EU Gender Directive

[BertBert]

Zeeky said:

That is the legal position. You have the right to be treated as an individual not as a member of a class of persons identified by a protected characteristic such as race or gender.

Life is unfair. It need not be discriminatory. If the insurance companies want to charge you more for insurance because you are male the onus is on them to prove that you are a higher risk because you are male. Statistics do not prove anything about the individual.

I don't see it the same as you at all. Insurance is based on statistical inference. The predicted likelihood of needing to claim is used. What that does is use statistics, ie how a population behaved is used to predict what might happen to an individual. If the ins co gets that right, then the population of individuals behaves in future like the sample population did in the past.

That is well proven, the onus has been on them and it has worked.

So if you split the insured population into 2, then:

The probability of having a claim given you are male is greater than the probability of having a claim given you are female.

This is NOT discrimination. Discrimination is taking a prejudicial view purely on the basis that you belong to a certain group. It's not the same as what insurance is doing. It's not because you belong to a group, it's about the observed empirical behaviour of the membership of that group.

Take a different example. Split the population into criminals and non-criminals (speeders obviously in the criminal group).

So any guesses? The probability of a person committing a crime given they are a criminal is slightly greater than the probability of a person committing a crime if they are in the non-criminal group.

So is it ok to regard someone differently depending on whether they are in the criminal group? I suggest it is.

The fact that women pose a different insurance risk to men is just coincidental to the fact that women also get discriminated against.

How could the dumbfks in the EU not understand that? And I've only got 1 CSE.

Bert

[otolith]

It is discrimination - the problem is that the dogmatic fiction that men and women are the same (which would make discrimination unjust) runs up against the pragmatic reality that the statistics show them not to be.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BertBert said:

I don't see it the same as you at all. Insurance is based on statistical inference. The predicted likelihood of needing to claim is used. What that does is use statistics, ie how a population behaved is used to predict what might happen to an individual. If the ins co gets that right, then the population of individuals behaves in future like the sample population did in the past.

That is well proven, the onus has been on them and it has worked.

So if you split the insured population into 2, then:

The probability of having a claim given you are male is greater than the probability of having a claim given you are female.

This is NOT discrimination. Discrimination is taking a prejudicial view purely on the basis that you belong to a certain group. It's not the same as what insurance is doing. It's not because you belong to a group, it's about the observed empirical behaviour of the membership of that group.

Take a different example. Split the population into criminals and non-criminals (speeders obviously in the criminal group).

So any guesses? The probability of a person committing a crime given they are a criminal is slightly greater than the probability of a person committing a crime if they are in the non-criminal group.

So is it ok to regard someone differently depending on whether they are in the criminal group? I suggest it is.

The fact that women pose a different insurance risk to men is just coincidental to the fact that women also get discriminated against.

How could the dumbfks in the EU not understand that? And I've only got 1 CSE.

Bert

It's obviously 1 CSE more than the idiots responsible for this crackpot ruling.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Zeeky said:

That is the legal position. You have the right to be treated as an individual not as a member of a class of persons identified by a protected characteristic such as race or gender.

Life is unfair. It need not be discriminatory. If the insurance companies want to charge you more for insurance because you are male the onus is on them to prove that you are a higher risk because you are male. Statistics do not prove anything about the individual.

How would this work. Would you have to be interviewed by your prospective insurer before taking out a policy? Surely that's the only way forward if what you are suggesting became the law.

You couldn't charge someone extra for having had 5 previous fault claims in the last year. Because if you did, you'd be making an assumption by lumping them in with everyone else with 5 fault claims. This person might have turned over a new leaf, and might never have another claim again.

I can't see any way forward with your theory other than an extensive interview with every potential customer prior to an offer of insurance being made. Maybe some kind of phsycological testing to try and establish their character. Are they risk adverse or not.

Tbh, I can't see a future in it.

[Ninjaboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

How would this work. Would you have to be interviewed by your prospective insurer before taking out a policy? Surely that's the only way forward if what you are suggesting became the law.

You couldn't charge someone extra for having had 5 previous fault claims in the last year. Because if you did, you'd be making an assumption by lumping them in with everyone else with 5 fault claims. This person might have turned over a new leaf, and might never have another claim again.

I can't see any way forward with your theory other than an extensive interview with every potential customer prior to an offer of insurance being made. Maybe some kind of phsycological testing to try and establish their character. Are they risk adverse or not.

Tbh, I can't see a future in it.

Like i said everyone pays the same at the start, if you don't crash it goes down if you do it goes up. It would also need to have an element of sense with the car type obviously but a VTR saxo would cost the same for all 17 year olds at the start and go up or down depending on what happens.

[otolith]

Ninjaboy said:

Like i said everyone pays the same at the start, if you don't crash it goes down if you do it goes up. It would also need to have an element of sense with the car type obviously but a VTR saxo would cost the same for all 17 year olds at the start and go up or down depending on what happens.

The problem you have is that another insurer who is good at estimating risk will come in and offer all your better risks a cheaper premium and leave you with all the underpriced bad risks.

[Noger]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well it's nearly here.

Been and gone here

[Derek Smith]

BertBert said:

I don't see it the same as you at all. Insurance is based on statistical inference. The predicted likelihood of needing to claim is used. What that does is use statistics, ie how a population behaved is used to predict what might happen to an individual. If the ins co gets that right, then the population of individuals behaves in future like the sample population did in the past.

That is well proven, the onus has been on them and it has worked.

So if you split the insured population into 2, then:

The probability of having a claim given you are male is greater than the probability of having a claim given you are female.

This is NOT discrimination. Discrimination is taking a prejudicial view purely on the basis that you belong to a certain group. It's not the same as what insurance is doing. It's not because you belong to a group, it's about the observed empirical behaviour of the membership of that group.

Take a different example. Split the population into criminals and non-criminals (speeders obviously in the criminal group).

So any guesses? The probability of a person committing a crime given they are a criminal is slightly greater than the probability of a person committing a crime if they are in the non-criminal group.

So is it ok to regard someone differently depending on whether they are in the criminal group? I suggest it is.

The fact that women pose a different insurance risk to men is just coincidental to the fact that women also get discriminated against.

How could the dumbfks in the EU not understand that? And I've only got 1 CSE.

Bert

Per mile driven women have more accidents than men.

Men have more expensive accidents than women.

However, if one excludes males up tot he age of 25, the differences in claims is not gender based.

Women on average drive 1/3rd the distance men do. They also drive the majority of their time in 40 mph or lower limits. This is why they have less claims as a whole.

The reason is that women are still the major carer.

But what about hte male who drives the majority of his time in 40mph limits or lower? Or who does the school run without using NSL a and B roads? He gets worse insurance levels despite being the same risk.

Further, white van woman drives more aggressively than WVM and has more accidents. Yet she gets lower insurance premiums due to those mums who drive just a couple of thousand miles a year.

Dividing drivers by sex is convenient for insurers as they all do it. This legislation will, one hopes, make them pay more attention to actual risk.

[otolith]

Derek Smith said:

This legislation will, one hopes, make them pay more attention to actual risk.

How would you suggest they do that?

Keep in mind that the more accurately an insurer can estimate risk, the more money they will make. It is absolutely not in their best interests to price on anything other than their best efforts.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Ninjaboy said:

Like i said everyone pays the same at the start, if you don't crash it goes down if you do it goes up. It would also need to have an element of sense with the car type obviously but a VTR saxo would cost the same for all 17 year olds at the start and go up or down depending on what happens.

Would a new 17 y/o pay the same as a 57 y/o taking out their first insurance? If you apply "sense" as you so ironically call it, to the type of car, would you apply "sense" to the area they live in? Would someone in London pay the same as someone in N Yorkshire?

What about someone who crashes and doesn't replace their car, so doesn't need further insurance, or someone who has a huge claim killing loads of people plus themselves. You can't charge them more next time, so who picks up the shortfall?

What about people who go on internet forums and spout complete drivel without thinking it thru. Would you charge them extra?

Perhaps you can give us some numbers, say based on 1000 17 y/o VTR drivers. How much they pay to start with, how much is goes down for claim free drivers, and goes up for the claimers.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Saturday 17th November 14:02

[Ninjaboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Ninjaboy said:

Like i said everyone pays the same at the start, if you don't crash it goes down if you do it goes up. It would also need to have an element of sense with the car type obviously but a VTR saxo would cost the same for all 17 year olds at the start and go up or down depending on what happens.

Would a new 17 y/o pay the same as a 57 y/o taking out their first insurance? If you apply "sense" as you so ironically call it, to the type of car, would you apply "sense" to the area they live in? Would someone in London pay the same as someone in N Yorkshire?

What about someone who crashes and doesn't replace their car, so doesn't need further insurance, or someone who has a huge claim killing loads of people plus themselves. You can't charge them more next time, so who picks up the shortfall?

What about people who go on internet forums and spout complete drivel without thinking it thru. Would you charge them extra?

Perhaps you can give us some numbers, say based on 1000 17 y/o VTR drivers. How much they pay to start with, how much is goes down for claim free drivers, and goes up for the claimers.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Saturday 17th November 14:02

I tell you what then you sad tt, before you fk of an die why don't you put a better idea rather than put sarcastic comments on my thoughts. Loser!

So we just go round and round again, why should i pay more insurance because i happen to be a man and carry the burden of the local chavs.

Edited by Ninjaboy on Saturday 17th November 19:04

[SpeckledJim]

It is all just data. There is no pejorative judgment in the data, it's just numbers.

I can produce data to show that black athletes are good at running quickly, and white athletes are good at swimming quickly. A bookmaker offering odds on a random black 25 athlete in a running and swimming competition against his white equivalent would reflect those differences. That isn't a value judgment, it's just data.

If data existed to show asian blokes were better risks than average, and caribbean women were better risks than average, then there should be no issue in an insurer using that data for their pricing. Insurers are just bookmakers, using the available data to set the right price. If more data is available, the price will be closer to correct.

Age similarly. A 19yo with one year experience is a worse risk than a 40yo with the same experience. Because the 19yo has mental and lifestyle factors that put them at a relative disadvantage. Not a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing', just true, and relevant, and demonstrable in the data.

[SpeckledJim]

Ninjaboy said:

I tell you what then you sad tt, before you fk of an die why don't you put a better idea rather than put sarcastic comments on my thoughts. Loser!

So we just go round and round again, why should i pay more insurance because i happen to be a man and carry the burden of the local chavs.

Edited by Ninjaboy on Saturday 17th November 19:04

Because short of a personal interview and driving test with your insurer, they need to make generalisations about you. One factor about you is your gender, which is directly relevant to your propensity to crash.

And while your price is dragged up by the 'chavs', in turn you benefit from the other men who are better drivers than you.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Ninjaboy said:

why should i pay more insurance because i happen to be a man and carry the burden of the local chavs.

Edited by Ninjaboy on Saturday 17th November 19:04

Because you're a higher risk than the average woman of your age living in your area driving the same car. Because your insurer have no way of knowing if you're one of the local chavs or not. When you earn some no claims bonus and the chavs don't you'll be paying less than the chavs, but more than the woman if she too has earned the same no claims bonus. Because she'll still be a better risk. I don't know anyway to explain it any more simply that that.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

SpeckledJim said:

It is all just data. There is no pejorative judgment in the data, it's just numbers.

I can produce data to show that black athletes are good at running quickly, and white athletes are good at swimming quickly. A bookmaker offering odds on a random black 25 athlete in a running and swimming competition against his white equivalent would reflect those differences. That isn't a value judgment, it's just data.

If data existed to show asian blokes were better risks than average, and caribbean women were better risks than average, then there should be no issue in an insurer using that data for their pricing. Insurers are just bookmakers, using the available data to set the right price. If more data is available, the price will be closer to correct.

Age similarly. A 19yo with one year experience is a worse risk than a 40yo with the same experience. Because the 19yo has mental and lifestyle factors that put them at a relative disadvantage. Not a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing', just true, and relevant, and demonstrable in the data.

Enough of your logic and common sense. Stop clouding the issue with facts.

[tank slapper]

SpeckledJim said:

If data existed to show asian blokes were better risks than average, and caribbean women were better risks than average, then there should be no issue in an insurer using that data for their pricing.

Do you think it would be generally deemed acceptable if those stats showed the opposite, and asian men and carribean women were worse risks? There is absolutely no chance any insurance company would dare to price minorities more expensively even if they have figures to back it up.

[SpeckledJim]

tank slapper said:

SpeckledJim said:

If data existed to show asian blokes were better risks than average, and caribbean women were better risks than average, then there should be no issue in an insurer using that data for their pricing.

Do you think it would be generally deemed acceptable if those stats showed the opposite, and asian men and carribean women were worse risks? There is absolutely no chance any insurance company would dare to price minorities more expensively even if they have figures to back it up.

I don't believe there is a moral or ethical problem with it. The problem is political, and that shouldn't ever worry us too much.

A related point for illustrative purposes: the data shows beyond argument that genetic birth defects are hugely over-represented in Pakistani communities, due to their cultural proclivity for marrying their cousins. Should the NHS use that data to improve the care they can offer to these poor children, or do the political thing and ignore it?

[Ninjaboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Because you're a higher risk than the average woman of your age living in your area driving the same car. Because your insurer have no way of knowing if you're one of the local chavs or not. When you earn some no claims bonus and the chavs don't you'll be paying less than the chavs, but more than the woman if she too has earned the same no claims bonus. Because she'll still be a better risk. I don't know anyway to explain it any more simply that that.

You can use all the condesending language you like, i understand the situation perfectly i just don't agree with it and i don't see how it's fair to the indiviual. As as already been said ethnic background isn't take into consideration becasue it's considered racist, i think the current system is sexist and welcome the change.

[Zeeky]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I can't see any way forward with your theory other than an extensive interview with every potential customer prior to an offer of insurance being made. Maybe some kind of phsycological testing to try and establish their character. Are they risk adverse or not.

Tbh, I can't see a future in it.

I wasn't postulating a theory. I was stating the legal position. Domestic law in the UK prohibited discrimination in insurance provision based on race etc but exempted gender discrimination. The ECJ has raised the standard of sex discrimination to race discrimination in the UK in relation to use of statistics.

Now it is not lawful to discriminate on the basis of race or gender simply on statistics.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

...Because you're a higher risk than the average woman of your age living in your area driving the same car.

It is not possible to tell how much risk an individual poses simply by his gender. Statistics do not prove anything about the individual. They relate to a class of persons. There are plenty of women who are a higher risk than men. This disproves the assertion that being male means you are a higher risk.

Edited by Zeeky on Saturday 17th November 22:42

[otolith]

^^^ I'm finding the denial of the canon of statistical and probability theory above hard to swallow - it seems to me that to have those views you have to be either a Nobel laureate or a mathematical ignoramus, and sadly I am neither.