|
Why do women pay more? (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancechaos |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Great! So i will be expecting that as a man, I will be getting lower insurance rates, free dating services, free cover for certain clubs, and discounts on valentines day gifts?
Not bloody likely i bet!!
Chalk one up for inequality in the name of equality. |
i agree
this is total bull, utter crap i tell you. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
how many times does it have to be repeated: men get into more accidents then women. they pay higher insurance (especially in the 20s), which eventually equals out when you get into 30s and 40s. |
Actually, statistically that's not correct. Men get into less accidents than women, but statistically cause more damage than women. Follow the money, not the claim count.
Reasons for men causing more damage on average:
- Truck/tractor-trailer drivers (just one accident with one of these can easily cause millions of dollars in damages)
- Stupid teenage kids who race (they usually end up not only totalling the car, but crashing into highway barriers or buildings and causing a lot of property damage)
- Men tend to drive more expensive cars (I won't get into the reasons, but we all know that it's true - you total an expensive car and it costs the insurance co. lots more than a beater)
These skew the statistics in a huge way. It is not that an individual man is more likely to get into an accident or cause more damage than an individual woman, it is that collectively, men cost the insurance companies more money. That is hardly the same thing.
Unfortunately, that is still a perfectly valid reason for the insurance companies to charge higher premiums for men. Unless legislation gets introduced forcing them to change the way they calculate their premiums (i.e. not isolating each statistic before calculating it and then lumping them together in the end), the insurance situation is not going to change. |
|
|
| dance2dabeat |
It really sucks being a GIRL sometimes!
:mad: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dance2dabeat
It really sucks being a GIRL sometimes!
:mad: |
I think each gender has its advantages and disadvantages. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| I charge more, because I can (and because I'm damn good). |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Actually, statistically that's not correct. Men get into less accidents than women, but statistically cause more damage than women. Follow the money, not the claim count.
Reasons for men causing more damage on average:
- Truck/tractor-trailer drivers (just one accident with one of these can easily cause millions of dollars in damages)
- Stupid teenage kids who race (they usually end up not only totalling the car, but crashing into highway barriers or buildings and causing a lot of property damage)
- Men tend to drive more expensive cars (I won't get into the reasons, but we all know that it's true - you total an expensive car and it costs the insurance co. lots more than a beater)
These skew the statistics in a huge way. It is not that an individual man is more likely to get into an accident or cause more damage than an individual woman, it is that collectively, men cost the insurance companies more money. That is hardly the same thing.
Unfortunately, that is still a perfectly valid reason for the insurance companies to charge higher premiums for men. Unless legislation gets introduced forcing them to change the way they calculate their premiums (i.e. not isolating each statistic before calculating it and then lumping them together in the end), the insurance situation is not going to change. |
All perfectly correct and therefore quite valid reasons why men's insurance costs more. But the thing you none of you seem to understand is that in fact insurance costs about the same once you get into your 30s for everyone so you can wait and not drive until then. You will probably be safer anyways. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
I did just see this topic on City and all the points we talk about here were mentioned. Unfortunately, car insurance will not change.
I think that the bill for haircuts and such will change and will be based on amount of time spent not gender. I think that's all that these people fighting it want. You can charge a woman more based on something else not gender along. I mean if a girl with a buzz cut comes to get a trim, she should pay the same as a guy.
Me, I don't care, I like going to the salon and I like getting pampered. I don't care if I pay a bit more. The salon I go to everyone pays the same anyways. |
|
|
| newr |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Great! So i will be expecting that as a man, I will be getting lower insurance rates |
Unfortunately as a male you are expected by the stereotype to drive faster, while women drive slow and erratically. Therefore, i guess the government expects that while driving fast you are going to smoke one of those bad women drivers (my guess is when they cut you off when travelling east in the right lane, only to realize that in 10 meters they are going the wrong way so they cut across 3 lanes of traffic to turn into a coffee time... get 5 feet into the entrance driveway... cause a large traffic jam by people trying to enter because she is now backing up so she can travel west... but does she back up into the right lane.... NOOOOO.... she back up out of the ENTRANCE driveway... across the lanes so she is now stopped on the centre line between the 3rd lane in both the east and westbound lanes... and now decides to speed away... and did i mention this was all in p.m. rush hour traffic on Major Mack. She caused 2 accidents one eastbound one westbound... and she just sped away... fortunately i was able to manouver around her i was directly behind her trying to get to the coffee shop... |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Actually, statistically that's not correct. Men get into less accidents than women, but statistically cause more damage than women. Follow the money, not the claim count.
Reasons for men causing more damage on average:
- Truck/tractor-trailer drivers (just one accident with one of these can easily cause millions of dollars in damages)
- Stupid teenage kids who race (they usually end up not only totalling the car, but crashing into highway barriers or buildings and causing a lot of property damage)
- Men tend to drive more expensive cars (I won't get into the reasons, but we all know that it's true - you total an expensive car and it costs the insurance co. lots more than a beater)
These skew the statistics in a huge way. It is not that an individual man is more likely to get into an accident or cause more damage than an individual woman, it is that collectively, men cost the insurance companies more money. That is hardly the same thing.
Unfortunately, that is still a perfectly valid reason for the insurance companies to charge higher premiums for men. Unless legislation gets introduced forcing them to change the way they calculate their premiums (i.e. not isolating each statistic before calculating it and then lumping them together in the end), the insurance situation is not going to change. |
True, quantum not volume is PART of the reason that YOUNG men pay more for insurance, however, it is not the only reason. You're quite correct that accidents caused by young male drivers on average cause more damage then those caused by young female. This is mainly due to the type of accidents that male drivers cause as opposed to female drivers. Young males are more likely to be involved in accidents with an elevated level of property damage and injury as male drivers are more likely to be involved in average to high speed collisions. Women are more likely to be in low speed collisions and parking lot accidents.
Racing is a non-issue because any losses that occure during a race or test of speed are excluded from the Ontario Owner's Policy (which is what all Ontario driver's buy). Because racing is an excluded activity the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (government body that oversees insurance) does not allow insurers to consider this when setting premiums.... you cannot charge people for something that is not covered.
Your transport truck example is a bad one. Commercial insurance rates are set based on experience of the individual vehicle or the fleet to which it belongs. Commercial insurance is not governed by the same regulations with regard to premiums that personal insurance is. Losses involving commercial vehicles are not considered when setting the risk tables (via actuarial calculations) that govern private passenger vehicle premiums.
The value of the vehicle is not important when determining the rate of insurance. Premiums are charged at an amount per $1000 coverage. A young woman with coverage of 1,000,000 and a vehicle worth 30,000 will still pay less then a man with identical coverage. You're averaging.... don't look at overall or raw numbers... look at the rates, that's what's important in a discussion about automobile insurance. Besides, physical damage coverage is cheap, liability coverage is where you spend your money.
Your suggestion that insurance companies should be forced by legislation to change how they calculate premium is ill-informed. First, the Government of Ontario calculates the rate that each insurance company can charge for each class of driver/territory/vehicle value (list price new)/claims experience, etc. The end premium is a a total of the rate the government allows for each of these factors multiplied by the amount of coverage being purchased. The differences you see from one insurance company to another is due to the fact that the government gives different rates to different insurers.... for instance, while Pilot insurance may be allowed to charge me $.34/$1000 Co-operators may be allowed to charge me $.38/$1000, thus my yearly premium would be higher through co-operators (*** NOTE THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE... I DO NOT KNOW THE RATES FOR THESE COMPANIES ***). Additionally, the legislation is set up to protect the policy holder not the insurance industry. Until 2003 there was only one insurance company in Ontario that made a profit from automobile insurance premiums since the early eighties (that company was Markel Insurance.... they only write transport truck insurance and aren't governed by the FSCO regulations regarding rates). Today, it is normal that an insurance company will make $0.00-$0.10 profit per $1 premium you pay. When you read about billion dollar profits by the insurance industry that's all "property/casualty" (everything other then life and health insurance) insurance and it is largely a function of the insurance companies investments not their premiums. You'll recall that there was no outcry over insurance company profits following the bust of the dot.com economy.... that's because the insurance companies lost billions of dollars for several years in a row. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
All perfectly correct and therefore quite valid reasons why men's insurance costs more. But the thing you none of you seem to understand is that in fact insurance costs about the same once you get into your 30s for everyone so you can wait and not drive until then. You will probably be safer anyways. |
Or if you're married.... once you get married your rates plumet... seems that once you say I do you start to slow down. |
|
|
| bass drive |
the higher car insurance for men is BS I agree
the few times Iwas gonna hit a car was because I had to avoid womens mistakes  |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| insurance is based on risk. The insurance company is at greater risk to lose money when insuring a young man then a middle aged woman... therefore they charge the man more to cover the increased risk. The same holds true with property insurance.... there is much more chance that an amunition factory made out of paper machee will burn down then a dog kennel made of cement.... therefore they will charge the amunition factory more then the dog kennel for fire insurance. It's like gambling.... you know that the New England Patriates are more likely to win then the Philidelphia Eagles so naturally you're going to bet on the Patriates, however, if the bookie is giving you a 13 point spread on the Eagles you may be enticed to bet on them. |
|
|
|
|
