Turn on thread page Beta

Insurance companies - why can they discriminate? watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypercaine.)
    I was thinking about this yesterday and I dont know if this has been done before but im sure it should have been but anyway, why can insurance companies still discriminate against people? Im learning to drive at the minute and ive been looking at car insurance, we all know age and gender have a significant impact on premiums and such but why? This is supposed to be the age of equal rights, women have the same wages as men and the same general rights as men and im all for that completely! But why should I be charged hundreds of pounds more to be insured to drive just because im a male and below 25?

    Lets put this into perspective, if there was evidence to say black women are subject to more road accidents than white women, judging by the current rules black women would pay more insurance but would this work out? Of course not, within days of it being introduced it would be turned over on the grounds of it being racist. So why isnt it currently sexist? Or ageist? Youre not allowed to discriminate on these grounds in any other circumstances so why should insurance companies be able to?
    It isn't discrimination, it is making a judgement of risk based on a large number of factors.

    It would be discrimination if it had been shown that age and gender made no difference to the chance of a person crashing, but it is common knowledge that young drivers are more likely to crash than older drivers, men are more likely to crash than women, therefore insurance companies are perfectly within their rights to charge more to young men than any other group.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FXX)
    And where you live...
    And how long you've been driving for...
    And the car you have...
    And how much the car is worth...
    And what the car is used for...
    And the other drivers you have on your policy...
    And the number of points you have on your license...
    And the number of other cars you have access to...
    And where the car is stored overnight...
    And how far you drive it every year...
    Yes I am aware of how insurance works, if I filled in all the answers as a woman and then as a man, I would pay more. What if asian or black drivers were more dangerous then white drivers, would they pay more? No of course not, where is the question to ask your ethnicity when filling in car insurance? Non existant.

    (Original post by FXX)
    I was trying to answer the question without getting into a petty argument about it at midnight because I know what happens in internet debates...

    Nothing
    Its not a petty argument, I just created this thread to discuss it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You don't call discrimination when pizza hut charges more for adults than children at their buffet because adults will eat more and therefore cost the restaurant more. Why should you complain about young adults and men being charged more when they will statistically crash more and therefore cost the company more?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rob da Mop)
    You don't call discrimination when pizza hut charges more for adults than children at their buffet because adults will eat more and therefore cost the restaurant more. Why should you complain about young adults and men being charged more when they will statistically crash more and therefore cost the company more?
    Its not about whether an adult will eat more its the fact the adult is given more.

    You clearly dont understand the point I made, different ethnicities are more dangerous (probably) but lets say theres statistics to say that there are. Why isnt that asked when being given car insurance? Because its racial discrimination, so why is it currently OK to discriminate on age and gender but not race or other factors you cant physically change?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FXX)
    Because that's just how life works.
    That is such a dad answer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    It isn't discrimination, it is making a judgement of risk based on a large number of factors.

    It would be discrimination if it had been shown that age and gender made no difference to the chance of a person crashing, but it is common knowledge that young drivers are more likely to crash than older drivers, men are more likely to crash than women, therefore insurance companies are perfectly within their rights to charge more to young men than any other group.
    (Original post by Rob da Mop)
    You don't call discrimination when pizza hut charges more for adults than children at their buffet because adults will eat more and therefore cost the restaurant more. Why should you complain about young adults and men being charged more when they will statistically crash more and therefore cost the company more?
    What if decades of statistical evidence showed that black people were more likely to get into accidents, would it be then fair to charge them higher premiums? That's what the OP asked, so let me see you answer that. And don't bother attempting to teach me about how insurance works and then call it a reply. Just answer the question.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypercaine.)
    I understand that but I dont think its fair the two main factors they take into account are age and gender. Of course theres a difference between racial groups and the amount of accidents they have but theyre not allowed to discriminate on that.
    I agree, it's inconsistent.
    Personally I think insurers should be able to discriminate on whatever grounds they like and effectively self-govern themselves, because it's in their own interests to charge fair premiums to everybody. It's a competitive market - if they charge one group of people too much, then those people would just go to a different insurer and they'd lose profits. And if they charge a group of people too little, they'd claim more money from the insurers that they were actually paying them in premiums, and so the insurer would make a loss.
    Insurers don't need these kinds of restrictions imposed on them.

    The thing is, age discrimination isn't really frowned upon in society, whereas racial discrimination is, since we've had a history of problems with it. Now there's also a taboo with gender discrimination, which is why the EU have outlawed it in car insurance. These are really cultural issues rather than economic though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rob da Mop)
    You don't call discrimination when pizza hut charges more for adults than children at their buffet because adults will eat more and therefore cost the restaurant more. Why should you complain about young adults and men being charged more when they will statistically crash more and therefore cost the company more?
    Well it's the same sort of thing really isn't it? Adults eat more than children do; so quite obviously - and understandably - they charge more for adults than children for the buffet.

    But here's the argument: why not go all out? One could argue men eat more than women (there must be statistical evidence for this somewhere) - so why not charge a higher price for men for eating the buffet than women? No that would just be sexist.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FXX)
    As above. The thing with car insurance premiums decreasing with age with good driving is that it encourages people to drive safely and be rewarded with no claims bonus. You could charge everyone a flat rate but that provides no incentive whatsoever. You can't treat it like black and white (ha ha >_>) and some things are just more acceptable in our society than other things.
    Wouldn't it be better to charge everyone lowered premiums after all the other factors are taken into account like location, engine size, driving purposes and frequency etc. Then as soon as a person gets into an accident their premiums should be raised dramatically, and if most young males are more of a risk then most of them will crash and have high premiums anyway while the safe, law abiding young males still have lowered premiums. :facepalm2: How could I forget, the insurance companies are all about the $$$, it's obvious the method I just mentioned will make them less money.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It's statistical analysis, unfortunately if there is a pattern, all people of that particular criteria get tarred with the same brush.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazy smurf)
    It's statistical analysis, unfortunately if there is a pattern, all people of that particular criteria get tarred with the same brush.
    Another person who cant read, excellent.

    If people are going to reply can they at least read the whole original post and make sure they understand it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypercaine.)
    Another person who cant read, excellent.

    If people are going to reply can they at least read the whole original post and make sure they understand it.
    Evidently I can read, it's not discrimination it's statistical analysis.

    Statistically men under 25 are more likely to crash in a car than women, so that's why the premiums are higher.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazy smurf)
    Evidently I can read, it's not discrimination it's statistical analysis.

    Statistically men under 25 are more likely to crash in a car than women, so that's why the premiums are higher.
    No, you cant read. I made the point of saying theres statistical analysis that different ethnicities are more likely to crash in a car than other ethnicities, so why arent premiums higher for them? Why is discrimination allowed for age and gender but not ethnicity?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypercaine.)
    No, you cant read. I made the point of saying theres statistical analysis that different ethnicities are more likely to crash in a car than other ethnicities, so why arent premiums higher for them? Why is discrimination allowed for age and gender but not ethnicity?
    Is there statistics for that? I'm sceptical.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ice Constricter)
    What if decades of statistical evidence showed that black people were more likely to get into accidents, would it be then fair to charge them higher premiums? That's what the OP asked, so let me see you answer that. And don't bother attempting to teach me about how insurance works and then call it a reply. Just answer the question.
    Would it be fair? Yes.
    Would it be racist? No.
    Would a large portion of the population interpret it as being racist? Yes.

    There you go, question answered.

    No it wouldn't be racist, it would still simply be a judgement based on existing proof, however that doesn't mean that a large portion of the population wouldn't declare it to be racist.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I was always slightly irked by the gender premium gap, but that's done away with now.

    I understand it was all down to statistics, but at the same time, statistics aren't applied everywhere, and certainly not where they would be to the detriment of women. Such as in medicine, where females are demonstrabley less productive than men in the long run, so based purely on statistics the government (NHS) should pay for a male's medicine degree over a females. And other such situations, of course this cannot happen, because it would be sexist. So, I'm somewhat glad to see the EU ruling. Personally, in an ideal world I'd rather all such statistical bias be kept, but in an imperfect world, I'll take every advantage us men are given
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I've quoted Ice Constricter twice because you seem to have replied to me twice :p:

    I'd be very interested to see if there is evidence of racial differences in levels of insurance payouts when the stats have been adjusted for the things insurance companies already take into account. If there is I expect that the insurance companies would be using this and I think this would actually be quite fair end probably legal. As it stands they aren't so it seems to me that your point is moot. If there was another big risk factor then the insurance companies would be taking it into account.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    Would it be fair? Yes.
    Would it be racist? No.
    Would a large portion of the population interpret it as being racist? Yes.

    There you go, question answered.

    No it wouldn't be racist, it would still simply be a judgement based on existing proof, however that doesn't mean that a large portion of the population wouldn't declare it to be racist.
    Good, now the hard work is getting the rest of society to agree with your view, but until then most people and insurance companies are hypocritical retards.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazy smurf)
    Is there statistics for that? I'm sceptical.
    Its a hypothetical situation, im sure there are statistics to prove it or disprove it but in my OP I said in a hypothetical situation. If its true, which it may well be, I imagine there are difference then why arent they taken into account? Because its racist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    insurance companies aren't allowed to use gender as a risk factor anymore anyway
    they have to rate you the same on that, whether male or female.
    everything in insurance is based on statistics
    which is why when you say you have children you will pay more on your insurance, because they're a risk to the company.
    just like younger drivers are statistically more likely to cause an accident than an older driver.
    its not discrimination at all..
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

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

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