Man of Honour
Morally, I think that is completely and utterly wrong.
Women and Insurance Premiums
- Thread starter Vita
- Start date
Morally, I think that is completely and utterly wrong.
What about if tomorrow you decided you were gay, and your premiums went up. Acceptable?
What if tomorrow you decided you've lost your faith in god and became atheist, and your premiums went up. Acceptable?
I'm playing devils advocate here a bit, part of my thinks as long as it can be proved it's purely statistically driven it can't be prejudice as it's just in it's basic form a mathematical equation. However part of me also thinks it's wrong that a gay/religious/ehtnic version of me would pay more/less.
Last edited:
I agree, whats next dna testing in life insurance, thats where things are going to be heading
People constantly bemoan things that are not fair.
The more statistical data an insurer is allowed to absorb the fairer the treatment.
There are already schemes/facilities for gay/bisexuals that offer discounts based on statistical data that they are safer drivers/lower risk drivers. Personally I have no idea how this data was gathered but if it is solid data then you can't argue with that.
The more statistical data an insurer is allowed to absorb the fairer the treatment.
There are already schemes/facilities for gay/bisexuals that offer discounts based on statistical data that they are safer drivers/lower risk drivers. Personally I have no idea how this data was gathered but if it is solid data then you can't argue with that.
Gay is likely to reduce premiums not inflate.
If I had a discount for faith then lost my faith then sure - I'd accept the extra premium as happily as I was in taking the discount when I had faith.
If it was statistically proven then what argument do you have?
Its not a race sex thing its a statistics thing.
Either insurance is based on statistics or it's not. What is the difference between that example and age or sex.
Not so much an argument as a point for discussion.
I'm questioning whether statistics are enough, are you prepared to hide behind the "statistics" if it leads our society to become increasingly institutionally prejudiced?
Good, insurance should be based on driving experience, not gender. The experience is key, whether your 17 or 65 with no driving experience you could be equally dangerous on the road but going on statistics younger drivers have accidents more due to their behaviour.
Man of Honour
While I admit that it's possible that the media are lying about what the Association of British Insurers has said the effects of removing sex from car insurance would be, I'd like to see some evidence before agreeing with you.
EDIT: Silly me, I interpreted some things incorrectly. However, it would be strange if insurers didn't to some extent set their premiums on the basis of what the market will bear at the time, and that means charging women less and men more for business reasons as well as statistical ones.
Last edited:
Personally I think it's awful idea.
What I would really like to see is transparency. I just want proof that every risk contributes fairly and they don't just use (as an example, not suggesting it is true or otherwise) young drivers to subsidise the stupidly cheap prices they give to some older drivers who have proven to be a risk.
If they can prove that they are charging fair prices for each risk group then that would be enough for me.
What I would really like to see is transparency. I just want proof that every risk contributes fairly and they don't just use (as an example, not suggesting it is true or otherwise) young drivers to subsidise the stupidly cheap prices they give to some older drivers who have proven to be a risk.
If they can prove that they are charging fair prices for each risk group then that would be enough for me.
Thats taken into account by license obtained date and NCD
Sorry but insurance is by definition a form of risk management. With car insurance both gender and driving experience (and numerous other factors) contribute to that risk.
I can't imagine why anyone would think that preventing insurance companies from using a well understood risk factor is a good idea, it can only lead to higher premiums for everyone.
I agree it would be great (I have grave doubts about increased risk after no fault claims for instance), but I don't think it would ever happen voluntarily. Publishing these details would be effectively giving their IP away, so it would have to be all insurers or none.
The statistics may not be the true picture, what if am woman had an accident but was a named driver on her husbands insurance, therefore wouldn't he be put on the statistic because he's the policy holder?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
No, he wouldn't.
Soldato
Definitely. It's all statistics.
Gender quite clearly does have a bearing on risk. You would be misguided to argue otherwise, surely?
Whilst there are exceptions to every rule - the odd girl racer and the odd choirboy, driving like a prat in a car is a generally male thing. A typically male thing to do is post on the internet about performance cars, and go for a hoon. Girls dont tend to do this sort of thing.
Like it or not, girls ARE lower risk - risk in terms of payout amount not payout frequency. Mending bumpers after girls back into things is cheaper than replacing cars after us guys run out of talent and fling Imprezas into fields.
Country of original almost certainly DOES have an affect on risk as well - I'd imagine that people from some countries are far more likely to have an accident than some from others. The reason insurance doesn't risk profile based on this is not because it has no bearing on risk, it's because it's a huge taboo subject.
Man of Honour
Is "has the same type of genitals" really a group, though?
Are you really asking if gender is a group?