Car insurance and how bias it has been

Ray Palmer

http://www.thejournal.ie/commute-much-working-people-spend-eight-hours-a-week-travelling-187889-Jul2011/

PEOPLE WORKING IN Ireland spend an average of seven hours 50 minutes travelling each week – or 90 minutes for each weekday.
The figures are revealed in the CSO’s National Travel Survey, which maps travel patterns across Ireland. It found that on average, people travel 18km to their workplace and spend 30 minutes getting there. Working people make an average of 19 journeys per week, travelling 278km in total.
However, the survey showed a significant difference between the sexes, with men travelling further considerably than women. Although both sexes make the same number of journeys (17), the average man – both employed and unemployed – covers 257km while the figure for women is just 186km. Work is the most common reason for men to travel, while the biggest factor in women’s journeys is shopping.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, there is also an urban/rural divide. People living in rural areas travel an average of 286km every week, more than 50 per cent further than the city-dwellers” figure of 180km. However, urban residents actually spend longer on their journeys – although the distances are so much shorter, they travel for an average of 414 minutes a week against 387 for those in the country. People in cities also made more individual journeys.
Nationwide, 73 per cent of journeys were made by car. Walking accounted for 16 per cent, bus for four per cent and all other methods for six per cent.

For years the figures were based on sex with no consideration for length of time and distance. This shows men spend longer in cars and travel further. It makes perfect sense they would be involved in more accidents. That is without even considering most professional drivers are men too. Women aren't safer driver they use cars less it is that simple. Plus they can't multi-task better than men. Will people ever get rid of these beliefs

Irish_Elect_Eng

Your point is not valid, using one partial statistic to argue against undisputed facts does not a debate make.

The whose picture needs to be examined and that certainly points to the fact that many young men in particular deserve the loading on their insurance.

Celly Smunt

surely a no claims bonuses should outweigh gender in terms of prices

7Sins

Ray Palmer wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/commute-much-working-people-spend-eight-hours-a-week-travelling-187889-Jul2011/
For years the figures were based on sex with no consideration for length of time and distance. This shows men spend longer in cars and travel further. It makes perfect sense they would be involved in more accidents. That is without even considering most professional drivers are men too. Women aren't safer driver they use cars less it is that simple. Plus they can't multi-task better than men. Will people ever get rid of these beliefs

Well done Sir, about time someone pointed this out.
Women for the most part do be only going to the local shop to get food for man, or picking up their offspring from school and a woman would never drive far from her man.

Ray Palmer

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

Your point is not valid, using one partial statistic to argue against undisputed facts does not a debate make.

The whose picture needs to be examined and that certainly points to the fact that many young men in particular deserve the loading on their insurance.

It has always been a disputed fact. The problem has always been how the data is gathered. The fact they never use distance and time on the road but used gender instead. As somebody who worked with the data I can assure you the reason for loading male drivers was to generate income. They used stats to validate it.

You just have to ask the right question to get an answer you want. There are simply more male young drivers than female young drivers so they have more accidents and they drive longer distance and spend more time in the car. Hence more young men get in accidents. The insurance companies know this but they use gender to say they are not safe. The risk based on gender has been intentional exaggerated in Europe.

The point in the article just shows how men spend more time on the road! This fact has been ignore by the actuaries for years because it is easy to point at the accidents and say "see male drivers" but without considering time on the road it is a bias view. Obviously some people don't get probability but insurance companies do

FatherLen

there are too many variables too get an accurate idea of who is better or safer or whatever.

TwoShedsJackson

Men, when they crash, tend to crash 'bigger' than women i.e. a claim on a man's insurance will usually be for quite a bit more than the typical claim on a woman's insurance. One reason they have been paying more.

Liam Byrne

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Men, when they crash, tend to crash 'bigger' than women i.e. a claim on a man's insurance will usually be for quite a bit more than the typical claim on a woman's insurance. One reason they have been paying more.

24 years driving, no crashes.

I also work from home most days and do about 120 miles / 200km in the average week, 20% lower than their claimed "average".

Definitely no reason for me to pay more.

But they still arbitrarily charge me extra, with Aviva wanting an absolutely ridiculous €630 for a year compared to the €400 that a broker had quoted me.

Mr. Presentable

Males are in fewer accidents per kilometre, but in more per billing period by virtue of the fact they travel more. So even if you make insurance payable by distance travelled you will typically pay more as a male. Thus it matters not that males are in fact safer drivers.

When a couple drive somewhere, typically which partner drives? In my general experience the male always drives.

TwoShedsJackson

Liam Byrne wrote: »

24 years driving, no crashes.

I also work from home most days and do about 120 miles / 200km in the average week, 20% lower than their claimed "average".

Definitely no reason for me to pay more.

But they still arbitrarily charge me extra, with Aviva wanting an absolutely ridiculous €630 for a year compared to the €400 that a broker had quoted me.

The reason you're paying more is because you're a man.

You individually may be a better, safer driver than most men and women, but think about the way an insurance company works.

They assign premiums based on risk, men cost them more in claims paid out, therefore as a man you pay more. Your particular skill, or lack thereof, means nothing.

You may not like it, but that's how it works. The only other way would be for them to individually evaluate every driver in order to set a premium, which is impossible.

Ray Palmer

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Men, when they crash, tend to crash 'bigger' than women i.e. a claim on a man's insurance will usually be for quite a bit more than the typical claim on a woman's insurance. One reason they have been paying more.

Because they drive further and longer in the car with more professional driver. I worked with insurance figures I actually know what I am talking about as opposed to reading what insurance companies say

Ste_D

How is it considered ok to discriminate based on age or gender?? If someone was given a higher premium based on race or religion there would be uproar.

biko

Corrected me if I'm wrong but aren't the companies doing away with cheaper insurance for women? Why is this even discussed still?

The ruling could mean that younger women will face a rise of up to 25pc in motor premiums, while young men might only see a small decrease.
He said the uncertainty about how the new rules would pan out meant insurers would be forced to push up premiums to allow for this.
Insurers said the impact of the ruling would mean that women drivers would end up being overcharged for motor insurance, as they would have to subsidise the premiums of men.

Females lose out and men doesn't gain.
Happy now guys, ruining it for everyone?

TwoShedsJackson

Ste_D wrote: »

How is it considered ok to discriminate based on age or gender?? If someone was given a higher premium based on race or religion there would be uproar.

Because there's no proof people of one religion or race crash more than others.

On the other hand, males aged 17-24 are six times more likely to have a claim in. That's how insurance works. If you're in a high-risk category, you pay more. It doesn't matter whether you think that's discrimination or not.

Ray Palmer

biko wrote: »

Corrected me if I'm wrong but aren't the companies doing away with cheaper insurance for women? Why is this even discussed still?


Females lose out and men doesn't gain.
Happy now guys, ruining it for everyone?

That is just them further gauging people as everybody is being overcharged. Yes it has to change but the point is really about the misconception woman are safer drivers. The truth is they drive less and also the notion woman can multi-task is also nonsense.

Oh and don't forget health insurance is more expensive for men because they pay for pregnancies. Same kind of logic

The tread is about insurance company lies and misconceptions people have.
@ TwoSheds

There is evidence to suggest certain ethnic groups in some countries are safer drivers but they wouldn't dare use that data.

The fact insurance is so high on young male drivers accounts for who drives and why they claim, more so than the age and sex. That is one of the reason the lower age limit kept going up for the massive insurance.

Give a citation for your 6 times more likely because I don't think that is true anyway.

nukin_futs

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Men, when they crash, tend to crash 'bigger' than women i.e. a claim on a man's insurance will usually be for quite a bit more than the typical claim on a woman's insurance. One reason they have been paying more.

I beg to differ:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019340/Hapless-blonde-crashes-250k-Bentley-FOUR-supercars.html

(although the claim could go through on his insurance!)

TwoShedsJackson

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Give a citation for your 6 times more likely because I don't think that is true anyway.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/

Collision Factbook 2009 linked on that page: page 10, '17-24 year old males seven times more likely to be killed on the road'.

Ray Palmer

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/

Collision Factbook 2009 linked on that page: page 10, '17-24 year old males seven times more likely to be killed on the road'.

You don't get the idea about people driving for longer do you? Plus that isn't 6 times more likely unless you use the lowest base. You aren't reading it correctly.

The whole break down is not the most accurate measure to use. It would suggest woman shouldn't be passengers too:p

Otis Driftwood

Working in the industry Ive been privy to alot of insurance policies and alot of claims experience over the last couple of years and Id have to agree with the posters above that say female drivers have more minor claims than male drivers.Tbh from what Ive seen its pretty much a 50/50 split between male and female drivers for the number of claims however the payouts for male drivers have been massively higher.

Female claims tended to be things like minor accidental damage claims like reversing into a parked car or smaller tips into stationary items however male claims were heavily weighted to either severe accidental damage or third party claims.

I can remember 2 claims involving male drivers.Both were still open in March of this year (one was from 07 the other from I think 08).

One of them had paid out (to that point) 1.3 million euro,the other had paid out approx 400k.

Thats up on 2 million for 2 claims,both still going.

Now I know,claims like the above examples are by far the exception rather than the rule however insurance is such that its impossible to rate each driver induvidually,in an ideal world that would happen however we dont live in an ideal world.

I do think however with the changes in law that have to come into effect by December 2012 in relation to female drivers paying less for being female will redress the balance somewhat,either that or they will just pay what men are paying now,rather than men paying what females are paying.

Ray Palmer

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Working in the industry Ive been privy to alot of insurance policies and alot of claims experience over the last couple of years and Id have to agree with the posters above that say female drivers have more minor claims than male drivers.

Being privy to similar data for multiple insurers I wouldn't disagree with higher claims. The problem is they don't consider the longer journeys and longer times men spend in cars. It isn't men have higher claims it is people who spend longer in cars have more severe accidents. Use gender to make that decision is really a very basic method and it is a fault in the calculations.

The new ruling is actually going to use the same bias and instead of distributing it the will bring up female drivers. The legislation should have forced that change and review of actuary figures. The insurance companies do know that they are overcharging on false data.

Otis Driftwood

Im not really convinced about the men spend more time driving argument (to a point anyway).

Alot of the claims Ive seen,like at least 60% occured out of hours that could be used to correlate any information ie general going to or from work or during traditional working hours so in my mind at least,there are alot of holes in the theory.

monkeybutter

Looking at that RSA document, between 17-24, there were 1550 male fatalities and 1011 female. Obviously some deaths were male and female passengers.

So clearly “In 2009, Among all car drivers, 17-24 year old male drivers were seven times more likely to be killed on the road" is totally misleading.

We don't even have stats to show the total number of drivers in each category, such poxy stats. Surely the higher number of young male drivers would balance out the higher number of female passangers in that age group.

On the amount of time driving issue, surely males driving longer would be a reason for their insurance to be higher anyway, even if they were just as safe per hour of driving?

Also people, don't forget to 'Arrive Alive' arriving dead scares the crap out of people.

Cuddlesworth

monkeybutter wrote: »

Looking at that RSA document, between 17-24, there were 1550 male fatalities and 1011 female. Obviously some deaths were male and female passengers.

So clearly “In 2009, Among all car drivers, 17-24 year old male drivers were seven times more likely to be killed on the road" is totally misleading.

We don't even have stats to show the total number of drivers in each category, such poxy stats. Surely the higher number of young male drivers would balance out the higher number of female passangers in that age group.

On the amount of time driving issue, surely males driving longer would be a reason for their insurance to be higher anyway, even if they were just as safe per hour of driving?

Also people, don't forget to 'Arrive Alive' arriving dead scares the crap out of people.

Your completely off the mark. I would suggest looking up the distinction between injured and killed.

I for one welcome this report from the RSA. Its the first time I have ever seen a comprehensive assessment of crash risk within this country without a biased outlook towards males drivers. If figure A3 on page ten is using what I believe are the correct figures, per 100,000 drivers(fixed), per mile driven and defined into age and gender then it shows a very accurate look at what is happening on our roads.

It still has its problems, like citing that females are more likely to be injured as a passenger but not putting that in comparison to how many car journeys are made with the male as the driver. But overall at least they seem to be heading in the right direction.

And lastly, for all those unfortunate people who believe that young males get loaded because the insurance company's cut a huge profit off of them. There are factors at play, but the main one is that if that were the case somebody would have jumped in and undercut the competition to squeeze in a better market share. Young male drivers take stupid risks and more importantly, don't learn from their mistakes. Its why extreme sports and rough contact sports are popular with males only. A women will put herself in danger but learn from it and avoid it in future, the male will do it again. The younger you are, the more likely it will happen.