Insurance discrimination - has it gone too far?
- Thread starter Nitrojan
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
By crash, I meant "crash" as in "backwards at 90 into a school playground" not as in "small parking incident".
But it's nice to see the levels of pedantry being maintained.
Someone else that doesn't get insurance.
The reason they can pay out tens of thousands for a claimant that pays £300 a year is because the rely on people paying and not claiming - that is how insurance works. I don't see how you can say its unfair to pull in statistics to assess your risk, seeing as its about the only way to do so.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 4,503
- Location
- Darkest Worcestershire
Young men are more likely to crash than a young woman, so you pay more.
As SB118 has just said
As SB118 has just said
Do people seriously think this is about money? Only in the sense that they have to cover the massively larger costs of insuring young male drivers. If it was just about screwing money out of the customer then they'd go after the older drivers because they are richer, and not try to price younger drivers out of the market. But it isn't: as the wiser people here have pointed out it is simply because young male drivers cost the insurers the most. It's the same reason that insurance at 50 is less: these people cost the insurers less.
M
M
but that would push up the insurance for everyone else, why do I want to pay extra so all the 17yr olds can insure then crash expensive cars (or cause a lot of dammage to my car)
Because in my imaginary world you'd get a percentage back thus bringing your actual total lower if you didn't make a claim, those who make claims and thus prove themselves a liability whould not get the refund and thus end up paying more, think of it as a claim deposit.
It's not like I've got a fully working idea on how to change it for the better and I'm pretty much just musing but I cannot help but think that there could be some milage in having a bigger carrot for drivers to see other than a lower next years premium.
Give them the chance of something back and it might (it's a big might) calm a few more of them down.
exactly
Mate of mine at school was insured on his mums Suzuki 4x4 thing. Binned it spectacularly on a B road by rolling it several times and took it some fences etc.. Completely wrote the car off, and incurred other expenses from the farmer for repairs to the fence etc..
Women on the other hand, will scrape somebodys arch in a car park resulting in a cost to the insurance co of around a grand. Much less than the very large 5 figure sum writing off the 4x4 cost.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,770
- Location
- Auckland
Dano said:
That penalises those who don't claim as the overpayment could have been put in savings or used in other ways. It also makes insurance more affordable to the very people who are more likely to have expensive crashes.
[FnG]magnolia;16808030 said:
No, they get the excess funds back.
No, they end up paying far more.
I'm not going to explain any further, like I said it is just me thinking out loud and I'm not about to try and explain something that isn't anything but an idea that you've misunderstood be it from my poor explanation or otherwise.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
yes insurance is descriminatory...rightly or wrongly but the premiums have now become so high it is verging upon the obscene.
..and drive off promptly from what ive witnessed!
In my experience, most women scrape somebody's arch in a car park, don't realise they've done it and drive off - lowering their insurance risk further!
What I would personally like to see insurance companies doing is more of that "install a black box in your car, if you're travelling on statistically safer roads or always during the day you get reduced premiums". A lot of people seem to kneejerk moan about stuff like this (e.g. "oh noes Elephant will know what times I'm driving to work! My privacy is sacrosanct!") but I personally wouldn't hesitate if it meant cheaper premiums.
Insurance is discriminatory but it has to be - it's a calculated risk, and young males are statistically more costly to underwrite than females. That's just the way it is I'm afraid. They haven't got anything against you persay, just what you represent (young, male, no driving history (NCB), etc)
Insurance is discriminatory but it has to be - it's a calculated risk, and young males are statistically more costly to underwrite than females. That's just the way it is I'm afraid. They haven't got anything against you persay, just what you represent (young, male, no driving history (NCB), etc)
the way i been told it works is that the insurance company will start off with a premium, say for example £2000, they then process allllllll the information given to them and based upon the information given, the price would increase or decrease dependant upon the number of claims to the number of people with the same information in the UK
so we start at £2000, then age of the driver might be 35, might be a low claim ratio so the price drops to £1000, then the occupation for that driver is a police man, so price drops again to £600, but he then has 3 points for speeding so price goes up to £1300 and so forth
insurance is based upon discrimination but upon if's and but's, which isnt the ideal way to get the price but unless they send out one representative per insured driver to find out exactly how you drive, i dont think theres another way that would benefit everyone
plus an insurance company is a business, so aslong as they competative to other prices i dont see the problem, everyone thinks they are a safe driver otherwise i wouldnt give lifts to family members or friends, but as previously mentioned your details might place you in a catagory you dont actually belong in but your details point you in that direction
so we start at £2000, then age of the driver might be 35, might be a low claim ratio so the price drops to £1000, then the occupation for that driver is a police man, so price drops again to £600, but he then has 3 points for speeding so price goes up to £1300 and so forth
insurance is based upon discrimination but upon if's and but's, which isnt the ideal way to get the price but unless they send out one representative per insured driver to find out exactly how you drive, i dont think theres another way that would benefit everyone
plus an insurance company is a business, so aslong as they competative to other prices i dont see the problem, everyone thinks they are a safe driver otherwise i wouldnt give lifts to family members or friends, but as previously mentioned your details might place you in a catagory you dont actually belong in but your details point you in that direction
Last edited:
Actually that was for RAC Group as a whole - RAC itself isn't and wasn't an insurance underwriter, they merely brokered policies as an extra on the side of the core business.
Insurance companies do make a profit. A good, healthy profit. But not off the money taken vs the money paid out. They make it on investing the premiums, not screwing customers.