4 ms·

Huh, if they can legally justify explicitly discriminating based on sex and age (younger men generally pay more than younger women, while older women generally

Huh, if they can legally justify explicitly discriminating based on sex and age (younger men generally pay more than younger women, while older women generally pay more than older men) I’m surprised they couldn’t figure out a way to discriminate based on age alone. Edit: here [0] is a breakdown of car insurance costs, stratified by age/sex. Young people pay by far the most, with premiums steadily declining until age 50 and then rising again. So I’m not sure what their objection might have been, since they already do charge old people more (presumably at a level accurately reflecting their relative risk). [0] https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-age-affects-auto-insurance-costs https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-age-affects-auto-insurance-...

scottlamb 5y ago
Worse: couldn't figure out a way to "discriminate" based on a bona fide measure of driving ability that (I imagine) only loosely correlates with age. But age discrimination laws/enforcement are seemingly one-way, and the elderly vote and sue, so...
bpodgursky 5y ago
In the US, it is legal (in a hiring context) to discriminate against young people, but not against old people. For better or for worse, it's not parallel.
- drewg123 5y ago
  Old people are much more politically active than young people.. So everything tends to favor them.
maxerickson 5y ago
Of course they discriminate on age. They don't want to make it clear to the people they are doing it to.
- MontyCarloHall 5y ago
  > They don't want to make it clear to the people Wouldn’t a driving sim be the exact opposite of that? “To make our premiums accurately reflect your driving habits and avoid lumping you into crude demographics like the other insurers, we offer all our customers an opportunity to take a spin in our driving sim and get a truly personalized rate reflecting your excellent driving habits.”
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    But most people wouldn't get a rate based on excellent driving habits, they'd get a rate based on their actual performance.
  - pc86 5y ago
    That's the exact argument they make for those drive tracking apps, isn't it? I don't think many people are buying that one, either.
    - maroonblazer 5y ago
      Why wouldn't they? If I can prove I'm a better driver than the average Joe/Jane, and pay a lower premium as a consequence, why wouldn't I?
      - prepend 5y ago
        There’s very little upside - 5% discount for good driving- and lots of downside - 50% premium for bad driving.
        mwint 5y ago
        I looked into getting one of those once, figuring I’m a safe driver and therefore would only benefit from it. What I found on the Internet were (self selected, admittedly) stories of the presence of the device making your driving less safe. Since it’s basically an accelerometer, sometimes it’s “safer” to take a curve fast than to brake for it. Or fly through a yellow rather than stop at it. I have no doubt there’s correlation between those devices’ scores and accident proclivity; but I’m confident my driving is safe as-is and would rather let premiums go down after accident-free miles than on the say-so of a nanny device. So I bought a dashcam instead, hopefully to avoid being ruled 50/50 at fault if someone hits me.

scottlamb 5y ago

Worse: couldn't figure out a way to "discriminate" based on a bona fide measure of driving ability that (I imagine) only loosely correlates with age. But age discrimination laws/enforcement are seemingly one-way, and the elderly vote and sue, so...

bpodgursky 5y ago

In the US, it is legal (in a hiring context) to discriminate against young people, but not against old people. For better or for worse, it's not parallel.

drewg123 5y ago
Old people are much more politically active than young people.. So everything tends to favor them.

maxerickson 5y ago

Of course they discriminate on age. They don't want to make it clear to the people they are doing it to.

MontyCarloHall 5y ago
> They don't want to make it clear to the people Wouldn’t a driving sim be the exact opposite of that? “To make our premiums accurately reflect your driving habits and avoid lumping you into crude demographics like the other insurers, we offer all our customers an opportunity to take a spin in our driving sim and get a truly personalized rate reflecting your excellent driving habits.”
- maxerickson 5y ago
  But most people wouldn't get a rate based on excellent driving habits, they'd get a rate based on their actual performance.
- pc86 5y ago
  That's the exact argument they make for those drive tracking apps, isn't it? I don't think many people are buying that one, either.
  - maroonblazer 5y ago
    Why wouldn't they? If I can prove I'm a better driver than the average Joe/Jane, and pay a lower premium as a consequence, why wouldn't I?
    - prepend 5y ago
      There’s very little upside - 5% discount for good driving- and lots of downside - 50% premium for bad driving.
      - mwint 5y ago
        I looked into getting one of those once, figuring I’m a safe driver and therefore would only benefit from it. What I found on the Internet were (self selected, admittedly) stories of the presence of the device making your driving less safe. Since it’s basically an accelerometer, sometimes it’s “safer” to take a curve fast than to brake for it. Or fly through a yellow rather than stop at it. I have no doubt there’s correlation between those devices’ scores and accident proclivity; but I’m confident my driving is safe as-is and would rather let premiums go down after accident-free miles than on the say-so of a nanny device. So I bought a dashcam instead, hopefully to avoid being ruled 50/50 at fault if someone hits me.