Gender-blind car insurance

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Gender-blind car insurance

Postby greengiant » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:52 pm UTC

Apparently the EU are expected to rule that insurance companies cannot charge different rates for men and women (Not sure why walesonline was top of my search results, but it's probably as good as any)

The PM (and several newspapers by the look of it) seem to be against this idea, but it seems fair enough to me. Obviously the entire insurance industry is founded on discriminating (in the non-judgemental sense of the word) between people to determine the risk of them needing a payout but I personally think it's reasonable to exclude some things (like this) from consideration.

There seem to be loads of arguments online with people repeating the same claims - men drive more miles per year/young men are more aggressive/women have higher accident rates per mile/my mate says women are worse drivers/etc. etc (mostly without any evidence to back anything up), but I tend to think this kind of argument is irrelevant. The actuaries probably know what they're doing in calculating risk, the real question is what characteristics we're willing to let them discriminate on. Probably most people would not be happy to let a company offer lower rates for white drivers (not claiming there's any reason to do so, just a hypothetical), but most people are probably happy for insurers to classify some cars as more risky than others (perhaps because the car you drive is a choice?).

Anyway, what do you guys think?

P.S. We're not talking a small difference here. For young drivers the difference can be hundreds (possibly thousand) of pounds.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Endless Mike » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:12 pm UTC

Hm. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I guess the question becomes "what discrimination is acceptable?"

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby headprogrammingczar » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:18 pm UTC

My penis does not make me an aggressive driver. It can't even press down the accelerator.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Spambot5546 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:22 pm UTC

I find this to be extremely anti-feminist. :-/
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Dark567 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:25 pm UTC

It seems to me that if you didn't want to discriminate than you would just charge everyone the same rate of insurance. I suspect for most people that it would be a higher than their current rate. If you would look at life insurance, if you can't discriminate against someone who has terminal cancer the entire business model will fail. I am not sure if there is a parallel discrimination example for car insurance, but as long as we want to have insurance, discrimination will almost certainly be required to exist.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby TaintedDeity » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:28 pm UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:I find this to be extremely anti-feminist. :-/
Whut?
Ⓞⓞ◯

AngelfishTitan
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:47 pm UTC
Location: A different post

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby AngelfishTitan » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:33 pm UTC

I mean even if men and women were different risk factors, couldn't this just show up in the people who got in accidents and had their premium increased instead of the initial payment? Sort of annoying that I get punished for being male before doing anything wrong. I am for it being set equal to begin with, with maybe slightly higher incease in premium if you get in an accident/get a ticket.
Belial wrote:Note: this means you should assume that every post I make has the thrumming, furious power of half a bottle of irish whiskey behind it. Yes, even the ones I make from work. ESPECIALLY the ones I make from work.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Xeio » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:44 pm UTC

AngelfishTitan wrote:I mean even if men and women were different risk factors, couldn't this just show up in the people who got in accidents and had their premium increased instead of the initial payment? Sort of annoying that I get punished for being male before doing anything wrong. I am for it being set equal to begin with, with maybe slightly higher incease in premium if you get in an accident/get a ticket.
Well, in theory the rates for women will go up on average with this, and men's (might) decrease. But effectively you're just spreading out the risk, so everyone ends up paying for the statistically more risky group (men, in this case). They're unlikely to change the pricing based on accidents and such.

It's not really any different from age discrimination though, is it? Younger drivers => more likely to be reckless => higher rates until they prove themselves on the road.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Dark567 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:48 pm UTC

AngelfishTitan wrote:I mean even if men and women were different risk factors, couldn't this just show up in the people who got in accidents and had their premium increased instead of the initial payment? Sort of annoying that I get punished for being male before doing anything wrong. I am for it being set equal to begin with, with maybe slightly higher incease in premium if you get in an accident/get a ticket.

The problem is that by the time you have an accident you have already been paying for the cheaper insurance. If we would use your system, everyone would be pay a certain rate, but than anyone who got in an accident would have to pay huge amounts(10 times as much). Moreover, getting into an accident may only be a small predictor of getting into future accidents. Its possible that being male is a better predicator of getting into accidents than previous accidents.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Iulus Cofield » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:50 pm UTC

I've always been uncomfortable with vehicle insurance companies' policies. In health insurance, you can make a reasonable judgement based on a health exam, risks associated with occupation, and age (as a distance from the life-expectancy age), but vehicle insurance is based entirely on statistics.
All the males I knew from high school, for example, were expected to pay between $150-$200 per month, just for being young and male and just for the minimum, legally required coverage. The rate of their accidents has varied considerably, and the ones who were in accidents now pay significantly more than the base rate of just being male.

So not only do they pay the price of being a statistic, if they actually are bad drivers, they pay that price in addition.

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby greengiant » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:It's not really any different from age discrimination though, is it? Younger drivers => more likely to be reckless => higher rates until they prove themselves on the road.


While I agree you could argue insurance is ageist, I don't think it's the same. The young people who are paying more will get a cheaper rate in later life (by and large). Every person (again, by and large) expects to see both sides of the discrimination. Whereas with gender you're born into one camp and there you remain.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:02 pm UTC

Obviously the entire insurance industry is founded on discriminating (in the non-judgemental sense of the word)
How is this non-judgemental
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Iulus Cofield » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:08 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:It's not really any different from age discrimination though, is it? Younger drivers => more likely to be reckless => higher rates until they prove themselves on the road.


I missed this before. It is age discrimination because they don't get higher rates until they prove themselves on the road, they get higher rates until they reach an age which is statistically less likely to be accident prone. A 30 year old who just learned to drive would have a lower rate than a 16 year old.
I've felt for some time that a better measure would be length of time with a drivers license and whether or not the driver paid for the vehicle themself.

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby philsov » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:12 pm UTC

Anyway, what do you guys think?


That by itself it's not too bad. They'll all get lumped together and average out -- females would pay more and males would pay less from their current situation. However the precedent has me concerned because it leads down a steep slippery slope of eventually everyone getting lumped in together with all the statistically better drives paying more and the worse drivers paying less.

With any luck this will also increase the "good driver discounts" (no tickets, no accidents, defensive driving class, etc) in both rates and availability because then it'll be more and more about the individual driver rather than their age/sex/race/location/mileage/etc. And, as above, total time holding a license. It may be a good thing but I don't know how large the potential is for the majority to get screwed in the deal if that does not occur.
Last edited by philsov on Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.

Game_boy
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Game_boy » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:13 pm UTC

What angers me is that car insurance is compulsory by law. You have to buy into one of these things and accept whatever rate is offered by the market for your 'category'.

I'm under 25, I always drive at the speed limit and signal, but I effectively have to pay for my classmates who race their new cars at 70mph on city streets. No provider will give me a lower rate, and having no insurance (as a calculated gamble because I feel I'm a safe driver) isn't allowed.

I'd prefer a pension-like scheme where everyone has to put money in up to a limit (say a few thousand) in a national scheme, and then the payout is that limit [then you have to start paying monthly again]. Would just be a way of forcing people to keep money for accidents, and they can have the money back if they no longer drive (so people who never crash never actually lose real money).
The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

AngelfishTitan
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:47 pm UTC
Location: A different post

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby AngelfishTitan » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:14 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:I missed this before. It is age discrimination because they don't get higher rates until they prove themselves on the road, they get higher rates until they reach an age which is statistically less likely to be accident prone. A 30 year old who just learned to drive would have a lower rate than a 16 year old.
I've felt for some time that a better measure would be length of time with a drivers license and whether or not the driver paid for the vehicle themself.


But isn't this already taken into account? Someone who has had their license for ten years at age 30 pays less than someone who just got their license who is the same age. Not quite sure what you mean about "paid for the vehicle themself", but if you mean a loan, most loan companies require you to get collision, which is a decent chunk of the premium. (These may be different over the pond, this is my experience in the States)
Belial wrote:Note: this means you should assume that every post I make has the thrumming, furious power of half a bottle of irish whiskey behind it. Yes, even the ones I make from work. ESPECIALLY the ones I make from work.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Xeio » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:25 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:I've felt for some time that a better measure would be length of time with a drivers license and whether or not the driver paid for the vehicle themself.
Yea, but is your feeling backed up by statistics? :P

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:29 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:I've always been uncomfortable with vehicle insurance companies' policies. In health insurance, you can make a reasonable judgement based on a health exam, risks associated with occupation, and age (as a distance from the life-expectancy age), but vehicle insurance is based entirely on statistics.


Uh... you do realize that your health insurances rates are based entirely on statistics too, right? The reason that, say, lumberjacks have to pay more in health insurance than accountants is based lumberjacks are much more likely to be injured on the job--this is a statistical prediction. Likewise with the health exam, age, etc. They are using all of these things as indicators of how likely they are to have to pay out. In the case of car accidents, being male, especially being a male under 25, is a strong predictor for people who are likely to get in serious accidents--that's why they use it. If males were more likely to need serious medical care, you'd probably be paying higher health insurance rates too. Your risk is higher, so you have to pay more.

My memory is that around here, you pay a premium for being male under 30 or so, and then it evens out.

Game_boy wrote:I'd prefer a pension-like scheme where everyone has to put money in up to a limit (say a few thousand) in a national scheme, and then the payout is that limit [then you have to start paying monthly again]. Would just be a way of forcing people to keep money for accidents, and they can have the money back if they no longer drive (so people who never crash never actually lose real money).


Uh... I don't think you understand how much money a car accident costs. The maximum payout on the liability insurance on my car used to be $3 million. If you hit a building, or cause serious injury to a person, the amount of money that you (or, generally, your provider) has to pay out will probably be far more than the average person can afford. You don't have to have insurance covering your own car (ie. if it gets damaged you can just not fix it or write it off), but you do have to have insurance covering the damage that you do to other people/things.

AngelfishTitan wrote:Not quite sure what you mean about "paid for the vehicle themself", but if you mean a loan, most loan companies require you to get collision, which is a decent chunk of the premium. (These may be different over the pond, this is my experience in the States)


I think he means more like, if you are eighteen and your parents bought your car and/or are paying your insurance, then it is less likely that you are going to care about the welfare of the car than if you bought it yourself.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:30 pm UTC

I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Dark567 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.

What about skin color?
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby greengiant » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:
Obviously the entire insurance industry is founded on discriminating (in the non-judgemental sense of the word)
How is this non-judgemental


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discriminate

As in I was using meaning 1, not meaning 2. Obviously they make distinctions, I guess we're discussing whether those distinctions constitute discrimination in the negative-connotations-and-legal-ramifications sense of the word.

Apologies if I was unclear.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Xeio » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:38 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.
What about skin color?
Sure, if it's a significantly predictive factor, why not?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:38 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.

What about skin color?


Hmm...

Not skin color, but perhaps nationality / ethnicity (to one or two generations of immigration).
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Xeio » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:40 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Dark567 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.

What about skin color?
Hmm...

Not skin color, but perhaps nationality / ethnicity (to one or two generations of immigration).
And now I'm imagining Boehner being charged extra for being orange...

I assumed 'skin color' meant ethnicity though. :P

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby achan1058 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:42 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.
Why should sex inherently increase proneness to accident? It's not like being a particular gender automatically makes you more careless, reckless, etc. Even if so, are male drivers worse than female, or vice-versa?

I personally believe that insurances should only based upon amount you drive, location that you drive, history of accidents, and perhaps years of having your license (and even this one is iffy to me).

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:43 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.
Why should sex inherently increase proneness to accident? It's not like being a particular gender automatically makes you more careless, reckless, etc. Even if so, are male drivers worse than female, or vice-versa?


Not the point. I said that insurance rates can be gender-based assuming that sex does, in fact, affect driving ability.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby achan1058 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:44 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.
Why should sex inherently increase proneness to accident? It's not like being a particular gender automatically makes you more careless, reckless, etc. Even if so, are male drivers worse than female, or vice-versa?


Not the point. I said that insurance rates can be gender-based assuming that sex does, in fact, affect driving ability.
And why should it? And if so, which way?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:47 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.
Why should sex inherently increase proneness to accident? It's not like being a particular gender automatically makes you more careless, reckless, etc. Even if so, are male drivers worse than female, or vice-versa?


Not the point. I said that insurance rates can be gender-based assuming that sex does, in fact, affect driving ability.
And why should it? And if so, which way?


I don't know. I said _if_ it does, then insurance companies should be able to adjust. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Game_boy
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Game_boy » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:47 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Uh... I don't think you understand how much money a car accident costs. The maximum payout on the liability insurance on my car used to be $3 million. If you hit a building, or cause serious injury to a person, the amount of money that you (or, generally, your provider) has to pay out will probably be far more than the average person can afford. You don't have to have insurance covering your own car (ie. if it gets damaged you can just not fix it or write it off), but you do have to have insurance covering the damage that you do to other people/things.


In neither of those cases should there be a payout. It should be criminal charges followed by sentencing. The building/person's own insurance (or rather NHS here) should pay their own damages (unless there was actual intent to damage them rather than recklessness) as if it was a natural event.

I think a few thousand is adequate for repairs to another person's car. If the car is worth significantly more it should be the responsibility of the owner to take out insurance like one would get home insurance on their possessions.
The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Dark567 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:49 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:And why should it? And if so, which way?
Because the statistics say that gender does affect accident proneness. We're not sure why, it may be inherent, it may not be. But the statistics say that men have more accidents than women, and that gender is a good predictor of the likelihood to have accidents.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby achan1058 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:50 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.
Why should sex inherently increase proneness to accident? It's not like being a particular gender automatically makes you more careless, reckless, etc. Even if so, are male drivers worse than female, or vice-versa?


Not the point. I said that insurance rates can be gender-based assuming that sex does, in fact, affect driving ability.
And why should it? And if so, which way?


I don't know. I said _if_ it does, then insurance companies should be able to adjust. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
And how/why should it. If you cannot give well grounded reason, it leaves room for "personal judgment" and bias. Chances are, even if they are significant differences in accident rate, it is caused by other factors that you can use instead of gender. (ex. maybe men just drive 2x as much, hence gets into 2x as much accidents)
Dark567 wrote:
achan1058 wrote:And why should it? And if so, which way?
Because the statistics say that gender does affect accident proneness. We're not sure why, it may be inherent, it may not be. But the statistics say that men have more accidents than women, and that gender is a good predictor of the likelihood to have accidents.
This just smells of poor science to me. Until you can demonstrate that it is inherent, it should not be used as a factor of discrimination, otherwise it is just sexism.
Last edited by achan1058 on Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Xeio » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:51 pm UTC

Game_boy wrote:In neither of those cases should there be a payout. It should be criminal charges followed by sentencing. The building/person's own insurance (or rather NHS here) should pay their own damages (unless there was actual intent to damage them rather than recklessness) as if it was a natural event.
Wait, so the owner of the building should be laiable for damages caused by someone driving a car to their building? :shock:

Remember, claims against insurance generally increase your rate.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:53 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
Game_boy wrote:In neither of those cases should there be a payout. It should be criminal charges followed by sentencing. The building/person's own insurance (or rather NHS here) should pay their own damages (unless there was actual intent to damage them rather than recklessness) as if it was a natural event.
Wait, so the owner of the building should be laiable for damages caused by someone driving a car to their building? :shock:

Remember, claims against insurance generally increase your rate.


No, he's saying that the insurance of the building should pay, and that they shouldn't increase the rate.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:53 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.
Why should sex inherently increase proneness to accident? It's not like being a particular gender automatically makes you more careless, reckless, etc. Even if so, are male drivers worse than female, or vice-versa?


Not the point. I said that insurance rates can be gender-based assuming that sex does, in fact, affect driving ability.
And why should it? And if so, which way?


I don't know. I said _if_ it does, then insurance companies should be able to adjust. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
And how/why should it. If you cannot give well grounded reason, it leaves room for "personal judgment" and bias. Chances are, even if they are significant differences in accident rate, it is caused by other factors that you can use instead of gender. (ex. maybe men just drive 2x as much, hence gets into 2x as much accidents)


Did I ever disagree with that?

EDIT: Actually, I am going to disagree with the last part. If, as a man, you're more likely to get into accidents, it doesn't matter _why_ that is, because your gender can still be used predictively.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Xeio » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:56 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:No, he's saying that the insurance of the building should pay, and that they shouldn't increase the rate.
Usually that's the case anyway I thought, but the insurance company has a legal claim against the person responsible for the damages. Such as in the case of arson or something? Why would we be removing that liability from the driver?
Last edited by Xeio on Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

AngelfishTitan
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:47 pm UTC
Location: A different post

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby AngelfishTitan » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:57 pm UTC

Game_boy wrote:In neither of those cases should there be a payout. It should be criminal charges followed by sentencing. The building/person's own insurance (or rather NHS here) should pay their own damages (unless there was actual intent to damage them rather than recklessness) as if it was a natural event.


So if you get in an accident, you should be jailed? And then the property insurance pays? That would just lead to more people in jail and way higher property insurance, without really solving anything.
Belial wrote:Note: this means you should assume that every post I make has the thrumming, furious power of half a bottle of irish whiskey behind it. Yes, even the ones I make from work. ESPECIALLY the ones I make from work.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Dark567 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:58 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:EDIT: Actually, I am going to disagree with the last part. If, as a man, you're more likely to get into accidents, it doesn't matter _why_ that is, because your gender can still be used predictively.

Right, if for some reason the stats showed us that men were 10000 times more likely to get into an accident, but we didn't know why, it couldn't safely be ignored by insurance companies.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:58 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:No, he's saying that the insurance of the building should pay, and that they shouldn't increase the rate.
Usually that's the case anyway I thought, but the insurance company has a legal claim against the person responsible for the damages. Such as in the case of arson or something? Why would we be removing that liability from the driver?


Because the driver can't pay; instead he should be jailed.

I don't agree with the idea, I'm just explaining it.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:04 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I'm not sure that gender-biased car insurance bothers me. It seems like, assuming that insurance companies should be able to charge extra based on your proneness to accidents, that this should apply to sex as well.
Why should sex inherently increase proneness to accident? It's not like being a particular gender automatically makes you more careless, reckless, etc. Even if so, are male drivers worse than female, or vice-versa?

I personally believe that insurances should only based upon amount you drive, location that you drive, history of accidents, and perhaps years of having your license (and even this one is iffy to me).


Well, based on the statistics that insurance companies have collected, male drivers are worse drivers (as in, they get in more accidents/more serious accidents) than women. That's why they have higher premiums. All of the other factors you mention are also taken into consideration as well, among many others, and this affects premiums as well.

It isn't, strictly speaking, necessary for the insurance companies to demonstrate why males tend to get into more accidents than females. They don't really care about causation; they care how much a particular characteristic is likely to increase the cost to them--for which correlation is perfectly sufficient.

GameBoy wrote:In neither of those cases should there be a payout. It should be criminal charges followed by sentencing. The building/person's own insurance (or rather NHS here) should pay their own damages (unless there was actual intent to damage them rather than recklessness) as if it was a natural event.

I think a few thousand is adequate for repairs to another person's car. If the car is worth significantly more it should be the responsibility of the owner to take out insurance like one would get home insurance on their possessions.


That's not generally how the system works. The party at fault pays for damages; if they have insurance, then their insurance company pays for damages. It wouldn't be fair if I were to crash into a building, then their insurance would pay and their premiums would go up as a consequence. Imagine this situation if the building didn't have insurance and you'll understand the problem. Criminal charges are an irrelevant consideration in this case; whether or not charges are filed, damages can still be claimed.

[ninja'd by like 10 people]

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby achan1058 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:04 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:EDIT: Actually, I am going to disagree with the last part. If, as a man, you're more likely to get into accidents, it doesn't matter _why_ that is, because your gender can still be used predictively.

Right, if for some reason the stats showed us that men were 10000 times more likely to get into an accident, but we didn't know why, it couldn't safely be ignored by insurance companies.
If it is 1000 times, someone would probably have found the reason already. If not, they should have someone investigate.
LaserGuy wrote:It isn't, strictly speaking, necessary for the insurance companies to demonstrate why males tend to get into more accidents than females. They don't really care about causation; they care how much a particular characteristic is likely to increase the cost to them--for which correlation is perfectly sufficient.
If the police works the same way and assumes that people of a certain demographic is more likely to commit crimes, and adjust accordingly..... Wait, we already have that......
Last edited by achan1058 on Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests