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

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

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StuAndMma)
    So, in the age of equality and all that jazz, can it really be justified that men should have to pay more on their car insurance?

    Although it may be the case that men cause more accidents than women, it is still unfair to group all men under the same umbrella. I myself have been driving since 17 (now nearly 21), have built up 3 years no claims and still pay more than 17 year old girls who are just starting.

    Surely a fairer system would be to charger all new drivers, regardless of gender, the same amount (obviously once area and other variables are factored in) and then charge more to anyone who was the fault of a crash (which happens now anyway, but keeps all heightened premiums on those who actually cause the problems).

    Just wondered what popular opinion is.
    Welcome to capitalism - where companies do things to make money, not because they seem 'fair'.

    If an insurance company's team of actuarial brains say that guys are more likely to crash, then guys get higher fees - because the cost of your potential crash must be covered. And the potential for you to crash is higher, because you're a boy.

    If you think that changing the system so its more fair is a real and good possibility, maybe you'd be better off emigrating to a communist state.

    In the developed world where capitalism rules, firms will keep on making this distinction based on the statistics they have in order to make most profits.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCurlyHairedDude)
    Yeah, they done a controlled experiment in china in a car park or something, and they got them to reverse and park, and they found that women were a lot less accurate and had to come back out the bay and start again, ill try find a link
    A controlled experiment in a car park in China.. Wow, we've finally found a way to beat sampling error! :eek:


    Fool.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boobies.)
    A controlled experiment in a car park in China.. Wow, we've finally found a way to beat sampling error! :eek:


    Fool.
    Yes, because I'm the one who carried out the experiment....jheezus

    I'm just saying what it was, which was one of many studies that proves women are less competent at driving than men.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCurlyHairedDude)
    Yes, because I'm the one who carried out the experiment....jheezus

    I'm just saying what it was, which was one of many studies that proves women are less competent at driving than men.
    Quoting it as evidence that women are worse drivers than men is stoopid.
    Hence it doesn't 'prove' anything.


    I must say though, some women drivers are well annoying.
    But then again, so are the gangster men who can't drive and have their windows down and their music up in their 15 year old Nissan Hollywood.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Larrabee)
    In the news today:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11894665

    Most of the reasons why women still haven't caught up to men career wise (overall, obviously there are individual exceptions) are to do with the fact that childcare is still seen as women's work and having a family sets a woman back massively but doesn't affect her male partner's career. Also, it means women are more likely to have lower paid, lower prestige jobs to fit around the children.
    And youre telling that if a woman has a kid, she wont want to sacrifice some of her career to look after the kid?..this is down to the woman not what society says the woman should do. Maybe in the past, but there are women who have kids and still have families (I bet you some of the women who are on the board of di. have kids) but they still decide that they will pursue their careers. So women have the choice nowadays. This is something you cant change, you cant tell a woman to work and sacrifice time with the baby/kid just so you can get the stats that you want.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakemittle)
    And youre telling that if a woman has a kid, she wont want to sacrifice some of her career to look after the kid?..this is down to the woman not what society says the woman should do. Maybe in the past, but there are women who have kids and still have families (I bet you some of the women who are on the board of di. have kids) but they still decide that they will pursue their careers. So women have the choice nowadays. This is something you cant change, you cant tell a woman to work and sacrifice time with the baby/kid just so you can get the stats that you want.
    As long as men can only take two weeks paternity leave, parenting will never be equal. In Scandinavia both parents whatever their gender get the same emount of time, up to two years!

    The current system isn't fair to either gender or to the child.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boobies.)
    Quoting it as evidence that women are worse drivers than men is stoopid.
    Hence it doesn't 'prove' anything.


    I must say though, some women drivers are well annoying.
    But then again, so are the gangster men who can't drive and have their windows down and their music up in their 15 year old Nissan Hollywood.
    Ahh shut it yyeah !

    Yeah you're right, when I drive I will blast my music out, but I won't be in any riced out Corsa though.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
    I don't see what's unfair about it.

    Suppose it depends what you mean by fair. If by fair you mean everybody is born equal and nobody is judged whatsoever based on anythign to do with their association to subgroups, then aye, it's unfair.

    If by fair, you mean, adequately reflects the cold hard facts, then I think it's perfectly fair.

    Also... capitalism is such a better system than communism. I'd rather be born with the opportunity to achieve than born average and remain average until I die.
    Hey, i love capitalism.
    I think i came across wrong - I'm not someone who gives a crap about 'fair'.

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Larrabee)
    As long as men can only take two weeks paternity leave, parenting will never be equal. In Scandinavia both parents whatever their gender get the same emount of time, up to two years!

    The current system isn't fair to either gender or to the child.
    Does the woman have to accept it?
    Surely in a lot of places they use a daycare? (Sweden for example)
    But okay, in this case I agree with you. So lets say that yes it should be fair..make it 2 years for both. How will that improve the problem that you keep highlighting?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakemittle)
    Does the woman have to accept it?
    Surely in a lot of places they use a daycare? (Sweden for example)
    But okay, in this case I agree with you. So lets say that yes it should be fair..make it 2 years for both. How will that improve the problem that you keep highlighting?
    It makes it a more level playing field, obviously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's a demographic, based on statistics. Insurance companies don't just discriminate by gender, but by age and occupation. They have to, or they wouldn't make money. The price they calculate is based on the risk of the client making a claim, the amount of that claim, and then a profit added on.
    Insurance companies can't assess everyone individually. In an ideal world yes, but it is something that would cost so much for them to implicate in the first place that car insurance would have to be put up as a consequence to cover the costs.
    It balances out when you get older, the younger you are, the wider the gap.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Larrabee)
    It makes it a more level playing field, obviously.
    Okay then. So the level that women pay for car insurance should be increased to what a guy pays, fair?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    I don't think there is going to be a business case for this at all. Money from premiums goes directly towards paying out on claims. So, premiums across the board would need to go up in order to ensure that the same amount of income is generated to cover the same number of claims as before. This will mean that for the groups which are presumably the most profitable (i.e. your sort of middle aged type people who have built up maximum no-claims) are going to have their premiums hiked up to subsidise younger people - something which will put the insurer at a competitive disadvantage compared to other insurers. Which is why I think they like to make sure each group of people pays for itself - so for the less risky groups they can offer the most competitive premiums possible.

    Also, forcing people to pay higher premiums only after an accident is never going to work - in order to ensure that the younger age group pays for itself (as above) then this would require the post-accident premiums to be much higher than they are now, likely to price the customer out of driving altogether meaning they effectively never pay for the accident they just had!
    Insurance companies aren't non-profit though - I don't accept that intake just covers pay out and then levels out I imagine that they make massive profits.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Come on guys, us girls gotta have some benefits you know!

    :p:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakemittle)
    Okay then. So the level that women pay for car insurance should be increased to what a guy pays, fair?
    Very fair. That fact is at times out of a female driver who has claimed and a male driver who has never claimed the female driver can still end up paying less. How on earth is that fair as clearly one is deffinetly a higher financial risk than the other yet the amount they pay doesn't reflect that. Where instead it's judging them on what's between their legs (pardon my crudeness).

    The more desgusting thing is, I've yet to see many femenists complain about this form of inequality between the sexes. (Obviously I'm sure there are some TRUE femenists who think this is unfair and blatent sexism)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OmegaSeamaster)
    Insurance companies aren't non-profit though - I don't accept that intake just covers pay out and then levels out I imagine that they make massive profits.
    Fair enough - but then any lowering in premiums without increasing them elsewhere would result in a drop in profits, which they're not going to like.

    I've also heard (but can't remember the source) that if you consider young drivers as a group and consider their premiums and claims, they already make a loss and effectively have to be subsidised by more profitable groups. Which makes you wonder why insurers even bother with this - presumably to try and get their business and keep it when they become profitable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boobies.)
    Welcome to capitalism - where companies do things to make money, not because they seem 'fair'.

    If an insurance company's team of actuarial brains say that guys are more likely to crash, then guys get higher fees - because the cost of your potential crash must be covered. And the potential for you to crash is higher, because you're a boy.

    If you think that changing the system so its more fair is a real and good possibility, maybe you'd be better off emigrating to a communist state.

    In the developed world where capitalism rules, firms will keep on making this distinction based on the statistics they have in order to make most profits.
    So under that logic, paying women less in order to maximize profits is still acceptable?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StuAndMma)
    So under that logic, paying women less in order to maximize profits is still acceptable?
    If women as a group were only capable of lower productivity than men or were less qualified then yes, but gender has no influence on productivity, hence in today's society it is unacceptable.
    Just like if men were only capable of a lower productivity than women or were less qualified then it would be acceptable to them less.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FXX)
    Blame the idiots who race around uninsured and constantly crash into other cars. The insurance companies can only go by statistics and relationships between age, gender, area, and the types of cars those people are driving.
    Exactly.
    The price of car insurance is stupid for all young drivers, but by getting no claims bonus and proving you arent one of those boy racers then you get your insurance cost to go down.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    How many of you that are for it, argue it as rational, are also for racial discrimination at airports?
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.

  • 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.