New Study Shows Poverty, Not Age, the Key Factor in Teen Crashes

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Probably so. But insurers make the decision to extend insurance at all based on demographics and the statistical likelihood of certain types of behavior. That's how they choose to do business. I don't know enough about insurance to know whether or not it's a good business model, but I know enough about political theory to not call it "oppression."

And in the most free-market oriented of Canadian provinces, the gubmint found the insurance industry to be basing premiums on prejudice and bull****.

They also tossed the crap about boys and girls getting different rates.

Do you grow out of being a man or woman, Gepap?

[notyoueither]

dp

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by notyoueither
We've recently banned that practice in Alberta, btw.

No more charging someone through the nose because they are 18. Charge them the same as any other new driver and then adjust based on their record, not a presumption of incompetence and carelessness.

Awesome.

Why is that so hard for people to accept? It makes perfect sense.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And in the most free-market oriented of Canadian provinces, the gubmint found the insurance industry to be basing premiums on prejudice and bull****.

They also tossed the crap about boys and girls getting different rates.

Good for them. But that doesn't seem to be the argument going on here. The argument is that teens are unfairly singled out, and I would suggest that Ozzy's own study indicates that isn't so; in a business where pricing is linked to demographic statistics, teens are subject to the same rules as everyone else.

You can argue that the whole notion of using demographics to set insurance rates is wrong, but that's a different argument.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Awesome.

Why is that so hard for people to accept? It makes perfect sense.

By your reasoning so does allowing 9 year olds to drive.

ACK!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's not everyone being treated equally when people who are 16, 17, 18, and 19 may have to drive for a livelihood.

You're mistaking categories.

Compare the 28 year old college student entering the workforce with the 17 year old doing the same thing.

Not everyone is a pampered brat attached to mom by apron strings til they are 30.

That's not my point. My point is the same criterion is applied to everybody. Nobody gets preferential treatment. It's not that some 16 and 17 years old get to vote and others don't.

As for insurance rates, insurance companies charge fees according to statistics and calculations. Surely a lower rate will attract more customers, but that may not cover the expenses by the end of the day.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Good for them. But that doesn't seem to be the argument going on here. The argument is that teens are unfairly singled out, and I would suggest that Ozzy's own study indicates that isn't so; in a business where pricing is linked to demographic statistics, teens are subject to the same rules as everyone else.

You can argue that the whole notion of using demographics to set insurance rates is wrong, but that's a different argument.

If you want to go there, you can then say the same thing about blacks.

When do you want to allow demographics, and when do you want to ban the practice?

Relax, Gepap, I am not saying that being black and being 16 are the same thing. I am saying that discrimination bites, no matter what basis it is conducted on.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Good for them. But that doesn't seem to be the argument going on here. The argument is that teens are unfairly singled out, and I would suggest that Ozzy's own study indicates that isn't so; in a business where pricing is linked to demographic statistics, teens are subject to the same rules as everyone else.

You can argue that the whole notion of using demographics to set insurance rates is wrong, but that's a different argument.

Then why don't men pay 77% higher rates than women?

Why don't they have all those restrictions I listed for teens? You didn't answer my question last time.

Some barriers/restrictions that teen drivers face simply because they are teens:

- Can't drive at all (New Jersey and.. NY? require people to be 18 to get their license. There is a modest push now in other states to follow suit.
- Can't drive with any passengers in the car (or a limited number)
- Can't drive during certain hours.
- Can't use cell phones while driving
- Parents put tracking devices in their cars to monitor where they go and punish them from that.
- Parents put tracking devices in their cars to monitor how fast they go, and punish them from that.
- Teens suffer from profiling (like blacks do) where cops pull them over for no reason besides the fact they look young
- Just the general lack of respect and the bigotry exhibited toward teens that can be seen in this forum and elsewhere.

Teens have 40% more fatal crashes than the safest category of adults.

Men have 77% more fatal crashes than women.

The poor have several hundred percent more fatal crashes than the rich.

Why is it that all the above restrictions are placed on teens and not placed on men or the poor?

This isn't a rhetorical question. Why do teens have all these extra restrictions but other, riskier groups don't?

[KrazyHorse]

Then why don't men pay 77% higher rates than women?

We certainly pay a lot more than women do.

number of fatal crashes != cost to insurance company though

Need to take into account number and severity of all damage and injuries. Which is what the insurance companies do.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


If you want to go there, you can then say the same thing about blacks.

When do you want to allow demographics, and when do you want to ban the practice?

Relax, Gepap, I am not saying that being black and being 16 are the same thing. I am saying that discrimination bites, no matter what basis it is conducted on.

I personally don't understand why they're allowed to charge for being male or being 16, but not for being black. Seems sort of arbitrary...

edit: screw the otbot

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's not my point. My point is the same criterion is applied to everybody. Nobody gets preferential treatment. It's not that some 16 and 17 years old get to vote and others don't.

As for insurance rates, insurance companies charge fees according to statistics and calculations. Surely a lower rate will attract more customers, but that may not cover the expenses by the end of the day.

If you apply one criterion to 17 year olds and a less restrictive one (unrestricted one) to 18+ then by definition that is a DIFFERENT CRITERION. You are treating people different, giving preferential treatment to adults.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's not my point. My point is the same criterion is applied to everybody. Nobody gets preferential treatment. It's not that some 16 and 17 years old get to vote and others don't.

That's the point. It isn't. Preferential treatment based on some preconceived idea of need and or ability.

There are 16yos who need to drive to work. Treating them differently than someone 18 or 32 is applying a different criterion to them.

I'd much prefer some of these 16yo's vote than many 30yo urban ***** who still live with mommy, but the vote is another topic.

As for insurance rates, insurance companies charge fees according to statistics and calculations. Surely a lower rate will attract more customers, but that may not cover the expenses by the end of the day.

And skin colour is as good a statistical criterion for setting rates as age is, if you want to go strictly on stats, but skin colour is not allowed. Why should age be?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Then why don't men pay 77% higher rates than women?

We certainly pay a lot more than women do.

number of fatal crashes != cost to insurance company though

Need to take into account number and severity of all damage and injuries. Which is what the insurance companies do.

Yea, insurance definitely isn't my area of expertise.

Though I doubt that the difference between male and female insurance rates is twice the difference between 16-year-old and 50-year-old insurance rates.

[KrazyHorse]

30yo urban *****

WTF does urban have to do with it?

[KrazyHorse]

Though I doubt that the difference between male and female insurance rates is twice the difference between 16-year-old and 50-year-old insurance rates.

Again, you're confusing fatal crashes with cost to the insurance companies. The insurance companies aren't ****ing setting out to screw teens. They're applying the best risk formula they know how to do.

edit: again, **** the otbot