Sexist Apple Credit Cards

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

there are ways to evaluate whether someone is a reckless driver other than their gender

Which is why gender becomes irrelevant once a driver establishes a driver history.

 

But until then, the best starting point is using statistics.

[CarlBar]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Which is why gender becomes irrelevant once a driver establishes a driver history.

 

But until then, the best starting point is using statistics.

 

This. Until someone's been driving for a while there really is no way to tell. That, (aside from the presumed hormones factor), is why it only applies to males who are young. Not only are new drivers who are young and male, (some people don't become drivers until much later on in life for one reason or another but they also show reduced recklessness), more likely to be reckless, but in general drivers who are middle aged or later have an established history that can be used. Young drivers do not.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

This. Until someone's been driving for a while there really is no way to tell. That, (aside from the presumed hormones factor), is why it only applies to males who are young. Not only are new drivers who are young and male, (some people don't become drivers until much later on in life for one reason or another but they also show reduced recklessness), more likely to be reckless, but in general drivers who are middle aged or later have an established history that can be used. Young drivers do not.

What is interesting here in the UK is that increasingly the gender gap in accidents is closing up, however it is still frighteningly different according to Brake

 

https://www.brake.org.uk/facts-resources/1593-driver-gender

 

So there does need to be some bias based on gender despite the courts ruling otherwise. Obviously, women still cannot park straight 

[TechyBen]

29 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

This. Until someone's been driving for a while there really is no way to tell. That, (aside from the presumed hormones factor), is why it only applies to males who are young. Not only are new drivers who are young and male, (some people don't become drivers until much later on in life for one reason or another but they also show reduced recklessness), more likely to be reckless, but in general drivers who are middle aged or later have an established history that can be used. Young drivers do not.

I also knew a few girls who wrote off their cars (as I did ) but I don't know how many claimed on the insurance. I bumped another car, they drove into a ditch. So social situations change the apparent "statistics". If you are being lied to, you cannot collect correct data... however, young men, do *claim* a lot on insurance companies, and this they care about too (third party damage also apply!).

 

IIRC it's now illegal in the UK to have such difference in parity, and they now share the costs between customers, so both types of young drivers pay the higher premium now.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

 

They get into more accidents because on average they're more reckless. As for why that is, no one's sure, where getting into complex brain functionality. Hormones are definitely a factor but beyond that where genuinely not sure. We don;t know enough about how the brain works to run any kind of test to figure it out. Trust me if they could figure out precisely who to charge more from they would, it's in their best interests to do it that way as it gives them a pricing advantage with all those who aren't more likely to get into an accident.

 

And if you still think it's unfair does that mean your okay with paying more on your car insurance so that all those young men having the extra accidents can receive their compensation without bankrupting your insurer. Just because a company is suddenly hypothetically incapable of charging young males more doesn't mean that they will magically stop paying them more on average, so that lost income to cover their payout costs has to come out of everyone else's premiums.

You base it on normal things like crashes and traffic violations. If they are getting alot of speeding tickets or in crashes then you charge them more. To simply charge more because of being in a particular group is not justified in the slightest. https://www.esurance.com/info/car/why-women-pay-less-for-car-insurance 

Literally at the end they say that if a young man had a female clone of themselves the female clone would pay less all other factors equal. This is from an insurance agency mind you so I will take their word for it. 

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, The1Dickens said:

It's not GS' problem, though. It's the customers' problem. It's an assumption that it considers gender at all. Again, since we don't know how the algorithm factors anything, we can't say for sure that gender is the distinguishing factor here. But if we are going to bring forth an accusation, we have to provide the evidence. If we can provide verifiable data to prove out the case, then it might even be worth submitting it to the investigators to correct the issue.

 

Are you certain that the absolute only reason for young men having higher insurance rates is because "young" (under 25) and "male" are on the insurance forms? If you have proof of that, it would be worth it to pursue that case, because that would be huge. I don't know how insurance works, only have a vague idea, so I can't say that I'm certain it doesn't.

https://www.esurance.com/info/car/why-women-pay-less-for-car-insurance here you go. 

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

To simply charge more because of being in a particular group is not justified in the slightest.

It initially is if the person has no history regarding what the company deals with AND the group in question is statistically more likely to cost more.

 

It is unjustifiable to punish every other group because one group drives up costs.

[TVwazhere]

*Thread locked*

 

This quickly got derailed into multiple pages of topics not relating to Tech at all.