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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Erm... why isn't it the customer's problem. Surely you want them to be financially able to pay out for your claim?
Like?
Apples/oranges. No-one is legally forced to drive either would be a better analogy.
It's nuts in Turkey. I was driving for just a day - an experience definetely.
Like (again) everything else on the application form you fill in, with the exception of gender and age. Y'know, things like driving experience.
You don't seem to be getting what I am saying so I'll explain it once more and then give up.
Currently, the companies use age and gender as factors when deciding what to charge you. If you wanted them to stop doing this, they would need to replace those factors with something else. They can't just stop using them because they are obviously important enough right now to use. They already use the other 20 odd questions, too.
What would they replace the age and gender factors with?
Well, it is, if you consider them using age and gender to be a problem.
I haven't filled in an insurance application for years, though. Is there a question about ethnicity (as opposed to nationality, because if you've just moved from France, the insurers might worry about your ability to stay on the left side of the road)?
Thing is, up til this point I was agreeing with you, but I don't think it's because they're men, biologically I mean. I think it's entirely down to socialisation.
I think you're trying to overplay the role of the hunter gatherer instinct though, as though men drive more aggresively because it's hardwired into them. Just think in your own experience of being in cars driven by men and women, is there that much of a difference with regards to 'sensation seeking' and aggression?
I mean if we want to be biological about it all, women are more likely to take time off (babies) so against a suitable male candidate for a job they shouldn't be offered the position. Which is ludicrous really, but the statistics would support it. In many career paths such as engineering, women actually have an advantage getting jobs in some cases because the employer wants to be seen as an equal opportunities employer (and there are probably a grand total of 10 female engineers in the country).
Just think before you make your sweeping positive discrimination judgements and next time chose one that is more appropriate.
Well I apologise for any offence. But the fact remains positive discrimination does exist in some fields, engineering being one of them. The point I was trying to make was that women are statistically more likely to take time off of work, however it is against the law basically (equal opportunities) for an employer to take this into account. I agree with this judgement 100%, as someone shouldn't be prejudiced against because of their gender or race or disability. I get a bit iffy about positive discrimination, but thats another discussion.
Upon doing my own research, it seems men do exhibit these thrill seeking qualities and we are hard wired as worse drivers, and there's nothing we can do about it. The most likely group to die from an accident are women over the age of 80, and then second it's young men.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:7M38xLckitQJ:www.sirc.org/publik/driving.pdf+men+risk+driving&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk&client=firefox-a
Although, the study does admit there are holes in the studies and assumptions have to be made (that aggression is defined as physical violence, rather than general aggression). But it does paint a picture.
second time in two days I've admitted I'm wrong
In the case of insurance, it has been ruled that it is fair to discriminate on the grounds of gender. I wonder, as to my point earlier, this is actually because men on average earn more, and their ability and willingness to pay for insurance is less elastic (i.e. even if the price increases they will pay) because they are less flexible about owning a car.
I don't know the figures for this, but on the higher earning male stereo type you will often find that it's not actually them that needs the car, but their partner.
Most work places (of the kind that goes with the assumption) are reasonable easy to reach by public transport and you will often find (purely from personnal experience) that in two parent type households with one car it's the stay at home/part time worker (usually the woman) who uses the car far more than the one who works 9-5.
Positive discrimination exists, it doens't mean that every women in engineering is only there because of it though (not that that's what you atcually said. It's a notable factor on coaxing girls into uni engineering departments, much less so on the major engineering employers getting girls into the work place. Sad but true we actually tend to exhibit far more of the 'work place skills' than our male counterparts from the same course. Generally we communicate better and have better people skills and have better self motivation, partly to do with the fact that we've been bucking a system since we made our A level choices. So we get into the companies. Once we're there we get the charming the customer jobs, we're good at those, we get the scheduling jobs, we're good at those (multi tasking
I'm getting exactly what you're saying, but it's wrong. It's entirely possible to carry out a risk assessment without taking age and gender into account. Sure it'll be less statistically accurate (though not necessarily less accurate for the individual), but then the current system is less accurate than doing completely individual insurance, and they seem to get on fine with it. What's this obsession with it needing to be replaced with some other mystery factor? All they need to do is alter their pricing to fit the information that's available to them. It's never going to be completely accurate across the board anyway, so removing the factors that make it discrimnatory will have little effect (interestingly, it would make little difference to young men's insurance quotes, because they'd still get higher insurance because they have less driving experience, it's just that a 40 year old who's just passed their test would have a similar quote too).
Men do far more road miles on average than women. It's irrelevant though, because insurance statistics are based on accidents per mile driven, not overall accidents by men and women.
You are still missing the point, insurance is based on discrimination, that's how it works and unless its changed to be a flat price for everyone system that is the way it will stay.
If you don't discriminate on age (which brings with it as a general rule maturity), then why should you discriminate on speeding points, on past no fault accidents, on number of years the license has been held for, the type of car or any other reason?
You should discriminate on most of the above grounds, because it builds the driver profile, which isn't perfect, but it's reasonably effective.
I do think though that theres more to it than pure risk. Insurance companies are there to make profit, after all, and it's reasonably simple to work out the risk and give an appropriate premium. (take the mileage for a person, and their total claims in pounds, get a claim amount per mile. The higher this is, the higher the premium should be) That would be insuring on a mileage basis though and we're more insured on a time basis. So same theory, in the time we've been driving divide length of time by claim cost. But for new drivers, they haven't been able to build up their statistics, and it would be too costly and time consuming to work it out anyway. So you take a group and work it out for the group.
But then an insurance company employs all manner of intelligent people who then work out marketing strategies, pricing strategies, and ultimately aim to make the most money they can.
Statistically, it is the over 80 women who are most likely to be killed in an accident (whether they caused it or not, who knows). I have read before that the frequency of accidents is higher per mile with women but the claim cost is higher with men. What this means in the real world is up to speculation.
But I have no doubt that the price you pay isnt a true representation of your risk, in some cases its not even a good indicator. It's just the value the insurance company wants to get out of you.
Yes! I don't know any women who speed, at least not regularly or excessivly. All of the blokes I know drive fast (70 minimum) when they can and some drive what I would consider to be recklessly. So yes I have noticed a big difference. Also it doesn't apply to everyone its just a general trend, or course there is going to be exceptions
I was just replying to your question where you asked is there any reason to believe that men possess different driving habits. You also stated that aggression is purely down to socialisation which, from studying this topic extensivly, I believe to be incorrect
It's about discriminating against things that you can change, vs things that a person has no choice over. I can't change the fact that I'm a man, but I can build up my driving experience and drive safely preventing me picking up any driving offences, or choose what car to drive, all of which affect the risk I pose to them. Yes, everyone should start with a flat fee, altered for the type of car you drive, where you choose to park it and so on, then everyone should have the opportunity to earn the right to cheaper insurance through good driving. Which is what happens already, except for the equal starting point for everyone.
Of course, it's all a bit academic really. The question exists: is it fair to discriminate against men necause they're men? Is it fair to discriminate against women because they're women? Is it fair to discriminate on the groudns of sex, or race, or sexuality, or any other aspects of someones make up they cannot change. I think age is an exception as people of different ages are of different maturities and thus you can treat them differently. Like you wouldn't let a 12 year old see a hardcore porn film. And you wouldn't let an 18 year old be the PM.
In my limited experience although most of the drivers both male and female are both very good, I know three women who are excessively cautious and 'nervous' which has put them in danger before where other drivers have had to take evasive action. Although my brother who drives a Porsche has been known in his younger days to drive quite fast at times, he's definately matured now. So my personal experience paints a different picture to what seems to be the norm (bearing in mind I know lots of male drivers, and it's only my brother about 10 years ago who was a bit of a boy racer!).
an old model, with a 1.1 litre engine and high mileage
try living in northern ireland :thumb:
pffft