Male/female insurance rant

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).

daveharnett

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Are they allowed ask about race and load accordingly?

They are allowed to (and do) ask about nationality, and discriminate based on it. They can also discriminate based on other 'taboos' like marital status.

I'd be interested to see if other countries allow health insurers to discriminate based on ethnicity or sexuality. I doubt either would have a real effect on driver risk, but they do have provable effects on health risks - for example africans have a significantly higher risk of high blood pressure than caucasians. It's a moot point here because of risk equalization in the health insurance market.

zielarz

Xios, as long as insurance is compulsory you can't do anything about it. You're being forced to drive with a insurance which is ridiculous. You can drive for your whole live without accident but still you have to pay the extortion to the insurance company ...

daveharnett

zielarz wrote: »

You're being forced to drive

Nope.

zielarz wrote: »

You can drive for your whole live without accident but still you have to pay the extortion to the insurance company ...

Look at it from the other side. What would you say to somebody who was put in a wheelchair, (and required expensive ongoing care for the rest of his life), by an uninsured driver with a fiver to his name? Tough luck?

Zubeneschamali

daveharnett wrote: »

What would you say to somebody who was put in a wheelchair, (and required expensive ongoing care for the rest of his life), by an uninsured driver with a fiver to his name?

What I'd like to say is that there are no uninsured drivers, because 3rd party is covered by a fuel tax, as it is in Australia.

Our current system of unjustly discriminating against young men motivates more than a few to drive without insurance and then guess what? The rest of us safe drivers pay their costs anyhow when they have an accident, through a levy on everyone elses insurance!

In other words, law abiding young men must pay more for insurance, even though they may be more law-abiding and a lower risk than I am, while dangerous scumbags don't pay at all, and then you and I pay their costs for them!

It's idiotic as well as unjust.

opinion guy

OK my take on this is thus:

IF you take any random driver there will be a number of factors going in to the likelihood of them having a crash. Age may be one, sex may be one. But IMHO the most important factor is probably years of safe driving experience*. (And note here that generally guys start driving a few years earlier than girls for some reason). Therefore, if you wanted to work out fair stats, then you should base it primarily on years experience, than account for age, sex etc as secondary factors.

* and bear in mind pehaps your first year driving is very safe, then maybe you get a bit wreckless for a while until a near miss or two calms you down and you start driving safer (otherwise known as gaining experience). Point being your risk doesn't necessarily decrease linearly each year.


Insurance companies do not do this. IMHO the fudge their stats by not putting this as a primary factor. Years experience is worked in as no claims bonus. This is not the most statistically accurate way to do things. In short, by doing all this it allows then to extort money from particular groups as they feel like it. You will recall 5 -10 years ago they started to say young women drivers were getting riskier and jacked up their prices for a while. They're method of doing the stas allows them to do stuff like this. IMHO the insurance industry is immoral and should be just nationalised.


Incidentally - a few years back i tried to find stats on all this and could not. Does anyone know if insurance company stats are published at all?

Xios

opinion guy wrote: »

Incidentally - a few years back i tried to find stats on all this and could not. Does anyone know if insurance company stats are published at all?

This was one of my questions, if they could prove the stats then they would disepate a lot of the anger people have towards them.

As for the no claims bonus, it's pretty much a sham. I've 3 years no claims bonus riding a motorcycle. I say that learning to ride a motorcycle on Irish is probably the best way for anyone to become a safe road user.(as all dangers are amplified ten fold, so you gotta be safe or you get hurt, badly) But when trying to apply that experience to cars, it doesn't exist in the eyes of insurance companies. If only joint car/motorcycle policies existed in this nation. The more i learn, the more i wanna emigrate.

adamshred

Max Power1 wrote: »

pedant :rolleyes:

You get my point- its blatant ageism and if it was another group being victimised there would be uproar.

I agree in the sense that it is frustrating that it has become acceptable to discriminate against younger drivers where as if statistics showed for example that Muslims or black people are more likely to be involved in a crash than any one else, any increase in their premiums would result in havoc.

With that said, it's probably for the better that certain younger drivers are discouraged from buying high powered cars with these high premiums as it is inevitably risky for the general public to have certain people who may be inexperienced drivers in these types of cars. BUT it's a double edged sword as everyone is then hit with higher premiums and so on and so on.

Xios

adamshred wrote: »

With that said, it's probably for the better that certain younger drivers are discouraged from buying high powered cars...

I disagree, I'd much prefer to see all the ****ty fiat punto's, nissan micra's and the like off these roads. I think that those bare minimum vehicles are partly responsible for road accidents and especially injuries from the near zero protection they offer. I'd much prefer to see all road cars being of a minimum standard, that much higher than of the joke that's the nct.
Cars should have powerful brakes and wide tires to support them, they also gotta be stable at motorway speeds, i drive a hyundai accent '99 and at 100km + it's quite unstable, and it's in great nick, luckily i'm getting a mondeo next week, so if i do have a crash, i know i'm absolutely rogered.

For an island so small and with such a small population, there's no reason we shouldn't set our standards much higher than we have now. I'm not 100% sure, but is it true in japan that cars are not road worthy after a certain age or mileage? I think a blanket ban on all old cars (with few exceptions) should be enforced, much like this new ban on 10 year old taxi's.

Vertakill

Xios wrote: »

As for the no claims bonus, it's pretty much a sham. I've 3 years no claims bonus riding a motorcycle. I say that learning to ride a motorcycle on Irish is probably the best way for anyone to become a safe road user.(as all dangers are amplified ten fold, so you gotta be safe or you get hurt, badly) But when trying to apply that experience to cars, it doesn't exist in the eyes of insurance companies. If only joint car/motorcycle policies existed in this nation. The more i learn, the more i wanna emigrate.

That's insane. I'd understand if you were the other way around but c'mon... being claim free on a bike is an awful lot more difficult than in a car.

I wonder would they change their mind with a bit of persistence?

Xios

Vertakill wrote: »

being claim free on a bike is an awful lot more difficult than in a car.

That's my point, it's pretty strong evidence that you're a safe driver, but it's completely ignored. I should take this over to the biker forum.

Esel

Female drivers are involved in less accidents, although they cause more.

Haven't bothered to read thread, btw.

MagicSean

My brother was once told by Quinn that he was statistically guaranteed to crash his car. He's never been in an accident and is a trained garda driver.

daveharnett

opinion guy wrote: »

Incidentally - a few years back i tried to find stats on all this and could not. Does anyone know if insurance company stats are published at all?

Commercially sensitive information I presume. Especially if the stats didn't support elements of their pricing structures, and in fact showed that they were overcharging some groups

k_mac wrote: »

My brother was once told by Quinn that he was statistically guaranteed to crash his car. He's never been in an accident and is a trained garda driver.

I'm sure they'll be around to cut his brake lines sooner or later

micdug

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!

Then its not insurance. You presume the dangerous driver has the 200k + to pay out all the damages of a serious accident.

Get real guys, you males far far are more likely to create a serious accident. Personally I think all drivers up to 25 should be in speed restricted cars with GPS to determine law breaking.

MagicSean

micdug wrote: »

Then its not insurance. You presume the dangerous driver has the 200k + to pay out all the damages of a serious accident.

Get real guys, you males far far are more likely to create a serious accident. Personally I think all drivers up to 25 should be in speed restricted cars with GPS to determine law breaking.

Actually I have attended a large number of accidents and this isn't true.

Xios

micdug wrote: »

Personally I think all drivers up to 25 should be in speed restricted cars with GPS to determine law breaking.

This could be a way forward, even without the GPS. Car Restrictions all the way, or drastically improve the road conditions (which i never see happening in this country, ever)

JustLen

"I wonder what would they do if the statistics showed that (for example) black people were involved in the most accidents. Would they give white people the cheap insurance while piling on the cost of the premium for a black person? I think not."

Not to make an issue over the race thing but thats a fair point.
also, the girlfriend starting out driving Im two years older, 2 years no claims and our premiums would be the same nearly on same engined car. How can an insurace company make a case that i pose more of a threat on the road then someone with no experience whatsoever (on a provisional would you mind)

Its taking the Michael.
Now for ya!

Eric Cartman

Xios wrote: »

This could be a way forward, even without the GPS. Car Restrictions all the way, or drastically improve the road conditions (which i never see happening in this country, ever)

ban boxy starlets, limit power to weight ratio , start basing insurance on power to weight ratio (id trust a 17 year old far more in a 728 beamer than a golf GTi, let new drivers drive decent cars with 2 litre engines from factory instead of a 1.4 tuned up to 200bhp but the brakes still designed to stop a 1.4) , do a 6 penalty point and you get a driving ban for provisional licence holders, strictly enforce provisional licence holders being on their own, Add motorway driving to the end of the driving test (if youve passed the rest successfully then motorway driving is tested) , start learning to drive in schools, possibly make it a leaving cert subject like lcvp where you get 50 points or something for passing

then you should have safer motoring among young people

challengemaster

Xios wrote: »

I disagree, I'd much prefer to see all the ****ty fiat punto's, nissan micra's and the like off these roads. I think that those bare minimum vehicles are partly responsible for road accidents and especially injuries from the near zero protection they offer. I'd much prefer to see all road cars being of a minimum standard, that much higher than of the joke that's the nct.

Bit of sense there alright. I'd say in a high speed crash they offer as much safety as being inside a tin can. Most drivers are forced to drive them though as getting anything decent causes the insurance cost to be 2-3 times the cost of the car.

Cars should have powerful brakes and wide tires to support them, they also gotta be stable at motorway speeds, i drive a hyundai accent '99 and at 100km + it's quite unstable, and it's in great nick, luckily i'm getting a mondeo next week, so if i do have a crash, i know i'm absolutely rogered.

well, there's no reason to throw 12" wide wheels on something like a micra, aswell as brembo brakes. It's not cost effective or necessary really. Cars should be stable at speeds up to 140kmph though at the least, to allow for driving in other countries.

For an island so small and with such a small population, there's no reason we shouldn't set our standards much higher than we have now. I'm not 100% sure, but is it true in japan that cars are not road worthy after a certain age or mileage? I think a blanket ban on all old cars (with few exceptions) should be enforced, much like this new ban on 10 year old taxi's.

Don't agree with this at all. There's no reason to get rid of old classic cars, most of which are in better condition than Mary's micra down the road that just passed the nct. Also, if you were to take every car off the road after 10 years, you'd be getting rid of every pre-00 car this year. Why would you scrap possibly hundreds of skylines(r32, r33, r34), supras, celicas, Type R's, Lancers/EVO's, etc etc. Most of which would be in great condition.. Complete nonsense. And how exactly do you expect everyone to be able to afford a new car every 10 years? Some people can barely afford shopping for a week. And incase you haven't noticed, cars in Ireland tend to be 3-4 times as much as they are in other countries.

Xios wrote: »

This could be a way forward, even without the GPS. Car Restrictions all the way, or drastically improve the road conditions (which i never see happening in this country, ever)

Well, you wanted cars capable of motorway speeds without problems, which would solve some problems, yet now you want to limit them? One contradicts another. Also, stick a GPS in them? FFS, nanny state enough? I'd like to be able to go to the shops without the government knowing I moved my car.

Being allowed to drive more powerful cars from standard would decrease a lot of risk tbh. I've driven a few 2L rwd cars, and I'm more inclined to take it handy in those than I would have driving a punto or whatever.

Eric cartman above has said it fairly well tbh .I'd agree with it all, Apart from saying that limiting power/weight up to a certain number of NCB.

CosmicJay

Being a 17 year old who just passed his test I though I might chip in.

Your never going to change the mind of a young male driver.

No matter how much crap Gay Byrne talks.

Starting education earlier and having a much more comprehensive driving test is where to start. Also get rid of the crippling insurance premiums. Getting your own policy as a 17 year old on a provisional is crippling. Even with a full license they still want insane money for a fairly pedantic diesel.

My first car was a such a shed the exhaust fell off of it. It didn't have airbags or even abs.(Note: Insuring a 17 year old on a car with abs is insanity) That was because the insurance was 3 times what it cost. If the insurance was less and I got a good car. I would be such a more careful driver.

Not for my own safety purely for the fact I wouldn't want to stuff it into a wall. No matter how much speed or safety campaigning you do you still can't put an old head on young shoulders.