quisquose Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 If that's the case, why not: 1. Shift the cost of health care arising from an accident to the NHS. - Everybody shares the cost of the NHS. 2. Scrap the tort system of recovering damages in the event of a Road Traffic Accident and introduce 'No Fault' Insurance, where each party's insurer pays for that party's damages. - That would reduce the legal costs associated with an accident and probably eliminate 'cash for crash' schemes. Because everybody doesn't drive a car, and increase the risks and costs of road traffic accidents accordingly. It is for this reason that it was made obligatory to get insurance before driving a car. Not all accidents involve cars though, and somebody falling off a ladder at home will have the costs of health care paid by the NHS. However, there is much debate about the possibility of making it obligatory for people who take part in dangerous sports to have insurance for the same reasons. Besides, motorists don't fall in the same protected category as sex, age, race or disability. People have a choice to be a motorist. It is legal for businesses to discriminate against motorists, but not men/women in most cases. I currently hope the EC close the insurance/pensions loophole, but am open to persuasion otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Yes, as I said previously, I am aware of the cost element. There is a logical argument that businesses should be able to discriminate whatever way they like, but we as a society have decided that certain groups should be protected, race, sex, age, disability. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate at all. Statistics based pricing based on risk is not discrimination. Discrimination : unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice It doesn't meet any part of that criteria. Would it be fair if a company paid women less, to take account of the risk of them being pregnant from time to time, or charge the disabled customer more, to take account of the cost of the lift they installed? Nope, it wouldn't. I think the EC case is taking our social responsibility to the next logical and fair level, it is not about increasing costs for the industry, it is merely about us, as a society, sharing the costs irrespective of sex. Nope, if the judgement goes in favour of equalising the cost, then it has gone way beyond looking at discrimination and is trying to legislate that people are all equal when they are clearly not. People should not be subject to treatment based on prejudice against something they can't change. But they should be subject to pricing based on the reality of things they can't change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichD Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 People should not be subject to treatment based on prejudice against something they can't change. But they should be subject to pricing based on the reality of things they can't change. But it is prejudice against an individual to generalise against them based on things they can't change. Without knowing me, they assume that I drive more aggressively and will be more likely to cause accidents than women, because a bunch of other men do. Those other men aren't me. I almost wish I was one of those other men, because then at least I'd deserve the higher prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_dave Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 But it is prejudice against an individual to generalise against them based on things they can't change. Without knowing me, they assume that I drive more aggressively and will be more likely to cause accidents than women, because a bunch of other men do. Those other men aren't me. I almost wish I was one of those other men, because then at least I'd deserve the higher prices. If you want to be assessed as an individual you're asking a lot. You could start by taking an advanced driving course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vwkittie Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I feel sorry for Sheila's Wheels. Put it this way, if women had to reverse park in a supermarket as part of the driving test none of them would be on the road anyway. They want equality let them pay equally. Reverse parking in to a bay is one of the manoeuvres that you may get in your test. It's quite a common one to be given too as a lot of test centres have their own car parks so the examiner can just ask you to do it at the start or end of the test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 But it is prejudice against an individual to generalise against them based on things they can't change. Without knowing me, they assume that I drive more aggressively and will be more likely to cause accidents than women, because a bunch of other men do. Those other men aren't me. I almost wish I was one of those other men, because then at least I'd deserve the higher prices. It would only be prejudice if it was unfounded. Since they don't and can't know you, they treat you as a member of a group to which you belong, ie men of age x. They adjust the pricing based on the car, postcode, mileage, etc... But ultimately it's based on the group to which you belong and the risk associated with that group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichD Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 There are plenty of other groups I'm a member of and can't do anything about, but don't get penalised on it. Some such groups they wouldn't dream of applying statistics to. For example, a person can't do anything about their sexuality, whether they've suffered premature hair loss (which could be perceived as relevant if it's for hormonal reasons as hormones can influence behaviour), or any number of other factors. Eye colour? Has anyone ever researched whether a given eye colour coincides with driving skill or number of accidents? How would society react if blue-eyed people suddenly got cheaper car insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 How would society react if blue-eyed people suddenly got cheaper care insurance? Actually, insurance companies would be able to charge differential insurance rates based on eye-colour simply because eye-colour is not a protected group like sex, sexuality, age, race or disability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CockneyMafia Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I agree with uptowngirl, if the statistics show that women are less likely to claim then the price should reflect that. Same as your location, type of car, number of miles etc. I imagine statsitics will also show there is a positive correlation between socio-economic background, age, driving habits and insurance claims. Simply lumping 'males' under one homogenous group is neither fair nor accurate in this context. You can interpret this how you like, but I don't recall many Red Brick bound students bombing round town centres in clapped our Vauxhall Novas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Car insurance companies should be able to charge what they want, on any criteria they see fit. It's their business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.