Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Sheila's wheels, sexist or not?

123457»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    obviously companies are going to do anything legally possible to maximize their profits.

    If anything, it shows the opposite.

    If the insurance companies were trying to maximise profits, they'd charge women the same as men and cream the extra for themselves.

    Women are a smaller financial risk, so they pay less than men. There's no discrimination there, and whingeing that its "unfair" doesn't show that there is. I'm still waiting for someone- anyone- to show to me where the discrimination is.

    If men were the same financial risk it would be discriminatory.

    The fact that no insurance company has brought about insurance geared for men should tell us all something about how much of a financial risk male drivers are compared to female drivers.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote: »
    Women are a smaller financial risk, so they pay less than men. There's no discrimination there, and whingeing that its "unfair" doesn't show that there is. I'm still waiting for someone- anyone- to show to me where the discrimination is.

    There are statisitcs to show that men are more likely to claim. I don't deny that.
    However there are no statistics to show that I as an individual am more likely to claim.

    Same as if I advertised that job. A man in general would be more suited to the job, but when interviewing I would still review each candidate's suitablilty on an individual basis, whch means I wouldn't write a woman off completey.

    Your argument is that insurance comapanies can't adjust premiums on an individual basis when clearly they can.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    There are statisitcs to show that men are more likely to claim. I don't deny that.
    However there are no statistics to show that I as an individual am more likely to claim.

    But as they can't assess your driving every year, they have to make statistical assumptions. It's not discriminatory.
    Same as if I advertised that job. A man in general would be more suited to the job, but when interviewing I would still review each candidate's suitablilty on an individual basis, whch means I wouldn't write a woman off completey.

    If an insurance company refused to insure a man you would perhaps have a point, but they don't, so you don't.

    Besides which, its irrelevant, as it is not unreasonable to expect an interviewer to personally inspect every application, and make an assessment based on the application.
    Your argument is that insurance comapanies can't adjust premiums on an individual basis when clearly they can.

    They can't, though. They can make statistical allowances (such as no-claims discount) but they can't make personal assessments of each and every one of their clients.

    Even a no-claims discount is a statistical assumption.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    The fairest and most simplest assment of an individuals driving abillity with regards to insurace is is their claim history. It is yearly assesemnt, hence why no claims bonus's are measured in years.
    Then you have yearly millage which is another yearly assessment.

    Ok it's still making assumptions, but it's making assusmptions using statistics relative to me, not 'men'. There's a difference.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    If anything, it shows the opposite.

    If the insurance companies were trying to maximise profits, they'd charge women the same as men and cream the extra for themselves.

    Women are a smaller financial risk, so they pay less than men. There's no discrimination there, and whingeing that its "unfair" doesn't show that there is. I'm still waiting for someone- anyone- to show to me where the discrimination is.

    If men were the same financial risk it would be discriminatory.

    The fact that no insurance company has brought about insurance geared for men should tell us all something about how much of a financial risk male drivers are compared to female drivers.

    Its more of a case of how much profit an insurance company can make off someone. It all does go off ability and willingness to pay. If you are in a profession that you may get a lot of money for, your premiums will go up.

    If a 22 year old has been driving for 4 years without a claim, what will their premium be?

    Same person, except now they're 54, and have been driving for 4 years without a claim. Who do you think will be more expensive?

    It's undeniable that things like reaction times etc. get worse as you get older. Seeing as they both have the same experience, why the big difference?

    However, take ability and willingness to pay into account and it again shows a different story.

    The %age of women who drive, is less than the %age of men who drive. People who go to university, then become chartered to advise insurance companies after 5 years minimum, correlate these kind of statistics with risk, to get the best net profit for insurance companies.

    If all women had to pay exactly the same as men a lot of women would stop driving. Insurance is one of the largest costs to drivers and why many young drivers (male in particular) are choosing to wait until their 20s because it simply costs too much.

    Many young drivers will pay more than the value of their car in one years insurance premium. Presumably this is in case they hit a really expensive car?

    Of course insurance is based on discrimination, but there are more factors than simply 'male or female'. From studies I've seen men are more likely to have more expensive claims (worked out as an average £ per mile in the study I saw), but not by the massive 1.75x - 2x the insurance companies charge.

    Also, if anyone is interested, sheilas wheels etc. are all part of the same company, theres only a few very large insurance companies with lots of different brand names like churchill and all that, its just marketing to different market segments.

    And it's discriminatory kermit, because of simple economic theory -
    http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-micro-price-discrimination.html

    you can find papers on the subject (of insurance and price discrimination) but I don't know how to read them lol.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p7v288u52524478l/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    The fairest and most simplest assment of an individuals driving abillity with regards to insurace is is their claim history.

    Is it though? It unfairly prejudices those without a claim history (I don't have one as I'm a named driver on the boss' insurance) and it unfairly prejudices those who have been the victims of uninsured drivers.
    ts more of a case of how much profit an insurance company can make off someone. It all does go off ability and willingness to pay. If you are in a profession that you may get a lot of money for, your premiums will go up.

    Actually, they generally go down if you're in a high-earning income, because you're less of a financial risk. You're more likely to stump up the cash rather than lose no-claims discounts, etc.

    The quotes I've seen change depending on what I classify my job as. If I say I work in the law I pay less than if I say I work for a charity, when both are equally true.
Sign In or Register to comment.