Home Politics & Debate

End of Sheilas Wheels?

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But that's exactly what happens, which is why my insurance isn't £3700 but it it is for a man who's 18.

    It isn't though. If you'd just passed your test yesterday, you would still be paying massively less than an 18 year old. Why would that be fair? Just because people who are the same age as you crash less often? Who would've thought that people with 20 years driving experience would crash less than people who've just passed their test, eh? Must be their age that's the main factor, not their experience. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Age is a big factor in driving risk though, just as it is in any risk taking behaviour.

    Unless anyone is suggesting that we should move towards one flat rate insurance policy for everyone, no no claims bonus, no nothing then it's pretty straight forward.

    Policies prices should be based on statistical risk, because that's the closest we can get to actual fact.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Age is a big factor in driving risk though, just as it is in any risk taking behaviour.

    Unless anyone is suggesting that we should move towards one flat rate insurance policy for everyone, no no claims bonus, no nothing then it's pretty straight forward.

    I'd say the idea of judging people by individual factors rather than factors of the group you choose to put them in is a pretty straightforward concept, tbh, and a pretty consistent position on equality. But the fact that no-one arguing against this potential ruling is willing to say they want to remove existing discrimination laws in other areas too, tells you everything you need to know. Let's just say it's a massive coincidence that they're all either female, older or both.

    In my view, it's either right to be able to judge people according to statistics of a group, or it's wrong. But if it's right, it has to be right everywhere, not just in insurance.

    It's also interesting that you mention a flat insurance policy, because the main insurance where older people do draw more from the pot is health, and that's the one insurance we have socialized.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How do you judge on individual factors though? How do you type those individual factors? Other than by putting people into groups.

    I'd rather my insurance gets done right, be it pension annuities, car insurance, or travel insurance.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    How do you judge on individual factors though? How do you type those individual factors? Other than by putting people into groups.

    Driving experience, claim history, where you live, miles you do, value of the car you drive, the model of the car you drive - all factors that are far more specific to you as an individual driver.

    If we can use gender why not race, hair colour, foot size etc?
    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
    How is where you live any more or less discriminatory than your age or gender?

    Similarly model and value of the car your drive are pretty much symptomatic of one of two things, income or age & gender. Young male drivers have cheap cars with street cred, young female drivers have naff cheap cars. You end up with the same gender profiling, it just gets masked by some other description factor so screws over a few other people on the way.

    Hair colour is transient, so that's a rubbish one to judge insurance categories on. Foot size would basically be the same as gender. Would just favour men with small feet. There's nothing to stop insurance companies starting to use foot size.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It does seem like insurance is simply prejudice, i.e. you're being pre-judged.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That would be how it works.

    Also known a risk profiling.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    How is where you live any more or less discriminatory than your age or gender?

    Where I live is certainly more specific to me than having a cock, and certainly more of a choice.
    Similarly model and value of the car your drive are pretty much symptomatic of one of two things, income or age & gender. Young male drivers have cheap cars with street cred, young female drivers have naff cheap cars. You end up with the same gender profiling, it just gets masked by some other description factor so screws over a few other people on the way.

    Again it's still far more specific to the individual and has a direct link to the value of any claim you may make. Valuable cars cost more to fix. Having a cock is not direct causation for having an accident.
    Hair colour is transient, so that's a rubbish one to judge insurance categories on. Foot size would basically be the same as gender. Would just favour men with small feet. There's nothing to stop insurance companies starting to use foot size.

    If it can be justified statistically why not?

    And what about race. If it can be statistically shown that black people are more likely to claim or have higher claims, then would that be justified to charge them more?
    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: »


    If it can be justified statistically why not?
    So you're happy to judge people on foot size but not on gender? Even if both are statistically proven. How does that one work then?

    With young drivers, it's not the value of the car they drive that's usually the problem, it's the one that they hit/injury liability is where the costs lie. Thats easily shown by looking at the small difference between 3rd party and fully comp in many many cases.

    Having a cock and feeling the need to prove it, is however often direct causation for an accident.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    So you're happy to judge people on foot size but not on gender? Even if both are statistically proven. How does that one work then?

    Of course not. It's just as stupid.

    With young drivers, it's not the value of the car they drive that's usually the problem, it's the one that they hit/injury liability is where the costs lie.

    But it is a factor and a factor for ALL drivers.
    Value of the insured vehicle is already a factor that insurerd take into account. One that I don't have a problem with as it's specific to the individual.

    FYI - Fully comp is sometimes cheaper than 3rd party.
    Having a cock and feeling the need to prove it, is however often direct causation for an accident.

    If the physical differences between men and women have that much bearing on how we behave then OK, I'm up for sexual descrimination right across the board.
    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
    That would be how it works.

    Also known a risk profiling.

    I think I'm beginning to see that - this isn't a topic I've thought about much before.

    I don't see how explicit prejudice is fine for insurance companies, but isn't for other companies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    FYI - Fully comp is sometimes cheaper than 3rd party.

    Do you know why that is?

    It's because if someone want fully comp it's a signal to the Insurance Co that they consider themseleves a driver who doesn't crash - they believe that their NCB will be safe even if they go fully comp. That's based on statistical evidence too.
    If the physical differences between men and women have that much bearing on how we behave then OK, I'm up for sexual descrimination right across the board.

    It isn't the physical difference which is relevant here. It's the mental and attitudinal differences. Women are less aggressive, old men are less aggressive and both are less likely to take risks than young men.

    It is a fact that younger men crash more per mile driven that any other sector of the population. About 60% more IIRC.

    It's not that you have a cock. It's that you have a hormone driven brain...

    Seriously, take a look around at the driving styles of young men and compare that with pretty much everyone else. It's something you can see for yourself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Driving experience, claim history, where you live, miles you do, value of the car you drive, the model of the car you drive - all factors that are far more specific to you as an individual driver.

    I think all these are more relevant than gender and age. I think job could come into it too - especially given that some people have jobs whereby they have to travel a lot.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Do you know why that is?

    Yes

    It isn't the physical difference which is relevant here. It's the mental and attitudinal differences.

    I don't see what difference it makes. All men drive like idiots, and all women are safe driver yeah?
    Women are less aggressive, old men are less aggressive and both are less likely to take risks than young men.

    It is a fact that younger men crash more per mile driven that any other sector of the population. About 60% more IIRC.

    It's not that you have a cock. It's that you have a hormone driven brain...

    Seriously, take a look around at the driving styles of young men and compare that with pretty much everyone else. It's something you can see for yourself.

    I'm not stupid, I know how insurance works and I understand men claim more than women - that's not something anybody here has denied. Who's to say that I as an individual am more likely to crash though? Infact I have never made a claim on my insurance. Why shoudl I pay more? Your argument is bassically that insurers having nothing else to go on which is plainy false.


    If you're saying sexual descrimination is justifiable then how about racial descrimination.
    Would it be acceptable to charge black people more if it was statistically prooven that they are more likely to claim?
    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: »
    I'm not stupid, I know how insurance works and I understand men claim more than women - that's not something anybody here has denied.

    So why the complaint? Clearly gender has an influence on the probability that you will claim against the insurance...
    Would it be acceptable to charge black people more if it was statistically prooven that they are more likely to claim?

    Strawman.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    So why the complaint? Clearly gender has an influence on the probability that you will claim against the insurance...

    Over all women are more likely to have a prang
    Men are more likely to make a bigger claim.
    Worth bearing in mind that men tend to drive well over 50% further than women.

    So it's far more complicated than rather sexist bullshit statment that men crash because 'they have a cock and need to proove it'

    Who's to say that I as an individual am more likely to crash?

    Strawman.

    Earlier you said that "It's not discrimination if it's evidence based risk stratification."

    It's perfectly feasable that claim statistics would show an imbalance between claim history for different races? So would that be acceptable?
    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: »
    Who's to say that I as an individual am more likely to crash?

    Who's to say that because you crashed last year then you are likely to this year as well?

    It's perfectly feasable that claim statistics would show an imbalance between claim history for different races? So would that be acceptable?

    It's strawman because there isn't any evidence. A hypothetical argument that doesn't stack up.

    Point is that it has been proven that younger men represent a bigger risk for car insurance and that men have lower life expectancy when it comes to life insurance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Basically the question comes down to:

    Do you think insurance should be based on risk profiling or not?



    And actually the having a cock and needing to prove it, which slarty put slightly more elegantly as having hormone driven brains and wanting to show off, has everything to do with it. That's what makes young men cost insurance companies lots of money. They hit other (expensive) cars, and injure people in their accidents. Women on the other hand, may have more accidents, but they are slow speed, generally parking and manoevering prangs. Very low cost, partly because almost never involve injuries which is what really costs in car insurance.

    If you accept that insurance should be based on risk profiling, then you take gender as part of it. Race doesn't show nearly such strong correlations and is like hair colour, much harder to categorise, so isn't taken as a factor. Being 'foreign' (born outside of the country, and length of time you've been in the country) is taken into account as that does correlate with risk.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    If you accept that insurance should be based on risk profiling, then you take gender as part of it.

    I don't have to at all. As has previously said there are far more factors that can be and are take into consideration. Factors that are relevant to ME. The insurance business isn't going to collapse because of this ruling. It just means we are going to be profiled on factors more specific to us as an individual driver, and I see that as a very good thing.

    Next one hopefully is age profiling. Even worse than gender in my opinion.
    Young drivers pay well over the the odds just so insurance companies can subsidise cheap deals tied in with home insurance for to attract those older drivers. Lets make that illegal too. Make the old cunts pay more.

    If I have to pay a little more in the name of fairness well then fuck it, it's ok with me. Saying that I havn't paid for car insuance for 10 years. :D
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Point is that it has been proven that younger men represent a bigger risk for car insurance and that men have lower life expectancy when it comes to life insurance.

    Well racial profiling is something that has been employed by the police.
    Balck people are statistically more likely to commit crime than white people, so police are justified in stopping them more often than white people being that it's not discrimination if it's evidence based risk stratification?
    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
    Which is exactly why the police are allowed to do it.

    One of the factors that is relevant to ME, is that I drive like most girls do, rather than most guys.

    I do have slight boy racer type tendancies, which is why I have a red civic with a big engine, so those two factors push my insurance up over a girl who drives a silver one with the little engine. I'd like everything to be taken into account, not just some random groupings and not others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Well racial profiling is something that has been employed by the police.
    Balck people are statistically more likely to commit crime than white people, so police are justified in stopping them more often than white people being that it's not discrimination if it's evidence based risk stratification?

    They also stop young make drivers more often than any other group.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    They also stop young make drivers more often than any other group.

    I wasn't talking about driving in particular.

    Black people are more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. Do you find that acceptable?
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    One of the factors that is relevant to ME, is that I drive like most girls do, rather than most guys.

    Nonsensical statement.

    The only person you drive like, is you.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    This is just going to go round in circles anyway.

    This ruling may be a little unfairer to women in general, but it's fairer for the individual driver and that makes sense to me.

    Age next hopefully.
    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
    How is it fairer to the individual driver?

    Especially if age comes next, you just start ruling out ways of grouping risk for insurance costs.

    As for who I drive like, I drive exactly like me, I drive in a similar manner to the majority of young women - which is very differently to the majority of young men.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    How is it fairer to the individual driver? Especially if age comes next, you just start ruling out ways of grouping risk for insurance costs.

    Because insurance companies are going to have to use factors more specific to the individual. I don't think it's a hard concept to understand.

    Insurance companies are still going to be in business and be able to insure you. You just may have to pay a little more as a women because insurance arn't going to be able to subsidise your premium by overcharging men.

    Young drivers (both male and female) subsidise insurance for older drivers. Often so that insurance companies can attract the older driver so they can sell them home insurance. It means that the premiums based on age don't proportionatley reflect the risk that age brings. That is quite plainly wrong too.
    As for who I drive like, I drive exactly like me, I drive in a similar manner to the majority of young women - which is very differently to the majority of young men.

    What do the majority of men drive like then? What do the majority of women drive like? Why are you talkingabout 'majorities'? How the fuck can you know that?

    Women infact crash more even though they drive far less distances than men. Where men fall down is that when they do crash it seems to be more severe and therefore cost a lot more. Does this mean that men are generally better drivers but some drive too fast?
    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
    No, but it does mean that they cost insurance companies more money. Which is what matters when it comes to pricing policies.

    My parking is pretty shockingly poor, I've touched my tow bar on the wall in the multi story twice in the last week. I have however NEVER done significant damage to my own vehicle, someone elses, or caused any injury. I drive a reasonably average mileage, but I drive to get somewhere rather than just out for fun. I have zero interest in showing off to any other vehicles around, or anyone else in my car.

    It's not frequency of crashes that matter, it's the cost when they do happen. My bumps make no difference to anyone, apart from the cloth I keep in the door pocket to wipe down my towbar ball cover. Young male drivers less frequent, but hard impact crashes cost lots. Hence high premiums.

    As for majorities, go do the statistics hunt. How I can know that (and I don't appreciate your language) is exactly the same way that you know that men drive more miles but women have more accidents. It's not rocket science. It's exactly the same kind of statistics that give men a better deal on pensions etc, because the statistics say that the majority of men die younger than the majority of women.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    This is just going to go round in circles anyway.

    :yes:
    This ruling may be a little unfairer to women in general, but it's fairer for the individual driver and that makes sense to me.

    Only as it applies to car insurance. It's unfair on men as applied to life insurance.

    What you are arguing for, in reality, is that women should pay more for car insurance and men should get worse benefits for life insurance. Basically, you are arguing for insurance companies to make more money., regardless of what you think you are arguing for.

    The system we had, until this ruling, was the one fairest to the consumer. For all it's failings it actually represents the better option for us as the paying customer. The individual system you seem to want would cost more to run and that increase will not be borne by the supplier, that will be p-assed on to us, the customers.
Sign In or Register to comment.