Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / The UK Sex Discrimination act is sexually discriminating against men!

Author
Message
James Morgan
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Apr 2005
Location: Behind you
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 09:32
Link
Due to the content, I wont be looking for this post if mods deside to delete it...

I was always wondering why Insurance companies would allow cheaper car insurance to women when this is sexually discriminating.
I see sex discrimination just as bad as racial discrimination and NO one would allow cheaper car insurnace to whites if there were statistaclly better drivers to blacks now would they!!
Well now I know why Insurance companies get away with this - This is Part 1 of the act...

1.-(1) A person discriminates against a woman in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if-

(a) on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man, or

(b) he applies to her a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to a man but-

(i) which is such that the proportion of women who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of men who can comply with it, and

(ii) which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the sex of the person to whom it is applied, and

(iii) which is to her detriment because she cannot comply with it.



In other words it only applies when a man is discriminating against a women.
I will just point out though, that there are other parts updated years ago that disallow discrimination to either gender in education, employment and gender reassignments.

But in short the act is sexually discriminating againts men....

Surely this cant be acceptble in the modern world we live in??

James

Hello!
Back to top
Profile PM
Mnemonix
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: Skaro
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 09:35
Link
Well I thought the same thing.


Then I realised that im not actually going to do anything about it, so therefore I give up my right to moan about it.

If that logic doesnt make sense then ignore me :-P

WE SHALL BECOME ALL POWERFUL! CRUSH THE LESSER RACES! CONQUER THE GALAXY! UNIMAGINABLE POWER! UNLIMITED RICE PUDDING ! ! ! ETC. ! ! ! ETC.! ! !
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
James Morgan
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Apr 2005
Location: Behind you
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 09:37
Link
Well my car insurance is coming up for renewal so I might just get a quote as a women, write in a letter and demand it at that... lets see where I get (hopefully they wont want the fuss and give me the discount...)

James

Hello!
Back to top
Profile PM
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 09:54
Link
Actually even if the statistics indicated that black driver were worse than white drivers, there would be a fight for "equality".

It's kinda the fact of life nowadays..
Listen to the end bit, it's not about Women..Men but it's basically the same ghist.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
the_winch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 10:25
Link
Quote: "Well now I know why Insurance companies get away with this - This is Part 1 of the act..."


So swap the genders around it won't make any difference. You have to pay more because you are more likley to crash not because you are male.
If they are using the same formulars to work out how much a man pays as they are to work out how much a woman pays how are they discriminating?

dbhelp - online dbpro help files with user comments
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 10:48
Link
Quote: "So swap the genders around it won't make any difference. You have to pay more because you are more likley to crash not because you are male.
If they are using the same formulars to work out how much a man pays as they are to work out how much a woman pays how are they discriminating?"


Because your insurance doesn't go down if your a careful driver aside from the no-claims bonus, which depending on the insurer your with depends on how you are able to keep it.

For example Churchil Insurance, if your car is damaged while you are in a stationary position you are still eligable to pay atleast your excess for any damage and your instantly put to 0 No Claims.

Yet if you were with Direct Line Insurance, then because you were stationary at the time; they make the other drivers company pay for your repairs and you keep your no claims.

So while yes it is possible to bring your insurance costs down over time by being a careful drive, that isn't always enough on it's own.
What's more is most companies provide you with 60% No Claim Discount, which is great; but when you realise that Women are also entitled to the same discount amount AND thier insurance is roughly 50% of what we are paying just for being a man.

Then you feel discriminated against because your not paying fairly based on your own personal skill as a driver, but more because of the fact that women claim less.

I would personally like to see insurance calculated based on your personal claim history, not based on if your a bloke of a lass.
Given we have No Claims for this as it is, that already shows that to a limited degree we are paying based on our skill.

Still the fact remains that there is still effectively the whole no claim difference over women because they claim less.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 11:57
Link
The concept of equalizing benefits universally based on averaged pay is completely absurd. Not only is it ignoring the problem itself, it's delivering an inequal and incomplete solution which simply shifts the damage over to the other side of the fence.

All in a day's work for politicians

If I looking for blog
Back to top
Profile PM
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 12:08
Link
Quote: "The concept of equalizing benefits universally based on averaged pay is completely absurd. Not only is it ignoring the problem itself, it's delivering an inequal and incomplete solution which simply shifts the damage over to the other side of the fence.

All in a day's work for politicians"


What the hell are you on about.. this has nothing to do with Benefits, in any shape or form.

It's simple.

Women pay 50% less of what Men pay because Men Claim More.
Both Parties over Time can subside the cost of thier Insurance by being better drivers, but these are identical ammounts meaning that only the worst women motorists will ever be paying the same as the best male motorists.

This just isn't fair. Everyone should start at having to pay a set fee based on the Car itself.

I don't care if over the next 5-10years my female friends are paying less because they're better drivers than I am... what I do get narked at is the fact that they can crash a car every other week and STILL be paying less than me who's never had an accident!

I mean how the hell is that fair?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
the_winch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 12:35 Edited at: 27th Jun 2005 12:58
Link
Quote: "This just isn't fair. Everyone should start at having to pay a set fee based on the Car itself."


Yes but using statistics people can be split up into groups that have various claim rates.
Any insurace company that has a set rate for a paticular car will only end up with customers in groups with a high rate of claims.
For customers in a group with a low rate of claims they are paying more than they could be and will switch insurers.

Latest releases dll_tool v0.8 27 june | patch tool v0.6 22 June | exe_shrink v0.5 15 May
Back to top
Profile PM Website
JoelJ
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Sep 2003
Location: UTAH
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 12:43
Link
get over yourself.

Quote: "and NO one would allow cheaper car insurnace to whites if there were statistaclly better drivers to blacks now would they!!"

you cant compare SEX to RACE...sorry you just cant
Men are naturally more agressive then women are, it's true, get over it.

besides that, the latter of what you said there, is true, but i would disagree to it. it's statistic, it's good marketing to use statistics...it wouldnt be racist at all, IMHO (i am not racest, i would agree to whites paying more than blacks if blacks were statistically better drivers too) anyone who complains about someone being raceist off of STUDIED information can go take a flight away from me because they are ignorant morons. one MAJOR problem in this RACIST/SEXIST deal, world wide, is that people think that whenever someone favors one or the other off of RESEARCHED information, they jump on them.
i probably dont make much sense because i'm kinda outa it right now, but you should get the point

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 12:53
Link
Quote: "Men are naturally more agressive then women are, it's true, get over it."


I agree that is popular belief, but can you show me three documented experiments that provide irrefutable evidence to this? Because I have never actually seen any such thing, so it may be there...but I need proof, otherwise, as far as im concerned, its just popular belief NOT fact.

Don't look at me like that!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Bishop
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Dec 2002
Location: In my favorite chair...
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 13:56 Edited at: 27th Jun 2005 14:00
Link
the "evidence" is what statistics show...statistics show that male drivers get into x more car crashes then females...of coarse those other guys are not you, but i think it is perfectly fair to base the cost of insurence on what they know about your age and gender...

i am a 17 year old male living in Idaho, USA...my insurence cost wouldhave been about 120$ a month, but due to my parents clean record, it was about 100$...i was told that if i was a female, it would be about 60$...big difference, but the statistics are not changing
however, in montana, the state right next to me, they DID outlaw this "discrimination" and they made a medium between the two rates equalling to about 80$-90$ a month...sucks for the women, yay for the guys...

generally, its something you dont really have control over, so why worry?

just my 2, maybe 3, nits
Bish

"It's not what's under the skin that matters, but your actions that define you."
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 14:01
Link
Quote: " the "evidence" is what statistics show"

ok, but my problem was that I want to see these "statistics" that prove men are more aggressive.

Don't look at me like that!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 14:09
Link
Quote: "the "evidence" is what statistics show...statistics show that male drivers get into x more car crashes then females...of coarse those other guys are not you, but i think it is perfectly fair to base the cost of insurence on what they know about your age and gender..."


Major flaw there being Crashes, when this isn't true, the correct word is 'Claims'

It's been proven neither sex is better at driving than the other and adveragely both will cause just as many accidents as the other.
Statistically however Women will only claim when they absolutely have to. This means money-wise they are a safer choice for Insurance companies to invest in.

Quote: "Yes but using statistics people can be split up into groups that have various claim rates.
Any insurace company that has a set rate for a paticular car will only end up with customers in groups with a high rate of claims.
For customers in a group with a low rate of claims they are paying more than they could be and will switch insurers."


No I don't see the issue, you have Credit Ratings.. so why not a Driver Rating?

You start off at the Basic Level Rating, you claim more for accidents you've caused and your rating goes down, if you claim less or have no claim bonuses then your rating goes up.

I don't see the problem with that system, well I see a problem with the Banking version of doing it, but I think it should be based more on YOUR personal driving ability not those of your sex and age.

I have 5years no claims now which is great, but it still costs me £800 to insure my Focus; while it would cost a woman my age £500.. what makes it worse is if I was 3years older I'd get it down to £600. (this is for comprehensive)

I mean I have my Pass, Pass Plus, Pass Advanced.. they count for something but not event close to what it would be if I grew some breasts and my winkie dropped off. How the hell can anyone call that fair?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Bishop
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Dec 2002
Location: In my favorite chair...
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 14:17
Link
well, that really depends where you live...just typing it on google i got sites from australia to qenya...i dont want to post links to car fatalities in austaralia, that would be kinds dumb

i cant see that you wouldnt see the blatent difference if you did a little research on your own...just go to google, type it in with you country and see what happens

Bish



"It's not what's under the skin that matters, but your actions that define you."
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Bishop
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Dec 2002
Location: In my favorite chair...
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 14:23 Edited at: 27th Jun 2005 14:33
Link
im sorry raven, but i have never heard of anything near what you stated...from my research, drivers ed, media, and my insurence comapany, its the *crashes* that men get into more frequently, not their *claiming*...the crash gets documented by the police wether u choose to claim or not...

and you may be saying "if you dont tell the police and just go on about your life", well that definately proves that mens crashes are more serious...a dented fender, ok, but a totaled car and incapacitated friend you cant just not tell anyone about...or maybe men are just much more honest then women, but for some reason i dont belive that

i also saw your bit on driver rateing...unfortunatly (or fortunately for some of us ) your basic credit rateing is determined by your parents...at least it is in the US...is that fair? if your parents screwed their credit, is it fair to judge u on what they did? i think so, but hey whatever you think...

Bish

"It's not what's under the skin that matters, but your actions that define you."
Back to top
Profile PM Email
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 17:04 Edited at: 27th Jun 2005 17:07
Link
Insurance companies think (for some strange reason), that statistically, women drivers are better than men (i.e. have fewer crashes).

Each crash costs the said company money, and thus they want to encourage any group that drives safely, and even more importantly, saves the company money.

This is good business sense, and not discrimination. Whether the statistics are true or not (after all 14.78% of people know they don't mean much), is debatable.


Atomz is at http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~nickk
http://spaces.msn.com/members/BouncyBrick/
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 17:29
Link
Nothing new. Last year though with all the nutty PC ethics getting ever nuttier, they announced that they were going to change car insurance at some point to be the same for man and women. Mainly because there *could* not be any difference. Funnily that would make it more expensive for women. Didn't see any short haired, angry, overweight, bra-burners pushing too hard after that one. Much like the campaign for higher wages for women went much quieter when the idea of women retiring the same time as men was brought up (60 for women, 65 for men at the minute).

Cheers

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 17:54
Link
I'm surer there was a topic about this a while back - "Racism: the street runs both ways". And I do agreee that this equalilty thing has been taken too far by the government.

But hte car insurance thing is just a plain fact. Insurance premiums are based on some rather complex mathematical formula, and, basically ever time somebody crashes the premium of that range goes up, a tiny tiny bit.

Last year it cost less to insure our whole HOUSE than just 1 car. Because more people crash cars than houses

"A book. If u know something why cant u make a kool game or prog.
come on now. A book. I hate books. book is stupid. I know that I need codes but I dont know the codes"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 27th Jun 2005 18:24
Link
Quote: "Last year it cost less to insure our whole HOUSE than just 1 car. Because more people crash cars than houses "


Haha.. yeah but generally speaking stationary objects tend to have less knock-for-knocks

I agree though, kinda pointless my original response was just to Mouse bringing politics into it; which quite frankly have no place in an argument about premiums. I've seen that advert about 'no politics means nothing to talk about', but it's BS. The government obviously doesn't and shouldn't control car insurance.

Good god think what it'd be like if they did? : shudders :

I can also see that the Americans are getting a little confused about the fact that both countries actually do things differently.

Main reason ppl are going to complain in the UK, is because it's illegal to drive without insurance. It's not one of those premiums we can just say 'bugger it' to, because if your caught without any that's your license and potencially even a small jail spell.

Quote: "But hte car insurance thing is just a plain fact. Insurance premiums are based on some rather complex mathematical formula, and, basically ever time somebody crashes the premium of that range goes up, a tiny tiny bit."


I agree it is based on a formula in which the main result is to save insurance companies money by forcing everyone in a given 'high-claim' group to pay more.

Again, this is my point though. It's based on CLAIMS made to each Individual Insurance company NOT the Accidents themselves.
I mean how can Insurance companies get that sort of information, when police are not allowed to release such information for public use. So you can report an accident, but if you choose to declare that to you insurer is up to you.

The only thing your legally obligated to do, is if the car is written off.. then you have to declare it to both Insurer and DVLA. Because the Insurance companies now demand your car has passed it's MOT before they'll cover it. Sweet mother of god they need to start doing that in the US, because some of those cars I've seen ARE SCAREY.

Just because it still ticks over with all of the indicators working doesn't mean that it should be street legal!

But that's for another topic.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 01:41
Link
thats what i really hate about femenism, its women complaining when they dont get treated as if they were men, and then they complain when they dont get treated like women.

dang hypocrits.

i cant remember which country it was, i was scandinavian i think, where a women got sued for rape when a man woke up to find her sucking on his dong.

tough crap for her but thats what women deserve when they ask for the same rights as men: the same legal system. i cant wait until such a fair system arrives in the UK.

dont get me wrong, im not sexist, just anti-femenist
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 02:21
Link
Quote: "The government obviously doesn't and shouldn't control car insurance.

Good god think what it'd be like if they did? : shudders :"


Unfortunately that's what we have here, ICBC, government-controlled, monopolistic car insurance company. It's our only option, so they can screw with us as much as they want. That's what we get for hiring socialist governments


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 02:34
Link
Oh yeah, getting the tories in and having a Neo-Tacher would be soo much better....

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Keaz
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere in south Texas
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 02:35 Edited at: 28th Jun 2005 02:37
Link
Personally, I think everyone should start off paying the same rate, based on the automobile not the driver. Then each and every time you have and accident increase the rate as follows:
Non-moving(Some-one hit you):0%
Moving(You hit someone):10%
Moving(They hit you):2% (ecourages defiensive driving)
Every Year with 0 claims: -1%
Increases can be increased because of frequency AKA more than one accident in a given time, the 2nd increases your rate more than the first.
If women truely are better driver or one group is a better driver than another over time they would pay the least over time, but at least it's a level starting field.

Breaking Stuff=Fun!,Bug Testing<>Fun!, Bug Testing=Breaking Stuff, so...
Bug Testing=Fun! Hmmmm....
DOES NOT COMPUTE! SYSTEM MALFUNTION!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Keaz
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere in south Texas
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 02:40
Link
Other non-human factor such as location could also be factored in as they currently are.

Breaking Stuff=Fun!,Bug Testing<>Fun!, Bug Testing=Breaking Stuff, so...
Bug Testing=Fun! Hmmmm....
DOES NOT COMPUTE! SYSTEM MALFUNTION!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
the_winch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 03:37
Link
Quote: "Personally, I think everyone should start off paying the same rate, based on the automobile not the driver. Then each and every time you have and accident increase the rate as follows:"


As has allready been said this will not work because you can use statistics to split people into groups which have different claim rates.

Say an insurace company has a set rate of £10 a month for a particular car.
Since women statistically claim less than men a rival company can offer to insure women for less.
If the rival company will insure women for £8 a month the company with a set rate isn't going to get many women customers.
The only customers a company with a set rate will have are people that claim a lot and would have to pay more than the set rate at a company with varing rates.

Latest releases dll_tool v0.8 27 june | patch tool v0.6 22 June | exe_shrink v0.5 15 May
Back to top
Profile PM Website
James Morgan
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Apr 2005
Location: Behind you
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 04:01
Link
Interesting debating going on. I actually work for an Insurance company but on the household side (I dont know much about the motor)
They base it on many statistics, mainly how many claims a certain group has had. Then it will go into where the claim was made (area groups) and the types of claims.
In my eyes sex discrimination is just as bad as racial discrimination - both just as bad. So I still think putting men and women into different groups are the same as putting whites and blacks into different groups - for both it just is not right!

It is belived that more young male drives have accidents to young women due to more men garrying around in a car but does this mean I should be discriminated against just because I am a man?
If they are worried about the young youths, then base it on age (maturity and experiance in driving)

Set rates would be hard to get working as it is all based on the type of car, engine, mods and area. They are thinking of bringing in black boxes for cars within the next 10-20 years. When they do it will be much easier to use set rates based on your driving, how often you drive etc. But the point is, they have a set rate premium, then they allow a discount if you are a women. By allowing a discount to women, you are giving a less favarable term to men.

Quote: "ok, but my problem was that I want to see these "statistics" that prove men are more aggressive."


When you find it, show me please as I dont belive we are statistically more aggressive.
Possibly more aggressive in certain areas, but if thats the case you should rate on the area not the gender

Quote: "but i think it is perfectly fair to base the cost of insurence on what they know about your age and gender...""


One key word there, AGE
Age discrimination is not against the law and I would agree to rate people on your driving experiance and maturaty. This is why you get cheaper insurance when you are over 21 and they have the No Claims Discount.
But as i keep saying, women can just as likely crash than men, or be agressive like some men can

Hello!
Back to top
Profile PM
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 04:53
Link
Quote: "
But as i keep saying, women can just as likely crash than men, or be agressive like some men can
"


If that were true which, statistically, it isn't then insurance companies would already have been sued by some loser in America.

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 05:12
Link
Quote: "As has allready been said this will not work because you can use statistics to split people into groups which have different claim rates.

Say an insurace company has a set rate of £10 a month for a particular car.
Since women statistically claim less than men a rival company can offer to insure women for less.
If the rival company will insure women for £8 a month the company with a set rate isn't going to get many women customers.
The only customers a company with a set rate will have are people that claim a lot and would have to pay more than the set rate at a company with varing rates."


Yeah, so when you start driving that car will cost £10.
The better driver you are, overtime this will drop.
The worse driver you are, overtime this will rise.

I think that is a far fairer system than saying.
'Well your a man so your gonng cost us more because statistically your going to claim more..'
Yet in the same breath, '..if your a good driver we'll give you money off.'

They're ALREADY doing the system of Good vs Bad drivers, so why are they just being insulting about it and grouping Men < > Women, Old < > Young.

Sure young drivers ARE more accident prone, but I don't see it any different from a 50 year old new driver.. When I was 10 my mom finally learn to drive, and she wrote of 5 cars in 3 years.

Did that affect her premium to be less than my dad who's only accident since learning to drive was going along sarrat and hvaing the wind flip his Robin Reliant onto it's roof.

Somehow you feel that, one minorly damaged accident somehow makes up for 5 write-offs? Yet because they're different sexes, mom was paying less.

Yeah I totally see how that works.

Quote: "Age discrimination is not against the law and I would agree to rate people on your driving experiance and maturaty. This is why you get cheaper insurance when you are over 21 and they have the No Claims Discount."


Why isn't Age discrimination against the law?
I agree, it should be on driving EXPERIENCE, but who the hell is to say that maturity has a part to play.

my dad's 50, and he's about as mature as my younger brother.. a good driver, but totally immature. just because your older a) doesn't make you more mature, I don't see why so many people are opposed thinking that a 'SKILL' and 'EXPERIENCE' based insurance cost system is so silly to even think of that it must be dismessed off-hand.

We already have No Claim Bonus' that work on this very damn fact. Are you telling me those are also stupid and should be scrapped?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 05:14
Link
Quote: " Raven"


You want to chill on the freakishly-huge completely unneeded posts already?

Don't look at me like that!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 05:30
Link
I don't think they could make Age Discrimination against the law as then youngsters could claim that restricting booze/fags etc to certian age groups was against the law.

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 05:34
Link
Quote: "You want to chill on the freakishly-huge completely unneeded posts already?"


... how about no.
if you don't want to actually debate a topic, go find yourself an AIM room where you can spout of '1 pwn3d j00' all day long and leave discussion of inportant issues to the adults.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 05:40
Link
Quote: "... how about no.
if you don't want to actually debate a topic, go find yourself an AIM room where you can spout of '1 pwn3d j00' all day long and leave discussion of inportant issues to the adults. "


See right there...that was a short post. Not hard was it?

Don't look at me like that!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 05:58
Link
bowing down to your intelligence level? very much so.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 05:59
Link
Actually they use ageism when they need, and say it's wrong to discriminate based on age at the same time.

Eg:

You can't buy alcohol here until you're 19. This is smart in anyone's sane opinion. But they also have signs in corner stores like "Only 2 school children inside at one time." That is definitely the wrong kind of ageism.

Yet they say it's against the law to hire (or not hire) based on age. Therefore, if an employer asks how old I am during a job interview, it's technically against the law. All these double standards are enough to drive the sane insane.


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 06:03
Link
Quote: "Only 2 school children inside at one time."


I really hate those types of stores. They usually do it because they have a shoplifting problem, but they fail to realize, in most stores, employees do most of the shoplifting, not just the teens in the store.

Don't look at me like that!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
the_winch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 06:08
Link
Quote: "Yeah, so when you start driving that car will cost £10.
The better driver you are, overtime this will drop.
The worse driver you are, overtime this will rise.

I think that is a far fairer system than saying.
'Well your a man so your gonng cost us more because statistically your going to claim more..'
Yet in the same breath, '..if your a good driver we'll give you money off.'"


So the insurance companies shouldn't be able to compete with each other to find the most efficent way to provide insurance?

If one insurance company comes up with a better method to predict future claims they will be able to undercut the other companies and take their customers.
If it is as simple as you make out why has nobody noticed yet?

Latest releases dll_tool v0.8 27 june | patch tool v0.6 22 June | exe_shrink v0.5 15 May
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 06:38
Link
Quote: "So the insurance companies shouldn't be able to compete with each other to find the most efficent way to provide insurance?"


Supermarkets sell the same food, but Asda is definately cheaper than Sainsburys.. yet people don't instantly stop using Sainsburys.
It's a case of what you want to pay, and what it'll get you.

Just because they're offering the same service doesn't mean they can't try to under-cut each other.

Hell computer stores do it all the time. You can buy online a 160GB Hitachi 7200rpm SATA for £65 at Watford Electronics, £55 at RL Supplies, and £70 at Dabs UK.

It's the same technology, but people will use one store over another because of reliability, postage time, etc.. There are often more factors than just the price.

When say about making it equal with equal benefits and punishments, that doesn't mean each company will have the same idea.

For example Direct Line could charge £10, then say have a 10% saving if your a good driver that year, or 10% penalty if your a bad one. Yet Admiral might say charge you £12, then have a 12% saving and a 14% penalty.

There would be nothing stopping them charging like that, but having it so they charged purely on the drivers history rather than thier sex and age.. would make it fair.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
James Morgan
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Apr 2005
Location: Behind you
Posted: 28th Jun 2005 07:43 Edited at: 28th Jun 2005 07:44
Link
Quote: "Yet they say it's against the law to hire (or not hire) based on age. Therefore, if an employer asks how old I am during a job interview, it's technically against the law. All these double standards are enough to drive the sane insane."


In the UK there is no age discimination unless I believe when you are over 40 and it is in relation to employment.
In other words I belive it is legal to hire a 30 yr old over a 19 ye old when they both meet the critera, but they cannot refuse a 40yr old is he also meets the same critera. (I say 40yrs but it may be slighty higher)
The amount of jobs I have lost because I was 18 not over 21!!

When I said maturaty, I meant generally speaking it seems new youth (regardless of the gender) are worse drivers than a new 30yr old driver, but as you pointed out, this is not always true. This is why they are looking into a blackbox for the road tax depending on when and where you drive. Norwich Union also said they may use a black box in the car and charge premium based on when you drive, i.e. if its just to commute it will be cheaper than if you are driving from 11pm - 2am at night. Thing is if this does come in it wont be for at least 10 years....

About the ratings, at the moment there is a discount if you are female. Just remove that discount. It is like house insurance. There is a set formular we go by and depending on the contents and buildings area group will depend on our premium, but then on top of that we will allow a discount for day+night occupancy, stone buildings, meeting minium standards of security and with some insurers, a discount if you are in a neighbourhood watch scheme.

Now with motor, you can have a fixed starting rate as mentioned above but also depending on the car you drive and the engine size etc... At the end of the day the car you drive is YOUR choice and somthing which you are not born with or makes up your physically apearance or beleif. Then you can allow a discount for no claims, if you have past the Pass Plue (adds 1yr No claims bonus). And if the law on age does not change, even a discount once you are over 21 (but they can also get rid off this!)
You also have discreationary discounts to keep business (CTI DISCOUNTS), with household insurance there is a certain discount if you go with us direct, if you go through certain brokers they also can give up to 20% CTI discount, this is how you keep it competitive.

But if you put Insurnace aside for one moment, with the exception of Employment, Education, Gender reassignment and some other parts of the act. Everything else not covered is covered under Part 1 which has not been updated since 1975 and is bias againts men.... The law needs to change not just Insurance.

Hello!
Back to top
Profile PM
Bishop
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Dec 2002
Location: In my favorite chair...
Posted: 29th Jun 2005 15:26
Link
Quote: "Again, this is my point though. It's based on CLAIMS made to each Individual Insurance company NOT the Accidents themselves.
I mean how can Insurance companies get that sort of information, when police are not allowed to release such information for public use. So you can report an accident, but if you choose to declare that to you insurer is up to you."


i dont know how it is in the UK, but in the US, when the police record an accident, the insurence company is notified immediately...i could be wrong, maybe this is a phenomenon only in Idaho

however, you are correct that it is my choice wether i want to claim it or not...of coarse i would because they would screw me over with jacked up rates anyways so i might as well

Bish

"It's not what's under the skin that matters, but your actions that define you."
Back to top
Profile PM Email
BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 30th Jun 2005 01:21 Edited at: 30th Jun 2005 01:24
Link
Its rediculous. this country is going down the drain... first it was black people get privelages coz otherwise firing a black person will be racist. now its happening for women... most men think that a womans place is in a kitchen. i dnt think that they can work but men have always been the "Bread winners" why does it have to change. If women feel so strongly i'm sure there husbands wnt mind them paying the morgage or the bills.
Back to top
Profile PM
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 30th Jun 2005 02:52
Link
Quote: " but they cannot refuse a 40yr old is he also meets the same critera"
Never heard of that one, but I heard that a person can be legally kicked out of their job just because they are the oldest person there (assume some min age too, plus X types of these firings in X amount of time etc). Just the oldest, no other reason. Apparently is to easily dispose of the old gits who would sue if you got rid of them for no reason apart from age.

Cheers

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
James Morgan
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Apr 2005
Location: Behind you
Posted: 30th Jun 2005 03:42 Edited at: 30th Jun 2005 03:44
Link
Quote: "most men think that a womans place is in a kitchen. i dnt think that they can work but men have always been the "Bread winners" why does it have to change. If women feel so strongly i'm sure there husbands wnt mind them paying the morgage or the bills."


Oh course! I mean Elvis was a king not a queen, Adam came before Eve and we have one extra rib!! Of course we are better than women....
Uhh Funny, I dont reckon most men think that. Its not about paying bills or the mortgage, plenty of people of both genders already do that. It's about given a certain group more favorable terms due to there gender.

Quote: "but I heard that a person can be legally kicked out of their job just because they are the oldest person there (assume some min age too, plus X types of these firings in X amount of time etc). Just the oldest, no other reason. Apparently is to easily dispose of the old gits who would sue if you got rid of them for no reason apart from age"


In 2006 a new lesgilation is coming out where an age limit will only be lawful if there is a ‘genuine occupational requirement’ or if it is objectively justified.

At the moment you just cant refuse someone who is 40yrs or older (it may not be 40!) a job because of their age. It means they will have to find another reason to refuse them a job. Also if you fire someone over a set age limit due to their age it is against the law.
At the moment you will find an 18 yr old may meet, or pass a set critera for a job but wont even get a look in due to them not being over 21. It kept happening to me all the time. Theres no law yet agains it.

James

Hello!
Back to top
Profile PM
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-15 10:16:36
Your offset time is: 2024-11-15 10:16:36