Why shouldn't certain races pay more for car insurance?

reply to post by HanzHenry


That is disturbing Hanz. Do they disclose this fact to agents and underwriters when they start? Turn 16 - check; male - check; pass beginners - check; go on mom and pops policy - ?? 30 years ago when my kids were added to my policy it was a burden, today I can only imagine the cost. Why aren't insurance agents (especially ex ones) exposing this enmass? And why aren't all males rising up together to expose this fraud? Wow, just wow, one more scam designed to fleece based on nothing.

HanzHenry
reply to post by James1982

 

I was a insurance agent for awhile in 2003 and had a friend who was in underwriting.

NEVER BUY THE STATS of insurance companies.

the male vs. female premium difference is ALL LIES.. and any other is as well. The confidentiality agreements are for life and they enforce them. I will say.

that in the male/female debate, that MALES DID NOT have more accidents/claims.

the skewed data on that is people who get into accidents while driving PROFESSIONALLY were included in an UNETHICAL fashion. THIS is what shows men as more risk..
what percent of CDL's are held by men? 90%(+).. so, all the insurance companies input that LIE, as justification for "men pay more because they have more wrecks".

When only personal driven vehicles (not for hire) are compared.. MEN HAVE LESS CLAIMS total..

BUT< since men make/made more money.. I.E., have more disposable income to siphon,. OF COURSE the insurance companies fond a LIE that STICKS!

AND< the families are usually male headed, and the policy is under the Man's name more often than not. AND ANY CLAIM on a family's policy where the Man was the holder... that data was also put into the "man have more wrecks" LIE

edit on 29-12-2013 by HanzHenry because: clear

Incredibly interesting hans, It really wouldn't surprise me to find out it's true.

But whether or not men actually are in more accidents, society still believes that they DO, and they DO pay more for it, and we DO accept it as being OK. The hypocrisy of that is what caused me to post this thread.

reply to post by Common Good


It goes both ways. In general men are more overtly aggressive, and have superior spatial reasoning skills. Those two lead to taking more perceived risks, and what is commonly termed, "reckless driving".

Women, are often more passive (aggressive), and just don't have what it takes to see the road as the average male. These tend to lead to women unwittingly putting their selves, and other drivers at risk through passivity, and lack of road-handling capabilities.

So it goes both ways, but personally, I'm MUCH more nervous getting in the vehicle with a woman behind the wheel, probably due to bias in how I process information over the average female, though also through experience. I've been in wrecks with females more than males, and they seem completely clueless to what they're doing in the moments leading up to the event, whereas guys usually just take more risks and miscalculate, though are totally aware of what's going down.

So, it depends.

snowspirit
How pure of race are you looking at? Someone who is 50% of some race? 25% of said race?
What if they "look" like a certain race, but are not of that race?

I don't have a card that says what race I am, and what percentage of it that I am.

~sigh~

what race are you may we ask?

Without a doubt, car insurance for some races should be higher than others.

After all, it's far more likely that there would be an accident in a NASCAR race than the Indy 500.

I'm just wondering how any Insurance Agent would enforce "Race" on insurance.

I could self report as anything. I could say I'm Black if I really wanted and simply stare down any Insurance agent in challenging them to prove otherwise despite the fact that my appearance is more equal parts cauc-asian.

reply to post by whatnext21


In California, there is a law that requires insurers to give people a rate that is better than the companies like.

So, Geico (where I worked) had a phrase spouted at least 100 times a day throughout the grueling (re: boring) 2 month training program.. "jump through hoops".

The people in California who had like 1-2 minor infractions would be put into the only type of policy that could NOT be started easily. You had to mail forms back and forth.. it took time and MAJOR HASSLE, and had a high rate of people not following through with it.

So, basically, the state of California and the Insurance Commission tried to get a more fair system for drivers,. and since the profit margin would not be as high as they liked, they literally set up another company within Geico that tried EVERY SHADY trick to GET AROUND the LAW>

AND WE WERE THREATENED DAILY with "sshh, this is a secret"

GEICO is actually 3 insurance companies in ONE,
Preferred, Indemnity, and Basic,

Preferred ---drivers with spotless records -- instant coverage over the phone
Indemnity -- drivers with one older ticket..mail forms back and forth, DMV scanned WEEKLY once policy started, etc.
Basic -- drivers with multiple tickets.. INSTANT COVERAGE also.

And on top of that.. They underwrite and use your OWN WORDS AGAINST YOU.

1. your rate is determined MOSTLY BY YOUR CAREER FIELD.. all careers are rated between a (1 and 5).. ones being the cheapest
2 Dui's are on the record for 7 years, tickets for 3... BUT GEICO trains people to ask over last 10 years for DUI's and last 5 years for tickets/accidents,.. AND THEN THEY RATE OFF your answers!! not what the DMV report says.

So, if you have a ticket from 4 years ago, and you admit it to them.. you are DINGED..
If you KNOW that tickets fall off after 3 years, you say "nope, no tickets" and you get a MUCH BETTER RATE.. and probably aren't in the "jump through hoops" company.

Insurnace companies... patooey.. none with integrity can work for them..

A fellow coworker said "everyday, as soon as I get home I take a shower.. To wash all the insurance off of me from the day"..

reply to post by James1982


I understood it was about hypocrisy.

That doesn't make our racial features the best thing to use as example, since there are still to many people that do not know, we are all the same, and even some who do not want to know.

I grab every possibility to say again, that we are the same. It wasn't to muck you or anything.

webedoomed
reply to post by Common Good

 

It goes both ways.

So it goes both ways,
So, it depends.

edit on 29-12-2013 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

Age dusrimination.. the MOST expensive group for insurance companies are the Elderly. their claims % are the highest of ANY bracket. and the Medical portion whether under medpay or basic Bodily Injury are BY FAR the highest.

Yet, they don't pay the most... WHY?

their lobbying power, AARP, etc..

every other age group is forced to pay part of the Elderly drivers claims expense.

reply to post by championoftruth


Blue eyed white female.
But my son is darker skinned, with really dark brown eyes, and could pass for other than white.

I have seen my share of people from other countries that are a little looser with the road rules, and then the men that don't drive well, teach their wives to not drive well, so I do understand the stereotyping.

I also understand that there's women (usually younger) sometimes applying makeup while driving (scary stuff), and sometimes the younger people (often male) doing the odd dumb thing while driving that starts with the sentence "hold my beer"

We have all sorts of drivers of every race and gender, I'm lucky now to live in a province that bases insurance costs on a persons personal driving record, and it's cheaper in rural areas, and again cheaper if majority of driving isn't to and from work.

reply to post by James1982


Haha. I imagine if we do change the law then Japanese women will never be able to afford the 1 million deductible $100,000/ month insurance fees :-)

lulz

reply to post by TKDRL


I agree they should rate us by our driving records.
37+ years with no accident and no claims and drove OTR for 3 of those (100K mi/yr)
No moving violations since 1984 as well.
They should pay me to drive, I make the roads safer statistically.

Asktheanimals
reply to post by TKDRL

 

I agree they should rate us by our driving records.
37+ years with no accident and no claims and drove OTR for 3 of those (100K mi/yr)
No moving violations since 1984 as well.
They should pay me to drive, I make the roads safer statistically.

LOL, I agree with you, to a degree, by driving records (and a lot of companies do reward as such (mine does)).

My grandmother hasn't had many claims, collisions, or tickets, in her life (maybe 2-3 lifetime, driving 65+ years). That doesn't mean she's a great driver, or should be discounted. Hell, the last "collision" she had was backing out or her driveway and hitting a parked car. All that means is other people are good enough drivers to avoid said collision or encounter, and a parked car ain't that, lol.

But she doesn't drive 100k a year.

reply to post by James1982


you just get so tired of schemes to siphon our money. I'm so tired of money we have the resource and technology to make money a thing of the past and gear society toward individual strengths putting people in places they love to be and opening doors that previously could only be opened with money. What a sad state of affairs i might sound communist but i dont care. If it wasn't for money most of the horrible things that have happened in my life and all of yours would have not been, or at least the situations would be augmented differently. I really used to be in love with money. Many things have changed i joined th U.S army infantry saw the world lived in Germany. Ive been a partner in a fire alarm company but that is not my passion my passion is weather. Digressing a little my wife's father has had 12 strokes he has no insurance, the company he worked for 20 years or so, is disputing his retirement. He cannot pee or poop on his own and we cant get him in any long term care facility. So my wife and i have moved in with my mother in law, who is supporting him even though they are divorced. We are taking care of him constantly yet with three kids this situation is over bearing. he lived his life as a contribution to society and this is his end. What a disgrace, maybe he didnt prepare enough but you wonder 10-16 hour days leave's you little time to prepare. He's lost everything and i am disgusted with our society in every way.

Common Good
reply to post by James1982

 

Men are prone to doing stupid things behind the wheel.

Yes, like talking on the phone while doing their makeup. Oh wait ....

By the way OP was not stating we SHOULD charge by race, he was simply saying why is it ok to charge by gender and not race? If one is bad they both should be, if one is allowed they both should be.

reply to post by snowspirit


Not the point, lets say for argument, it goes by most % which i know your gonna say you cant prove, but you brought up % first. But how about if its right to charge more because you are said race? That was the question

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


So it IS right for the companies to charge men more based on a generalized fact.... Men just take more risk

reply to post by Sremmos80


Nope. It's not right to charge rates on race or gender. There's too many bad drivers out there of all races, ages, and both genders.

Places I've lived have also had a way to build up to cheaper rates, by giving a percent discount on each year without driving incidents, up to 4 years. If you have an accident where you're the one at fault, you lose some of that discount.

I have called many insurance agencies to inquire about auto insurance. They have never asked what race I am. They didn't ask me if I was a fish or if I wore glasses either.

They do ask if I am male or female. They also want to run a credit report.

I have never met my insurance agent.

I never understood why my credit rating would have anything to do with my insurance rate or driving history but b/c of this thread decided to I look it up.

Bad credit, bad driver?

The Insurance Information Institute, a trade association for insurers, says drivers at the bottom of the credit heap file 40 percent more claims than drivers at the top of the pile. The institute doesn't have such statistics yet for homeowners insurance claims.

"A consumer with bad credit is going to pay 20 to 50 percent more in auto insurance premiums than a person who has good credit," says Clarence Smith, former assistant vice-president at Conning & Co. On the other hand, having sparkling credit could land you lower rates so you should shop around if you've got a glowing report.

Elizabeth Mosley, of III, says, "Insurance is based on risk, and research has shown that individuals who tend to not pay their bills on time -- and then get low credit scores -- file more claims, and that those claims are more expensive." When insurers get stuck with a bad risk, she adds, other policyholders end up footing the bill.

But, she says, the news is not all bad.

"A lot of people benefit from it. Two-thirds of policyholders have lower premiums because of their good credit record."

link

MrLimpet ~~~~~ a fish with glasses

reply to post by TKDRL

Sure, maybe men tend to drive a little faster

----------------------

I think OP raised an interesting point and some of the comments here seem to have missed it. Is it fair to charge men more? Why do we accept it when we would be appalled if the insurance companies chose something else like race instead. I think it should be based solely on driving history, type of vehicle and age. All of which leave me screwed (my own fault) but seem more fair for everyone.