“In an interview, Jones said it’s fair for insurance companies to set premiums based on a driver’s accident history, number of speeding tickets and other factors that are under the driver’s control. But using gender is unfair because a person has no control over that, he said.”
Sounds real cool. But I can’t help my testosterone making me drive fast, Mr. Jones, so please don’t hold my speeding tickets against me. It was just how I was born! Also, I was born with ADD, so don’t hold my running of stop lights against me, I was thinking about how the Saints got screwed and didn’t see the light.
Maybe women text more than men, causing distracted driving overall. Maybe women have kids in the car, causing further distractions. After all, women and men ARE different in many ways, including different hormones, according to science.
So Mr. Jones, do you think actuaries are sexist? Racist? Or just people who look at the numbers?
craig, I have a special agent for one of my companies and she said there were over 30 rating variables involved in their algorithms to price Personal Auto. Gender is probably one of them. Whatever the agent puts in on the quote, the computer spits out. By the way, wonder what Trannies pay for insurance? They obviously don’t know what they identify as. Must be quite a dilemma in today’s world.
If the rating factors show that women have more accidents than men, why is that not a fair rating basis? If is a fact. Teenagers, regardless of sex, pay more for insurance. Does the governor of California think that is fair? It’s not their fault they’re young! It’s a dumb argument by the governor, and further shows why politicians shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with business practices that are sound.
All makes sense Jack. But politicians, like lawyers, are masters at selling the concept – “it’s not your fault, you’re a victim, and we’re gonna make somebody else pay for it”.
Then go further, include race. Do asian women deserve to pay the most, lets include that into the factors on the computer that just “spit out the number”.
These studies seem to think that gender is the primary rating variables used in auto rating when it is only one piece of the whole rating plan. Large companies such as the ones listed in the graphics have extremely complex rating plans that include gender but also a multitude of other variables.
Since most plans have the factors related to gender set lower for women than men, the rate difference is due to anything except gender. Female drivers must be more likely to have other negative attributes in the rating plan than men to get these rate differentials. Instead of looking at gender, look at other variables and see if they are fair.
I’m surprised that he made the statement that we have no control over our gender. Don’t libs believe that you can pick your gender? If I had known being female is increasing my auto premiums I might choose to be a man…for auto insurance only, of course.
Perplexed, remember when senior drivers were given discounts for being safe drivers? That has gradually gone away and now seniors are surcharged on their rates when many are on fixed incomes. Still safe drivers with hardly ever a claim, pay their bills and this is their reward. Very tough for an agent to explain that to the customer.
It’s scary that, as a seasoned agent, you still do not know how rates are generated and/or how to explain the insurance mechanism to your clients. If loss costs are increasing for seniors, that means they are becoming less safe as a class. Therefor, they should pay more.
This isn’t rocket science.
Have you noticed how the insurance cycle has stabilized since the use of predictive modeling and algorithms have become the industry norm?
Typical old fashioned views you’d expect from insurance lifers. This industry needs turnover just as bad as it needs to get in gear with technology.
Its very simple, stop rating on gender, start requiring telematics in order for the best rates, and leverage the data you have on vehicle type/garaging zip vs ultimate loss costs more. I had a top level actuary at one of the only personal auto insurers that actually makes money tell me once telematics is the top rating factor, credit second, and everything else a distance third (that includes driving/accident history).
It’s really simple. If, and ONLY if, a carrier can demonstrate a link between a given factor and risk that is statistically significant (and not just a red herring) they should be able to use it. They use location, occupation, credit, marital status, AND Gender, all things that go beyond driving history, to predict risk of future claims since an individual’s own driving record could never be long enough to mathematically predict future losses (anyone who took basic statistics courses knows this). Since this is the business insurance companies are in, they need ways to “lump” groups together, not for discrimination, but to create a sample large enough for statistically significant results. Everyone one of those factors has been attacked by one state or another as discriminatory. When they are done with that, they will attack the use of driving records based on something like, how frequently minorities get pulled over, to justify calling the use of MVR’s racist. This is all just a not so clever way of trying to socialize every industry so that everyone, regardless of risk factors pays the same. At that point, all carriers end up with the same rates and competition goes away. It’s scary that social fads now dictate economic policy. Here’s the new law, if you’re not an expert in the industry, don’t try to regulate it.
I am a woman in my 60’s who had an accident 2 years ago [by the way, no accidents since 19 yrs old]. The woman who hit me was in her late 20’s or early 30’s and backed into my car out of a parking space.
Bad news is she claimed it was my fault and we both had the same insurance company and they charged us both. When my insurance came due again, they wanted to charge me over $300. a year more.
I switched companies.
Some companies say that a ticket or accident will wash off in 3 years or so. When I got my renewal, they showed a not at fault UM claim I had in 2007. They say it doesn’t mean anything on the rating. If so, why show it? Still got a $200 rate increase on the renewal with no tickets, accidents, credit changes or anything else.
It was fine to discriminate when it was young men. The moment it is women(majority of voters) poof, we can’t have that. Men got in more accidents in the past, yeah they drove more. Now women drive as much as us, equality and all that. Looky looky, rates going up.
From the article:
“In an interview, Jones said it’s fair for insurance companies to set premiums based on a driver’s accident history, number of speeding tickets and other factors that are under the driver’s control. But using gender is unfair because a person has no control over that, he said.”
Sounds real cool. But I can’t help my testosterone making me drive fast, Mr. Jones, so please don’t hold my speeding tickets against me. It was just how I was born! Also, I was born with ADD, so don’t hold my running of stop lights against me, I was thinking about how the Saints got screwed and didn’t see the light.
Maybe women text more than men, causing distracted driving overall. Maybe women have kids in the car, causing further distractions. After all, women and men ARE different in many ways, including different hormones, according to science.
So Mr. Jones, do you think actuaries are sexist? Racist? Or just people who look at the numbers?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Your comment was good until you took an unprovoked swipe at your fellow Americans.
“Special Agent?” – are you 90?
If the rating factors show that women have more accidents than men, why is that not a fair rating basis? If is a fact. Teenagers, regardless of sex, pay more for insurance. Does the governor of California think that is fair? It’s not their fault they’re young! It’s a dumb argument by the governor, and further shows why politicians shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with business practices that are sound.
All makes sense Jack. But politicians, like lawyers, are masters at selling the concept – “it’s not your fault, you’re a victim, and we’re gonna make somebody else pay for it”.
Then go further, include race. Do asian women deserve to pay the most, lets include that into the factors on the computer that just “spit out the number”.
These studies seem to think that gender is the primary rating variables used in auto rating when it is only one piece of the whole rating plan. Large companies such as the ones listed in the graphics have extremely complex rating plans that include gender but also a multitude of other variables.
Since most plans have the factors related to gender set lower for women than men, the rate difference is due to anything except gender. Female drivers must be more likely to have other negative attributes in the rating plan than men to get these rate differentials. Instead of looking at gender, look at other variables and see if they are fair.
I’m surprised that he made the statement that we have no control over our gender. Don’t libs believe that you can pick your gender? If I had known being female is increasing my auto premiums I might choose to be a man…for auto insurance only, of course.
I’m so old I can remember company guidelines excluding divorced people because they were more prone to accidents.
I dont remember that and I am an old timer too. I remember when carriers thought Single moms were more responsible just because they had a kid.
Perplexed, remember when senior drivers were given discounts for being safe drivers? That has gradually gone away and now seniors are surcharged on their rates when many are on fixed incomes. Still safe drivers with hardly ever a claim, pay their bills and this is their reward. Very tough for an agent to explain that to the customer.
It’s scary that, as a seasoned agent, you still do not know how rates are generated and/or how to explain the insurance mechanism to your clients. If loss costs are increasing for seniors, that means they are becoming less safe as a class. Therefor, they should pay more.
This isn’t rocket science.
Have you noticed how the insurance cycle has stabilized since the use of predictive modeling and algorithms have become the industry norm?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
A PC comment masquerading as technical savvy. Nice!
I don’t think it was masquerading, I was fairly blunt.
Craig, Ron’s buddy Andrew is still censoring my posts.
Here is the CA Dept of Insurance Filing instructions for personal auto. http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0800-rate-filings/upload/Class-Plan-Instructions041511.pdf The voter proposition 103 was passed in the late1980’s with implementation taking over 20 years to finally have all the elements in effect. So experience, miles driven and accidents/tickets are the major rating factors.
It’s really simple. If, and ONLY if, a carrier can demonstrate a link between a given factor and risk that is statistically significant (and not just a red herring) they should be able to use it. They use location, occupation, credit, marital status, AND Gender, all things that go beyond driving history, to predict risk of future claims since an individual’s own driving record could never be long enough to mathematically predict future losses (anyone who took basic statistics courses knows this). Since this is the business insurance companies are in, they need ways to “lump” groups together, not for discrimination, but to create a sample large enough for statistically significant results. Everyone one of those factors has been attacked by one state or another as discriminatory. When they are done with that, they will attack the use of driving records based on something like, how frequently minorities get pulled over, to justify calling the use of MVR’s racist. This is all just a not so clever way of trying to socialize every industry so that everyone, regardless of risk factors pays the same. At that point, all carriers end up with the same rates and competition goes away. It’s scary that social fads now dictate economic policy. Here’s the new law, if you’re not an expert in the industry, don’t try to regulate it.
All I know is usually when I see an SUV tailgating me or driving way too fast 9 times out of 10 it’s a woman of the “soccer mom” caliber.
I am a woman in my 60’s who had an accident 2 years ago [by the way, no accidents since 19 yrs old]. The woman who hit me was in her late 20’s or early 30’s and backed into my car out of a parking space.
Bad news is she claimed it was my fault and we both had the same insurance company and they charged us both. When my insurance came due again, they wanted to charge me over $300. a year more.
I switched companies.
Some companies say that a ticket or accident will wash off in 3 years or so. When I got my renewal, they showed a not at fault UM claim I had in 2007. They say it doesn’t mean anything on the rating. If so, why show it? Still got a $200 rate increase on the renewal with no tickets, accidents, credit changes or anything else.
It was fine to discriminate when it was young men. The moment it is women(majority of voters) poof, we can’t have that. Men got in more accidents in the past, yeah they drove more. Now women drive as much as us, equality and all that. Looky looky, rates going up.