2001 Gt
- Thread starter 01GT4ME
- Start date
FallenPhoenix
New Member
01GT4ME said:Just got off the phone with my insurance company, they quoted me $232 every 3 months for full loan coverage, so i'm pretty happy cause it could of been ALOT worse.
*gets out phone book* what company?
Sam98
Founding Member
trinity_gt said:Lumping all members of a demographic into a pigeon-hole is discrimination. Not all 18-yr-olds are lousy, high-risk drivers. It's tolerated because of those statistics but there's not many other places in society where statistics could be used to pre-emptively treat one group of people differently than another. An obvious example is how police treat black guys. Based purely on "statistics", they may have a case for stopping more blacks in nice cars than other demographics but it's hardly accepted practise.
It's all academic of course. I know, as do you, that it will never change. I was there...did that, lived through it. At 37, my insurance is a comparatively low $US89 a month. It helps to have 21 years driving experience, no at-faults, no tickets in recent memory and to be married. It's a right of passage everyone, well, all young guys that want to drive anyway, have to go through.
It's still discriminatory though.
I understand what you are saying, but there is a big difference between trampling on an individual's civil rights solely because of their skin color, and making distinctions based on behavior. Nobody would entrust their children to a dacare center run by a convicted child molester, or fly on an airline with Al Qaida pilots. Statistically, 18 year olds are more likely to total their cars than 40 year olds so why shouldn't insurance companies charge them more? By the time you are 40, there is usually 20+ years of driving history to look at, but when you are 18 and have only been driving for a year or two all you have to look at are the statistics.
trinity_gt
10 Year Member
Sam98 said:
You're talking about a convicted molester...someone that's already proven to be a risk. I have no trouble with an insurance company reaming someone that's proven themselves to be a risk by virtue of having had an at-fault or been ticketed for street racing.
I understand, and accept (I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing
) the premise but it's still discriminatory. If one were to collect statistics on crime and it turned out that blacks were indeed responsible for the statistical majority of car thefts, would it follow that it's okay for cops to stop every black guy they see and harass and make his life hell? From Bel Air to Compton? From the Bronx to the Hamptons? Every single one? 'Cause that's what the insurance companies are doing. Every single young male is being lumped into the highest risk category.I suppose one could argue the same point about higher-risk, statistically-speaking, people paying more for health insurance. It's still discrimination, but we accept it.
By the time you are 40, there is usually 20+ years of driving history to look at, but when you are 18 and have only been driving for a year or two all you have to look at are the statistics.
Agreed. However, and this is my point, using statistics in this way is, by definition, stereotyping and discriminatory. I'm not saying I personally have an alternative in mind, of course... There may indeed be no workable, fair alternative. I'm just saying that this form of discrimination continues to be accepted in a society increasingly intolerant of any form of discrimination. Taken to a court of law, the point could be made that it's a violation of individual rights to be discriminated against in this way. The onus would then be on the insurance companies to find an equitable alternative. Or, I suppose, they'd just not insure young drivers...
FallenPhoenix
New Member
The only real way to get accurate risk assessment is to assign each driver to an agent and have that agent follow them or interview friends etc. Guess we just have to endure the reaming, someone pass the KY...
Similar threads
