Equality or madness?
- Thread starter Nibblenic
- Start date
Nibblenic
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2009
- Messages
- 9,267
- Reaction score
- 0
The cold hard fact of the matter is that people are different.
In terms of insurance, we are sepperated by much more than gender. Seperated by age, gender, previous history. Be that health, driving convictions or even genetics. Even if we smoke or are obeese. Insruance works by fitting people into catergories. You take on 100 people 10% will be high risk the other less and that is how it works and there is always enough money in the pot to cover expeneses.
Its madness to say I should pay the same as a 45 year old man who has never had a claim just as its silly to suggest that I should pay the same as a 26 year old boy racer. Just because we are the same age and we can no longer discriminate on gender.
The whole process of insurance is about discrimination. Even if it is positive discrimination. It is baised on calculated risk. Which does involve many areas such as gender and age and social status even. If there is no discrimation in insurance I can only see that those whodont need to will be paying more and no one will be paying less
In terms of insurance, we are sepperated by much more than gender. Seperated by age, gender, previous history. Be that health, driving convictions or even genetics. Even if we smoke or are obeese. Insruance works by fitting people into catergories. You take on 100 people 10% will be high risk the other less and that is how it works and there is always enough money in the pot to cover expeneses.
Its madness to say I should pay the same as a 45 year old man who has never had a claim just as its silly to suggest that I should pay the same as a 26 year old boy racer. Just because we are the same age and we can no longer discriminate on gender.
The whole process of insurance is about discrimination. Even if it is positive discrimination. It is baised on calculated risk. Which does involve many areas such as gender and age and social status even. If there is no discrimation in insurance I can only see that those whodont need to will be paying more and no one will be paying less
This would only make sense if the demographic data used by insurance companies to calculate the risk was somehow skewed or discriminatory. Pretty sure it's just a collection of Driver X, age, gender, health, whatever, had this type of collision in this car in these conditions. And interpreting the data from there.
No one is saying, well, this person had this accident because she is a woman.
I don't think I agree with or understand that ruling.
No one is saying, well, this person had this accident because she is a woman.
I don't think I agree with or understand that ruling.
andbabymakes3
Just me and my girl
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 0
I totally disagree with the ruling and think that playing the equality card is horse shit.
Insurance is based on a risk asessment on your personal statistics/circumstances, and statistically women have less accidents than men. Simple as.
Playing devils advocate - is it not also ageist to charge younger people higher premiums than older people? Case in point, my car insurance is approximately £40 a month and I am 32 and have never made a claim on car insurance. To insure the same car, at the same address, same mileage etc etc but under my dads name (who is 65) with me as a named driver would only cost £15 a month.
Insurance is based on a risk asessment on your personal statistics/circumstances, and statistically women have less accidents than men. Simple as.
Playing devils advocate - is it not also ageist to charge younger people higher premiums than older people? Case in point, my car insurance is approximately £40 a month and I am 32 and have never made a claim on car insurance. To insure the same car, at the same address, same mileage etc etc but under my dads name (who is 65) with me as a named driver would only cost £15 a month.
bathbabe
Mum to 3 boys
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 7,039
- Reaction score
- 0
I think it is unfair. Women have less accidents. But at the same time age plays a huge role also but it should be unfair to discriminate because of it! My friends brother was trying to get insurance on a 2ltr tdi golf (i think it was a golf) the lowest quote he got was £7,000! Yes £7,000! My dad has a 2ltr tdi corsa and pays less than £200 a year. The difference? My dad is 43 and my friends brother is 17. The 17year old is by no means a boy racer, he owns his own business and drives tractors usually!
The whole system is unfair in my opinion
Also.. my dad is a mechanic and because of that his insurance is bumped up a little
Also your marital status changes how much you pay - loads of stuff effect it so why pick on gender?
tallybee
DS '04, DD '06, DD '15
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2010
- Messages
- 14,893
- Reaction score
- 1
It's just about risk isn't it, that's what insurance is all about. They HAVE to wedge us all into categories as that's how they operate. Statistically speaking a 17 year old is more likely to have an accident. Even if they are the most responsible 17 year old in the land, they necessarily have less driving experience than most older drivers, so it's not just about being a racer or not. And aye employment background changes it... it's not about the individual it's about groups. We all feel like we're the exception to the rule, lol. But in insurance categories are their business and getting on the wagon of abolishing categories because 'it's (insert term here)-ist' will just end up with everyone paying the highest premiums!
Do you know that women not only make less on average than men, but we often pay more for the same items (eg: a man's shirt at the cleaners vs a woman's, haircuts for men and women, etc), so when you look at it like that, it extra double super sucks that women will be losing one of the few consumer advantages we have!
