Car Insurance

As it says, car insurance well... pisses me off. I was recently confronted by a fact that bothers has bothered me for a long time. I'm sure everyone here knows that having a new driver on your car insurance policy spikes the price; however, if this new driver is male, the price goes up DRASTICALLY more than if the driver is female.

 

Why is this legal?

 

I live in California and here to drive you must have your car insured (I'm sure it's like this in every state but I don't actually know so I can't quite claim it to be true). Based upon statistics, which I admit are valid, the insurance idustry figures that new male drivers have a much higher accident rate than your female drivers (or any other group). However, the rate is not calculated based upon how many times it took the new driver to pass the test, or how well they did on the DMV test, but soley upon their gender. This is ridicolous. This is state-sponsored sexism. You have to get insurance, but the insurance companies are inherently sexist. If there was no other feasible way to derive insurance costs I could understand why gender would work, but seeing as there are plenty of other viable systems (such as the test based one I mentioned earlier) this is sexism plain and simple!

 

If a company were to pay women less because they are required to give them paid maternity leave and statistics show that many women will take this leave that company would be ripped apart, comdemed by the government and demonized by feminists faster than you could imagine. Why then are state governments continuing to uphold and mandate participation in an inherently sexist system, and why are men continuing to lie down and take this outrageous and blatant sexism?

Many suits with more tenuous claims have sailed through the courts, why not a solid case like this?

It may be sexism but it is a FACT that male drivers under the age of 26 are involved in far more accidents than any other group.

This would be due to the fact that most males who are under 26 and single are too busy checking out the ho's and driving like idiots to watch the fucking road.

.

.

Well, you could always leave your beloved "Golden State" and there would be one less "high risk offender" to deal with:D

Bad analogy, dude.

Being a dangerous driver and reproducing are two totally different things. Reproduction is necessary. Being a bad driver isn't, if only you would get your head out of your ass and drive like a normal human being, you would see that.

Although sometimes I think women are as bad as men. Men are reckless, but most women I know are just dumb when it comes to driving. You know, the put on mascara on the way to work, ditzy, 'how do i change a tire' types.

This would be due to the fact that most males who are under 26 and single are too busy checking out the ho's and driving like idiots to watch the fucking road.

.

.

AHAHAHAHAH oh man that made my day. About 80% of those ho's are talking on their cell phones at any given time as well. THAT IS A FACT...My sister is 22 and I'm 20 she has full coverage and I have the bare minimum and hers is still cheaper. Her car is newer too and she's had an accident!!! I have no tickets or accidents. Something is seriously wrong there. Yea this pisses me off as well. I hear it goes down when you turn 21 not sure by how much. Anyone got a rough estimate?

I hear it goes down when you turn 21 not sure by how much. Anyone got a rough estimate?

NO, but I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Gieco.

.

.

Her in Nebr. you also have to show proof of insurance to get your car licenced. What a crock of shit because people get insurance for 3 months then get the car licence for a year, and still get in a wreck and are uninsured. Most of the ones who don't have insurance are the ones who cause the accidents. Then they get a fine but your insurance still foots the bill and goes up. Cuz one thing that is for sure, is the fucking insurance company is not going to loose.

Her in Nebr. you also have to show proof of insurance to get your car licenced. What a crock of shit because people get insurance for 3 months then get the car licence for a year, and still get in a wreck and are uninsured. Most of the ones who don't have insurance are the ones who cause the accidents. Then they get a fine but your insurance still foots the bill and goes up. Cuz one thing that is for sure, is the fucking insurance company is not going to loose.

 

Damn right. We (the insured) pay for those who choose to abuse the system. F'n state goverment made it mandatory and im sure the insurance companies made it worth$$$ their effort as well.. capitolism at its best imoho.

It may be sexism but it is a FACT that male drivers under the age of 26 are involved in far more accidents than any other group.

 

This is also affected by whether or not you are married. When I got divorced my car insurance went up mid-term on the policy because I was under 30 years old. The fucking bastards raised the rate for the entire term so I had to pay more on the 5 months of the policy before I was divorced. Can someone explain how they can raise my rates for time that has passed? I'd also like to know why when I got divorced, I suddenly became a worse driver.

 

Insurance companies are a bunch of fucking crooks.

This is also affected by whether or not you are married. When I got divorced my car insurance went up mid-term on the policy because I was under 30 years old. The fucking bastards raised the rate for the entire term so I had to pay more on the 5 months of the policy before I was divorced. Can someone explain how they can raise my rates for time that has passed? I'd also like to know why when I got divorced, I suddenly became a worse driver.

 

Insurance companies are a bunch of fucking crooks.

I got insurance last week. The guy was nice enough to mess with the paperwork a bit and put that I already had a kid. Having a kid makes you a better driver? It should, but I know for a fact it DOESN'T. I know plenty of people with kids who are bad drivers. It was nice to get that discount, but still-if you're under 30, no kids, and not married, you really are screwed. Especially if you're male.

I honestly wouldn't push for equal insurence rates... I used to, then we got them a few years ago.

 

You know what that ment? Only that females started paying the same Bullshit Price that the guys did. The only thing that changed was how much taking a Drivers-Ed course took off, it makes things much cheaper but still not what the ladies USED to pay even without it.

To anyone who's replied "But it's a FACT that men are worse drivers, blah blah blah..." That's the entire point of the rant in the first place.

 

Before I get into that, though, let's get some other key factors out of the way:

 

1. You can set up a "study" to produce any kind of statistics you want, to "prove" whatever "facts" you want.

 

2. Studies designed to match one factor (gender) with another (car accidents) produce only correlations, and do not "prove" causation. As others have rhetorically questioned -- being divorced makes you a greater risk behind the wheel? Bull.

 

Ok, so, for the sake of argument, let's just assume that it's possible to derive absolutely true factual conclusions about groups as large as an entire race, gender, or age bracket.

 

It is a "FACT" according to all the accepted metrics, that certain ethnicities perform better academically than others. But private educational institutions cannot make admissions decisions based on these "FACTS." It's "racist."

 

It is a FACT, and I won't use quotes here, that only women can get pregnant. Duh. The risk of a woman between, say 21-30, needing to take several months off of work is very real. What can a business do to hedge their bets against taking a loss in productivity? Almost nothing. It would be discrimination. And the idea expressed earlier that getting pregnant is a "necessity?" ... Ridiculous. It's a choice.

 

The whole point is the hypocrisy. As soon as I finish this rant, I'm gonna go write a rant about how bad and biased statistics piss me off, but for now, if we're all going to trust that the Powers That Be use valid metrics to measure everything from intelligence-by-ethnicity to car-safety-by-gender, then it just exposes the negligence, spite, ignorance, however you want to explain it, of the fact that men pay more for insurance than women.

 

I'm a male in my 20s and I'd take a driving test in a heartbeat to prove my individual risk level (or rather, lack thereof) on the road. I pay a pound of flesh to my car insurance company every month, and I'm getting dizzy from the blood loss. It's almost as much as my monthly car payment. And I've shopped around.

 

If it is legal precedent that men should automatically pay more for insurance because according to a known positive correlation they tend to be more dangerous, then should it also be a legal precedent that a women should automatically be turned away from careers as police officers and firefighters, because, according to a known positive correlation they are too physically weak to carry an uncoscious human being out of a burning building, or be reliably counted on to subdue a criminal? Oh no, THAT would be sexist!

 

When we're talking about "facts," remember we're talking about statistical correlation. A simpler word for this term is "generalization." and when you're making a generalization about gender or race, you're stereotyping. Which I'm not condemning. There's a reason they exist.

 

But what pisses me off is the hypocrisy about how when there's a societal practice in place you don't like, you whine about unfair stereotypes. When the issue doesn't happen to press your particular buttons, it suddenly goes from being an unfair stereotype to a "statistically proven fact."

 

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being guilty of what I just accused others of, I don't know if the whole intelligence/ethnicity women/physical weakness thing holds up anymore than you really do. We've all seen news shows and read magazine articles that make us feel like we know, but come on, really, get off it. Seperate rant. Sorry. I only raised those examples because those are known to press people's buttons.

It's not only age, it's marital status that makes a difference too, and that is total bullshit. But like I said earlier, it is typical that a single guy would be out hunting pussy, that is human nature... but why penalize men for this ??

 

Since when do equal rights for women, give the benefit to the female, instead of equality ??

 

What if my wife died on the job, and I am now a widower with 2 kids... does my insurance go UP because I am now single ??

 

Will I be penalized in car insurance by the death of my spouse ??

.

.