5punk

Women's car insurance to cost same as a drunk, blindfolded monkey's
WOMEN are to pay the same for car insurance as a shit-faced monkey with a bag on its head.

Publish Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:53:38 +0100
Read more...

Source: The Daily Mash
Description: Headlines from TheDailyMash.co.uk. It's news to us

Commenting on the real story:
So a boyracer having to pay more for insurance than a middle-aged man is ageist?

I gave up on a car and insurance when I was a yoof as even shitty little cars with shitty little engines cost a fuckton on insurance and I've never even had the inclination to go anywhere at a speed ideal for killing myself and others.

Citing ageism as the reason to change the costs seems a bit of a cop out as I know loads of middle aged people who get their spanky new car after years of crappy bangers and then drive it like they stole it. And I see plenty of old people who present a hazard to other users by going so bloody slow and leaving indicators on for mile after mile.

Boy racers generally afford the insurance or just don't pay it, I would rather see harsher sentences on those who drive like dickheads and cause crashes etc than for companies to use it as an excuse to gouge everyone in that age category.

Now that I am old and can finally afford the insurance on a fast car, I fucking reserve the goddamn right to drive like a twat - I've fucking earned it.

S'all statistics. If group A is more likely to claim on the insurance than group B, naturally group A will have higher premiums - bollocks all to do with ageism or sexism.

However, interesting point for wider issues. At what point do you draw the line on putting people into groups? Does religion play a part in how a person drives? It might do, but there would be (quite rightly) uproar if insurers had higher premiums for, say, Catholics (difficult to change gear with signs of the stigmata).

It might sound ridiculous that anyone would even consider basing premiums on religion, but what about other forms of insurance? I work in "finance", and I can honestly say that the one 'sector' I hate dealing with is Asian (i.e. Indian, Pakistani) businessmen. Now this has nothing to do with racism or religion (despite how I opened this paragraph, but I'll come to that later), this is purely a cultural thing when it comes to paying for something.

Unless you have had dealings with sector then you won't understand, and I probably come across in this case as horribly bigoted. I'm not, but the business culture in India etc is much different than over here. As such, these business are generally classed as 'high risk', and financial institutions (most specifically credit insurers) will not cover them due to the issues associated.

So back to my original point (if there ever was one), would it therefore be acceptable to horse insurance companies to cover an industry sector that was rife with problems, just because someone might say "the only reason you're not covering them is because they're Asian, you massive racist"? No, things like this should be based on statistics.

I worry that I sound like I'm advocating some sort of racial profiling, which I'm not at all. It's been too long a day to put my point across coherently.

Lacist!

I would imagine indirect racial profiling is done by car insurers by virtue of area statistics, as most minority groups tend to stick together in urban enclaves then those areas are affected as a result. Even if it's hard working law abiding Indians who have a high crime rate because some scummy white chavs like stealing round those parts.

I think this deserves to go into one of our neglected debate about stuff threads.

Roman Totale wrote:I worry that I sound like I'm advocating some sort of racial profiling, which I'm not at all. It's been too long a day to put my point across coherently.

Nah, it's an anything-profiling, if the stats say that anyone with a ginger beard is a massive cupcake, or that formerly-methodist-now-baptist women with yellow cars cause less accidents, then that's what the stats say and that is all.

Insurance is a by-the-numbers thing, probability of risk, and to second-guess the stats in order to be more politically correct because perhaps the very nice Sikh youth really doesn't seem the sort to carry excessive speed through a corner in his modified Vauxhall Nova and roll it into a primary school when the stats might say he most likely is isn't political correctness, it's bad business sense.

If people in the groups who typically pay excessive levels of insurance want to pay less, they should (collectively) crash less.

FatherJack wrote: Nah, it's an anything-profiling, if the stats say that anyone with a ginger beard is a massive cupcake,..., then that's what the stats say and that is all.

That's what my stats say.

*Checks clipboard*

Yep.

Well a\ll I can say is my insurance went up by 350 quid recently. Never had an accident, 8 years no claims and am over 27 No really... All down to my postcode.

/rant over

When we moved station in 2007 they put Mrs Pants's insurance up. Despite moving from 'being parked on a street' to 'being parked on a drive, behind a 10' barbed wire topped fence, guarded by men with assault rifles'. Their excuse was 'erm, a bit of plane might land on it'. Cunts.

Yep. My insurance is now more than my car is worth