Young women drivers facing a £1,000 rise in car insurance
13 February 2011, 10:40 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I clearly said it's based on statistical risk and statistically young female drivers are far less likely to have an accident than young male drivers. It would only be sexist if the accident statistics were the same and yet the insurance companies still charged less for young women. The latter is sexism the former is not.
Or to put it another way do you think a stunt man should pay the same for life insurance as an accountant? It's the same thing!
Or to put it another way do you think a stunt man should pay the same for life insurance as an accountant? It's the same thing!
Women are statistically weaker but you can't exclude women from applying for jobs where manual labor is involved.
You get the idea?
13 February 2011, 10:42 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a new driver is being assessed for his or her first year's insurance, then statistics is the ONLY thing insurance has to go on. I don't think legislation should interfere with that. What I would like to see is a very speedy reward in terms of NCD after the first year of incident-free driving, so that careful drivers of either sex rapidly end up on an even footing with regards to the insurance they have to pay.
13 February 2011, 10:44 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I don't as you are not making sense. It is obviously NOT prejudice if it is based on statistical evidence! Your other analogy is flawed as a woman can drive a car just as well as a man, in fact in the case of younger women over younger men better obviously.
Last edited by f1_fan; 13 February 2011 at 10:45 PM.
13 February 2011, 10:44 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a new driver is being assessed for his or her first year's insurance, then statistics is the ONLY thing insurance has to go on. I don't think legislation should interfere with that. What I would like to see is a very speedy reward in terms of NCD after the first year of incident-free driving, so that careful drivers of either sex rapidly end up on an even footing with regards to the insurance they have to pay.
13 February 2011, 10:49 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you not understand that not all young male drivers are at greater risk of crash.
Put it this way are you in favor of police stop and search schemes targeting people of a particular religion because said religion is statistically associated with terrorism?!
13 February 2011, 10:58 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are quite right that one young make driver might be way less likely to have an accident than another so yes it is prejudice against the inidvidual until you factor in the fact that the insurance companies have no idea which young drivers are going to be safe and which aren't, but they do know that on balance a young female driver is way less likely to have an accident than a young male driver so they play the percentages game which effectively is what insurance is after all.
So what is your solution? Everyone pays top whack until they have a long enough driving record to be assessed on their ability?
13 February 2011, 11:01 PM
#37
Insurance is always going to discriminate, maybe if young lads drive safer over the next few years it will even out...
Stories like this are all too common, and pound to a penny its lads involved.
http://news.aol.co.uk/uk-news/story/...-field/1483077
I have it from a fairly reliable source that the lads involved were doing 121 mph and were full of Jaagerbombs, hence being involved in a massive accident that killed two of them, Young girls generally do not have such catastrophic accidents, usually lower speed and less damage, usually not fatal, they seem to have accident based on stupidity, selfishness, cluelessness and inexperience rather than utter, wilful idiotic behaviour, girls want to get where they are going, they perhaps show off the car but as a fashion accessory, not as how it makes them more sexually potent, they dont feel then need to prove how fast it is.*
*Scoobynet Wimmins notwithstanding, they are the exceptions to the rule, slight Geyserbird tendencies, like those that know a freakish amount about football and are not using it as a way to get a bloke/footballer, those who actually like Cars and Football.
Stories like this are all too common, and pound to a penny its lads involved.
http://news.aol.co.uk/uk-news/story/...-field/1483077
I have it from a fairly reliable source that the lads involved were doing 121 mph and were full of Jaagerbombs, hence being involved in a massive accident that killed two of them, Young girls generally do not have such catastrophic accidents, usually lower speed and less damage, usually not fatal, they seem to have accident based on stupidity, selfishness, cluelessness and inexperience rather than utter, wilful idiotic behaviour, girls want to get where they are going, they perhaps show off the car but as a fashion accessory, not as how it makes them more sexually potent, they dont feel then need to prove how fast it is.*
*Scoobynet Wimmins notwithstanding, they are the exceptions to the rule, slight Geyserbird tendencies, like those that know a freakish amount about football and are not using it as a way to get a bloke/footballer, those who actually like Cars and Football.
13 February 2011, 11:04 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Tony what say we stop the anti Muslim thing just for one thread eh? It is getting REALLY REALLY wearing and making you look a little pathetic in this case as it has ZERO to do with this thread!
13 February 2011, 11:07 PM
#41
Tony, you do tend to change your opinion based on the thread you are in, the other day you were slagging off gays then in another thread using the treatment of gays under Islam as an exmaple of a what a backwards religion Islam is.
Insurance is discriminatory, sometimes there are advantages to being one gender or another, the ladies get to have the babies and avoid having a dangly collection of objects between their legs along with cheap car insurance, we get to pee standing up, do all the heavy and dirty jobs then die earlier.
Insurance is discriminatory, sometimes there are advantages to being one gender or another, the ladies get to have the babies and avoid having a dangly collection of objects between their legs along with cheap car insurance, we get to pee standing up, do all the heavy and dirty jobs then die earlier.
13 February 2011, 11:08 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 February 2011, 11:12 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Tony, but then YOU don't have to do you. Why not answer my point above that? Nothing is lost on me, you just don't seem to understand prejudice, the irony of which is rather amusing.
13 February 2011, 11:13 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From your POV then the stop and search would be ok because it is based on valid statistics?
13 February 2011, 11:13 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good god, man! All of insurance is discriminatory based on statistical risk! You might just as well say that you can't discriminate in terms of postcode, vehicle value, nickability or vehicle performance!
13 February 2011, 11:15 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can choose your postcode but you can't choose your sex (except with painful surgery which might go wrong).
13 February 2011, 11:16 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 February 2011, 11:17 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 February 2011, 11:19 PM
#51
13 February 2011, 11:21 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But assuming you are still arguing that it is sesual discrimination let me go back to my earlier example.
If my stunt man was actually a stunt woman and my accountant was a man then even though to me it is obvious that the stunt woman should pay more for life insurance becuase she is a stunt woman and hence more likely to get killed than the accountant you would say that is sexual discrimination
13 February 2011, 11:40 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you really believe that then maybe you're just another sort of merchant .... 
Dave
13 February 2011, 11:44 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If my stunt man was actually a stunt woman and my accountant was a man then even though to me it is obvious that the stunt woman should pay more for life insurance becuase she is a stunt woman and hence more likely to get killed than the accountant you would say that is sexual discrimination
13 February 2011, 11:58 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 February 2011, 11:58 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite obvious an insurer could charge more just because of the difference in occupation and not because of gender/sex.
14 February 2011, 12:00 AM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right. You should only alter one variable at a time.
14 February 2011, 12:05 AM
#60
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFS! They are charging more because one is statistically more likely to get killed than the other in exactly the same way a young man is statistically more likely to have a car accident than a young woman. It's the same thing.... the percentages game. It is not sexism, it's fact!