EU Gender Directive
Discussion
Zeeky said:
The Directive does not prohibit gender discrimination based on biological differences between men and women. It prohibits the use of statistics to discriminate. If insurers can prove that a woman is less risk because she is a woman then discrimination can be justified.
But they can they prove that without statistics?It's so obvious. Look around the supermarket car park and 90% of drivers are women. Look on the motorway during office hours on a weekday. 90% of drivers are men. So even if they had the same number of accidents, the men's accidents would be bigger, and cost insurers more.
But without statistics, you can't prove that.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mrmr96 said:
Please address my actual point: Would differential pricing based SOLEY on Ethnicity be ok, do you think?
It's a completely nonsense question, because there is no evidence, and would never be any evidence for this. It's like asking should insurers charge more for people who are called Gerald?If there were some know genetic variable between the races that effected their ability to drive, say Caucasians had slower reactions, or Asians had very poor eyesight, then yes, I would support that. I'm sure the disadvantaged group would support it to, as they would know it was factual. But such variations don't exist.
I expect to pay more for my life insurance than someone half my age. I'm more likely to die. It's not my fault, it isn't fair, but it's a fact. I can't deny it. I'm also less likely to crash my car than someone half my age. But more likely to that a woman of the same age. These are facts. Your example of racial profiling in insurance is just made up tosh.
You're deliberatly avoiding answering my question because you KNOW it would be absolutely unacceptable, regardless of any stats which would exist.
mrmr96 said:
So what's the justification for charging men more again? Do we have worse eyesight or reactions? Or is it the types of journeys and driving style? We COULD build stats based on race if we wanted to, and they WOULD show certain groups to be higher or lower risk than "average".
You're deliberatly avoiding answering my question because you KNOW it would be absolutely unacceptable, regardless of any stats which would exist.
Yes, you're right, men pay more due to types of journeys and the driving style.You're deliberatly avoiding answering my question because you KNOW it would be absolutely unacceptable, regardless of any stats which would exist.
No, you're wrong, stats would not show certain ethnic groups to be a higher risk, because they aren't. What makes you think stats would show that. What ethnic groups do you think are worse at what and why?
And how have you avoided the question? I said quite clearly that if certain ethnic groups, including my own (white British) were shown to be a higher risk, then I'd support higher premiums. I support higher premiums for men and I'm a man. I support higher life insurance for 50 y/olds and I'm 50.
So I answered your question fully. Will you answer mine thought?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yes, you're right, men pay more due to types of journeys and the driving style.
No, you're wrong, stats would not show certain ethnic groups to be a higher risk, because they aren't. What makes you think stats would show that. What ethnic groups do you think are worse at what and why?
And how have you avoided the question? I said quite clearly that if certain ethnic groups, including my own (white British) were shown to be a higher risk, then I'd support higher premiums. I support higher premiums for men and I'm a man. I support higher life insurance for 50 y/olds and I'm 50.
So I answered your question fully. Will you answer mine thought?
You may be right that there have never been stats collected on this. However I think that IF stats were collected then I think there WOULD be a statistical difference. If there's enough difference between how men and women drive to be statistically significant then I think there will also be a cultural differences between races which influences their driving which would also prove to be statistically significant.No, you're wrong, stats would not show certain ethnic groups to be a higher risk, because they aren't. What makes you think stats would show that. What ethnic groups do you think are worse at what and why?
And how have you avoided the question? I said quite clearly that if certain ethnic groups, including my own (white British) were shown to be a higher risk, then I'd support higher premiums. I support higher premiums for men and I'm a man. I support higher life insurance for 50 y/olds and I'm 50.
So I answered your question fully. Will you answer mine thought?
However I'm not about to start pointing figures at any ethinic group as being higher or lower risk, because I don't have any stats on this. So any specific examples are at this point pure speculation. As such my question to you could be said to be hypothetical, for the time being, as there's no stats on it. But what you're telling me is that IF there were stats which showed a difference in risk based on race then you WOULD support differential pricing by race. In this day and age how can you possibly believe that to be socially acceptable?
mrmr96 said:
You may be right that there have never been stats collected on this. However I think that IF stats were collected then I think there WOULD be a statistical difference. If there's enough difference between how men and women drive to be statistically significant then I think there will also be a cultural differences between races which influences their driving which would also prove to be statistically significant.
However I'm not about to start pointing figures at any ethinic group as being higher or lower risk, because I don't have any stats on this. So any specific examples are at this point pure speculation. As such my question to you could be said to be hypothetical, for the time being, as there's no stats on it. But what you're telling me is that IF there were stats which showed a difference in risk based on race then you WOULD support differential pricing by race. In this day and age how can you possibly believe that to be socially acceptable?
Why isn't it acceptable? I think it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate fairly. Most people of all races would agree. When they were casting for an actor to play Ali, Will Smith got the gig. I doubt Hugh Grant felt cheated out of the role. If I was looking for someone to play Boris Johnson, Denzil Washington wouldn't make the short list. Why is that wrong. No one complains about that.However I'm not about to start pointing figures at any ethinic group as being higher or lower risk, because I don't have any stats on this. So any specific examples are at this point pure speculation. As such my question to you could be said to be hypothetical, for the time being, as there's no stats on it. But what you're telling me is that IF there were stats which showed a difference in risk based on race then you WOULD support differential pricing by race. In this day and age how can you possibly believe that to be socially acceptable?
I normally wouldn't accept discrimination by gender, except when it's obviously correct to do so.
But fortunately, we would never have to racially discriminate in insurance, because unlike you, I don't believe there is any difference between the ethnic groups.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mrmr96 said:
You may be right that there have never been stats collected on this. However I think that IF stats were collected then I think there WOULD be a statistical difference. If there's enough difference between how men and women drive to be statistically significant then I think there will also be a cultural differences between races which influences their driving which would also prove to be statistically significant.
However I'm not about to start pointing figures at any ethinic group as being higher or lower risk, because I don't have any stats on this. So any specific examples are at this point pure speculation. As such my question to you could be said to be hypothetical, for the time being, as there's no stats on it. But what you're telling me is that IF there were stats which showed a difference in risk based on race then you WOULD support differential pricing by race. In this day and age how can you possibly believe that to be socially acceptable?
Why isn't it acceptable? I think it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate fairly. Most people of all races would agree. When they were casting for an actor to play Ali, Will Smith got the gig. I doubt Hugh Grant felt cheated out of the role. If I was looking for someone to play Boris Johnson, Denzil Washington wouldn't make the short list. Why is that wrong. No one complains about that.However I'm not about to start pointing figures at any ethinic group as being higher or lower risk, because I don't have any stats on this. So any specific examples are at this point pure speculation. As such my question to you could be said to be hypothetical, for the time being, as there's no stats on it. But what you're telling me is that IF there were stats which showed a difference in risk based on race then you WOULD support differential pricing by race. In this day and age how can you possibly believe that to be socially acceptable?
I normally wouldn't accept discrimination by gender, except when it's obviously correct to do so.
But fortunately, we would never have to racially discriminate in insurance, because unlike you, I don't believe there is any difference between the ethnic groups.
It is racist to discriminate based on race.
You appear to be contrary on both these points.
mrmr96 said:
It is not racist to acknowledge differences between races.
It is racist to discriminate based on race.
You appear to be contrary on both these points.
You're the one who is suggesting that stats, if they were collated, would show a difference in risk based on ethniticy. On what basis do you even think that?It is racist to discriminate based on race.
You appear to be contrary on both these points.
My position is quite clear, there are no stats and if there were, they wouldn't show a difference.
Robb F said:
mrmr96 said:
Please address my actual point: Would differential pricing based SOLEY on Ethnicity be ok, do you think?
As long as there was sufficient evidence to support such logic then yes, of course it would.Everything else being equal, is it a fact that a male driver is always a greater risk because he is male than a female driver is because she is female?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mrmr96 said:
It is not racist to acknowledge differences between races.
It is racist to discriminate based on race.
You appear to be contrary on both these points.
You're the one who is suggesting that stats, if they were collated, would show a difference in risk based on ethniticy. On what basis do you even think that?It is racist to discriminate based on race.
You appear to be contrary on both these points.
My position is quite clear, there are no stats and if there were, they wouldn't show a difference.
mrmr96 said:
If there's enough difference between how men and women drive to be statistically significant then I think there will also be a cultural differences between races which influences their driving which would also prove to be statistically significant.
This is me acknowledging differences between races and cultures, just as there are behavioural differences between genders.What I will not do is discriminate based on gender or race, no matter the stats. You on the other hand would discriminate based on gender and race, if there were such stats.
(Bootnote: I accept that such stats may not have been collected, so we can't say for sure if they would be significant or not. I think there would be differences and you don't. We can agree to disagree on that, since there's no evidence been collected either way. However the point I'm making is that what you'd do if there were such stats is unacceptable. I accept that this is currently hypothetical, in the absence of the stats.)
Zeeky said:
Statistics aren't sufficient evidence that a particular individual is a greater or lesser risk simply because of their gender or ethnicity. You don't buy insurance for a class of people, you buy it for yourself.
Everything else being equal, is it a fact that a male driver is always a greater risk because he is male than a female driver is because she is female?
You are correct, you buy insurance as an individual, but insurers, not knowing you, have to rate the risk as a combinatinon of individual and as part of a wider group.Everything else being equal, is it a fact that a male driver is always a greater risk because he is male than a female driver is because she is female?
They take into account your personal ncb, accident and conviction history, but also your car, area, age and gender as a group.
Of course one 17 y/o may be a lower risk than his granny, but 100 17 y/olds will cost an insurer more than their grannies.
Someone living in the Scottish Highlands may get their car stolen, and someone else in C London may not, but overall, claims from C. London will be more frequent.
I don't see how insurers have any other choice.
Would you seriously expect a 75 y/o taking out 25 yrs life insurance to pay the same as a 25 y/old, on the basis that neither of them have ever died before!!
It depends on how important non-discrimination is based on age (Although there are biological differences between old and young people). The ECJ is less likely to take a strict approach to age as it is to gender.
The UK has generally been less tolerant of race discrimination than it has been of gender discrimination. Domestic law allows for the use of statistics by insurers to discriminate based on gender but not race etc.
Sex discrimination law in the UK is often not as strict as the EU would like, hence ECJ judgments going against the domestic legislation over the years.
The UK has generally been less tolerant of race discrimination than it has been of gender discrimination. Domestic law allows for the use of statistics by insurers to discriminate based on gender but not race etc.
Sex discrimination law in the UK is often not as strict as the EU would like, hence ECJ judgments going against the domestic legislation over the years.
Edited by Zeeky on Thursday 15th November 12:04
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
totally
its no different too adjusting premiums based on someones ethnicity or sexual preference
Well it is, because neither ethniticy nor sexual preferance effects your likelyhood to cost insurers more or less money, whereas gender clearly does.its no different too adjusting premiums based on someones ethnicity or sexual preference
People like you are deliberately slippery when they're wrong on a point; constantly changing the focus and dodging the point. I've worded my point to you about as carefully as I'm able to, and so you've chosen to ignore it as you can't slip any further. I'll not repeat it here - see above.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You're the one who is suggesting that stats, if they were collated, would show a difference in risk based on ethniticy. On what basis do you even think that?
My position is quite clear, there are no stats and if there were, they wouldn't show a difference.
Hmm. There are a number of factors which would be difficult to disentangle statistically from ethnic origin - cultural factors, socio-economic factors, physiological differences with a genetic basis and their effect on accident outcomes. My position is quite clear, there are no stats and if there were, they wouldn't show a difference.
otolith said:
Hmm. There are a number of factors which would be difficult to disentangle statistically from ethnic origin - cultural factors, socio-economic factors, physiological differences with a genetic basis and their effect on accident outcomes.
And those are largely irrelevant. If the insurers find a simple factor that allows them to assign a different risk to a simply identified population, then they are likely to do that. We can see (and we don't like it) insurers attempting to do that in UBI.So would insurers do it on the grounds of ethnicity? They might. So we think they've not thought about it? Of course they have. We don't know why it's not happened. It might be that they haven't looked at stats coz they are too hard to find, but I bet they've done research. Or it might be they didn't find a difference in risk. Or they did find it, but decided it would be socially unacceptable. We don't know any of that do we?
I certainly don't subscribe to the view that risk based pricing should only be applied to risk factors we have control over. That's nanny-state-ism in the extreme. Next we'll be attempting to show that risk isn't affected based on the occurrence of non-fault accidents.
Bert
BertBert said:
otolith said:
Hmm. There are a number of factors which would be difficult to disentangle statistically from ethnic origin - cultural factors, socio-economic factors, physiological differences with a genetic basis and their effect on accident outcomes.
And those are largely irrelevant. If the insurers find a simple factor that allows them to assign a different risk to a simply identified population, then they are likely to do that. We can see (and we don't like it) insurers attempting to do that in UBI.In the parallel case with gender, we might start to see some interesting effects of occupation - male primary school teachers might be in for a nice surprise, for example, while female mechanics might not be so lucky.
BertBert said:
otolith said:
Hmm. There are a number of factors which would be difficult to disentangle statistically from ethnic origin - cultural factors, socio-economic factors, physiological differences with a genetic basis and their effect on accident outcomes.
And those are largely irrelevant. If the insurers find a simple factor that allows them to assign a different risk to a simply identified population, then they are likely to do that. We can see (and we don't like it) insurers attempting to do that in UBI.So would insurers do it on the grounds of ethnicity? They might. So we think they've not thought about it? Of course they have. We don't know why it's not happened. It might be that they haven't looked at stats coz they are too hard to find, but I bet they've done research. Or it might be they didn't find a difference in risk. Or they did find it, but decided it would be socially unacceptable. We don't know any of that do we?
BertBert said:
I certainly don't subscribe to the view that risk based pricing should only be applied to risk factors we have control over. That's nanny-state-ism in the extreme. Next we'll be attempting to show that risk isn't affected based on the occurrence of non-fault accidents.
Bert
No, Bert. I agree that having been involved in a non-fault claim means that you're statistically more likely to be involved in another one. (Possible reason: you park places where morons drive, like Asda.) But the point is that you DO have control over this. If I park at the far end of the car park then I'm less likley to be involved in a non-fault, vs. if I always park in one of the crowded spaces near the entrance to the shop. I do have control over that.Bert
My personal view is that pricing based on things we can't control isn't fair to the buyer of insurance. Your moral compass may be different to mine, and that's fine, we're all different. But can you explain why do you think that pricing on any non controllable feature of a person is ok, but ethnicity is not?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff