Car Rental: Age Differential Charge

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by fotze

Yes but the renter is liable for the damages either way. What if he is self insured and does not require the rental car insurance, then that argument is moot.

The more likely reason for it is that one year in the boardroom, they had to think of ways that they could beat the revenues from the previous years. One of the many ideas was to add this fee as it was projected to not afffect the number of customers. This is all normal business and I see nothing wrong with it.

I just get a kick out of the label they attach to these fees. The real label should be "The under 25 demographic is one where we feel that we could charge a fee and the net gains realized in the fee will be significantly higher than the customers lost".

I am suprised that they don't put in a fee related to safety. The safety enhancement fee that ensures that the cars are maintained to the utmost standards. Some sort of bullcrap like that where no one would arhue about paying a fee for safety. Hey, its safety, if it will save just one life then its worth it.

and I am over 25, so I could give a rats ass over the fees.

well i disagree that the insurance issue is so cut and dried, but otherwise i agree 100%.

[MarchHare]

insurance companies use decades of data to determine the risk of the insured. its a proven fact that people under 25 have more accidents.

insurance is all about managing risk.

There's also data that shows (at least in the US) that blacks and Hispanics are statistically more likely to be a greater accident risk than whites. Do the insurance companies charge minorities more? Hell no, because that would be racial discrimination WHICH IS WRONG! It is acceptable, apparantly, to discriminate based on age or gender, though.

[mykalberta]

They charge more because idiots under the age of 25 tend to get wasted, drive then kill someone so we all get penalized.

Life sucks, it sucked when I was under 25 and I have had a vehcle every year since I was 16+5 days.

When I turned 25 last year I rejoiced by doing what - paying a hella lot less on my insurance.

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

There's also data that shows (at least in the US) that blacks and Hispanics are statistically more likely to be a greater accident risk than whites. Do the insurance companies charge minorities more? Hell no, because that would be racial discrimination WHICH IS WRONG! It is acceptable, apparantly, to discriminate based on age or gender, though.

Lefts view: Because age and gender are socio-economic independent and race is not.

Rights view: Because the outcry over the media would be so great why not just target everyone equally.

Also where is the data that a higher percentage of insured minorities get into more accidents than whites - that would be the first I heard - any data to back that potentially race boiling CP crowd up?

MYK

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

There's also data that shows (at least in the US) that blacks and Hispanics are statistically more likely to be a greater accident risk than whites. Do the insurance companies charge minorities more? Hell no, because that would be racial discrimination WHICH IS WRONG! It is acceptable, apparantly, to discriminate based on age or gender, though.

Here's the thing- there is no discrimination with the age issue. Every single one of us on this board was (or still is) under 25 at some point. Show me one person who was never under 25.

Any ethnic group will always be a part of that group; and somebody like me (a WASP) will never be and never was.

So everybody gets treated equally. Under 25 you pay more. Over 25 you pay less. Applies the same to everybody.

[MarchHare]

Also where is the data that a higher percentage of insured minorities get into more accidents than whites - that would be the first I heard - any data to back that potentially race boiling CP crowd up?

I can't find the link now (I know, not very convincing -- my apologies), but I read around a year ago that the California State Highway Patrol was holding special driver training sessions aimed specifically at those minority groups because their data showed them to be a greater accident risk. If I have more time later, I'll see if I can dig that up.

A quick Google search did find this study from Johns Hopkins, though. It's not exactly what I was looking for, but it does demonstrate the point:

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...ct/152/12/1209

Black and Hispanic male teenagers had substantially higher death rates per billion vehicle-miles of travel than either white male teenagers or female teenagers in any racial/ethnic group.

[trew]

Originally Posted by fotze

Yes but the renter is liable for the damages either way. What if he is self insured and does not require the rental car insurance, then that argument is moot.

In Canada, by law, the rental car company has primary liability for the vehicle, and I don't think there's anyway for them to opt out of this. The only thing the driver is responsible for is collision insurance, or suplimentary insurance to the base liability ($250k).

Incidentally, if you have a vehicle insured in your own name in Alberta, your pink slip gives you liability coverage for any vehicle you drive in North America. This is secondary liability insurance though, and it only comes into play if the vehicle does not have primary liability on it, or if damages exceed the liability offered by the primary source of coverage.

Something to be careful about when you travel: some US states allow rental car companies to operate with ridculously low or even with no primary liability insurance... (as I found out the hard way. )

[V]

Talking about Auto Insurance always reminds me of this great skit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtEp5yc-g3A&NR

These guys are hilarious.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

There's also data that shows (at least in the US) that blacks and Hispanics are statistically more likely to be a greater accident risk than whites. Do the insurance companies charge minorities more? Hell no, because that would be racial discrimination WHICH IS WRONG! It is acceptable, apparantly, to discriminate based on age or gender, though.

And you can bet your last dollar that if the same analysis showed the opposite white people WOULD be paying higher premiums. It's only wrong if it goes a certain direction.