Conor Faughnan - Gender equality insurance

AugustusMinimus

I really cannot stand this guy.

Keeps banging on how the new rule is grossly unfair.

I simply cannot see how its grossly unfair. Every driver starting off (regardless of gender) should get charged the same. Your driving over the next 2 to 3 years should determine how risky you are. If you have a crash (and you're at fault) your premium should rightly sky rocket.

Its as simple as this. if it could be determined that a certain race is statistically shown to have a higher risk than another race, would it be fair to charge them more ?

Outkast_IRE

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I really cannot stand this guy.

Keeps banging on how the new rule is grossly unfair.

I simply cannot see how its grossly unfair. Every driver starting off (regardless of gender) should get charged the same. Your driving over the next 2 to 3 years should determine how risky you are. If you have a crash (and you're at fault) your premium should rightly sky rocket.

Its as simple as this. if it could be determined that a certain race is statistically shown to have a higher risk than another race, would it be fair to charge them more ?

Insure the driver not the car is my opinion. If over the space of years you get no penalty points or cause accidents etc then you get rewarded no matter what your driving. Within certain brackets of course i dont expect a brand new ferrari owner to pay the same as a 10 year old fiesta owner.

Atlantic Dawn

With transexuals able to switch birth cert to opposite sex the system had to change to be fair, loophole closed.

Victor

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Your driving over the next 2 to 3 years should determine how risky you are.

Collisions are relatively rare, the only way to determine the risk over the first few years (or indeed on an ongoing basis) would be to install black boxes.

Damien360

Victor wrote: »

Collisions are relatively rare, the only way to determine the risk over the first few years (or indeed on an ongoing basis) would be to install black boxes.

If the law was enforced better with more monitoring by gardai then the points system would provide all the detail insurance companies need.

Reducing the insane Irish rewards in court for collisions would stop us all complaining overnight as your insurance cost would collapse.

I would start with not allowing someone with no insurance to claim any reward whatsover if they have a crash, regardless of which driver is to blame. Difficult to extend this to passengers as they may be unaware of drivers lack of insurance but drivers should get nothing for failure to pay. That includes getting payment from the central fund (name I forget at moment) for uninsured drivers.

corktina

i rarely listen to CF, but he is right. The basis of all insurance is Statistics and it is can be shown quite clearly that women overall are a better risk than men. This new law is in fact discriminating against women.

paddy147

So has womens insurance gone up or has mens insurance come down??????


Hardly to be the latter....knowing insurance companies.

Damien360

paddy147 wrote: »

So has womens insurance gone up or has mens insurance come down??????


Hardly to be the latter....knowing insurance companies.

Hooray for equal rights !!!

Rodin

Gender equality for insurance is absolutely ridiculous

should we have age equality too?

And how about engine size equality?

Stats are there for a reason and should be respected.

Theanswers

Rodin wrote: »

Gender equality for insurance is absolutely ridiculous

should we have age equality too?

And how about engine size equality?

Stats are there for a reason and should be respected.

Therefore women should be paying higher health insurance... Because as we all know they claim far more than men in their health insurance, yet we all pay the same rates due to equality.

The Stats are there for a reason and should be respected.
But hold on a second that's not fair.

Stats can be made say whatever you want. Insurance companys do not look at the the big picture using 'Big data'. They have focused on very narrow metrics and therefore relayed far to heavily on gender in pricing premiums.

There many more risks factors regarding insurance than gender. The thing is most of them can be changed, gender cannot no matter how good/ safe a driver one is.

This system is equal rights, exactly when feminist wanted.
For years young men were paying higher rates which subsided young womans cheaper premiums.
Insurance companies were making most their profits off young men.

This is fair.

MugMugs

Rodin wrote: »

Gender equality for insurance is absolutely ridiculous

should we have age equality too?

And how about engine size equality?

Stats are there for a reason and should be respected.

So if an Insurer could categorically state that African and Chinese drivers are more high risk they would be justified in increasing premiums based on race and wouldn't be considered racist?

I'm sorry but the burning of bras for equal rights Brought equal rights.... Anybody complaining about it should just deal with it

Backfire

corktina wrote: »

i rarely listen to CF, but he is right. The basis of all insurance is Statistics and it is can be shown quite clearly that women overall are a better risk than men. This new law is in fact discriminating against women.

Well isn't is discriminating against certain men who drive safely?
I have never had an accident to date or penalty points, yet I continue to pay more insurance than my sister, who has 4 penalty points, has been responsible for 2 accidents and has a car worth 4 grand more than mine.....so this is fair?....

And yes her premium went up twice. Still lower than mine.

MadsL

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Its as simple as this. if it could be determined that a certain race is statistically shown to have a higher risk than another race, would it be fair to charge them more ?

Some companies do charge a premium based on nationality.

I have been having something of a back and forth with certain insurance companies on this for years. The Data Protection Commissioner has (informally) determined that asking questions about "where were you born?" "what is your nationality?" and "how long have you lived in Ireland?" are irrelevant for the purpose of insurance.

Of the three that I have spotted recently asking these questions, two so far will change the questions in the new year and a third is under investigation.

Insuranc companies have an out in terms that if they can show actuarial data that there is a statistical difference based on race then they can discriminate. However, it has yet to be shown that they should have to publish the data.

challengemaster

corktina wrote: »

i rarely listen to CF, but he is right. The basis of all insurance is Statistics and it is can be shown quite clearly that women overall are a better risk than men. This new law is in fact discriminating against women.

Comes down to correlation and causation. There may be less accidents in the female population, but there's no solid proof to actually attribute that to the fact they're female. Unless you can prove without doubt that the decreased risk is caused by gender alone, then there's no reason for inequality.

Also on an anecdotal side note - I know a lot more male drivers than female drivers, yet the majority of the female drivers I do know are appalling and/or have been involved in some form of bump, collision or RTA. I can't think of one male driver I know that has.

One person in particular on a regular basis causes damage to her own or other cars. Easy to skew insurance statistics when her husband gets the car fixed without informing/going through insurance though - and I'd imagine that's fairly commonplace in Ireland.

coylemj

Theanswers wrote: »

Therefore women should be paying higher health insurance... Because as we all know they claim far more than men in their health insurance, yet we all pay the same rates due to equality.

Women probably submit more claims than men but that's only because they're better at looking after their health and are more likely to go to the doctor to get something checked, unlike men who typically let things go too far before going to the doctor.

The net result is that women probably cost insurance companies less because they don't allow their health to deteriorate to the point where major surgery or expensive treatment is required to fix it. A heart bypass for a man probably costs the same as a hundred GP visits for a woman.

Theanswers

Woman also drive alot less.

I wonder what the stats would be per mile driven?
I'd say males would be a better risk.
Next time you are in a car note the sex who is driving in the cars around around you. The vast majority will be Male.

Again, this is the fairest way to undertake insurance; the same way that has been done with health insurance for years.

Everyone is equal - they get a fresh license, it's up to themselves what they make of it.

Bumper cars or clean license?

Ps: Apart from the descrimination they have been charging males vastly larger premiums than there femals counters parts. I wonder does the difference in price equate to the difference in their percieved great risk? I imagine not. It is just handy money.

Theanswers

coylemj wrote: »

Women probably submit more claims than men but that's only because they're better at looking after their health and are more likely to go to the doctor to get something checked, unlike men who typically let things go too far before going to the doctor.

The net result is that women probably cost insurance companies less because they don't allow their health to deteriorate to the point where major surgery or expensive treatment is required to fix it. A heart bypass for a man probably costs the same as a hundred GP visits for a woman.

It has been shown that women claim far more than men in regards to health insurance and actually cost the companies more. I'm just look for the facts; but I can assure you that it is correct.

The only reason it was'nt fussed about was it was men and not women who were at the poor end of the stick.

Can we not agree the we all cant have our cake and eat it.
I will pay more for my health insurance and women will pay more for their car insurance.

In regards to health insurance women claim 100% of the costs on Maternity related claims, should they be charged a higher premium because of this risk? No, it's fair to equalize the cost even though the stats show men Never claim for such things.

You see this is the best way.

MadsL

Theanswers wrote: »

Iwomen claim 100% of the costs on Maternity related claims,

I'd say women are only 50% responsible for maternity cases though

corktina

Theanswers wrote: »

Woman also drive alot less.

I wonder what the stats would be per mile driven?
I'd say males would be a better risk.
Next time you are in a car note the sex who is driving in the cars around around you. The vast majority will be Male.

Again, this is the fairest way to undertake insurance; the same way that has been done with health insurance for years.

Everyone is equal - they get a fresh license, it's up to themselves what they make of it.

Bumper cars or clean license?

Ps: Apart from the descrimination they have been charging males vastly larger premiums than there femals counters parts. I wonder does the difference in price equate to the difference in their percieved great risk? I imagine not. It is just handy money.

if it is the fact they drive less that makes them a better risk, it doesnt alter the fact that they are a better risk!

challengemaster

corktina wrote: »

if it is the fact they drive less that makes them a better risk, it doesnt alter the fact that they are a better risk!

But then the altered risk is due to milage driven, not gender.

Theanswers

MadsL wrote: »

I'd say women are only 50% responsible for maternity cases though

That's secondary. The women are the ones claiming.

Theanswers

challengemaster wrote: »

But then the altered risk is due to milage driven, not gender.

Exactly, Insurance companies just don't like this because it means that the will have to find new ways to price premiums.

As I've said before this is the fairest way, anyone who doesn't see this is biased.

Everyone is starting as an equal no one is dis-advantage. They are all equal. Thus Fair.

coylemj

The equalization of annuity rates for men (losers) and women (winners) should be far higher up the agenda than motor insurance. I know this is the Motors forum but given that women live longer than men, they previously got quoted less for an annuity when retiring with a lump sum than a man of the same age, equalization now means that women will get more and men less. The difference for most people retiring from now on will probably cost men more in their annual pension than the drop in their motor premium caused by the same equalization.

MadsL

Theanswers wrote: »

That's secondary. The women are the ones claiming.

What percentage are using turkey basters would you say?

Rodin

MugMugs wrote: »

So if an Insurer could categorically state that African and Chinese drivers are more high risk they would be justified in increasing premiums based on race and wouldn't be considered racist?

I'm sorry but the burning of bras for equal rights Brought equal rights.... Anybody complaining about it should just deal with it

If they could back it up with evidence then yes!

And if it came out that white people were more likely to crash then yes to that too!

AugustusMinimus

Rodin wrote: »

Gender equality for insurance is absolutely ridiculous

should we have age equality too?

And how about engine size equality?

Stats are there for a reason and should be respected.

Factors that you are born with should not be taken into account with insurance.

Whereas you cannot change your sex (lets not get into transexuals and insurance) you are the one who directly determines your engine size.

AugustusMinimus

Rodin wrote: »

If they could back it up with evidence then yes!

And if it came out that white people were more likely to crash then yes to that too!

Absolutely shocking stuff. 60 years of the Civil Rights Movement and this is what we get.

Rodin

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Absolutely shocking stuff. 60 years of the Civil Rights Movement and this is what we get.

what's wrong with an evidence based decision?

Racism is based on opinion, not evidence

MadsL

Rodin wrote: »

what's wrong with an evidence based decision?

I've repeatedly asked insurance companies their basis for loading foreign-born drivers,
they said "actuarial data",
I said "publish it then"
They said "No, it is proprietary"


So evidence you are not allowed to see.

Thankfully the Data Protection Commissioner thinks they are full of it.

AugustusMinimus

Rodin wrote: »

what's wrong with an evidence based decision?

Racism is based on opinion, not evidence

You are looking at a person by the colour of their skin and not by the content of their character. The colour of their skin may lead you to believe they are dangerous behind the wheel, yet the content of their character says anything but.

Is it then fair to generalise against such a person and load their insurance premium for no reason.



I'll put it with you like this. Aboriginie's are proven to have one of the lowest average IQs of any ethnic group. Should this be taken into account for various facets in society. After all, it is statistical evidence.

Rodin

MadsL wrote: »

I've repeatedly asked insurance companies their basis for loading foreign-born drivers,
they said "actuarial data",
I said "publish it then"
They said "No, it is proprietary"


So evidence you are not allowed to see.

Thankfully the Data Protection Commissioner thinks they are full of it.

Note I never said any particular country's drivers were better/worse.
I was responding to a hypothetical question.

Interestingly the drink/drive stats from today showed that Latvian/Lithuanian drivers are more likely to be repeat offenders

MadsL

Lets say I was born in Latvia, but grew up in Ireland from the age of 2.


If the insurance company now adds a loading based on this (absurdly small sample size) rating that Latvians are higher risk, why should I have to identify myself as "born in Latvia" and receive that rating? See how absurd non-driving factors are?

coylemj

MadsL wrote: »

I've repeatedly asked insurance companies their basis for loading foreign-born drivers,
they said "actuarial data",
I said "publish it then"
They said "No, it is proprietary"


So evidence you are not allowed to see.

Thankfully the Data Protection Commissioner thinks they are full of it.

I don't believe that the insurance companies are implementing any kind of racial discrimination. It appears that in general, people who move from country to country for work have a poor driving record and that's why foreign drivers arriving in Ireland are quoted more.

Irish people moving to the UK have complained here that they get loaded when they look for quotes because a lot of them put up posts here asking if their Irish policy will cover them driving in the UK which of course it won't if they move address because that requires notifying the insurance company which will then terminate the policy because the policyholder has moved out of the country.

I repeat, it is not a race-based issue.

MadsL

coylemj wrote: »

I don't believe that the insurance companies are implementing any kind of racial discrimination. It appears that in general, people who move from country to country for work have a poor driving record and that's why foreign drivers arriving in Ireland are quoted more.

Have you any basis in fact/source for that statement?

Irish people moving to the UK have complained here that they get loaded when they look for quotes because a lot of them put up posts here asking if their Irish policy will cover them driving in the UK which of course it won't if they move address because that requires notifying the insurance company which will then terminate the policy because the policyholder's normal residence is outside the country.

I repeat, it is not a race-based issue.

How is residency in any way a factor in driving experience?

Have you any basis in fact or source for that?

coylemj

MadsL wrote: »

Have you any basis in fact/source for that statement?

Here's an example....

flash1080 wrote: »

I've moved to the UK for work and need to get a car sorted. The insurance prices I'm being quoted are colossal. Anyone here in the same boat, and what insurance company have you used?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77571757&postcount=1

MadsL wrote: »

How is residency in any way a factor in driving experience?

Have you any basis in fact or source for that?

All I said was that if someone moves to the UK, the Irish insurance company, on being notified that the policyholder has moved address will cancel the policy. The reason if you don't know is because an Irish insurance company (even a subsidiary of a multinational) will not be authorised to write a motor policy covering someone living and driving in another country. I said nothing about the issue of driving experience.

Our man in Havana

It is a well known fact that returning emigrants have trouble getting insurance in Ireland.

Iwannahurl

Interesting paper from 2004 on the actuarial issues here: https://web.actuaries.ie/sites/default/files/story/2004/04/Unisex_Premiums/040406%20briefing%20statement%20on%20unisex%20premiums.pdf

It seems the EU is more concerned about the moral/ethical issues rather than risk.

The paper explains that when quoting for motor insurance companies use a range of "rating factors".

In terms of statistical risk, from the pure actuarial perspective, it seems reasonable to have a gender rating also.

As I understand it, individuals are rated according to how their 'profile' compares to pre-existing actuarial risk calculations at group or 'population' level. The risk calculation is derived retrospectively at group level, not prospectively at individual level (which I would guess is impossible or at least highly unreliable).

See also:

http://www.economica.ca/ew08_3p1.htm

www.beanactuary.org/toolkits/BAA_Presentation.pptx [Powerpoint]


.

MadsL

coylemj wrote: »

Here's an example....

I meant a source for the data not the practice of it.

All I said was that if someone moves to the UK, the Irish insurance company, on being notified that the policyholder has moved address will cancel the policy. The reason if you don't know is because an Irish insurance company (even a subsidiary of a multinational) will not be authorised to write a motor policy covering someone living and driving in another country. I said nothing about the issue of driving experience.

Having your insurance in one country and driving in another is completely different issue.

Our man in Havana wrote: »

It is a well known fact that returning emigrants have trouble getting insurance in Ireland.

And that is disgraceful. Let's name and shame here, 123.ie will not insure you as an Irish national once you return from 2-3 years work overseas except for the UK. See here https://www.123.ie/insurance/car-insurance/quote-form.123?conversationId=4590

That "living how long in Ireland" lets them refuse to insure returning nationals. A complaint has been lodged with the Data Protection Commissioner.

Our man in Havana

The other one 123 love is having a foreign driving licence.

coylemj

MadsL wrote: »

I meant a source for the data not the practice of it.

This is a discussion forum, not a sworn public enquiry.

If I say that entertainers and jockeys get loaded on motor insurance, am I required to produce actuarial tables at the same time or just not say it?

Get real FFS.

MadsL

coylemj wrote: »

This is a discussion forum, not a sworn public enquiry.

If I say that entertainers and jockeys get loaded on motor insurance, am I required to produce actuarial tables at the same time or just not say it?

Get real FFS.

Getting real is what I'm trying to get across. For years insurance companies have been saying we are this risk or that risk - and have been under no obligation to prove what they are saying.

Asking you to back up your statement "It appears that in general, people who move from country to country for work have a poor driving record" is quite reasonable on a discussion forum, I can't think where you got the notion that people who move countries are worse drivers, nor that there are any statistics to prove it. Out of interest was it an insurance company that told you that?

No need for the shirtyness, I'm just asking for a source.