Male/female insurance rant

Topper Harley

A friend of mine who used to work in an insurance company told me the statistics say that women are in more crashes but men are in more expensive crashes.

However, in my experience (of driving, not crashes) most aggressive drivers tend to be men in their 30's and women in their 20's. Obviously, this is not exclusive. A lot of young male drivers I see, are driving around in the smallest engined, cheap cars they can get, (probably so that they can afford the insurance), and they tend to be careful drivers (because they can't afford a crash). This experience is based mostly around Dublin and may be different elsewhere in the country. My point being that I think crash statistics will probably change over time to reflect this.

More importantly though, I was also told that if I put a woman/women as named drivers on my insurance (as a youngish male driver), my premium would come down, the reason being, in the eyes of the insurance company, sometimes there would be women driving my car, therefore I'd be driving it less.

I only got this information after I did my last renewal, so I can't guarantee that it works but I got it from a good source.

cadaliac

astrofool wrote: »

This was brought to court a few years ago, and the case was dismissed.

However, if men drive more, and cause accidents resulting in higher payouts, then yes, they should pay more. If we stopped having these high payout accidents, premiums would fall.

This is key - and I think the main reason for the loading of policy’s in our country.
It's never going to be easy for an 18 to 25 year old male in this country, but, it wouldn't be so crippling if the payouts (personal injury) weren’t so high in the first place.
As for the discrimination, I don't know. I hate stats but that is what the Ins. company is working off to get the figures.
More men drive more miles and hence more claims against men.
Don't get me wrong, I hate the Ins. company as much as anyone else, and I have paid huge sums of money in the past too, but I certainly do NOT want risk equalization.
Why should I, I have paid my dues already. I have already been "discriminated" against by being male and now I am old enough to get a cheap policy.

Mr.David

Personally I think its fair enough.

If we men are statistically more likely to claim we pay a higher premium. Why expect women to subsidise it?

What would be interesting is if they divided it across more lines than just sex.....for instance religion or hair colour! I mean, why not? All it requires is stats to back it up! Then lets take the risky gingers to town with their premiums!!

Zubeneschamali

Mr.David wrote: »

If we men are statistically more likely to claim we pay a higher premium. Why expect women to subsidise it?

Why bother with insurance? Dangerous drivers who crash should pay the whole cost, and us safe drivers will not subsidize them at all!

Cookie_Monster

Henry Ford III wrote: »

"Community rating" doesn't apply to motor insurance.

yeah I know I was asking why it doesn't...

Eoin

Topper Harley wrote: »

A lot of young male drivers I see, are driving around in the smallest engined, cheap cars they can get, (probably so that they can afford the insurance), and they tend to be careful drivers (because they can't afford a crash).

It has become much cheaper for young males to be insured on more powerful cars and at a much younger age, so I don't know if this is as true as it used to be.

Topper Harley wrote: »

More importantly though, I was also told that if I put a woman/women as named drivers on my insurance (as a youngish male driver), my premium would come down, the reason being, in the eyes of the insurance company, sometimes there would be women driving my car, therefore I'd be driving it less.

This can often help - and conversely my wife's insurance came down because I was on her policy. This was because I had a full license and she didn't, plus a longer NCB. I just mention this to show that it's not always about the gender.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Why bother with insurance? Dangerous drivers who crash should pay the whole cost, and us safe drivers will not subsidize them at all!

I think this would just increase premiums across the board. Insurance doesn't really work if you only load people after a claim.

smash

eoin wrote: »

This can often help - and conversely my wife's insurance came down because I was on her policy. This was because I had a full license and she didn't, plus a longer NCB. I just mention this to show that it's not always about the gender.

On the other hand, a few years ago I had a full license and 2 years NCB - my other half had just got her provisional and I added her to my policy. My policy reduced for some reason... She had only passed her theory test ffs!

daveharnett

steve06 wrote: »

On the other hand, a few years ago I had a full license and 2 years NCB - my other half had just got her provisional and I added her to my policy. My policy reduced for some reason... She had only passed her theory test ffs!

The stats support the drop in price. Young guys with female named drivers make fewer/smaller claims.

I suspect the cause behind the stats is that young lads with other halves tend to calm down a bit. Either that or the OHs nag them into slowing down.

As to the original question, it's perfectly legal and perfectly fair. An insurance company quotes you a figure based on what they think you will cost them. If you don't agree, go to another insurer and see if they think differently.

daveharnett

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why bother with insurance? Dangerous drivers who crash should pay the whole cost, and us safe drivers will not subsidize them at all!

You can't take money of people when they don't have it. A bad crash where multiple people have serious injuries requiring long term care can cost astronomical amounts of money. Sure, you could garnish the offenders wages for the rest of his life, but not if he's dead.

Zubeneschamali

So you're saying that the point of insurance is to spread the risk between risky drivers and less risky ones?

oldyouth

Twin-go wrote: »

Risk equalisation accross Male/Female in each age bracket.

E.g. Based on OP figures:

• Male €2450
• Female €1375
• Risk Equalisation = both should pay €1912.50

Why should the lady, who has been quoted a premium that reflects the claims record of her sector, pay for a different band of drivers with higher claims costs?

There is risk equalisation in insurance already. Drivers are catagorised in to different risk bands and the claims from members of each band are paid by the contributors to it. That's how insurers come up with your premium

Xios

steve06 wrote: »

On the other hand, a few years ago I had a full license and 2 years NCB - my other half had just got her provisional and I added her to my policy. My policy reduced for some reason... She had only passed her theory test ffs!

THANK YOU

You just knocked 600 euro off my premium, This is a life hack if i ever saw one. It's purely beneficial for both partys, male gets lower premium and girl gets free insurance for building up no claims bonus, without even driving or owning a car.

If i'm screwing the system by doing it this way, then it'll be all the sweeter, but this reduction is obviously calculated and intentional.

Eric Cartman

Xios wrote: »

THANK YOU

You just knocked 600 euro off my premium, This is a life hack if i ever saw one. It's purely beneficial for both partys, male gets lower premium and girl gets free insurance for building up no claims bonus, without even driving or owning a car.

If i'm screwing the system by doing it this way, then it'll be all the sweeter, but this reduction is obviously calculated and intentional.

once you dont let her drive your car its grand, I would preffer some kind of system of paying a hefty premium for both sexes for first time drivers and then instead of no claims bonus by year do it by miles driven , (in the case of named drivers it would be split 70/30 to the primary driver - which would lower the amount of 'im a named driver but im the only one who drives the car' cases ), it would also leave men paying lower insurance premiums as by the time the average woman has accumulated 10,000 miles of claims free driving, a man would have accumulated 30 or 40,000

baalthor

Twin-go wrote: »

Risk equalisation accross Male/Female in each age bracket.

E.g. Based on OP figures:

• Male €2450
• Female €1375
• Risk Equalisation = both should pay €1912.50

I think it would be a bit more complicated than just splitting the difference ...

daveharnett

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you're saying that the point of insurance is to spread the risk between risky drivers and less risky ones?

More like spreading the risk between risky drivers who end up maiming people, and risky drivers who don't.

smash

daveharnett wrote: »

I suspect the cause behind the stats is that young lads with other halves tend to calm down a bit. Either that or the OHs nag them into slowing down.

Then it should work both ways but it doesn't, because when I'm on her policy it jumps up €200

Zubeneschamali

daveharnett wrote: »

More like spreading the risk between risky drivers who end up maiming people, and risky drivers who don't.

Why should the risky drivers who don't have accidents subsidize the insurance of those who do?

smash

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why should the risky drivers who don't have accidents subsidize the insurance of those who do?

Anyone can have an accident... Everyone is risky!

Zubeneschamali

steve06 wrote: »

Anyone can have an accident... Everyone is risky!

So everyone should pay the same?

daveharnett

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why should the risky drivers who don't have accidents subsidize the insurance of those who do?

Ask john rawls. Nobody knows which driver will have the accident until it happens, at which point it is too late to collect. So everybody pays in advance based on the chances of them being the one to have the accident.

steve06 wrote: »

Anyone can have an accident... Everyone is risky!

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So everyone should pay the same?

Some people are more risky than others. As are some identifiable groups of people.

Zubeneschamali

I would bet real money that if insurance companies were allowed to check, that black drivers are a worse risk in Ireland than white drivers.

I'm not saying that they are worse because they are black, simply that a percentage of black drivers in Ireland are recent immigrants, unused to driving on the left, many only learning to drive, often in old, cheap, badly maintained cars.

Does anyone think insurance companies should be allowed to ask, and then discriminate if they can produce data establishing this?

So race is out, but age and sex are ok? No, it's discrimination, it's unjust and it should be illegal.

Cookie_Monster

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So race is out, but age and sex are ok? No, it's discrimination, it's unjust and it should be illegal.

They do ask what country you live / lived in so I assume this is to help ID people who come from countries who drive on the wrong side and adjust accordingly.

Zubeneschamali

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

They do ask what country you live / lived in so I assume this is to help ID people who come from countries who drive on the wrong side and adjust accordingly.

Are they allowed ask about race and load accordingly?

Max Power1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I would bet real money that if insurance companies were allowed to check, that black drivers are a worse risk in Ireland than white drivers.

I'm not saying that they are worse because they are black, simply that a percentage of black drivers in Ireland are recent immigrants, unused to driving on the left, many only learning to drive, often in old, cheap, badly maintained cars.

Does anyone think insurance companies should be allowed to ask, and then discriminate if they can produce data establishing this?

So race is out, but age and sex are ok? No, it's discrimination, it's unjust and it should be illegal.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Are they allowed ask about race and load accordingly?

I agree totally, and made this point on thread a few pages back. People just dont seem to get how ageism(and also sexism for that matter) is one of the last accepted forms of disrimination in this country.

If you're insurance increases by €700 because you are black/gay/fat etc there would be uproar. But if its loaded because you are male/under 25 its acceptable!

Cookie_Monster

Max Power1 wrote: »

If you're insurance increases by €700 because you are black/gay/fat etc there would be uproar. But if its loaded because you are male/under 25 its acceptable!

but statistics bear out that young people are inherently more risky than older ones and that men are inherently more risky than women. Are there any that proves that Asians are inherently riskier than Arabs or Whites etc...

Max Power1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but statistics bear out that young people are inherently more risky than older ones and that men are inherently more risky than women. Are there any that proves that Asians are inherently riskier than Arabs or Whites etc...

I can imiagine (without stats to back it up) that the previous poster's statement that blacks are more risky to insure is true. I would like to see it looked at. Of course it wont, because to single out a group of people (who arent young white males of course) is discrimination!

hobochris

Topper Harley wrote: »

A friend of mine who used to work in an insurance company told me the statistics say that women are in more crashes but men are in more expensive crashes.

However, in my experience (of driving, not crashes) most aggressive drivers tend to be men in their 30's and women in their 20's. Obviously, this is not exclusive. A lot of young male drivers I see, are driving around in the smallest engined, cheap cars they can get, (probably so that they can afford the insurance), and they tend to be careful drivers (because they can't afford a crash). This experience is based mostly around Dublin and may be different elsewhere in the country. My point being that I think crash statistics will probably change over time to reflect this.

More importantly though, I was also told that if I put a woman/women as named drivers on my insurance (as a youngish male driver), my premium would come down, the reason being, in the eyes of the insurance company, sometimes there would be women driving my car, therefore I'd be driving it less.

I only got this information after I did my last renewal, so I can't guarantee that it works but I got it from a good source.

Yup Women Crash more but when we(Men) crash we do a proper job of it.

Colonel Sanders

Discrimination is allowed in insurance if there is a statistical basis for it. When it comes to sex combined with age as a rating factor then, trust me, there is a statistical justification. It's also not just about number of accidents but also average severity

Colonel Sanders

And unfortunately to get credible statistics insurers group risks into broad, homogenius groups. Their stats may say that's males of a certain age are more risky. Within this cohort there will be above average drivers & below average drivers. Unfortunately all will pay an 'average' as there is no way of proving when a policy is taken out how 'good' or 'bad' the proposer is. The only proxies that can be used are licence age, experience and no claims

adamski8

What insurance like in other countries?
I know in austrailia you dont have to get insurance in the first place.
In croatia everybody pays the same (if comparing same model car and full license) no matter if your 18 or 80 years old, male or female.
Premiums get cheaper with no claims bonuses! This seems like the perfect system to me! Base it on people's ability/experience to drive and not claim (leaving out wheather they have crashed or not) and not on discrimination which is all the irish system is!

I can't believe people (male or female) on here think the system here is fair!
I drive with full license 3 years no claims €1000 renewal.
Younger sister on provisional and more expensice bigger engined car gets €500 quote. That is just ridiculus.

Max Power1

adamski8 wrote: »

What insurance like in other countries?
I know in austrailia you dont have to get insurance in the first place.
In croatia everybody pays the same (if comparing same model car and full license) no matter if your 18 or 80 years old, male or female.
Premiums get cheaper with no claims bonuses! This seems like the perfect system to me! Base it on people's ability/experience to drive and not claim (leaving out wheather they have crashed or not) and not on discrimination which is all the irish system is!

I can't believe people (male or female) on here think the system here is fair!
I drive with full license 3 years no claims €1000 renewal.
Younger sister on provisional and more expensice bigger engined car gets €500 quote. That is just ridiculus.

I like the sound of that croatian system! We should adapt that model here.

There is risk equalisation in health insurance, why not motor insurance?

CoDy1

Max Power1 wrote: »

I can imiagine (without stats to back it up) that the previous poster's statement that blacks are more risky to insure is true. I would like to see it looked at. Of course it wont, because to single out a group of people (who arent young white males of course) is discrimination!

Your rant about 'blacks' is irrelevant im afraid. Its quiet simple. The policy will be loaded on the licence.

If your licence is from outside the EU, Nigeria or Pakistan etc, you insurance premium will be loaded, many wont even quote.

If you have an Irish Licence, it doesn't matter where your from because you have gone through the same system as you or me.

kasper

it will all balance out statically women live longer than men and the man is more likely to be a fatality in a road traffic accident so women will be paying insurance for longer , so at the end of the day women will be spending more on insurance

Max Power1

CoDy1 wrote: »

Your rant about 'blacks' is irrelevant im afraid. Its quiet simple. The policy will be loaded on the licence.

If your licence is from outside the EU, Nigeria or Pakistan etc, you insurance premium will be loaded, many wont even quote.

If you have an Irish Licence, it doesn't matter where your from because you have gone through the same system as you or me.

First of all, it was not "a rant about blacks", as you stated. I was merely highlighting how one group can be discriminated against whereas another cant. THAT is "quiet" simple.

CoDy1

Max Power1 wrote: »

First of all, it was not "a rant about blacks", as you stated. I was merely highlighting how one group can be discriminated against whereas another cant. THAT is "quiet" simple.

And I just told you why.

Cookie_Monster

Max Power1 wrote: »

I like the sound of that croatian system! We should adapt that model here.

except your insurance may end up higher for longer as you get older.

Max Power1 wrote: »

There is risk equalisation in health insurance, why not motor insurance?

I already asked that without getting an answer from anyone too...

Max Power1

CoDy1 wrote: »

And I just told you why.

Wow, how helpful and explanatory!

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

except your insurance may end up higher for longer as you get older.

I already asked that without getting an answer from anyone too...

Yes but it goes down relative to your NCB and experience yes? So the only people who would be disadvataged would be older people with no driving experience.

Eoin

I would say that affordable health insurance for all is so much more important than motor insurance that it's not even worth comparing. Even then, it's a contentious issue.

Cookie_Monster

eoin wrote: »

I would say that affordable health insurance for all is so much more important than motor insurance that it's not even worth comparing. Even then, it's a contentious issue.

all community rating does in increase the cost to all but a select few to cover the horrendously useless company that is VHI, its nothing to do with affordability for all :mad:

Considering the state provides roads, training, testing, monitoring, enforcement, maintenance for our motorists why don't they insure them too. Bound to be fairer way then how the private companies try to justify it.

Zubeneschamali

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Are there any that proves that Asians are inherently riskier than Arabs or Whites etc...

No, because it is illegal to collect data like that.

If the data were collected and showed that Arabs are riskier, you'd be OK with a racist insurance regime?

Max Power1

eoin wrote: »

I would say that affordable health insurance for all is so much more important than motor insurance that it's not even worth comparing. Even then, it's a contentious issue.

Not really a valid point tbh. Health insurance (setting a precedent within insurance industry) allows risk equalisation. Younger people are made to subsidse the cost of insurance for the more risky to insure older people.
However when the situation is reversed, a lá motor insurance, young people are ripped off. Hardly fair

Max Power1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, because it is illegal to collect data like that.

If the data were collected and showed that Arabs are riskier, you'd be OK with a racist insurance regime?

Thus showing my point that some groups are ok to discriminate against.

When the group is "asian" or "black" its not ok but when the group are "male" and/or "young" its ok?

Cookie_Monster

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the data were collected and showed that Arabs are riskier, you'd be OK with a racist insurance regime?

yep, I'd have no problem with that. (apart from the fact that'd it would show the Irish up as very bad:D).

i'm sure all the minorities would get uppity though. Thats why its easier with sex and age, there no real majorities as such, pretty evenly split.

Eoin

Max Power1 wrote: »

Not really a valid point tbh. Health insurance (setting a precedent within insurance industry) allows risk equalisation. Younger people are made to subsidse the cost of insurance for the more risky to insure older people.
However when the situation is reversed, a lá motor insurance, young people are ripped off. Hardly fair

I just don't consider health and motor insurance to be comparable. Young people pay less for life assurance though.

Max Power1

eoin wrote: »

I just don't consider health and motor insurance to be comparable. Young people pay less for life assurance though.

health insurance & motor insurance

I just dont see how they arent comparable. Same industry, similar product etc. The only way in which they are different is that one (motor) is compulsory whereas health insurance is optional. The product is the same.

Eoin

Yes, I'm aware that the same word is used in both products, thanks for pointing that out though. If you think that affordable motor insurance is as important to society as health insurance, then fair enough. But I don't.

Max Power1

eoin wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware that the same word is used in both products, thanks for pointing that out though. If you think that affordable motor insurance is as important to society as health insurance, then fair enough. But I don't.

Obviously that wasnt what I meant.

The importance to society is, for the large part irrelevant to the discussion which was about discrimination in the pricing - refer to my previous post - acceptable in one insurance product but not another.

Vertakill

Max Power1 wrote: »

Not really a valid point tbh. Health insurance (setting a precedent within insurance industry) allows risk equalisation. Younger people are made to subsidse the cost of insurance for the more risky to insure older people.
However when the situation is reversed, a lá motor insurance, young people are ripped off. Hardly fair

I've got to agree with that. It's a good point.

Old people are risky business for health insurance companies, but I doubt they're paying 5 times as much per year as a young male is.

However, an old person's motor insurance is nearly guaranteed to be 4-5 times cheaper than a young males, despite the fact that old people are pretty dangerous themselves.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yep, I'd have no problem with that. (apart from the fact that'd it would show the Irish up as very bad:D).

i'm sure all the minorities would get uppity though. Thats why its easier with sex and age, there no real majorities as such, pretty evenly split.

Another good point.

Rule of thumb is... it's perfectly fine to discriminate against a demographic, provided they're not a minority.

Cookie_Monster

eoin wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware that the same word is used in both products, thanks for pointing that out though. If you think that affordable motor insurance is as important to society as health insurance, then fair enough. But I don't.

A properly funded and run health system would mostly make health insurance redudant though, espially with all that PRSI we supposidly pay towards it.

the same theory could I suppose be applied to motor insurance, make it part of the motor tax you pay or something based on car, milage, experience and claims etc.

cml387

The ownership and driving of a car is a privilege,not a right.

You have the choice not to drive a car,and will save yourself the costs.

(And yes I know about having to have a car in rural areas, or get to work etc. but that the country we have chosen to create for ourselves for better or worse and is another argument).
The comparison with health insurance is tempting but wrong.Older people cannot change their tendency to require health care (excepting lifestyle choice like smoking or drinking).