And thats why you could justify not discriminating by gender but still be able to justify discriminating by age/experience, which there is a much more valid case for IMO.

Age doesn't mean better though. You get to a natural point where your reactions drop to almost zero, some of the customers in my shop are 70+ and they couldn't operate a invalid carriage safely, one lady has such slow reactions if you drop a feather it'll hit the floor before she reacts to try and catch it, but can still legally drive. They get lower premiums because they are older which must mean "safer".

Sorry, its late and I couldn't be bothered to add that I realise its not a constant upward curve, also I know people who've had relatives that have only discovered they have Alzheimer's after they crashed a car, quite worrying really.

Also with experience theres always the opportunity for bad habits and complacency to creep in. There are always those more experienced drivers who feel completely comfortable with taking vastly uneccesary risks yet still complain about this 'boy racer' stereotype at the same time.

If you buy a product in a shop, the price is the same for everyone. It's not adjusted based on how many returns one type/gender/race/age of customer might make. If you DO return the item, though, you may need to pay a restocking fee. Penalty for ACTION, not innate traits.

So too should the insurance rates be. Flat rate for all genders, ages, etc. The price of the car insured, and the quantity of accidents and cost of damage (and other factors which are under your control) for the insured are the only things that should matter.

Crash more, price goes up. Buy a Ferrari over a Honda, price goes up.

The fact that I have to pay more because I'm 21 and male and I drive an "entry level" car is ridiculous. I dare any item shop to try that. See how fast the law would be on them for bullcrap discrimination.

Well, insurance is not an item. It's a gamble (from a business stand point).

I have always beleived that companies should be allowed to charge people as they chose, but they just can't false advertise. I don't see where government should have a hand in that.

Quote from MadCat360 :

If you buy a product in a shop, the price is the same for everyone. It's not adjusted based on how many returns one type/gender/race/age of customer might make. If you DO return the item, though, you may need to pay a restocking fee. Penalty for ACTION, not innate traits.

So too should the insurance rates be. Flat rate for all genders, ages, etc. The price of the car insured, and the quantity of accidents and cost of damage (and other factors which are under your control) for the insured are the only things that should matter.

Crash more, price goes up. Buy a Ferrari over a Honda, price goes up.

The fact that I have to pay more because I'm 21 and male and I drive an "entry level" car is ridiculous. I dare any item shop to try that. See how fast the law would be on them for bullcrap discrimination.

most logical thing i have heard.

Quote from MadCat360 :

If you buy a product in a shop, the price is the same for everyone. It's not adjusted based on how many returns one type/gender/race/age of customer might make. If you DO return the item, though, you may need to pay a restocking fee. Penalty for ACTION, not innate traits.

The problem with that logic is that you're lacking understanding of how insurance actually works. The cost of insurance has, is and should be based on risk. Charging a flat rate for all policies is nonsense because it doesn't take into account the statistical probability of a claim. Let's get off the slightly sensitive areas like gender, race and age and think about other factors that do and should influence the cost of car insurance. Should a person get lower premiums if they park their car in secure, private parking in a low crime area compared to someone who parks their car on the street in a high crime area? Ignore all other variables for the moment (car, driver age/sex/race etc). Just consider the fact that one car is much less statistically likely to be stolen.

Quote from amp88 :

The problem with that logic is that you're lacking understanding of how insurance actually works. The cost of insurance has, is and should be based on risk. Charging a flat rate for all policies is nonsense because it doesn't take into account the statistical probability of a claim. Let's get off the slightly sensitive areas like gender, race and age and think about other factors that do and should influence the cost of car insurance. Should a person get lower premiums if they park their car in secure, private parking in a low crime area compared to someone who parks their car on the street in a high crime area? Ignore all other variables for the moment (car, driver age/sex/race etc). Just consider the fact that one car is much less statistically likely to be stolen.

Of course not, where I used to live (S****horpe, North Lincolnshire) crime rate was around 60%, spent most of its time on fire, cars were regularly vandalised, broken into, stolen and/or torched. Insurance was naturally high.

Where I work now, the crime rate is around 3% and where I live crime rate is around .2%, I live so far off the beaten track that I'm more likely to wake up to find a sheep has broken into my car than a person. But because I am so far off the beaten track my insurance is a touch higher than if I moved to a town up the road where it is around £100 cheaper but crime rate is around 1%.

S****horpe:

Edit, wow that's gay.

The town that was too rude for the internet.

What about others...

Penistone
Clitheroe

The problem with this is that to calculate an insurance claim to the best price has to be based on things like age, gender, crime rates etc, where the car is parked. Yes in a perfect utopian world everyone would have cheap insurance until they have a claim and then it goes up as their risk is higher but that isn't the world we live in.

The insurance companies gamble with insurance, how likely is someone to crash and how much damage are they likely to do. If you are more likely then you should pay more. Now it is unfair to new drivers as they could be the perfect driver but still get shafted for insurance but it doesn't change that they are more likely to have an accident. Insurance prices have to be based on risk and trends in statistics and because of this will always conflict with discrimination laws.

It's got nothing to do with discrimination, but it's got alot to do with insurance companies wanting yet MORE money. If they cared about equality, we would see male insurance lowered to the average female insurance, but instead they just bump up the female insurance....

..or at least lowered to an average of the two, but no, we'll see women's go up and men's stay the same, I'll bet my bollocks on it.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

..or at least lowered to an average of the two, but no, we'll see women's go up and men's stay the same, I'll bet my bollocks on it.

Yep, is this move supposed to make men feel happier? No, because it means a guy can't even get insured as a second driver to a woman and it work out cheaper anymore.

Infact the way they are going, nobody will be able to drive a private vehicle, but that's what the government want. Everybody on buses.

Unfortunately BlueFlame, you haffto ride this bus:

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

Unfortunately BlueFlame, you haffto ride this bus

Couldn't afford the insurance even on footballers salary.

Oh.. I guess I didn't realize that your parents probably told you that's what the normal school bus looks like, and the big long one was the "special" bus.

My mistake, sorry to have potentially upset your entire life balance.

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

Oh.. I guess I didn't realize that your parents probably told you that's what the normal school bus looks like, and the big long one was the "special" bus.

My mistake, sorry to have potentially upset your entire life balance.