Sexism and car insurance - Not dead yet

StinkyMunkey · 09-02-2013 05:34AM

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 · 09-02-2013 07:20AM

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 · 09-02-2013 07:31AM

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_ · 09-02-2013 09:13AM

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 · 09-02-2013 09:28AM

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 · 09-02-2013 09:34AM

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 · 09-02-2013 09:55AM

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 · 09-02-2013 10:06AM

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 · 09-02-2013 10:10AM

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 · 09-02-2013 10:15AM

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 · 09-02-2013 10:25AM

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.

09-02-2013 10:59AM

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 · 09-02-2013 11:01AM

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 · 09-02-2013 11:06AM

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 · 09-02-2013 11:09AM

ash23 wrote: »

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

:D:D

jubella · 09-02-2013 11:13AM

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 · 09-02-2013 11:32AM

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 · 09-02-2013 11:39AM

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 · 09-02-2013 11:46AM

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 · 09-02-2013 11:59AM

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:

MagicSean · 09-02-2013 12:01PM

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?

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?

If you compare the number of islam terrorists convicted in Ireland to the number of protestant/catholic terrorists convicted in Ireland I think you would find your assumption to be wrong.

lightspeed · 09-02-2013 12:28PM

Sandwlch wrote: »

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.

It would be racist if there policies prevented people of other skin colour playing within the NBA.

Adolf Hitler was not happy when a black guy won an event in the Olympics. People felt certain that white people were superior in areas such as sports and athletic abilities and given the level of racism across the world, im sure Adolf could have have presented statistics at least in Europe validating his opinion that black people are inferior when it comes to sports. So should that black guy have even been able to participate in them Olympic games?

Should white people be able to play basketball?

lightspeed · 09-02-2013 12:37PM

ash23 wrote: »

Black males don't rob their own houses.

Now you are really stereotyping. What statistical evidence do you based the above conclusion?

judgefudge · 09-02-2013 01:06PM

lightspeed wrote: »

Should white people be able to play basketball?

Can't help but think the thread has gotten a bit ridiculous.

As a woman, I don't particularly want to see my boyfriend, brother, dad or male friends pay more than me for the same service.

However, the idea that insurance premiums can be discriminatory just opens a whole can of worms. Your personal premium is calculated based on what risk categories you fall into... If you don't agree that people should be judged off these "risks" (like sex, age etc) then everyone should have the same flat rate. Including elderly and young people.

In an ideal world each person would have their individual driving skills tested and be quoted based on that. But this world is far from ideal. So yeah, I think it's pretty stupid for this legislation to come in. And that's not based on some desire to stick it to men.

aaronjumper · 09-02-2013 01:11PM

What about someone that changes gender, do their rates change?
Or do they stay the same?

lightspeed · 09-02-2013 01:44PM

Just seen that they are not the only insurance company discriminating

http://www.zurichinsurance.ie/car-insurance/ladystar.htm

http://www.libertyinsurance.ie/car-insurance/women_driver.html

http://topquote.ie/womens-car-insurance/

http://www.axa.ie/car-insurance/for-women/

I am shocked that this has not been highlighted in the media and these companies feel that they can just opt to not follow the law.

Bad Santa · 09-02-2013 01:52PM

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Was most likely the John Hopkins one, as I remember that causing a little stir at the time in the media:

Women Drivers Crash More Than Men

According to a controversial study by researchers at the John Hopkins Schools of Medicine and Public Health, women are more likely to be involved in car crashes than men - despite the fact that men are three times more likely to be killed when they do crash.

As reported in the June issue of Epidemiology, American women were involved in 5.7 crashes per million miles driven. Men, on the other hand, clocked up just 5.1 crashes per million miles. Given the fact that men drive an estimated 74 per cent more miles per year than women, the figure is surprising indeed.

"Although risk-taking behaviours may contribute to the excessive injury mortality among men and younger drivers, up to now age and sex discrepancies in death rates from motor vehicle crashes have not been well understood" says lead author Guohua Li, associate professor of emergency medicine.

Using crash statistics gathered by the Fatal Accident Reporting System, the General Estimates System and the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, the researchers developed an innovative method called "decomposition" to break down the data into new categories and weigh the relative contribution of three variables: crash fatality, incidence density (number of crashes per million miles) and exposure prevalence (annual average miles driven per driver). Until now, the death rate ratio has always been based on just two factors: fatality and accident rates.

The investigators discovered that teenage boys start recklessly, with about 20 per cent more crashes per mile driven than teenage girls. Males and females between the ages of 20 and 35 run almost identical risks. Females over the age of 35, however, are significantly more likely to crash than their male counterparts.

tritium · 09-02-2013 02:02PM

Just for kicks I looked for a quote off the site. It looks like I get the same quote whether I'm male or female (love to know if other boardsies had a different experience)

On that basis it looks like they're compliant with the law in not using gender to calculate premiums.

Looks like fairly blatant false advertising though since they imply (falsely) that they'll give a better rate to women drivers. Anyone know if this is within the remit of the ASAI?

lightspeed · 09-02-2013 02:04PM

judgefudge wrote: »

Can't help but think the thread has gotten a bit ridiculous.

As a woman, I don't particularly want to see my boyfriend, brother, dad or male friends pay more than me for the same service.

However, the idea that insurance premiums can be discriminatory just opens a whole can of worms. Your personal premium is calculated based on what risk categories you fall into... If you don't agree that people should be judged off these "risks" (like sex, age etc) then everyone should have the same flat rate. Including elderly and young people.

In an ideal world each person would have their individual driving skills tested and be quoted based on that. But this world is far from ideal. So yeah, I think it's pretty stupid for this legislation to come in. And that's not based on some desire to stick it to men.

I couldn't agree more it is ridiculous to use statistics to discriminate against people and allow for stereotyping.

I again make the argument that statistics show that irish people have a much higher alcohol consumption rate than other european nationalities so based on this factual collection of data, i again ask the question should employers be able to refuse hiring irish people?

In your argument, you are using statistical data to legitimise discriminating against a group of people. How would employers refusing to hire irish people due to the statistical data showing that irish people are more likely to have issues with alcohol dependancy be any different?

Would you support employers being able to make this argument and thus refuse hiring irish people?

Perhaps we could have such a system in place where irish people would be employed at lower wages and each year they prove that they dont have any alcohol issues they would get a pay increase until eventually they would be getting paid the same as other workers of different nationalities doing the same job.

Can you confirm that you would like to see such a system in place?

Grayson · 09-02-2013 02:13PM

I know a woman who drives an ambulance for a living. She hates women drivers. She says there are two drivers that she has noticed are more unsafe. Women drivers and old blokes.
This is of course anecdotal, but it's probably just as accurate as half the drivel posted here.

Sexism and car insurance - Not dead yet

Comments