Gender-blind car insurance

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10493
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:00 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:There appear to be 2 extreme categories here. Those who think they should only pay for themselves. In which case, why "share" the risk with insurance. Just pay for the damages yourself. You don't want to pay for some one else's. Then there are those who think we all should share the risk equally. But without a restraint (or is it responsibility?) on peoples actions, will result in careless driving from a few or a lot.


The two camps are how insurance is viewed. The first camp believes that insurance is risk management, hedging, or whatever you want to call it. The second camp believes that insurance is a social safety net.

I am part of the first camp, if you didn't guess from my previous posts. I could have 10X in damages with 10% probability and 0 with 90% probability, and so my expected damages will be X. But 10X in a year could bankrupt me, or at least be so detrimental that I may have to take out loans or refinance, effectively costing me more than 10X. So I buy X worth of insurance so that I always pay X (well, 1.2X), rather that take my chances and end up paying 10X or 0.

The second camp, which you seem to be a part of, believes in the social safety net. Insurance is there to make sure that resources go to those who were injured, to maximize societal utility. If that is the case, then the government and taxes should provide it, and not the private company.

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 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:22 am UTC

achan, you never want to take the argument that morals are ultimately subjective because then you have no basis for your own argument: you're cutting off the branch on which you sit. So instead of saying that society has arbitrarily decided that gender discrimination in all forms is bad (which is true of the EU, but not all civilized society), and then basing your argument off of that, let's try starting with some axioms that we can agree on.

Human life and wellbeing is a good thing.

If we can agree on that, then I'll continue.
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 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:30 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:achan, you never want to take the argument that morals are ultimately subjective because then you have no basis for your own argument: you're cutting off the branch on which you sit. So instead of saying that society has arbitrarily decided that gender discrimination in all forms is bad (which is true of the EU, but not all civilized society), and then basing your argument off of that, let's try starting with some axioms that we can agree on.

Human life and wellbeing is a good thing.

If we can agree on that, then I'll continue.
Since we are talking about the EU, there's no reason not to base our arguments on it. This is because there is no complete moral objectivity, unless you can prove to me otherwise. (and I am sure the hell you can't) After all, if you attempt to apply human morality to other animals, you get rather absurd and funny things. In particular, either you say "life and wellbeing is a good thing", or "in the standpoint of humans, human life and wellbeing is a good thing". If you are saying the former, you better be vegen, don't treat diseases (you are killing bacteria), etc. If you are saying the latter, morality is not universal anymore.

P.S. Also, it is not subjective, but relative. If you taken any intro philosophy course, you would know 1 is a person's own morality, the other is on society's morality. And yes, I do want to take morality into relative morality, but simply because there is little other choice.

P.S.S. But, to entertain you, I will take your current axiom, and start the debate from there. Adding the words "w.r.t. human", and the words "generally", or whatever you desire to get rid of extreme cases. (What happens if a terrorist is holding a detonation switch that can kill a bunch of innocent people, and the only way for you to stop it is to kill him?)
Last edited by achan1058 on Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:58 pm UTC, edited 5 times in total.

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Alexius » Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:36 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:Question, in the US, auto insurance is mandated if you own/drive a car, is this not the case in the UK?

EDIT: Actually, this might only be some states in the US, I don't recall now *ponders*.

Sort of, mostly. You are required to have third-party insurance to drive a car on public roads, unless you "self-insure"- which involves giving a court a deposit of £500,000. It's rare (although no unheard-of) for private individuals to do this, but it's fairly common for large companies- you only need to make one deposit for all the vehicles you own.

A car that's not driven on public roads (say one that's in storage, or a race car that's taken to and from the track on a trailer) doesn't need to be insured.

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby meatyochre » Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:55 pm UTC

While I don't adjust claims or work as an actuary, I do work at an insurance company and I've done some casual research on this topic. The reason young males pay more in premiums is because they're the most likely to drink and drive, and they're more likely to cause accidents with fatalities than any other demographic. Comparing them to an older pool of male drivers: the fatally careless drivers have either lost their license, are simply uninsurable (too risky for any company to write insurance on any longer), or are already dead, which is why the premium comes down over time.

Males are indeed more dangerous drivers than women, even though overall men are better drivers than women. Like many other statistical gender studies, men are more likely to comprise the very best and the very worst, whereas women tend to be more in the middle. And women may get into more accidents, but they are more likely fender-benders caused by inattention which don't cost a lot of money to settle (as opposed to the lone drunk driver hitting a car containing a family of 4 that bursts into flames killing all present--the defense costs ALONE, for wrongful death suits &etc, could bankrupt a smaller, new insurance company).
_____________________________________
In the end, the money has to come from somewhere. If young male drivers start paying less, then females and older (safer) drivers will start paying more. The statistics backs up charging young males sky-high insurance rates.
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image

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

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby achan1058 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:13 pm UTC

meatyochre wrote:While I don't adjust claims or work as an actuary, I do work at an insurance company and I've done some casual research on this topic. The reason young males pay more in premiums is because they're the most likely to drink and drive, and they're more likely to cause accidents with fatalities than any other demographic. Comparing them to an older pool of male drivers: the fatally careless drivers have either lost their license, are simply uninsurable (too risky for any company to write insurance on any longer), or are already dead, which is why the premium comes down over time.
That's the best argument against gender-blind insurance I have actually heard in all of 7 pages, and probably the only one which I can kind of agree on, if it can be proven. Of course, having the government being the one offering 3rd party insurances bypasses such problems.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10493
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:36 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:achan, you never want to take the argument that morals are ultimately subjective because then you have no basis for your own argument: you're cutting off the branch on which you sit. So instead of saying that society has arbitrarily decided that gender discrimination in all forms is bad (which is true of the EU, but not all civilized society), and then basing your argument off of that, let's try starting with some axioms that we can agree on.

Human life and wellbeing is a good thing.

If we can agree on that, then I'll continue.


Yeah, it's nice to make the assumption that Human Life = Valuable, and virtually every philosopher except nihilists/Nietzsche agrees upon this, but that's a very big assumption. Prove it. Is human life only valuable because we want it to be so? If so, then human rights didn't exist until we 'wanted' them into existence.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby SlyReaper » Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:12 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:achan, you never want to take the argument that morals are ultimately subjective because then you have no basis for your own argument: you're cutting off the branch on which you sit. So instead of saying that society has arbitrarily decided that gender discrimination in all forms is bad (which is true of the EU, but not all civilized society), and then basing your argument off of that, let's try starting with some axioms that we can agree on.

Human life and wellbeing is a good thing.

If we can agree on that, then I'll continue.


Yeah, it's nice to make the assumption that Human Life = Valuable, and virtually every philosopher except nihilists/Nietzsche agrees upon this, but that's a very big assumption. Prove it. Is human life only valuable because we want it to be so? If so, then human rights didn't exist until we 'wanted' them into existence.

It's an axiom. You don't prove it, you either agree with it or you don't.

meatyochre wrote:In the end, the money has to come from somewhere. If young male drivers start paying less, then females and older (safer) drivers will start paying more. The statistics backs up charging young males sky-high insurance rates.


Indeed, the stats back it up, but sometimes stats aren't the only thing to take into account. Young drivers, being young and all, are the least able to pay the huge cost of insurance, which means if the prices go too high, more of them will risk driving without it. Some proportion of these will inevitably crash into somebody, and since they don't have insurance of their own, the whole cost comes out of the insurance of the person they crashed into (Yes you could sue the twit who was driving without insurance, but the words "blood" and "stone" come to mind). This drives premiums even higher, and the vicious circle continues.

A better system might be to charge a small default amount for everybody, something even a newbie working at McDonalds can afford. If and when a person becomes involved in an accident, then raise the premiums for that person alone. That way at least we don't have good drivers subsidising the terrible drivers. That way, you're not penalised for belonging to a particular demographic, you're only penalised for the blemishes on your own motoring history.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby mmmcannibalism » Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:23 pm UTC

A better system might be to charge a small default amount for everybody, something even a newbie working at McDonalds can afford. If and when a person becomes involved in an accident, then raise the premiums for that person alone. That way at least we don't have good drivers subsidising the terrible drivers. That way, you're not penalised for belonging to a particular demographic, you're only penalised for the blemishes on your own motoring history.


I think that may make things worse. It would encourage taking insurance when it is extremely profitable, then going back to the same risky behavior of not having it when your prices go up.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

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

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby achan1058 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:33 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:A better system might be to charge a small default amount for everybody, something even a newbie working at McDonalds can afford. If and when a person becomes involved in an accident, then raise the premiums for that person alone. That way at least we don't have good drivers subsidising the terrible drivers. That way, you're not penalised for belonging to a particular demographic, you're only penalised for the blemishes on your own motoring history.
In BC, Canada, ICBC already does this. Not only that, they also use the number and seriousness of your traffic violation records as well. (it helps that ICBC does both insurance as well as driver licensing, as well as 3rd part insurance being mandatory) So if you got caught drinking and driving, and needs to go to court, your premium will go way up even if you don't crash. Your car will have a lock device with breath analyzer on it for a year too, among other things such as temporary license revoke, car getting towed, etc.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Роберт » Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:37 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:So if you got caught drinking and driving... your premium will go way up even if you don't crash

This sounds like something reasonable that would take away some of the need for gender-based premiums. I approve.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby achan1058 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:53 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:So if you got caught drinking and driving... your premium will go way up even if you don't crash

This sounds like something reasonable that would take away some of the need for gender-based premiums. I approve.
Frankly, if you get caught drinking and driving enough, your premium would be a new car per year. (it listed 24k)

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 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:11 am UTC

Ok, so let's start with the axiom that human life and wellbeing is good. I think it's something we can agree on.

Wait, I think I forgot an axiom. Something about fairness. Ok, can we agree that it is better to be fair than to be unfair?
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 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:28 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Ok, so let's start with the axiom that human life and wellbeing is good. I think it's something we can agree on.

Wait, I think I forgot an axiom. Something about fairness. Ok, can we agree that it is better to be fair than to be unfair?
Depending on your definition of fairness, but for reasonably definitions, I will say yes.
Last edited by achan1058 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:31 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:30 am UTC

achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Ok, so let's start with the axiom that human life and wellbeing is good. I think it's something we can agree on.

Wait, I think I forgot an axiom. Something about fairness. Ok, can we agree that it is better to be fair than to be unfair?
Depending on your definition of fairness.


To add to that, which side of the argument are you calling the side of fairness?
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

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 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:35 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Ok, so let's start with the axiom that human life and wellbeing is good. I think it's something we can agree on.

Wait, I think I forgot an axiom. Something about fairness. Ok, can we agree that it is better to be fair than to be unfair?
Depending on your definition of fairness.


To add to that, which side of the argument are you calling the side of fairness?


Well that's what I'm going to define.

OK. If insurance companies do not charge based on the risk of each demographic, it means that they have to raise prises across the board. This means that, even if you are at a low risk, you still have to pay as much as somebody who is at higher risk. It is unfair to force people to cover the costs of other careless people.

So, given those two axioms, you'll also need to prove why gender discrimination is _always_ bad.
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 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:47 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Ok, so let's start with the axiom that human life and wellbeing is good. I think it's something we can agree on.

Wait, I think I forgot an axiom. Something about fairness. Ok, can we agree that it is better to be fair than to be unfair?
Depending on your definition of fairness.


To add to that, which side of the argument are you calling the side of fairness?


Well that's what I'm going to define.

OK. If insurance companies do not charge based on the risk of each demographic, it means that they have to raise prises across the board. This means that, even if you are at a low risk, you still have to pay as much as somebody who is at higher risk. It is unfair to force people to cover the costs of other careless people.

So, given those two axioms, you'll also need to prove why gender discrimination is _always_ bad.
I never said always. I said "assumed to be until proven otherwise". Please read carefully. That's the 1st thing.

By charging a certain demographic higher rates, you are assuming that the person is more likely guilty of a certain incident. This goes against the innocent until proven guilty sense of fairness.

Also, I did not say that you should discard all types of risks. Just certain "risk factors" which has an unproven causation. That's why I was more on the fence if you can prove that young males drink and drive more, then it might be reasonable to change them more. Regardless, there are superior solutions, as I have demonstrated, that does not need gender bias to make up that charge. And in light of this solution, it is especially unfair for those of us who were never charged any crime.

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 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:51 am UTC

achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Ok, so let's start with the axiom that human life and wellbeing is good. I think it's something we can agree on.

Wait, I think I forgot an axiom. Something about fairness. Ok, can we agree that it is better to be fair than to be unfair?
Depending on your definition of fairness.


To add to that, which side of the argument are you calling the side of fairness?


Well that's what I'm going to define.

OK. If insurance companies do not charge based on the risk of each demographic, it means that they have to raise prises across the board. This means that, even if you are at a low risk, you still have to pay as much as somebody who is at higher risk. It is unfair to force people to cover the costs of other careless people.

So, given those two axioms, you'll also need to prove why gender discrimination is _always_ bad.
I never said always. I said "assumed to be until proven otherwise". Please read carefully. That's the 1st thing.

By charging a certain demographic higher rates, you are assuming that the person is more likely guilty of a certain incident. This goes against the innocent until proven guilty sense of fairness.

Also, I did not say that you should discard all types of risks. Just certain "risk factors" which has an unproven causation. That's why I was more on the fence if you can prove that young males drink and drive more, then it might be reasonable to change them more. Regardless, there are superior solutions, as I have demonstrated, that does not need gender bias to make up that charge. And in light of this solution, it is especially unfair for those of us who were never charged any crime.


"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies when you're actually determining guilt. That's not what we're doing. We're determining risk. And even if other solutions make it so there's no financial need for insurance companies to discriminate based on gender, they're still charging groups with unequal risk factors the same amount, which I don't approve of.

And to my knowledge, we had found a causal link (testosterone and aggression, etc.) between gender and accident-proneness, but let's assume we haven't: why is a causal link necessary? Correlation is sufficient when determining risk.
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 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:04 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies when you're actually determining guilt. That's not what we're doing. We're determining risk. And even if other solutions make it so there's no financial need for insurance companies to discriminate based on gender, they're still charging groups with unequal risk factors the same amount, which I don't approve of.

And to my knowledge, we had found a causal link (testosterone and aggression, etc.) between gender and accident-proneness, but let's assume we haven't: why is a causal link necessary? Correlation is sufficient when determining risk.
I look at it this way. Let's say you have an amusement park, and it is found a certain gender use the rides 30% less. Is it fair to charge them less money? (If you want to charge by per ride usage instead, you have the right to do so, of course.)

Anyways, I think where you are coming from is "fairness", while where I am coming from is "equality", which I will take as an axiom, and I definitely stress the latter over the former in this case.

However, I should point out that in our current society, neither fairness nor equality are actually taken as absolute axioms. As some people have pointed out, there are these things called senior discounts, which runs against both.

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 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:34 am UTC

achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies when you're actually determining guilt. That's not what we're doing. We're determining risk. And even if other solutions make it so there's no financial need for insurance companies to discriminate based on gender, they're still charging groups with unequal risk factors the same amount, which I don't approve of.

And to my knowledge, we had found a causal link (testosterone and aggression, etc.) between gender and accident-proneness, but let's assume we haven't: why is a causal link necessary? Correlation is sufficient when determining risk.
I look at it this way. Let's say you have an amusement park, and it is found a certain gender use the rides 30% less. Is it fair to charge them less money? (If you want to charge by per ride usage instead, you have the right to do so, of course.)


Particularly if you're a private business, I think it would be absolutely fair to charge different sexes different amounts. It would also be stupid, because it would repel people of the other gender.
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 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:38 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies when you're actually determining guilt. That's not what we're doing. We're determining risk. And even if other solutions make it so there's no financial need for insurance companies to discriminate based on gender, they're still charging groups with unequal risk factors the same amount, which I don't approve of.

And to my knowledge, we had found a causal link (testosterone and aggression, etc.) between gender and accident-proneness, but let's assume we haven't: why is a causal link necessary? Correlation is sufficient when determining risk.
I look at it this way. Let's say you have an amusement park, and it is found a certain gender use the rides 30% less. Is it fair to charge them less money? (If you want to charge by per ride usage instead, you have the right to do so, of course.)


Particularly if you're a private business, I think it would be absolutely fair to charge different sexes different amounts. It would also be stupid, because it would repel people of the other gender.
If that's how you think, I think we have little to debate about. We will just have to agree to disagree. Just note that most part of society do not agree with that view of yours if you do decide to open an amusement park, and will likely get sued.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Silknor » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:39 am UTC

So one gender uses less rides per admission? Then sure, it wouldn't be obviously unfair to charge them less, after all, the gender that rides more imposes higher costs on both the park (maintenance) and the other customers (longer lines, more crowded). It might or might not be stupid (aka unprofitable). But surely the business is perfectly capable of figuring that out on their own, and if it makes them less profit, they won't do it. Also, Ladies Night?
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

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

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby achan1058 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:47 am UTC

Silknor wrote:So one gender uses less rides per admission? Then sure, it wouldn't be obviously unfair to charge them less, after all, the gender that rides more imposes higher costs on both the park (maintenance) and the other customers (longer lines, more crowded). It might or might not be stupid (aka unprofitable). But surely the business is perfectly capable of figuring that out on their own, and if it makes them less profit, they won't do it. Also, Ladies Night?
Actually, I don't think I recall any park that I have seen that charges based upon gender. If you do something like that, especially if you are doing it not on gender but race, you are going to get sued. I know some parks charge cost per ride, which can indeed transfer to charging based upon gender, but here you are using an objective metric.

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 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:52 am UTC

I know that gender discrimination in general is bad. Why is it bad in these cases?
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 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:57 am UTC

achan1058 wrote:
Silknor wrote:So one gender uses less rides per admission? Then sure, it wouldn't be obviously unfair to charge them less, after all, the gender that rides more imposes higher costs on both the park (maintenance) and the other customers (longer lines, more crowded). It might or might not be stupid (aka unprofitable). But surely the business is perfectly capable of figuring that out on their own, and if it makes them less profit, they won't do it. Also, Ladies Night?
Actually, I don't think I recall any park that I have seen that charges based upon gender.
I think that was a hypothetical example, the better real world one mentioned was Ladies Night at bars and such.

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

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby achan1058 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:59 am UTC

Xeio wrote:
achan1058 wrote:
Silknor wrote:So one gender uses less rides per admission? Then sure, it wouldn't be obviously unfair to charge them less, after all, the gender that rides more imposes higher costs on both the park (maintenance) and the other customers (longer lines, more crowded). It might or might not be stupid (aka unprofitable). But surely the business is perfectly capable of figuring that out on their own, and if it makes them less profit, they won't do it. Also, Ladies Night?
Actually, I don't think I recall any park that I have seen that charges based upon gender.
I think that was a hypothetical example, the better real world one mentioned was Ladies Night at bars and such.
According to wikipedia, it is actually illegal in California and a few other states. Of course, such offers are neither fair NOR equal, just like with senior discounts. Anyways, this would not have any bearings on car insurance since 3rd party is (or should be) mandatory.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Silknor » Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:27 am UTC

I was indeed referring to Ladies' Night at a bar, I've never heard of it at an amusement park either (or for that matter an amusement park that charges different prices for gender). Most amusement parks though do charge different prices based on age.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

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

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby achan1058 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:52 am UTC

Silknor wrote:I was indeed referring to Ladies' Night at a bar, I've never heard of it at an amusement park either (or for that matter an amusement park that charges different prices for gender).
Of course the amusement park is hypothetical. Even if they is such a difference, they can't do it without getting their rears sued so badly. As for the Ladies' Night, if the wiki article is to be believed, it is already banned in a few states. The reason why it isn't banned everywhere yet probably has to do with male chivalry.
Silknor wrote:Most amusement parks though do charge different prices based on age.
Yes, this is indeed a problem. It happens in movies too, and obviously, the "usage" of a senior is the same as that of a normal adult. That's why I said this was neither something that's fair nor equal, and hence should not be compared to car insurance.

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

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby greengiant » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:43 pm UTC

Bit of a necro, but the court has now made its decision. Insurers will no longer be able to charge different rates based on gender in the EU. I haven't heard yet how/when they're going to make the transition but it'll be interesting to see what happens.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:46 pm UTC

Speaking entirely selfishly, I welcome this news.

Speaking rationally, what the hell?
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

torgos
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:47 pm UTC
Location: The Hammock District

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby torgos » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:54 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote: The reason why it isn't banned everywhere yet probably has to do with male chivalry.


It's probably because bars and lotharios' union would lobby against any such ban.
The secret ingredient is...love!? Who's been screwing with this thing?

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Telchar » Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:21 pm UTC

Montana has a clause in it's Constitution which bans gender discrimination that has been applied to insurance sales in the state. I can tell you that the impact to me has been minimal but the impact to female drivers has been substantial. This won't cause insurance companies to lower rates for men.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Outchanter » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:22 am UTC

greengiant wrote:Bit of a necro, but the court has now made its decision. Insurers will no longer be able to charge different rates based on gender in the EU. I haven't heard yet how/when they're going to make the transition but it'll be interesting to see what happens.

It's not just car insurance, it's all insurance. Which means men will now have to pay the same as women for pension annuities ("pay me X per year until I die") even though they usually die younger than women and thus collect fewer payments.

So women will be forced to subsidize men's car insurance, and men will be forced to subsidize women's retirement plans.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Qaanol » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:54 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION wrote:Article 21
Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

Notice that there is no mention of the word government or state. A google search was all that was required to it. As for senior discounts, now that I think of it. I do think it isn't exactly right neither.

As this holds for all insurance, I have the following train of thought:

Since the EU Charter places sex and age discrimination on equal footing, discrimination against one is prohibited as much as the other.
A man and a woman both the same age must pay the same life insurance premium according to this ruling.
Therefore a man and another man of different ages must pay the same life insurance premium.

Dark567 wrote: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.

It looks like the EU has painted itself into a restricted choice:

1. Overturn this ruling and allow sex to be a factor in actuarial calculations. This ignores the Charter.
2. Amend the Charter and overturn this ruling.
3. Leave the Charter and ruling in place.

In case 3, the insurance business model is unsustainable. No one will buy insurance willingly, except those who expect to collect very shortly. This leads to a situation where I can only see insurance being viable if it is mandated. Otherwise everyone wil leave the insurance industry, or charge outrageous premiums. The options then include an Obama-care style, “Pick your own insurance, but pick something”, a welfare style, “The government uses tax money to provide insurance for everyone”, or a lack of insurance availability.

Currently, it is mandated for drivers to have car insurance. The government does not provide insurance, but does require it. I suspect we will see similar paradigms emerge across the insurance spectrum. And those types of insurance which do not become mandated will have to figure out their own ways to remain tenable, or else cease to exist. This is not the end of the world, just a shift in regulation.
wee free kings

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby HungryHobo » Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:43 pm UTC

This topic is depressing, how many people who would probably describe themselves as not sexist or racist at all are perfectly willing to declare that as long that a business charging one race or gender more for the same service is perfectly fine as long as there's some stats to back it up.

May I sugest to them that they try heading over to the feminism thread and try arguing that if the stats show there's a higher turnover as women quit jobs sooner then it would be perfectly ok for employers to discriminate since they would lose more to training new employees.

Or course such a fucked up view ignores the individuals but apparently that's perfectly ok as long as the overall stats say something which favors you.
At least when I was in highschool it was only the car nuts and rich kids with daddies sports car who were willing to spend the insane sums of money men had to pay to get insurance while they were the same group who were most likely to be out racing at 2am so the stats would be made artificially worse by the high prices as the dull guys who only wanted a car to get to school/work would be less likely to be able to get a car and wouldn't become part of the stats.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Qaanol » Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:38 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:This topic is depressing, how many people who would probably describe themselves as not sexist or racist at all are perfectly willing to declare that as long that a business charging one race or gender more for the same service is perfectly fine as long as there's some stats to back it up.

May I sugest to them that they try heading over to the feminism thread and try arguing that if the stats show there's a higher turnover as women quit jobs sooner then it would be perfectly ok for employers to discriminate since they would lose more to training new employees.

Or course such a fucked up view ignores the individuals but apparently that's perfectly ok as long as the overall stats say something which favors you.
At least when I was in highschool it was only the car nuts and rich kids with daddies sports car who were willing to spend the insane sums of money men had to pay to get insurance while they were the same group who were most likely to be out racing at 2am so the stats would be made artificially worse by the high prices as the dull guys who only wanted a car to get to school/work would be less likely to be able to get a car and wouldn't become part of the stats.

At the other end of the spectrum, consider the “stat” of life expectancy as a function of age, and the product of life insurance. Do you want a 30 year old getting a new life insurance policy to pay the same monthly premium as an 80 year getting a new policy would?

If the government said that insurance companies have to charge the same premium to everyone regardless of age, what do you think would happen?

And if you’re thinking of saying, “that’s a different situation” you can stop before you start. In the European Union, age and sex are equally protected from discrimination. And there is zero difference between a statement that, “Statistically, from millions of sample data over many decades, we have found that old people die sooner than young people do,” and a statement that, “Statistically, from millions of sample data over many decades, we have found that women accrue lower costs in terms of damage caused while driving than men do.”
wee free kings

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby HungryHobo » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:57 pm UTC

Age discrimination laws are already applied to employment yet somehow they're interpreted such that most 50 year olds in my profession get paid 2 or 3 times what I would starting off.

But lets go with your logic.
If they were applied then everyone would have to be paid the same no matter what!
we'd all end up being paid entrance level wages!

oh wait.
no we wouldn't.

They just have to look at years of experience instead .
ie: actual individual attributes rather than lumping you together with everyone else your age.

Indeed someone age 50 who has just qualified and has no actual experience couldn't expect to walk into 2-3 times the salary of someone with the same experience aged 25.


You think your comparison to health insurance is some kind of ace in the hole yet it's trivially circumvented with a simple physical.
You couldn't be discriminated against based on age but there's nothing in there about discriminating based on the condition of your heart , weight or your sodium levels.
which is also more fair since the 45 year old marathon runner health freak would then get cheaper health insurance than the 20 year old 400 pound whale once they're treated as individuals rather than [person age 20-25] [person age 40-50] groupings.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Oregonaut » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:02 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies when you're actually determining guilt. That's not what we're doing. We're determining risk. And even if other solutions make it so there's no financial need for insurance companies to discriminate based on gender, they're still charging groups with unequal risk factors the same amount, which I don't approve of.

And to my knowledge, we had found a causal link (testosterone and aggression, etc.) between gender and accident-proneness, but let's assume we haven't: why is a causal link necessary? Correlation is sufficient when determining risk.
I look at it this way. Let's say you have an amusement park, and it is found a certain gender use the rides 30% less. Is it fair to charge them less money? (If you want to charge by per ride usage instead, you have the right to do so, of course.)

Anyways, I think where you are coming from is "fairness", while where I am coming from is "equality", which I will take as an axiom, and I definitely stress the latter over the former in this case.

However, I should point out that in our current society, neither fairness nor equality are actually taken as absolute axioms. As some people have pointed out, there are these things called senior discounts, which runs against both.


Eh, I view senior discounts as a "respect" issue. That and they know that seniors are usually on fixed incomes, and as such can not afford their ass huge fees for tiny burgers.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Dauric » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:30 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:Eh, I view senior discounts as a "respect" issue. That and they know that seniors are usually on fixed incomes, and as such can not afford their ass huge fees for tiny burgers.


Nice dodge.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Oregonaut » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:31 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Oregonaut wrote:Eh, I view senior discounts as a "respect" issue. That and they know that seniors are usually on fixed incomes, and as such can not afford their ass huge fees for tiny burgers.


Nice dodge.


I learn. Slowly, but I learn.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests