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
Prepare to pay more for your car insurance!
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Just when you think that revolting Harriet Hagperson creature couldn't get any more stupid, she surprises us all. Her beloved Equalities Bill has got some nasty stings in the tail.
Says the Mail: "Millions of motorists face hefty car insurance price hikes under Government moves to ban companies from using people's age when the assessing accident risk. And the cost of travel insurance could double if they were no longer able to take people's age into account, say insurers. The changes will also affect all other forms of insurance."
This is utterly daft, yet completely typical of this useless government - does it ever think anything through? I can understand that age shouldn't be a factor for some kinds of insurance - the idea that someone who's old shouldn't get travel insurance on the grounds they might suddenly get sick or die whilst on holiday is perverse, to say the least. But car insurance? Research and statistics show overwhelmingly that it is the youngest drivers (particularly men aged between 17-25) who have most accidents behind the wheel. Why shouldn't we pay more in insurance as a result? Besides, if it's so expensive, there are always ways to bring the cost down - drive a smaller car, for example.
I shall hand to the masses...
Says the Mail: "Millions of motorists face hefty car insurance price hikes under Government moves to ban companies from using people's age when the assessing accident risk. And the cost of travel insurance could double if they were no longer able to take people's age into account, say insurers. The changes will also affect all other forms of insurance."
This is utterly daft, yet completely typical of this useless government - does it ever think anything through? I can understand that age shouldn't be a factor for some kinds of insurance - the idea that someone who's old shouldn't get travel insurance on the grounds they might suddenly get sick or die whilst on holiday is perverse, to say the least. But car insurance? Research and statistics show overwhelmingly that it is the youngest drivers (particularly men aged between 17-25) who have most accidents behind the wheel. Why shouldn't we pay more in insurance as a result? Besides, if it's so expensive, there are always ways to bring the cost down - drive a smaller car, for example.
I shall hand to the masses...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
The reason is the same - age. Old age and youth make the risk of paying out higher just like being a woman makes the risk of paying out lower (for a driver).
Frankly, I have no idea where you're going with this. The whole point of the thread is to point out that they want to make it illegal for insurance companies to use age when deciding how much to charge someone for cover. Which opens up a total minefield of problems...
I was discussing this point:
Up the fine to something like £5000 and people might start to take notice.
Exactly.
This is good new really.
Insurance quotes should be based on a individual circumstances.
Stargalaxy if it were shown that black people are statistically more likely to claim would you think it acceptable to bump of quotes for black people?
Age and sex should have nothing to do with it.
Previous claim history, milage, type of car, where you live, security should have everything to do with it.
And besides, it shouldn't make much difference. You will still be allowed to (rightly) differentiate between drivers based on previous driving experience. So a young person who's just passed his test will still get charged a lot more than a 50 year old who's been driving for 30 years. It just means that a 50 year old new driver will be charged exactly the same as an 18 year old new driver. Quite rightly.
Maybe insurance at least third party insurance should be nationalised. So you would get a car and pay your car tax which would include a provision for injuries / compensation to others - then in case of an accident the government could pay out. Then you can 'top up' your insurance with private providers to give yourself cover from fire, theft, reversing into a wall, that kind of thing.
Age and sex affect behaviour and judgement but race doesn't.
More communism. The people can't enough of the stuff.
Accepted. But it's still descrimination.
For years insurances companies descriminated against me for having a a cock and being young, I had to pay through the nose to insure my cars despite any evidence to suggest that I as an individual was somebody that is likely to claim - I have never claimed.
So I have paid over the odds. That's wrong surely.
:yes:
I have learned, over the years, to arrange my affairs in such a way that my emotional balance is not affected to any large extent by other people practising communism.
That is not totally correct. There are legal exemptions albeit somewhat prohibitive to most (and by design, I suspect).
You appear to confuse free market economics with lobbying corporations bribing legislators to enact laws that favour their business model. (See the history of car insurance for more details).
So, discrimination simply means to make a difference between something. It isn't positive or negative. Racial discrimination is unacceptable as race isn't a determinant of personal traits and to discriminate because of race would be discrimination based on a false belief or other dubious reasons.
Insurance firms have to discriminate based on sex and age because on average different demographics carry different risks of paying out. If you imagine two overlapping bell curves you may be of the demography that carrys the higher risk but as the curves overlap you are a lower risk than the average person in the lower risk group. Unfortunatly companies don't have access to this information as it's basically impossible to gather so the next best solution is to discriminate based on the average of a group. If they didn't then general prices would have to rise and that would be a larger disutility than when prices discriminate between sex or age. It's similar for wage differentials between the sexes.
Well yes of course. Insurance is based on descrination, but it comes down to what it's acceptable to descriminate against. I find the idea of descriminating against such broad factors as age and sex wrong to be honest. Statistics show that young men are more f a financial risk to insurance companies, but that doesn't mean I'm a worse driver as an individual.
Without sex and age there are still plenty of other individual personal variables.
If it's ok for companies to offer cheaper prices for women for insurance based on statistical evidence, then why isn't it ok for companies to discriminate against age, women & ethnic minorities based on statistical evidence?
If I as an employer had a vacancy for a physically demanding job such as a labourer, I wouldn't be able to advertise the job at $400 a week for men and $300 a week for women, despite evidence that men are generally more suited to such roles.
Famously there can be significant differences in premiums between people of the same age and circumstances but slightly different professions (say a store manager paying a lot less than a marketing consultant.
And it is unfair to charge youngsters up to 2 grand for insurance. Some of them might indeed be a greater risk (say a boy racer) but a cautious, responsible 18 year old man or woman is probably a lot safer than a 40-something geezer who's been driving for 20 years and thinks he's the business.
cautious, responsible 18 year old man or woman? They don't exist, l think the insurance firms are right. Too many glue sniffers about.
You can also get a discount of up to a third on car insurance if you're married. No, I'm not sure how going down the aisle suddenly makes me a better driver either.