monkey)
      What do you want them to do, individually follow everyone around and assess how much of a risk they are? They've got to go by stereotypes and statistics. How else do you expect them to do it? You could argue it's ageist to bump up the price for youngsters because not every teenager is going to go and wrap their car around a tree. But that's how it's done, because statistically you're more of a risk the younger you are. Same goes for the gender divide. That's life, as unfair as it is.
      What if it was race?
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by CurlyBen)
      Sounds like you need to get some better quotes rather than moaning about it. My first year's insurance was £700, now, with 4 years NCB, it's £360 - and fully comp, not TPFT.
      What on earth are you talking about? In my first year, I couldn't find a single quote under £1,100 and I spent months searching for as best a deal I could find.
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      there is one truth is all this

      insurance companies are ****ers

      seriously, the way that they hold your driving independence hostage until you fork out ridiculous amounts of money is just obscene
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
      What if it was?

      We shouldn't let hysterical and irrational fear of being 'politically incorrect' allow us to shy away from facts and figures.

      I'm not aware of the statistics relating races and car accidents, but if they existed, then the unbias information that they provide should be exploited in order to make informed, rational business/policy decisions.

      If black people crashed a lot - then so be it, that's the way it is. That's the cold hard fact of the reality in which we live, and if your head is too far up your arse to accept facts for what they are, then I pity you.

      Governments, businesses, etc should be encouraged to make decisions based on FACTS, NOT on the utopian ideals of the politically correct.
      If black people honestly did crash more, there is absolutely no way they would get charged more money in this day and age, absolutely no way. If you think so, you're not being progressive, you're being deluded. Im a medical student and I know that races are treated different in terms of their health because of scientifically proven facts about their bodies that they can't control, but when you start to make policy which implies inherent differences in someone's skill levels and behaviour in society, it will be deemed as far too racist to be implemented.
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
      Technically it's the government who hold your driving independence hostage until you get insurance. It's them who make it illegal to drive on the road without it - all the insurance companies do is set the price, and they do so relatively fairly based on the financial risk you pose.
      Yeah i know that, but its more of a deal lol
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
      You're absolutely right - and that it's a shame that that's the case.

      As I said before, people in this country haven't progressed at all in their rationalism. They've moved from one form of irrationality to another, from unsubstantiated racism to a complete ignorance of reality.



      I'm certainly not deluded about the current state of the country. I know that it would be impossible for a company to make this kind of distinction, regardless of reliability of the evidenceon which it was based. I just think that's a bad thing.

      As a scientist, I am saddened any time that evidence is ignored in exchange for hysteria.



      Aye, it will. But not rightly.

      Why should behaviourial information learned from rigorous science be any less applicable than biological information?

      The social/behavioural sciences get a bad name, but in essence they are based on the exact same principles as the sciences - the information they have is gleaned from the same care, meticulous, self-correcting processes, and as such, that information should be as highly regarded as anything we accept in physics, biology, chemistry, engineering, etc.

      I'm a truly progressive person - but I believe that progress should be made TOWARDS rationality, rather than from one irrationality to another.
      There's something I think you've missed. This system is very easy to abuse. Policy isn't just about making maximally efficient rules, it also has to look at things holistically; it has to protect people. If we allowed companies to use all kinds of demographic research in policy-making we would have a situation where powerful people could easily express their own prejudices in making decisions which they could claim were borne out of "research". Anything one wants can be statistically correlated. By using a blanket stance such as 'you can't be racially prejudiced in free-market situations' you avoid having to deal with potentially dangerous slippery slope situations.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      What always makes me laugh is how people forget this

      Why should older people i.e. above 25 or so be made me pay more for our crashes? I'm not going to pull out statistics but it's pretty much common knowledge the majority of accidents do occur in the young

      They are just basing it on risk. If women are statistically safer then why shouldn't they get charged less
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Larrabee)
      Feminist here.

      The whole insurance industry is corrupt to its core and I can't stand it.

      However, if this is the worst kind of discrimination you face, you should be very grateful and remember how lucky and privileged you actually are.
      And so should you.

      Shall we start going into the divorce courts?

      Feminists who want equality..good on them, Feminists who want equality by creating inequality should be *****slapped..really.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      The last overt form of sexism?
      That made me laugh!
      Well, it made me smirk, at least.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
      What on earth are you talking about? In my first year, I couldn't find a single quote under £1,100 and I spent months searching for as best a deal I could find.
      I'm saying it doesn't sound like you've done very well with finding insurance prices. My insurance has halved with 4 years NCB (despite the cost of car insurance going up) yet you're saying yours has only dropped by about 15%. Unless you've changed your car it doesn't sound like you're getting a good deal. Not really that hard to comprehend is it?
      (Incidentally if you had a quote of £1100 in your first year why are you paying £1200 three years on?)
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by fran.ha)
      The last overt form of sexism? I'd say there are plenty of overt forms of sexism, such as ya know, women getting paid significantly less? Thats pretty overtly obvious and yet you're not moaning about that.

      Maybe I could argue that we pay less for insurance because we get paid less than men, on the offchance that we might go and have a kid or something.
      Agreed.

      Women should be paid the same as men before we start worrying about car insurance.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by chinaberry)
      The last overt form of sexism?
      That made me laugh!
      Well, it made me smirk, at least.
      Now, now love, this is a grownup conversation for the men ok?


      Do you like kittens?
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      I'm wondering why people in this thread are considering the fact that women get paid less than men as a form of sexism. It's not as though companies are looking at two people who do exactly the same job and saying "You're a woman, I think I'll cut 25% off your salary, just because I don't like women". Women simply tend to do the jobs that are lower paid, or they tend to work part-time more often than men etc. It's a result of the differences in the way they choose to work, the industries they choose to apply to, and the jobs they are skilled and qualified enough to get. There's no reason to suggest that it has anything to do with sexism.
      Chinese people get higher marks in the British Maths Olympiad than everyone else. That hardly means the people who mark the paper are being racist.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by py0alb)
      Now, now love, this is a grownup conversation for the men ok?


      Do you like kittens?
      Broiled or fried, please.
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tazarooni89)
      I'm wondering why people in this thread are considering the fact that women get paid less than men as a form of sexism. It's not as though companies are looking at two people who do exactly the same job and saying "You're a woman, I think I'll cut 25% off your salary, just because I don't like women". Women simply tend to do the jobs that are lower paid, or they tend to work part-time more often than men etc. It's a result of the differences in the way they choose to work, the industries they choose to apply to, and the jobs they are skilled and qualified enough to get. There's no reason to suggest that it has anything to do with sexism.
      Chinese people get higher marks in the British Maths Olympiad than everyone else. That hardly means the people who mark the paper are being racist.
      I understand that and see no problem with that.

      Unfortunately there are still jobs where women doing the same job as a man get paid less. That is what I have a problem with.

      But car insurance isn't sexist. Its is statistics.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by gbduo)
      Unfortunately there are still jobs where women doing the same job as a man get paid less. That is what I have a problem with.
      I did not know this. Are you sure that the difference in pay is actually a direct result of the difference in gender? I was wondering if you could give me some examples.

      But car insurance isn't sexist. Its is statistics.
      I completely agree. It's got nothing to do with misplaced prejudice, or anything like that. Insurance companies charge money for accepting risk. The more risk they are given, the more they must charge.
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.