If you asked everyone to assess what part of insurance they viewed as ethically sound then you'd soon find yourself in a position where you'd be charging everyone £1000 for insurance regardless of their risk profile.
Warning - Contains Insurance Rant
- Thread starter Makhaira
- Start date
If you asked everyone to assess what part of insurance they viewed as ethically sound then you'd soon find yourself in a position where you'd be charging everyone £1000 for insurance regardless of their risk profile.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Making it illegal would simply increase the cost of insurance for people living in areas previously judged as low risk, which would potentially be balanced by reducing the insurance of people living in areas perceived as high risk.
This is, of course, completely ridiculous. The notion that you should pay the same to insure your car in Moss Side, Manchester as you should if you live 3 miles outside Chepstow is completely and utterly ridiculous.
It should be fairly obvious that an area populated mostly by scallywags is going to see a higher proportion of damage to cars be it through accident or otherwise than a quiet leafy suburb filled with 40something Daily Mail readers. There is therefore nothing wrong with pricing insurance in this way.
Which was a completely ridiculous ruling that makes no sense - we cost insurers more money, we should pay more money. All this ruling is doing is increasing the cost of womens car insurance with the possible benefit of a minor reduction in male premium. Women will now lose out greatly despite being less likely to claim.
Yet you think this is 'fair'?
[TW]Fox;18948053 said:
Its not wrong at all, I do understand I know the postcodes are used for more than just theft but my point was theft should play a factor in the risk and it obviously doesn't to his insurance company, ill simplify what im getting at:
Fact 1: A car parked in the street is a lot more likely to be vandalised, side-swiped, have its wheels nicked or be stolen completely than a car kept in a locked garage.
Fact 2: An insurance company that charges the same amount to insure the car in the locked garage as the one parked in the street is ripping its customer off.
What is your source for this fact?
As previously covered - a car is actually a LOWER theft risk if its parked on the street. The reason why is quite simple.
In 2010, 84% of cars were stolen WITH the keys (Source: Tracker).
In order to steal the keys you must know where they are - this is why a car on a driveway is rich pickings for a theif. He knows that the car security is so good these days its very hard to steal without the keys. If the car is on the drive, the keys are invariably in the house.
If the car is on the street, which house?
Why are you saying things are 'Fact' when they are nothing more than your own misguided assumption?
There are different risks to insurers of each method of parking the car. There are a suprising number of claims each year from people who damage cars getting them into or out of garages. This problem doesn't arise when the car is parked on the street, which is why garages are not quite the utopia for insurance companies that you'd imagine they are.
It's not hard to grasp that these thing don't happen very often. I don't know of anyone who's had a modern car stolen without the thieves breaking into their house and stealing the keys.
Is it hard to grasp that cars have got bigger but garages & drives haven't so lots of people have accidents trying to park?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
It isn't as bad as discriminating on race or sex as if you can afford a decent car you can simply rent elsewhere. It is a choice.
But still in my ideal world I would have everyone paying much similar permiums. I can't logically explain this. Perhaps I wan't it based more on skill. I passed my test first time, I want free insurance y0.
So forget "fairness" for a second.
Did the government really care about men not having as nice cars as women or was it a case of more and more young men with even the most basic cars living in not the best areas finding themselves in a in a position of not being able to easily travel to work because the bad areas are increasing and public transport is rubbish or whatever the cause is.
If the government decides it is causing problems then fair doesn't matter. Although I believe the ruling came from the EU so that might be rubbish, but then we only do what the EU says when we want when it comes to human rights. (eg DNA register).
However I am standing firm on sex. Making men pay more for something they have no control over is not fair.
But still in my ideal world I would have everyone paying much similar permiums. I can't logically explain this. Perhaps I wan't it based more on skill. I passed my test first time, I want free insurance y0.
So forget "fairness" for a second.
Did the government really care about men not having as nice cars as women or was it a case of more and more young men with even the most basic cars living in not the best areas finding themselves in a in a position of not being able to easily travel to work because the bad areas are increasing and public transport is rubbish or whatever the cause is.
If the government decides it is causing problems then fair doesn't matter. Although I believe the ruling came from the EU so that might be rubbish, but then we only do what the EU says when we want when it comes to human rights. (eg DNA register).
However I am standing firm on sex. Making men pay more for something they have no control over is not fair.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 902
- Location
- Calgary
But still in my ideal world I would have everyone paying much similar permiums. I can't logically explain this. Perhaps I wan't it based more on skill. I passed my test first time, I want free insurance y0.
Doesn't take an ideal world, it just takes a government making some well thought out changes (i.e. not Labour style kneejerk) to regulation to discourage excessive whiplash claims and lawyer costs, and to decrease the numbers of uninsured drivers on the roads.
Except instead of men paying less, women will just pay more.
HOORAY, EVERYBODY LOSES OUT, GO TEAM 'FAIRNESS'
Thank you for demonstrating you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 'The Government' didn't decide anything.
The penny drops..
So what?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
How do you work that out? If all companies are bound by the same rules suerly the market will ensure this doesn't happen assuming competition remains.
Which it will, they just won't be able to price premiums based on sex.
The insurer wasn't eSure was it?
They recently refused to provide a re-quote for me even though I had been an existing customer of theirs and simply missed the renewal date, thought the insurance expired on Monday but it actually expired the day before. So they quoted a renewal which lapsed, my other car is insured with them but refused to provide me with a re-quote because I live in the HA7 postcode area.
They recently refused to provide a re-quote for me even though I had been an existing customer of theirs and simply missed the renewal date, thought the insurance expired on Monday but it actually expired the day before. So they quoted a renewal which lapsed, my other car is insured with them but refused to provide me with a re-quote because I live in the HA7 postcode area.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
[TW]Fox;18948813 said:
So the EU isn't technically the government, it still happened. what's your point?
Even if it did matter our government joined the EU, and you live here so it is all your fault!
As I explained it isn't nessacerrily about fairness but also possibly the "good" of the country, a slight change to car insurance legislation means women subsidse men or people in the country subsidise people in the city, it doesn't matter, it is easier than building a decent public transport system or sorting out poverty in the short term atleast.
But still many politicians who make these laws or continue our involvement with the EU get elected with the promise of creating "fairness" so people must want it, whether you do or not. it seems most people do. democracy worked for once. at least in my oppinion.
It isnt a good thing that women - who cost insurers less - should pay the same as men - who cost insurers more.
They didnt change the law because they decided it would be nice, it was subject to a legal challenge from a consumer group who argued risk pricing based on gender was illegal.
They didnt change the law because they decided it would be nice, it was subject to a legal challenge from a consumer group who argued risk pricing based on gender was illegal.
[TW]Fox;18948551 said:
Common sense, a car in a garage is a lower insurance risk than one in the street.
[TW]Fox;18948551 said:
I know the are a lot of claims from idiots who have managed to scrape their car while entering their garage but ill wager the are even more who park in the street and have had a wing mirror damaged by a passing vehicle, or had their can damaged in some way by somebody walking back from the pub, or had a wheel nicked, or had the whole car stolen, or had the car scraped/shunted by a bad parker, or had some fool crash into them.
This is why my insurance was £80 cheaper when I started keeping it in the garage as opposed to the street, because unlike his insurer mine adjusted the premium to account for the lowered risk.
Citation needed.
Agreed.
Garages don't change the risk that much - it's far more weighted by postcode, vehicle, age of driver etc.