Is car insurance sexist?
Discussion
Some very interesting replies!
http://www.moneysupermarket.com/community/forums/p...
http://www.moneysupermarket.com/community/forums/p...
MoneySuperMarketArticle said:
Of course, there's a very good reason for this: claims data shows that men are more likely to make a claim than women. However, some regard it as discrimination and a European court ruling due next month could bring an end to insurers pricing for risk in this way and may result in female drivers having to pay more.
Best reply so far?ProbableDailyMailReader said:
If the law says that a woman must be paid the same as a man for her labour, it is only reasonable that the law should say that a woman must pay the same for products and services as a man!
He has a point!I'm not so sure that he has a point.
Insurance is based on statistics, things that are tangible and can be proven and tested over a period.
Making it law that females should be paid the same as males is about equality - there isn't a way to prove that males 100% of the time outperform females, so we have to leglislate to provide equality at first - if someone is performing well, they will get a pay increase/promotion.
Should we extend that to ageist? You can't employ someone just based on their being younger than another, equal candidate. Should we also all pay the same at 17 year old men from inner city areas with 17" alloys & a phatt spoiler that were bought before they passed their test?
Insurance is based on statistics, things that are tangible and can be proven and tested over a period.
Making it law that females should be paid the same as males is about equality - there isn't a way to prove that males 100% of the time outperform females, so we have to leglislate to provide equality at first - if someone is performing well, they will get a pay increase/promotion.
Should we extend that to ageist? You can't employ someone just based on their being younger than another, equal candidate. Should we also all pay the same at 17 year old men from inner city areas with 17" alloys & a phatt spoiler that were bought before they passed their test?
wolves_wanderer said:
With my cynical head on, I imagine if the stats were reversed the practice would have been ended long ago.
Yep, I can certainly see the feminist brigade would have 'sorted' that if it were the case...It'll be interesting to see what the EU decide; stupid because it will just up womens insurance, not lower blokes...
menguin said:
I'm not so sure that he has a point.
Insurance is based on statistics, things that are tangible and can be proven and tested over a period.
Making it law that females should be paid the same as males is about equality - there isn't a way to prove that males 100% of the time outperform females, so we have to leglislate to provide equality at first - if someone is performing well, they will get a pay increase/promotion.
Should we extend that to ageist? You can't employ someone just based on their being younger than another, equal candidate. Should we also all pay the same at 17 year old men from inner city areas with 17" alloys & a phatt spoiler that were bought before they passed their test?
Do you think other businesses (lets say for example a hotel) should be allowed to charge more/refuse to deal with certain groups in society if they can provide some statistics to back up their decision? E.g if I as a hotelier found that 20% of my guests who left without paying were Irish, whilst only making up 1% of my total guests would it be acceptable to charge Irish people more? Or see a return to 'No Irish' signs?Insurance is based on statistics, things that are tangible and can be proven and tested over a period.
Making it law that females should be paid the same as males is about equality - there isn't a way to prove that males 100% of the time outperform females, so we have to leglislate to provide equality at first - if someone is performing well, they will get a pay increase/promotion.
Should we extend that to ageist? You can't employ someone just based on their being younger than another, equal candidate. Should we also all pay the same at 17 year old men from inner city areas with 17" alloys & a phatt spoiler that were bought before they passed their test?
I see why insurance companies do what they're doing, and I don't think it's unfair per se, but it doesn't seem fair that this is the only area of business where this sort of discrimination is allowed (or at least practiced so blatantly!)
Just remember, this sort of thing can cut both ways. Men have a lower life expectancy than women so when you retire and use your pension pot to buy an annuity, you get a bigger annual pension than a woman of the same age with the same sized pot.
Although I did read somewhere the other day that this may have to change under European law.
Although I did read somewhere the other day that this may have to change under European law.
DrTre said:
DannyVTS said:
He has a point!
No he hasn't remotely.Larry Dickman said:
Well he sort of does, but anyway, I don't care if people pay less insurance than me or not. Putting up the price of their insurance isn't going to benefit me, & if I have a problem with the price I'm being charged then it's up to me to sort it out with my insurers or shop elsewhere. If someone's getting theirs cheaper then good luck to them.
The whole point of insurance is to discriminate against certain groups in favour of others: The insurance industry discriminates against poor(bad) drivers by charging more to insure them.If a certain group which is otherwise protected (eg. people with a certain race or sexual preference) turned out to have a higher incidence of accidents, they'd be charged more unless there was legislation in place to stop that sort of thing.
Since there's legislation in place to stop discrimination on the grounds of race/age/sexual prefernence/gender, I think that criteria will be removed from the list of things insurers are allowed to base their calculations on.
They will instead probably achieve much the same thing (statistically, anyway) by working out the gender based on a profile of other factors: living arrangements, job, car, smoking, etc etc etc.
It wont' be guaranteed but from these two totally made up samples they will be able to get close:
- 28 year old single person living in apartment in London, 2008 Black BMW 330d
- 48 year old married person living in house in Bournemouth, 2006 Red Ford Fiesta.
C
CraigyMc said:
The whole point of insurance is to discriminate against certain groups in favour of others: The insurance industry discriminates against poor(bad) drivers by charging more to insure them.
If a certain group which is otherwise protected (eg. people with a certain race or sexual preference) turned out to have a higher incidence of accidents, they'd be charged more unless there was legislation in place to stop that sort of thing.
Since there's legislation in place to stop discrimination on the grounds of race/age/sexual prefernence/gender, I think that criteria will be removed from the list of things insurers are allowed to base their calculations on.
They will instead probably achieve much the same thing (statistically, anyway) by working out the gender based on a profile of other factors: living arrangements, job, car, smoking, etc etc etc.
It wont' be guaranteed but from these two totally made up samples they will be able to get close:
C
If thats your argument the name would be more obviousIf a certain group which is otherwise protected (eg. people with a certain race or sexual preference) turned out to have a higher incidence of accidents, they'd be charged more unless there was legislation in place to stop that sort of thing.
Since there's legislation in place to stop discrimination on the grounds of race/age/sexual prefernence/gender, I think that criteria will be removed from the list of things insurers are allowed to base their calculations on.
They will instead probably achieve much the same thing (statistically, anyway) by working out the gender based on a profile of other factors: living arrangements, job, car, smoking, etc etc etc.
It wont' be guaranteed but from these two totally made up samples they will be able to get close:
- 28 year old single person living in apartment in London, 2008 Black BMW 330d
- 48 year old married person living in house in Bournemouth, 2006 Red Ford Fiesta.
C
JohnnyRims said:
Do you think other businesses (lets say for example a hotel) should be allowed to charge more/refuse to deal with certain groups in society if they can provide some statistics to back up their decision? E.g if I as a hotelier found that 20% of my guests who left without paying were Irish, whilst only making up 1% of my total guests would it be acceptable to charge Irish people more? Or see a return to 'No Irish' signs?
I see why insurance companies do what they're doing, and I don't think it's unfair per se, but it doesn't seem fair that this is the only area of business where this sort of discrimination is allowed (or at least practiced so blatantly!)
A hotel doesn't operate in the same way as an insurance company. If someone damages a hotel room or leaves without paying, the hotel (should) have their credit/debit card on file, and have their personal details to (try to) claim the money back if they have suffered any damage/losses as a result of the person staying. If the hotel either allows the person to stay first, or doesn't take steps to protect themselves (by insisting on a credit card pre-auth or similar) it is their own fault. I see why insurance companies do what they're doing, and I don't think it's unfair per se, but it doesn't seem fair that this is the only area of business where this sort of discrimination is allowed (or at least practiced so blatantly!)
If an insurer chooses to insure a male and the male crashes, they cannot claim the money back from the male, as he has paid to be insured with the company - therefore they have to make their money by preemptively charging the male more based on his statistical liklehood of being involved in a crash that they would have to payout for.
coley20 said:
CraigyMc said:
The whole point of insurance is to discriminate against certain groups in favour of others: The insurance industry discriminates against poor(bad) drivers by charging more to insure them.
If a certain group which is otherwise protected (eg. people with a certain race or sexual preference) turned out to have a higher incidence of accidents, they'd be charged more unless there was legislation in place to stop that sort of thing.
Since there's legislation in place to stop discrimination on the grounds of race/age/sexual prefernence/gender, I think that criteria will be removed from the list of things insurers are allowed to base their calculations on.
They will instead probably achieve much the same thing (statistically, anyway) by working out the gender based on a profile of other factors: living arrangements, job, car, smoking, etc etc etc.
It wont' be guaranteed but from these two totally made up samples they will be able to get close:
C
If thats your argument the name would be more obviousIf a certain group which is otherwise protected (eg. people with a certain race or sexual preference) turned out to have a higher incidence of accidents, they'd be charged more unless there was legislation in place to stop that sort of thing.
Since there's legislation in place to stop discrimination on the grounds of race/age/sexual prefernence/gender, I think that criteria will be removed from the list of things insurers are allowed to base their calculations on.
They will instead probably achieve much the same thing (statistically, anyway) by working out the gender based on a profile of other factors: living arrangements, job, car, smoking, etc etc etc.
It wont' be guaranteed but from these two totally made up samples they will be able to get close:
- 28 year old single person living in apartment in London, 2008 Black BMW 330d
- 48 year old married person living in house in Bournemouth, 2006 Red Ford Fiesta.
C
If so - why?
C
menguin said:
Insurance is based on statistics, things that are tangible and can be proven and tested over a period.
Making it law that females should be paid the same as males is about equality - there isn't a way to prove that males 100% of the time outperform females, so we have to leglislate to provide equality at first - if someone is performing well, they will get a pay increase/promotion.
I would think for many companies, particularly sales it could be proven statistically that one sex out performs the other - it may be that is some jobs men are better than women and in others women outperform men, but we can't use these statistics to generally pay one sex better when working in the same way we can charge one sex more for insurance because of legislation even though in the two cases companies could produce the same type of statistics to show a difference between the groups when a large sample size is used.Making it law that females should be paid the same as males is about equality - there isn't a way to prove that males 100% of the time outperform females, so we have to leglislate to provide equality at first - if someone is performing well, they will get a pay increase/promotion.
Statistics show for example that in my family men are safer drivers than women but we still get higher premiums, I accept thats the case because I am being grouped in with lots of other people but still think it is a bit unfair.
Mario149 said:
Maybe there'll end up being a compromise solution whereby companies are not allowed to charge men more for their premium, but will just up the minimum excess instead, would have the same effect basically
Might be an idea, those of us that don't push up the crash statistics would still save money.Mr Sparkle said:
I would think for many companies, particularly sales it could be proven statistically that one sex out performs the other - it may be that is some jobs men are better than women and in others women outperform men, but we can't use these statistics to generally pay one sex better when working in the same way we can charge one sex more for insurance because of legislation even though in the two cases companies could produce the same type of statistics to show a difference between the groups when a large sample size is used.
Statistics show for example that in my family men are safer drivers than women but we still get higher premiums, I accept thats the case because I am being grouped in with lots of other people but still think it is a bit unfair.
I suppose the sales/wage issue is that payments are at first equal, then if they prove themselves they either get a pay rise or they work on commission, so they are rewarded for their work.Statistics show for example that in my family men are safer drivers than women but we still get higher premiums, I accept thats the case because I am being grouped in with lots of other people but still think it is a bit unfair.
By the same rationale, insurance companies reduce your premium based on the amount of time you have gone without an accident. I suppose by extension of that one could argue that initially all premiums should be exactly the same, ignoring race/age/sex/etc, and then reduced exclusively based on how long you've gone without an accident.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff