Bought a 2024 GT Premium as my first car (I’m 15 and just getting started in the car world)

[LouG]

I never heard of a country making distinguish between skin color. That's racist.

It would not surprise me if it were an unmentioned thing here. Our Maori population have an atrocious driving history in general. If an Insurance co saw a Maori name there may be a subtle increase in premiums.
On the other hand, an awful lot of people here, of all ethnicities don't bother to insure their vehicles at all.
We're one of the few countries to not mandate vehicle insurance.

Sponsored

 

[GrabThatBlue]

It would not surprise me if it were an unmentioned thing here. Our Maori population have an atrocious driving history in general. If an Insurance co saw a Maori name there may be a subtle increase in premiums.
On the other hand, an awful lot of people here, of all ethnicities don't bother to insure their vehicles at all.
We're one of the few countries to not mandate vehicle insurance.

Is there also a difference in premiums between men and women?

 

[LouG]

Is there also a difference in premiums between men and women?

It used to be that women and the elderly attracted lower premiums. Better accident rates.
There doesn't seem to be much of a difference now, my wife pays about the same for her car.
There is still a preference for older drivers though.
And living in small towns.

 

[GrabThatBlue]

It used to be that women and the elderly attracted lower premiums. Better accident rates.
There doesn't seem to be much of a difference now, my wife pays about the same for her car.
There is still a preference for older drivers though.
And living in small towns.

I totally understand the location where you live, the age, the years driving without damage etc.
I don't understand skin color or the race part. That's just plain racist.

 

[LouG]

I totally understand the location where you live, the age, the years driving without damage etc.
I don't understand skin color or the race part. That's just plain racist.

This is the thing. It's not really about colour, it's more about attitude and entitlement. It also doesn't help that we are becoming evermore divided on racial lines, driven by, as usual, politicians.
This is a very different country now to the one I was born and grew up in.
Which is a crying shame.

 

[somckinney]

If you bothered to read, you would have seen the car is in his dad's name. Any more questions Columbo?

No Columbo. Insurance companies are not dumb. They will determine who is actually DRIVING the car. That game has been played many times. They know what is going on.

 

[Zig]

No Columbo. Insurance companies are not dumb. They will determine who is actually DRIVING the car. That game has been played many times. They know what is going on.

https://www.mustang7g.com/forums/threads/do-you-have-a-c-l-u-e-about-lexisnexis.161116/

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Insurance rates are set by the number of minor drivers in your household.

For instance, if you have a 16 year old minor driver, your rates will increase. It does not matter if you say he will not be driving your car. Then, when he decides to go live with your ex-wife, because she promises him a car if he comes to live with her and lack of rules to do what he wants as a latch key kid, instead of Dad's mean old rules, then your insurance rate will go down, and your ex-wife's will go up.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

I never heard of a country making distinguish between skin color. That's racist.

It is not a country. It is an insurance company.

So, what do you do if you are the company CEO, and your company will sustain a loss if you do not act. Your actuaries give you the following information:

• Group A is 70% of our policy holders. They account for 10% of our claims.
• Group B is 30% of our policy holders, and they account for 90% of our claims.

This is a hypothetical, and those numbers are made up. Assume that no laws regulate your industry to prevent discrimination between groups A and B.

Your company already discriminates on several factors, e.g., age, sex, driving history, as your actuaries have provided you information that these traits correspond to higher claims.

Now there is a new trait that corresponds to a much higher claim rate with a much higher correlation.

The numbers I presented are obviously not real, just made up, but assume this is what is presented to you as the CEO. You have to raise rates or go under as a company.

Do you raise rate equally on groups A and B, when you have never before done that with the other traits? (Reminder, assume no laws force this choice upon you).

Do you raise the rate of the group statistically responsible for 90% of claims, and not the other group, which produces 10% of claims?

Or, in a stroke of woke genius, do you raise the rate only on Group A to make up all of the losses, to account for your country's past sins?

Your choice is?

 

[GrabThatBlue]

It is not a country. It is an insurance company.

Companies should follow the law of the country. If the country allows this type of racism, than it's the country who is responsible.

 

[AZ_Ryan]

No Columbo. Insurance companies are not dumb. They will determine who is actually DRIVING the car. That game has been played many times. They know what is going on.

The more important question is - why do you even care?

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Companies should follow the law of the country. If the country allows this type of racism, than it's the country who is responsible.

Why is that racism?

I have no idea if it is true in New Zealand, but how is that different than using age or sex for significantly different risk? Is that ageism and sexism?

I am assuming there is a significant difference for purposes of the discussion.

 

[GrabThatBlue]

Why is that racism?

I have no idea if it is true in New Zealand, but how is that different than using age or sex for significantly different risk? Is that ageism and sexism?

I am assuming there is a significant difference for purposes of the discussion.

If you can't (don't want to) see why that is racism, then there is no need to explain it.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

If you can't (don't want to) see why that is racism, then there is no need to explain it.

Worst explanation ever. It is racism basically because you want to declare it so, even if the basis for the premium difference is more factually sound that the policy premium differences for age or sex.

Basically it is just off limits because you want it to be, which is not a very sound basis on which to make policy.

it isn’t racism to point out the difference in risk for the insurer (assuming there is one).

I’ll leave it alone at that, since the very discussion itself appears to give you discomfort, which was not my reason for asking the question.

 

[Zig]

Worst explanation ever. It is racism basically because you want to declare it so, even if the basis for the premium difference is more factually sound that the policy premium differences for age or sex.

Basically it is just off limits because you want it to be, which is not a very sound basis on which to make policy.

it isn’t racism to point out the difference in risk for the insurer (assuming there is one).

I’ll leave it alone at that, since the very discussion itself appears to give you discomfort, which was not my reason for asking the question.

Group A are people that know how to drive, group B are people that don’t. I did not notice the race designator for the groups. Race contains too many variables to be considered a viable indicator

Sponsored