Home Politics & Debate

End of Sheilas Wheels?

SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect.New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
Well maybe not the company, but insurance premiums based on gender quite possibly.


Bout fucking time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12581915
Yesterday is history
Tomorrow is a mystery
But today is a gift
That’s why it’s call the present
«134

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's about time people start getting treated as individuals. If some lads are shit drivers then charge them over the odds for insurance, not us who drive safely.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    It's about time people start getting treated as individuals. If some lads are shit drivers then charge them over the odds for insurance, not us who drive safely.

    That's the exact opposite of what will happen though.

    Those of us whom are lower risk will end up paying more to cover those of greater risk because risk factors like gender and age (which are evidence based) will no longer be taken into account.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yep, we don't allow gender discrimination in any other aspect of providing a service, so why is insurance allowed an exception. I would also ban age discrimination too, which they could quite easily replace with experience-based premiums. Charge everyone high premiums until they've proven that they're not a risk. But there's no way a new 50 year old driver should be charged less because he just happens to be the same age as people who've been driving for decades.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Yep, we don't allow gender discrimination in any other aspect of providing a service, so why is insurance allowed an exception. I would also ban age discrimination too, which they could quite easily replace with experience-based premiums. Charge everyone high premiums until they've proven that they're not a risk. But there's no way a new 50 year old driver should be charged less because he just happens to be the same age as people who've been driving for decades.

    Word.

    As an employer advertising a job you take a financial risk when you make a decision who to employ. Yet sex descrimination in employement is illegal even when there is clear evidence that a woman employee may not be the most financhially sound choice.

    Shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Revel in your victory but don't expect your premiums to come down. It'll be a pyrrhic victory, just as it was when local authorities greeted the wage review last year as an excuse to cut men's wages rather than increase women's wages.

    Also don't forget that it doesn't just cover car insurance. As a man, it also means that your pension will be worth less, because they won't be able to price the annuity according to gender. Men typically live shorter than women so get a better annuity, but with that pricing outlawed your annuities will be lower.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Either sexual descrimination is right or it's wrong.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not discrimination if it's evidence based risk stratification.

    Just as insurance companies aren't discriminating against smokers because they are more likely to have heart failure.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not discrimination if it's evidence based risk stratification.

    Just as insurance companies aren't discriminating against smokers because they are more likely to have heart failure.

    It's discrimination by the very definition of discrimination. What you mean to say is some discrimination is acceptable providing its justified statistically.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    It's discrimination by the very definition of discrimination. What you mean to say is some discrimination is acceptable providing its justified statistically.

    It's not discrimination if it can be justified.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    It's not discrimination if it can be justified.
    So refusing to hire a 27 year old woman is not discrimination because she is statistically more likely than a man to need to take time off work? I can justify if with statistics, so it can't be discrimination, right?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not discrimination if it's evidence based risk stratification.

    Just as insurance companies aren't discriminating against smokers because they are more likely to have heart failure.

    Wow, that's the worst analogy ever. Smoking is a behaviour. No-one is suggesting that it is discrimination for insurers to base premiums on the behaviour of individuals. I'd expect to pay more if I had 9 points on my licence, 3 previous claims and had chosen to buy an expensive car. These are judgements about me as an individual, and my previous actions, not me as happening to belong to whatever group the insurers feel is relevant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wow, that's the worst analogy ever.

    Haha, glad you called it. I was just 'bout to. :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wow, that's the worst analogy ever. Smoking is a behaviour. No-one is suggesting that it is discrimination for insurers to base premiums on the behaviour of individuals. I'd expect to pay more if I had 9 points on my licence, 3 previous claims and had chosen to buy an expensive car. These are judgements about me as an individual, and my previous actions, not me as happening to belong to whatever group the insurers feel is relevant.

    Really, driving isn't behaviour?

    Young male drivers take no greater risks than any other driver? If you truly think that then you must be living in a parallel universe. Every piece of evidence would suggest that the insurance companies are spot on in their analysis.

    Personally, I would object paying more for my insurance because young males cost my insurance company shit loads in claims. Why should I cover their costs to a greater extent than I now. Because, face facts, I already do cover their costs to a lesser extent.

    Insurance, of any kind, is based on risk. Just as you, as an individual, might be a safe driver at 17, I might never get heart failure as a smoker. Just as I, living in a low crime area am less likely to claim for a burglary so I, as a 40-y-o am less likely to be involved in an accident.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Really, driving isn't behaviour?
    Are you basing your premiums on whether I'm driving or not? No you're not. Of course I'm driving. I wouldn't be getting insurance if I wasn't driving, and neither would anyone else be. We're talking about the factors you're choosing to differentiate people when deciding the price, and "being 17" is not a behaviour, no.
    Young male drivers take no greater risks than any other driver? If you truly think that then you must be living in a parallel universe. Every piece of evidence would suggest that the insurance companies are spot on in their analysis.

    Personally, I would object paying more for my insurance because young males cost my insurance company shit loads in claims. Why should I cover their costs to a greater extent than I now. Because, face facts, I already do cover their costs to a lesser extent.

    Insurance, of any kind, is based on risk. Just as you, as an individual, might be a safe driver at 17, I might never get heart failure as a smoker. Just as I, living in a low crime area am less likely to claim for a burglary so I, as a 40-y-o am less likely to be involved in an accident.

    You still seem to be having trouble between discriminatory factors and the actual behaviour of an individual. If you live in a low crime area, you have acted in a way that reduces your risk. If you don't smoke, you've acted in a way that reduces your risk. If you drive fewer miles, you've acted in a way that reduces your risk. You haven't acted in a way that makes you 40 years old, that's just something you happen to be and have no control over. And in every other field of business, it is illegal to change the terms of service on the gender or age of a customer, so why should insurance be any different?

    And don't kid yourself that you cover the costs of younger drivers. Why would any insurer insure younger drivers at a subsidised rate? If anything, the opposite is true, because insurers are keen to get older drivers to buy more profitable forms of insurance, like home insurance or life insurance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    It's not discrimination if it can be justified.

    Discrimination is descrimination, justified or unjustified, and justification is wholly subjective in any case. You think discrimination means to choose one over the other based on prejudice, it doesn't - discrimination can be as much informed and as it is ill-informed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you basing your premiums on whether I'm driving or not? No you're not. Of course I'm driving. I wouldn't be getting insurance if I wasn't driving, and neither would anyone else be. We're talking about the factors you're choosing to differentiate people when deciding the price, and "being 17" is not a behaviour, no.

    So wait until you are 30 before driving. It is a choice to drive at any age.
    You still seem to be having trouble between discriminatory factors and the actual behaviour of an individual. If you live in a low crime area, you have acted in a way that reduces your risk.

    No I haven't. It's other people's actions that determine the crime rate in my area, not mine.
    If you don't smoke, you've acted in a way that reduces your risk.

    Statistically smoking increases my risk, although it might not be true for me as an individual. Statistically driving when you are 17-25 does too, although it might not be true for the 18-y-o as an individual..

    You seem to have trouble understanding the concept of probability and risk. Thus you fail to understand the concept of insurance.
    If you drive fewer miles, you've acted in a way that reduces your risk.

    Actually, that doesn't have much bearing on premiums.
    And don't kid yourself that you cover the costs of younger drivers. Why would any insurer insure younger drivers at a subsidised rate?

    Of course I subsidise them. I am the profit making arm of the insurance business, they aren't. Statistically speaking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So wait until you are 30 before driving. It is a choice to drive at any age.
    Yeah, and I would have no issue with insurers charging more to inexperienced drivers, under the logic that everyone is a risk until they've proven otherwise. This would effectively keep the status quo, so my argument is in no way based on self-interest or desire to reduce my premiums (I don't even drive in the UK). I just reject the idea of someone being judged by the previous actions of someone who happens to have the same genitals as them, rather than by their own actions.
    No I haven't. It's other people's actions that determine the crime rate in my area, not mine.
    You chose where to live, with full access to the knowledge of crime levels in the area, if you cared to look. This is an action that reduces your risk. It's other people's actions that determine whether you're likely to get burgled, but that doesn't mean there aren't things you can do to reduce your risk as an individual.
    Statistically smoking increases my risk, although it might not be true for me as an individual. Statistically driving when you are 17-25 does too, although it might not be true for the 18-y-o as an individual..
    No, smoking absolutely increases your actual risk as an individual. Just like driving very quickly increases your risk as an individual. Just like driving under the influence of alcohol increases your risk as an individual. Whether or not driving whilst happening to have a penis increases your risk is irrelevant, because it is not a factor we are allowed to take into account anywhere else. Something you are conveniently ignore. And unless you're willing to stand up for an employer's right to sack every woman of childbearing age if they so risk, due to the cost risk that possessing a uterus holds, for example, every other argument you make about risk has no relevance whatsoever.
    Of course I subsidise them. I am the profit making arm of the insurance business, they aren't. Statistically speaking.
    Statistically speaking, people who don't crash subsidise people who do crash. That's the way insurance works. Why bring age into it? But of the people who don't crash, young people subsidise cheaper premiums for the likes of you, and men subsidise cheaper premiums for women.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, and I would have no issue with insurers charging more to inexperienced drivers, under the logic that everyone is a risk until they've proven otherwise.

    This is what No Claims Bonus does. Your premium reduces once your prove you are a safer driver than the initial risk assessment showed you to be.
    You chose where to live, with full access to the knowledge of crime levels in the area, if you cared to look.

    If you ignore the fact that I was born in this town ;)
    No, smoking absolutely increases your actual risk as an individual.

    No it doesn't, necessarily. My grandfather smoked all his life and died in his 90s, he also fought on a war. Dead Richards didn't smoke, played football, was fit and healthy and died aged 36.

    Smoking can be risky, but that doesn't mean that it will affect me, as an individual. Just as driving at 17-25 is riskier than waiting until you are more mature.
    Statistically speaking, people who don't crash subsidise people who do crash. That's the way insurance works. Why bring age into it?

    Because you are more likely to have a crash when you are under 25. You are also more likely if you are male. That's the point. You are more likely to cost the insurance company money, so they expect you to pay them more as a result.

    If it wasn't for those safer drivers, then the premiums of those that crash would be much higher than it is now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is what No Claims Bonus does. Your premium reduces once your prove you are a safer driver than the initial risk assessment showed you to be.
    So why do you need anything else?
    No it doesn't, necessarily. My grandfather smoked all his life and died in his 90s, he also fought on a war. Dead Richards didn't smoke, played football, was fit and healthy and died aged 36.
    You seem to be confusing risk with whether he actually got a disease or not. Now in the case of your grandfather, his risk might've gone from 1 in 20 to 1 in 10, and he was lucky enough to avoid lung cancer, for example. That doesn't mean his risk of contracting it didn't increase with his smoking.
    Because you are more likely to have a crash when you are under 25. You are also more likely if you are male. That's the point. You are more likely to cost the insurance company money, so they expect you to pay them more as a result.
    And a woman is more likely to cost an employer money. A wheelchair user isn't just more likely to cost a restaurant money, but by definition has already cost a restaurant more money. So why don't you let us all know where you stand, firstly on refusing the hire women for a job, and secondly, on a dual price menu in a restaurant, taking into account the costs of adapting a building for wheelchair users.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Insurers take a financial risk with drivers as employers take a financial risk with employees.

    If it can be shown (and it can) that women in certain jobs are statistically more likely to have time off, get injured or not be as productive, does the employer not have a right to then offer a higher salary to a male applicant than to a female applicant? That's descrimination justified by statistics and no different than what insurers are doing.

    Having a cock is not a direct causation for having a prang, and therefore should not be a variable for different premiums. Neither should be age, race, sexuality, hair colour - but I'm sure you could justify with statistics one way or another, having a different premium for each of those groups.

    Descrimination is quite often justifiable, don't make it right.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    .

    Descrimination is quite often justifiable, don't make it right.

    Its neither right nor wrong so long as its applied across the board without special exceptions being made. I think employers should be able to hire whoever they want for whatever reason, statistical justification or pure prejudice, but the right to discriminate has to be equally applied to all.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Its neither right nor wrong so long as its applied across the board without special exceptions being made.

    :yes:

    Shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The adverts are annoying as fuck.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's an interesting ruling. I don't know if I'll count as a young person anyway, but what I lose in car insurance premiums I stand to gain in lower critical illness cover and more in my pension, so is all swings and roundabouts to me.

    I personally agree with the idea of greater discounts for extended periods without a claim. My NCB seems to have been capped at 5 years even though I've been driving 10 and not made a claim. But then again, that money would have to come from somewhere, and I suspect it would involve driving up the premiums for young/inexperienced drivers.

    I would imagine that as insurance companies are generally scoundrels, they'll find some way to wriggle around having to drop premiums for young male drivers. I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see things like astronomical excesses for young drivers, a list of exclusions as long as your arm, or even the companies refusing to insure the age group at all.

    I found a link to this article somewhere which has some other ideas:
    Greater equality?

    Few in the insurance industry believe that these regulations will achieve greater equality. Insurers may put greater emphasis on other factors that reflect gender differences. For example, about 90pc of all three-litre cars are driven by men, and 90pc of one-litre cars driven by women. Engine size is already used to assess risk, but could influence premiums more significantly in future. Alternatively, insurers could pick completely irrelevant factors – such as shoe size – as a proxy for sex.

    (link)

    Thoughts?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So why do you need anything else?

    A premium has to start someone where that reflects the risks involved for the insurance company. You then reduce that risk with each safe year
    You seem to be confusing risk with whether he actually got a disease or not. Now in the case of your grandfather, his risk might've gone from 1 in 20 to 1 in 10, and he was lucky enough to avoid lung cancer, for example. That doesn't mean his risk of contracting it didn't increase with his smoking.

    No, I understand risk, I was using your argument against you, playing devils advocate.

    Risk isn't based on the individual, it's based on the actions of others which have a probability of being replicated with the individual.

    We all have a risk of getting lung cancer of heart failure. We either will, or won't. The probability of that risk manifesting itself is justified by evidence - i.e. evidence suggests that if you smoke then the probability increases. Well, if you are driving at 17-25 then evidence suggests that the probability of you having an accident increases. More so if you are male.

    So why don't you let us all know where you stand, firstly on refusing the hire women for a job,

    I don't agree with it but I do believe that gender should be taken into account and the law that suggests I, as am employer, cannot ask about childcare arrangements (for example) or any candidate are wrong.
    secondly, on a dual price menu in a restaurant, taking into account the costs of adapting a building for wheelchair users.

    I don't believe in the assertion in the first place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It seems there's a lot of mixing correlation and causation here. Whenever you draw lines around a group of people, odds are you're going to find statistical differences between them. I'm not sure that's justification for discrimination.

    What if you tallied up the hair colour of all people who had accidents and it turned out that blonde haired people appeared to be disproportionately having accidents. Should hair colour be factored into insurance premiums?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You think that it wouldn't be, if the Insurance Companies analysed that data?

    Having said that, do you honestly believe that the behaviour, driving style etc of young men has no connection to the number of accidents which they are involved in?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You think that it wouldn't be, if the Insurance Companies analysed that data?

    I've no idea. This isn't really a topic I know anything about at all.
    Having said that, do you honestly believe that the behaviour, driving style etc of young men has no connection to the number of accidents which they are involved in?

    It seems self-evident that reckless driving increases the risk of accident. But it's the extrapolation and application of risk from an individual's verifiable behaviour, to that of a whole gender which makes me baulk.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Would this just be for car insurance or all forms of insurance? As a disabled person, it's impossible to find suitable and cheap holiday insurance. Yet, there's no reason why I'm more likely to need medical help when abroad, than the average person.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've no idea. This isn't really a topic I know anything about at all.

    Oh my good yes. I'm surprised that they haven't already. You should see some of the things included in assessing life and health insurance :eek:
    It seems self-evident that reckless driving increases the risk of accident. But it's the extrapolation and application of risk from an individual's verifiable behaviour, to that of a whole gender which makes me baulk.

    Me too, but sadly there is a huge wealth of evidence which supports this.

    It's not like the "some bloke down the pub said" evidence which is stereotypically used to support racism and anti-immigration discrimination. What we have to accept is that Insurance of any kind is based on risk factors, and being a male, under 25 is a big one when it comes to driving. Just as smoking is when it comes to health, bungee jumping is when it comes to travel insurance.. etc
Sign In or Register to comment.