Sexism and car insurance - Not dead yet

lightspeed

Im looking to maybe insure an additional car in my name. Im the only person in my family who drives and i drive a two seater car at the moment which i love and don't want to change. I figured i could just get a cheap nissan micra which would be cheap to tax and i thought it would also be cheap to insure.

However, there does not seem to be much insurers that allow you to add an additional car to your existing policy. Upon googling it, i found the below website advertising insurance which appears to be exclusive to women which is now in violation of the law.

On their home page it states the following:

"Our car insurance prices reflect that women are of course safer drivers!".

http://www.its4women.ie/

Does anybody else think that if it the argument was the other way round and women had been forced to pay higher premiums that this would be a bigger deal at least in the media?

I think ill try contact them by phone on monday just to pick a row with these arrogant pricks. That's just the kind of superhero I am.

boogle

stfu?

TheLastMohican

Get married/shack up?

Jester252

Complain then what?
Report them?

DrumSteve

lightspeed wrote: »

Im looking to maybe insure an additional car in my name. Im the only person in my family who drives and i drive a two seater car at the moment which i love and don't want to change. I figured i could just get a cheap nissan micra which would be cheap to tax and i thought it would also be cheap to insure.

However, there does not seem to be much insurers that allow you to add an additional car to your existing policy. Upon googling it, i found the below website advertising insurance which appears to be exclusive to women which is now in violation of the law.

On their home page it states the following:

"Our car insurance prices reflect that women are of course safer drivers!".

http://www.its4women.ie/

Does anybody else think that if it the argument was the other way round and women had been forced to pay higher premiums that this would be a bigger deal at least in the media?

I think ill try contact them by phone on monday just to pick a row with these arrogant pricks. That's just the kind of superhero I am.

Your gonna ring a call centre for an argument with a poorly paid rep?

Go you.

Boombastic

put on a high pitched voice and get your insurance lower

HondaSami

lightspeed wrote: »

Im looking to maybe insure an additional car in my name. Im the only person in my family who drives and i drive a two seater car at the moment which i love and don't want to change. I figured i could just get a cheap nissan micra which would be cheap to tax and i thought it would also be cheap to insure.

However, there does not seem to be much insurers that allow you to add an additional car to your existing policy. Upon googling it, i found the below website advertising insurance which appears to be exclusive to women which is now in violation of the law.

On their home page it states the following:

"Our car insurance prices reflect that women are of course safer drivers!".

http://www.its4women.ie/

Does anybody else think that if it the argument was the other way round and women had been forced to pay higher premiums that this would be a bigger deal at least in the media?

I think ill try contact them by phone on monday just to pick a row with these arrogant pricks. That's just the kind of superhero I am.

What is the new rules regarding male and female insurance quotes?

Let us know how you get on with your arrogant phonecall.

policarp

Next year ask Aviva for a quote.

HTML5!

If it was woman posting about sexism on here I've a feeling some of the posts would be a bit different.

But nobody cares about double standards against men.

Anyway, everyone should stop getting their knickers in a twist over the slightest thing which can be construed as sexism.

'Oh did I infer that I think there's a good possiblity you might get pregnant because you're a woman?' Boo-f*cking-hoo.

I don't care about this insurance company. I'll probably never used them, but if they want to cater for women, who cares? Maybe women are safer drivers?

A lot of stereotypes are based on truths.

I'm all for men/women only clubs too. People are being denied basic rights because some people get offended way too easily.


/rant

Fromthetrees

The main gripe I have with this whole thing is that if the roles were reversed there would be uproar, outrage and condemnation.

I tried to start a thread on here last year about how men are discriminated against in Ireland today and I was told among other things to 'man up', got a PM calling me Andy Gray and the thread was locked and I was told if I started another one I would be banned. Kinda sums the whole thing up to me really. Here's the thread.

lightspeed

The Gender Directive
• Article 5 of the Gender Directive (Dir. 2004/113/EC), which is directly effective in all European Union member states, provides that the use of sex as a factor in calculating premiums and other benefits in respect of insurance should not result in differences in premiums or benefits to an individual.
• However, Article 5(2) contains an exemption to this prohibition which permits proportional differences in such premiums or benefits where the sex of an individual is a determining factor in the assessment of risk (based on relevant and accurate actuarial and statistical data) for the purposes of determining the level of premium.

Test-Achats - the court's decision
• On 1 March 2011 the ECJ delivered its ruling in the Test-Achats case: the derogation in EU law (i.e. Article 5(2) of the Gender Directive) which allows for sex-specific differences in insurance premiums and benefits where sex is a determining risk factor will be invalid from 21 December 2012.
• In delivering this ruling the ECJ agreed with the Advocate-General's opinion that different insurance premiums for men and women constitute sex discrimination and this is not compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter).

So as regards quotes for car insurance its not a grey area at all. You cannot charge a different price for a male than a female or vice versa based on their sex. The presence of a penis can no longer be a factor as to why a male should pay more than a female for car insurance.

I believe its the EU commission who take action against a member state for not taking measures to enforce an EU directive, so i assume its a matter of fantasy if any insurance company in the EU think they can continue to discriminate against men or women.

For those who feel I'm wrong to feel annoyed by this clear practice of sexism and breach of the law,I ask would you feel the same if i set up my own insurance company called it "itsforwhites" and then refused to insure anybody who was not white?. I could even advertise on the home page of my website that i believe black people are more likely to cause a crash and thats why we charge less for the white folk. I assume those who disagree with me taking issue with an insurance company that discriminates based on sex are not at all hypocrites and would have no issue with "itsforwhites".

Am i correct or are you people happy to be hypocrites?

lightspeed

HTML5! wrote: »

If it was woman posting about sexism on here I've a feeling some of the posts would be a bit different.

But nobody cares about double standards against men.

Anyway, everyone should stop getting their knickers in a twist over the slightest thing which can be construed as sexism.

'Oh did I infer that I think there's a good possiblity you might get pregnant because you're a woman?' Boo-f*cking-hoo.

I don't care about this insurance company. I'll probably never used them, but if they want to cater for women, who cares? Maybe women are safer drivers?

A lot of stereotypes are based on truths.

I'm all for men/women only clubs too. People are being denied basic rights because some people get offended way too easily.


/rant

Yes but stereotypes don't prove that all people of similarity behave the same so its always an injustice to stereotype. Where would you draw the line?

If nigerians are more known to be scam artists and fraudsters, would you support the idea that financial institutions or companies that have large customer bases and process credit card transactions should be able to refuse hiring a nigerian person?

Im really no scholar on the matter but one might be so bold to call that racism.

Are you a racist now father?

UCDVet

It's not sexism if it's true.
It's not racism if it's true.
It's not nationalism if it's true.

It's not wrong to judge groups of people by the collective actions of their group.

It's wrong to assume all women have long hair.
It's stupid to pretend that women don't have longer hair, on average, than men.

Women are safer drivers. I don't care what retard-logic we've built our legal system on, they should pay less for car insurance.

Car insurance isn't a 'personal' thing. You provide very little information and they calculate a risk, using the same formula for everyone. You aren't personally evaluated on your driving habits and maturity. Insurance is all about averages applied to groups. It's silly not to let the rates reflect reality.

PhlegmyMoses

UCDVet wrote: »

It's not sexism if it's true.
It's not racism if it's true.
It's not nationalism if it's true.

It's not wrong to judge groups of people by the collective actions of their group.

It's wrong to assume all women have long hair.
It's stupid to pretend that women have longer hair, on average, than men.

Women are safer drivers. I don't care what retard-logic we've built our legal system on, they should pay less for car insurance.

You're pretty much wrong on all counts here, but keep at it.

UCDVet

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

You're pretty much wrong on all counts here, but keep at it.

It's easy to say someone is wrong. It's harder to show it. Let me show you why you are wrong.

I said 'It's not sexism if it's true.'

Is something Sexism? Let's see...

Sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Prejudice - Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.

Stereotyping - A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

Discrimination - The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex

It's not a prejudice to say women are safer drivers; because it is based on factual data - not a preconceived opinion.

It's not stereotyping to say women are safer drivers; because it's not a fixed view. Insurance companies constantly re-evaluate the risk of drivers and demographics constantly change. They believe women are CURRENTLY safer drivers because, objectively, they are.

It's not discrimination to say women are safer drivers; because it IS just. It is THE TRUTH. Truth and justice go hand-in-hand.

If it's not a prejudice, stereotype and not discrimination - then it sure as heck isn't sexism. It's a fact. And it will continue to be until the actual data on driving no longer sees a correlation between 'having a penis' and 'being involved in accidents'.

PhlegmyMoses

UCDVet wrote: »

It's easy to say someone is wrong. It's harder to show it. Let me show you why you are wrong.

I said 'It's not sexism if it's true.'

Is something Sexism? Let's see...




It's not a prejudice to say women are safer drivers; because it is based on factual data - not a preconceived opinion.

It's not stereotyping to say women are safer drivers; because it's not a fixed view. Insurance companies constantly re-evaluate the risk of drivers and demographics constantly change. They believe women are CURRENTLY safer drivers because, objectively, they are.

It's not discrimination to say women are safer drivers; because it IS just. It is THE TRUTH. Truth and justice go hand-in-hand.

If it's not a prejudice, stereotype and not discrimination - then it sure as heck isn't sexism. It's a fact. And it will continue to be until the actual data on driving no longer sees a correlation between 'having a penis' and 'being involved in accidents'.

You should take this to the European Courts mate. They must not have had access to dictionaries when they made their ruling.

lightspeed

UCDVet wrote: »

It's not sexism if it's true.
It's not racism if it's true.
It's not nationalism if it's true.

It's not wrong to judge groups of people by the collective actions of their group.

It's wrong to assume all women have long hair.
It's stupid to pretend that women have longer hair, on average, than men.

Women are safer drivers. I don't care what retard-logic we've built our legal system on, they should pay less for car insurance.

Ive been driving for 6 years, im 26 years with a full license and never had an accident.

So if there is a woman driver with the same credentials as me or perhaps with even less of a no claims bonus, you believe she should be paying less than I am?

I dont see how you cant see how its sexism. Its a case of discrimination based on someones sexual orientation.

So if its not racist to discriminate against someone based on their race, can you advise as to what is racist as im getting very confused?

If your son or daughter went to work in Australia for example and employers said "we don't hire irish as your all too fond of alcohol" i suppose you would say thats fair enough because you are not a hypocrite are you?

Id like to hear from the transgender community on this issue.

Time to go mobile

UCDVet wrote: »

It's not sexism if it's true.
It's not racism if it's true.
It's not nationalism if it's true.

It's not wrong to judge groups of people by the collective actions of their group.

It's wrong to assume all women have long hair.
It's stupid to pretend that women don't have longer hair, on average, than men.

Women are safer drivers. I don't care what retard-logic we've built our legal system on, they should pay less for car insurance.

Car insurance isn't a 'personal' thing. You provide very little information and they calculate a risk, using the same formula for everyone. You aren't personally evaluated on your driving habits and maturity. Insurance is all about averages applied to groups. It's silly not to let the rates reflect reality.

Ok so if black drivers are more dangerous Inassume you're ok with higher premiums for them.

lightspeed

DrumSteve wrote: »

Your gonna ring a call centre for an argument with a poorly paid rep?

Go you.

Why on earth would the salary of the agent answering my call mean i should not contact this company?

If the agent does not want to speak with me, id be more than happy for them to escalate the call to their manager.

This is a violation of EU law, its a fairly serious violation as far consumer law goes and i highly doubt that national consumer affairs would disagree with that given the law states that they cant and must enforce the law prohibiting sexual discrimination.

Which laws do you believe a company should able to violate that a member of the public affected by their policies should be able to contact them?

If they refused to ensure black people should it be ok to contact them by phone or should we leave it be because someone possibly on a a salary below in the industrial average wage might consider the call inconvienant and uncomfortable.

I really dont see a valid reason to discriminate between which laws people should be allowed to violate. Again that's just the kind pf superhero i am.

UCDVet

Time to go mobile wrote: »

Ok so if black drivers are more dangerous Inassume you're ok with higher premiums for them.

So long as the insurance company is a private company, they should be able to set whatever rates they want.

If an insurance company charges rates that aren't supported by actual data (IE - charging white people more because the CEO hates white people) another company can beat that rate, make a profit, and get lots of white customers.

UCDVet

lightspeed wrote: »

Ive been driving for 6 years, im 26 years with a full license and never had an accident.

So if there is a woman driver with the same credentials as me or perhaps with even less of a no claims bonus, you believe she should be paying less than I am?

I dont see how you cant see how its sexism. Its a case of discrimination based on someones sexual orientation.

So if its not racist to discriminate against someone based on their race, can you advise as to what is racist as im getting very confused?

If your son or daughter went to work in Australia for example and employers said "we don't hire irish as your all too fond of alcohol" i suppose you would say thats fair enough because you are not a hypocrite are you?

Id like to hear from the transgender community on this issue.

It's sexist to say, 'Women are worse drivers because girls suck at driving'.
It's not sexist to say, 'We collected data over the last 12 months and, as it turns out, there is a statistically significant difference between women and men - we should reflect that in our rates'.

It's racist to say, 'Black people are only good at basketball'
It's not racist to say that 78% of the NBA is black.

It's not racist if it is true. Then it's just the truth.

DrumSteve

lightspeed wrote: »

Why on earth would the salary of the agent answering my call mean i should not contact this company?

If the agent does not want to speak with me, id be more than happy for them to escalate the call to their manager.

This is a violation of EU law, its a fairly serious violation as far consumer law goes and i highly doubt that national consumer affairs would disagree with that given the law states that they cant and must enforce the law prohibiting sexual discrimination.

Which laws do you believe a company should able to violate that a member of the public affected by their policies should be able to contact them?

If they refused to ensure black people should it be ok to contact them by phone or should we leave it be because someone possibly on a a salary below in the industrial average wage might consider the call inconvienant and uncomfortable.

I really dont see a valid reason to discriminate between which laws people should be allowed to violate. Again that's just the kind pf superhero i am.

You said you were gonna pick a row with them, they arent paid enough to deal with that ****e. If you have a genuine customer service issue fine, if not, have a rant at their PR department instead.

Im all for equality, but dont be a dick about it to someone down the phone. You can make a point without trying to start a row as you put it.

lightspeed

Time to go mobile wrote: »

Ok so if black drivers are more dangerous Inassume you're ok with higher premiums for them.

Yes because im not a racist and my premium will go down based on my the statistics gathered on me such as the number of years ive been driving without an accident.

I couldnt help notice that you didnt answer my question. Its well known that a large portion of the population of irish people like to drink alcohol. Such an opinion can be backed up with statistical data.

"Ireland continues to rank among the highest consumers of alcohol in the 26 countries in the enlarged EU. We drink about 20% more than the average European"

http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/how-much-do-we-drink/

Can you confirm that you are not a hypocrite and that you support employers being able to refuse hiring Irish people because they dont want workers drinking on the job or underperforming due to a hangover?

UCDVet

lightspeed wrote: »

Ive been driving for 6 years, im 26 years with a full license and never had an accident.

So if there is a woman driver with the same credentials as me or perhaps with even less of a no claims bonus, you believe she should be paying less than I am?

I dont see how you cant see how its sexism. Its a case of discrimination based on someones sexual orientation.

So if its not racist to discriminate against someone based on their race, can you advise as to what is racist as im getting very confused?

If your son or daughter went to work in Australia for example and employers said "we don't hire irish as your all too fond of alcohol" i suppose you would say thats fair enough because you are not a hypocrite are you?

Id like to hear from the transgender community on this issue.

Assume that statistically, based on real data....

26 year old males, with 6 years of driving experience have a 8% chance of having their first accident in year 7.
And
26 year old females, with 6 years of driving experience have a 4% chance of having their first accident in year 7.

Who should pay more?

If I gave you one euro and said, 'You can buy lotto ticket A that has a 50% chance of winning 100 euro, or you can buy a lotto ticket B that has a 30% chance of winning 100 euro' - which would you pick?

You'd be a fool to pick B.

That's what insurance companies are faced with.

If your son or daughter went to work in Australia for example and employers said "we don't hire irish as your all too fond of alcohol" i suppose you would say thats fair enough because you are not a hypocrite are you?

You're building a straw man.

In your fictional example, is there statistically significant evidence that clearly shows Irish employees have more problems with alcohol than other groups? And is the company willing to hire them, but pay them a slightly smaller wage to offset the likelihood of them causing a problem? A formula based on the best possible figures that are mathematically sound?

If you say 'No' - then this isn't an Apples to Apples comparison at all.

But to be perfectly honest - I wouldn't care. If company A decides not to hire Irish people, I don't see a problem with it. Companies want to make money. If Irish people are good employees, another company will be willing to hire them. Supply and demand. If nobody will hire Irish people, Irish people would be willing to work for less; until either someone would hire them or Irish-only companies would be able to vastly under-cut the competition because their labour is cheaper.

Now - I have a question for you. Insurance companies also discriminate based on age. Why do you not speak out against that?
Can you confirm that you hate old people? And that if a company decides not to hire anyone 'in their 30s, because 30 year old are irresponsible' that you support them in doing so?

lightspeed

DrumSteve wrote: »

You said you were gonna pick a row with them, they arent paid enough to deal with that ****e. If you have a genuine customer service issue fine, if not, have a rant at their PR department instead.

Im all for equality, but dont be a dick about it to someone down the phone. You can make a point without trying to start a row as you put it.

They are breaking the law.

If you were against the dealing of drugs would you feel that it would be wrong to express your outrage to a drug dealer of his/her actions?

If they dont like working for a company that breaks the law, then they should not continue to work for a company that breaks the law.

They are paid to take calls including complaints. I also work in customer services so i do now how it feels to have to deal with an upset customer.

Its part of the job and i understand that if my company decides to insist on a policy of sexism and violate EU law, that i may have to take plenty of calls from complaining customers.

It wont be much of an issue for long cause either they will change their policys to conform with the law or the company will be shut down and they will have to look for work else where anyway.

How is it that you know they dont get paid enough to deal with complaints? In case i need to ask for a pay rise in my own job, can you advise as to how much a customer service agent that has to handle complaints should be paid?

DrumSteve

lightspeed wrote: »

They are breaking the law.

If you were against the dealing of drugs would you feel that it would be wrong to express your outrage to a drug dealer of his/her actions?

If they dont like working for a company that breaks the law, then they should not continue to work for a company that breaks the law.

They are paid to take calls including complaints. I also work in customer services so i do now how it feels to have to deal with an upset customer.

Its part of the job and i understand that if my company decides to insist on a policy of sexism and violate EU law, that i may have to take plenty of calls from complaining customers.

It wont be much of an issue for long cause either they will change their policys to conform with the law or the company will be shut down and they will have to look for work else where anyway.

How is it that you know they dont get paid enough to deal with complaints? In case i need to ask for a pay rise in my own job, can you advise as to how much a customer service agent that has to handle complaints should be paid?

More than the minimum wage.

Again, if you have a point to make to them go right ahead. You said you were going to start a row, there is no need for that. The joe soaps you get through to dont decide policy, neither do the managers who will take your complaint once its escalated. Being in CS you should know that.

Also, drug dealers? You could have picked a better example than that.

Anyway Im done with this thread.

Bad Santa

UCDVet wrote: »

26 year old females, with 6 years of driving experience have a 4% chance of having their first accident in year 7.

Who should pay more? Ideally? Men.

However, when as a society, we attempt to make our world as sexist-free as possible (and that is where we have been brought) then, unfortunately there will be times when, heaven forbid, women get the shitty end of the stick. Many situations have arisen where men have had to bite the bullet in the name of equality but yet when examples of those are pointed out, the complainers are referred to as whingers. This is just one area where women are gonna have accept that in the name of equality, they might just have to accept a level of unfairness with regards to car insurance.

If not, then how about men being able to retire earlier than women and get their pensions seven or eight years before them also. I mean, women live longer on average and so it's only fair, right?

lightspeed

UCDVet wrote: »

Assume that statistically, based on real data....

26 year old males, with 6 years of driving experience have a 8% chance of having their first accident in year 7.
And
26 year old females, with 6 years of driving experience have a 4% chance of having their first accident in year 7.

Who should pay more?


If I gave you one euro and said, 'You can buy lotto ticket A that has a 50% chance of winning 100 euro, or you can buy a lotto ticket B that has a 30% chance of winning 100 euro' - which would you pick?

You'd be a fool to pick B.

That's what insurance companies are faced with.

You're building a straw man.

In your fictional example, is there statistically significant evidence that clearly shows Irish employees have more problems with alcohol than other groups? And is the company willing to hire them, but pay them a slightly smaller wage to offset the likelihood of them causing a problem? A formula based on the best possible figures that are mathematically sound?

If you say 'No' - then this isn't an Apples to Apples comparison at all.

But to be perfectly honest - I wouldn't care. If company A decides not to hire Irish people, I don't see a problem with it. Companies want to make money. If Irish people are good employees, another company will be willing to hire them. Supply and demand. If nobody will hire Irish people, Irish people would be willing to work for less; until either someone would hire them or Irish-only companies would be able to vastly under-cut the competition because their labour is cheaper.

Now - I have a question for you. Insurance companies also discriminate based on age. Why do you not speak out against that?
Can you confirm that you hate old people? And that if a company decides not to hire anyone 'in their 30s, because 30 year old are irresponsible' that you support them in doing so?

On your first point, the person who has the accident should pay more and if premiums are increased, they should be increased for everybody and not just people with a penis.

Secondly, i dont believe im building a straw man. Statistics show that Irish people on average consume more alcohol so its a relevant question to ask. So just to confirm If employers here decided that they want to only hire foreign workers and no irish given the statistics related to alcohol consumption, you would be happy if we got rid of the minimum wage and your son or daughter was struggling to make a living cause he/she was irish?

Regarding your other point, i absolutely think ageism should not be a factor for discrimination. I even started a thread on that very topic with car insurance on boards a few days ago. I intend to research the legislation on it more and if possible lodge my own legal proceedings on the matter. I would be completely against any company refusing to hire someone on ground of ageism which is also in violation of the law.

Zebra3

Can people charge more for car insurance on the basis of race or religion?

Or just on the sex of a person? :rolleyes:

StinkyMunkey

Ive been hit 3 times by woman drivers. The one on the phone going through a red light doesnt count, she didn hit me.

And ive been hit 4 times by male drivers. Im thinking bad driving is not exclusive to one particular sex.

Mind you, the 18 to 25 bracket in males tend to think the are bullet proof.

I concur that womans insuance should be lower, my wife is a better driver than me (not to say im a lunatic, but i trust her more than i do myself).

lightspeed

DrumSteve wrote: »

More than the minimum wage.

Again, if you have a point to make to them go right ahead. You said you were going to start a row, there is no need for that. The joe soaps you get through to dont decide policy, neither do the managers who will take your complaint once its escalated. Being in CS you should know that.

Also, drug dealers? You could have picked a better example than that.

Anyway Im done with this thread.

As I said earlier i dont discriminate against which laws should be broken and which laws should not be broken. A company violating EU law and discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation and a company dealing drugs are both breaking the law. In that regard, i feel its a fair example to use.

Well there wont be a row if they apologise for breaking the law and for not updating their website to show that they are no longer breaking the law.

StinkyMunkey

lightspeed wrote: »

As I said earlier i dont discriminate against which laws should be broken and which laws should not be broken. A company violating EU law and discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation and a company dealing drugs are both breaking the law. In that regard, i feel its a fair example to use.

Well there wont be a row if they apologise for breaking the law and for not updating their website to show that they are no longer breaking the law.

So women should be penalised because its a fact that male drivers are more likely to be in an accident.....! Is your life so boring that an exclusive female insurer bugs you that much - your taking the piss, please tell me your taking the piss.

Sandwlch

UCDVet wrote: »

It's not racist to say that 78% of the NBA is black.

Well it is just a little racist:
- they are people, not just a sport
- African-American is their preferred term in the USA

"It's not racist to say that 78% of NBA players are African American" would have been preferable.

blacklilly

The OP has a point, if indeed this insurance company is breaking the law then of course they should be reprimanded for it, I'd be fairly certain though that they are well aware of the legislation and have procedures in places to comply with it.
Btw I don't agree with the legislation what so ever, the very basis of insurance is calculated risk, if one gender is more likely to crash then the risk should reflect that.

teR_

All im going to say is the new system is the dogs willy. Gives every individual a fair chance to prove there driving.

Time to go mobile

UCDVet wrote: »

It's sexist to say, 'Women are worse drivers because girls suck at driving'.
It's not sexist to say, 'We collected data over the last 12 months and, as it turns out, there is a statistically significant difference between women and men - we should reflect that in our rates'.

It's racist to say, 'Black people are only good at basketball'
It's not racist to say that 78% of the NBA is black.

It's not racist if it is true. Then it's just the truth.

Racism is discrimination based on race. Saying 78% of NBA players are black is racism even if its true. You are discrimating based on race.

Time to go mobile

blacklilly wrote: »

The OP has a point, if indeed this insurance company is breaking the law then of course they should be reprimanded for it, I'd be fairly certain though that they are well aware of the legislation and have procedures in places to comply with it.
Btw I don't agree with the legislation what so ever, the very basis of insurance is calculated risk, if one gender is more likely to crash then the risk should reflect that.

Would you agree with race, religion and nationality being used as a risk measure?

Cabaal

UCDVet wrote: »

It's not sexism if it's true.
It's not racism if it's true.
It's not nationalism if it's true.

It's not wrong to judge groups of people by the collective actions of their group.

It's wrong to assume all women have long hair.
It's stupid to pretend that women don't have longer hair, on average, than men.

Women are safer drivers. I don't care what retard-logic we've built our legal system on, they should pay less for car insurance.

Car insurance isn't a 'personal' thing. You provide very little information and they calculate a risk, using the same formula for everyone. You aren't personally evaluated on your driving habits and maturity. Insurance is all about averages applied to groups. It's silly not to let the rates reflect reality.

:rolleyes:

Cool,

Right well I'm going to apply your logic to a race.

In America the majority of people in prison are black males, as such blacks are involved in crime more. This means they are more of a risk!

So lets apply this to insurance, house, life and motor insurance for ALL black people should be higher.

Why? because they are more of a risk, risky when it comes to being involved in a crime, risk in being perhaps killed/injured in prison, sure they can't be trusted at all doing any sort of job based on the idea of applying something to them across the board regardless of if they've done something or not.

Seems fair, or seems racist?

Seems racist to me.

Just like blanket applying a risk to a male is sexist, its sexist to assume that ALL male's are a higher risk.

ash23

Cabaal wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Cool,

Right well I'm going to apply your logic to a race.

In America the majority of people in prison are black males, as such blacks are involved in crime more. This means they are more of a risk!

So lets apply this to insurance, house, life and motor insurance for ALL black people should be higher.

Why? because they are more of a risk, risky when it comes to being involved in a crime, risk in being perhaps killed/injured in prison, sure they can't be trusted at all doing any sort of job based on the idea of applying something to them across the board regardless of if they've done something or not.

Seems fair, or seems racist?

Seems racist to me.

Just like blanket applying a risk to a male is sexist, its sexist to assume that ALL male's are a higher risk.

Black males don't rob their own houses so why would their house insurance be higher? However, a person who lives in a high crime area will pay more for their house insurance than someone in a low crime area.

I think men and women have similar rates of accidents in terms of frequency. However, the amounts paid tended to be higher for males. Speed, third party injury costs etc do more damage and cost more than reversing into the pillar for example.

Road safety ads are still targeted at young males in the majority. So get onto the rsa for sexism if you like.

Cabaal

ash23 wrote: »

Black males don't rob their own houses so why would their house insurance be higher?

Higher chance the Police will raid their home and in the process of it cause damage to the property like the front door

Ok forget house insurance, but higher chance of getting killed in prison and higher chance of car being involved in an accident as it races away from a crime

still racist to assume all blacks are potential criminals

shruikan2553

More men tend to be CEOs and other higher up jobs so I can use this to say men work better than women so should be paid more, It's only sexist if it favours men.

ash23

still racist to assume all blacks are potential criminals

Of course it's racist to assume that. It is NOT racist though to say that young black males are more at risk of turning to.crime.

It might seem like a subtle wording difference but the difference is pretty.significant.

As a single mother for example, my child is more likely to grow up in poverty, become a single mother and all the other stuff. But that doesn't offend me. It's true.
However if someone assumed she was poor and a teen parent just based on her childhood, I would be offended.

lightspeed

lightspeed wrote: »

"Our car insurance prices reflect that women are of course safer drivers!".

http://www.its4women.ie/

Does anybody else think that if it the argument was the other way round and women had been forced to pay higher premiums that this would be a bigger deal at least in the media?
.

Women have been paying higher premiums for annuities for a long time. Women pay more for health insurance in a lot of places
Nobody cares.

Cliona99

shruikan2553 wrote: »

More men tend to be CEOs and other higher up jobs so I can use this to say men work better than women so should be paid more, It's only sexist if it favours men.

Men in general are paid more. And yes, it's sexist. But if women were always paid more than men, that'd be sexist too.

juan.kerr

This is a good example of double standards around gender equality. Women demand access to an all male golf club but don't see an issue with a female only gym.

juan.kerr

ash23 wrote: »

Black males don't rob their own houses...

:D:D

jubella

What I don't get is people saying "I'm a safe driver too, why should I pay more than women" -what about locations? Someone in Dublin could easily say "I'm a safe driver too, why should I pay more than someone in Leitrim".

Facts are less accidents happen in Leitrim*. And facts are that women are involved in less accidents.




*Just picked Leitrim as a random example. I have no clue what the actual rates are.

Wibbs

UCDVet wrote: »

It's not a prejudice to say women are safer drivers; because it is based on factual data - not a preconceived opinion.

It might be more accurate to say women have less serious and in the case of insurance companies less expensive accidents. I read a study a while back, I'll try and dig up a link. Basically it found men and women have about the same amount of accidents. However like I said men have more expensive write offs(you're more likely to be hit by a man if you're a pedestrian and they're more likely to leave the road entirely), women have more fender benders(you're more likely to be bumped by a woman at low speed from behind and they're more likely to hit non moving objects). Women also drive fewer miles. So for miles driven women are actually more likely to have an accident, though it'll be a cheap one and with less chance of injury/loss of life. So women safer drivers? Not so much, or it's debatable, but women as far as insurance is concerned are cheaper drivers and that's the bottom line the insurance types look to. They'll pay out less on average when they insure women.

Another aspect comes into it, or used to. In the past young women were more likely to remain named drivers on parents policies than young men. They were also more likely to be named drivers on husbands policies. It has been suggested that back in the day the cheap insurance for women was a way to get more of them on their own policies. This of course is far less a consideration these days. Though in saying that I remember one situation about 15 years ago where a mate had put his girlfriend on his policy and she wrote off the car(no one hurt thankfully). His policy was loaded the next year, but after they split she was able to get cheaper insurance than he was.

Again I dunno if this would still be the case, but about the same 15 years ago, I knew this journo who wanted to find out if there was an insurance pisstake going on and she asked me to help. She rang up various insurance companies saying she wanted insurance on a middle of the road(no pun) car, that she had a provisional licence late 20's. I'd ring up the same places and ask for the same only as a bloke with a full licence, no claims etc for ten years. We were both surprised at the results. Most quotes were remarkably close in price and one I recall it was actually cheaper for her.

Cabaal

ash23 wrote: »

Of course it's racist to assume that. It is NOT racist though to say that young black males are more at risk of turning to.crime.

It might seem like a subtle wording difference but the difference is pretty.significant.

As a single mother for example, my child is more likely to grow up in poverty, become a single mother and all the other stuff. But that doesn't offend me. It's true.
However if someone assumed she was poor and a teen parent just based on her childhood, I would be offended.

Ah but the problem with insurance was they assumed a male was more at risk and priced them accordingly, this would be no different to doing the same thing with a black male.

Or with your example, it would be like every time you mention your a single parent people offer to give you money and/or food because they think you are piss poor.

Sure there may be a higher chance but that doesn't mean you are, the same goes for a male driver

Principal Skinner

Cabaal wrote: »

Ah but the problem with insurance was they assumed a male was more at risk and priced them accordingly, this would be no different to doing the same thing with a black male.

Or with your example, it would be like every time you mention your a single parent people offer to give you money and/or food because they think you are piss poor.

Sure there may be a higher chance but that doesn't mean you are, the same goes for a male driver

This is just pc gone mad. Males are more likely to crash and be involved in accidents. Full stop. End of. Why shouldn't they have to pay more?

If black men are causing most of the accidents then they should be charged higher prices. Same if its white men.

Insurers use details like your address to decide your premium so it's really just an extension of that.

I don't understand people getting up in arms about this.... It's like when airport security give special focus to Islam passengers and people say it's racist. It's not, statistically they're more likely to be terrorists so what's the point wasting time on an 80 year old irish woman?

Cabaal

Principal Skinner wrote: »

This is just pc gone mad. Males are more likely to crash and be involved in accidents. Full stop. End of. Why shouldn't they have to pay more?

Nonsense, you can't assume all males are a risk based on stats, if that was the case then

"Black Males are more likely to commit crime. Full stop. End of. Why shouldn't we be suspicious of all of them?, after all a black male is more likely to commit a crime"

Insurers use details like your address to decide your premium so it's really just an extension of that.

Prison stats don't lie, black males commit more crimes as such all black males are a higher risk and can;t be trusted. Black male working with anything worth value....are you insane? Black male working with women, that seems risky....sure they could rape or murder them after all the stats prove this!!!
:rolleyes:

You can use stats to justify any position you want, in your case you think its ok to use insurance company's to mark ALL male drivers as a a higher risk (even if they are not!), this is no different to using prison stats to assume ALL black makes are a higher crime risk and can't be trusted due to this.

I don't understand people getting up in arms about this.... It's like when airport security give special focus to Islam passengers and people say it's racist.

Or when men get paid higher wages and get better positions then women because they do a better job, yet funny that women complain about this?

The whole pay and position issues is also sexist but its not a ok sort of sexism because it affects women. On the other hand cheaper insurance benefited women so it was great and allowed to happen for ages as it went in their favor

It's not, statistically they're more likely to be terrorists so what's the point wasting time on an 80 year old irish woman?

That depends, is she catholic and is she traveling to the UK during the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's?, In which case it was perfectly normal for the English to stop and question almost every Irish citizen traveling to the UK. after all they could all be IRA bombers!

As for random security checks, well can't be too sure. After all the person is Irish!!! and we all know they are upto no good.
:rolleyes: