Friday 18th June 2004

EU Nonsense Kicked Out

Plans to 'equalise' insurance premiums is trashed

---

Plans by the EU to force women to pay as much as men for their car insurance have been booted out by most member states.

Insurance experts have welcomed the rejection of a proposed directive to ban the underwriting of insurance products on grounds of gender.

Paul O'Gorman at insurance specialist Quoteline Direct said: "This is a step in the right direction. Where there is clear, historical statistical evidence and actuarial evidence it should be able to be used as a factor in calculating risk and setting prices for insurance-based products ."

Even the UK Equal Opportunities Commission opposed the move led by the Greek social affairs European commissioner Anna Diamantopolou.

[wedgepilot]

Hmmm....selective discrimination given the ok by Brussels? Shurely not...

Playing devil's advocate for a minute, it could be interesting if someone comes up with clear empirical evidence that, for example, Chinese drivers are less likely to have accidents. Or Gypsies. Or Jews. Would they allow that I wonder?

[Munter]

wedgepilot said:

Hmmm....selective discrimination given the ok by Brussels? Shurely not... Playing devil's advocate for a minute, it could be interesting if someone comes up with clear empirical evidence that, for example, Chinese drivers are less likely to have accidents. Or Gypsies. Or Jews. Would they allow that I wonder?

I bet you would find that discriminating on these points to define risk would be ok. But that collecting the data would be the illegal part....

Personally i'd like to see a scheme where drives can accept the risk the insurance company thinks they are, OR be assesed for risk (although i guess thats the Advanced Driving test....)

[hedgerley]

This is obviously a sensitive issue in these politically correct times. But the bottom line is that insurers take into account a number of factors when assessing risk, whether its a car, bike, house, life, whatever. If the historical and actuarial evidence indicates that particular genders, ethnic groups, lifestyles, locations etc. have a higher/lower risk, then I see no reason why premiums should not be priced accordingly. And if that means women get lower premiums, thats fine by me (yes, I am a bloke)

[goo-goo-gjoob]

I think it's bull. I'm a teenage bloke, been driving for almost five years and I've never been in a 'serious' accident (not more than a fender scracth). One girl just totaled her car because she tailgaits and drives like a lunatic, and another woman almost drove right into me yesterday because she didn't look before pulling out. Yes there are a lot of boys that drive like idiots just trying to show off to all the important people in the wal-mart parking lot, but a lot of girls drive stupidly too.
The lower insurance is just not fair because even though generally their reasoning is true, there are many exceptions. I just don't think it's right that I'm labeled an at risk driver because I have a willy

oh well

[agent006]

Did anyone seriously think for one moment that the men's premiums would be adjusted down, rather than women's up, to be equal?

[hedgerley]

You (and I) are obviously the exception to the rule - as there will always be when taking average, or mean, statistics. Unfortunately, when you look at the evidence, young blokes, 17-24 have the worst accidents, more often, than anyone else. Thats what insurers base their premiums on. I'm 44, never had a serious accident (one claim for minor damage since I passed my test at 17) and despite a string of high performance cars and bikes have never had points on my licence. My wife however, currently has 6 points for speeding and several major scrapes and dings on her Vauxhall Agilla. She got her first points in a Fiat Uno!

So yes, I am pleased I have a much lower premium than you, but even mine will have some weighting for blokes being 'worse' drivers than women. Fact of life I'm afraid.

[CanAm]

Some years ago I worked for an insurance company. Premiums for accident & sickness cover for females were loaded because our statistics showed them to be a higher risk. Conversely, they enjoyed a discount on private car insurance for the same reason.
When the Sex Discrimination Act came into force, the sickness loading was abolished as being discriminatory. However, the discount for lady drivers (or should we call it a loading for males?) continued. Equality?

[GreaseNipple]

nothing me off more, im all for discrimination, lets call a spade a spade but for everyone not just against men! if men are worse drivers thats fair enough but women want it all there own way

[steve_D]

hedgerley said:

This is obviously a sensitive issue in these politically correct times. But the bottom line is that insurers take into account a number of factors when assessing risk, whether its a car, bike, house, life, whatever. If the historical and actuarial evidence indicates that particular genders, ethnic groups, lifestyles, locations etc. have a higher/lower risk, then I see no reason why premiums should not be priced accordingly. And if that means women get lower premiums, thats fine by me (yes, I am a bloke)

Hits the nail on the head.

I drive a £50K Kitcar. If the insurance company did not take into account that those drivers who spend 18 months building a kit tend to know more about the car, how to drive it and how take care of it then my premiums would be prohibitive.

It's not a gender issue just statistics.
Steve

[bjwoods]

goo-goo-gjoob said:

I think it's bull. I'm a teenage bloke, been driving for almost five years and I've never been in a 'serious' accident (not more than a fender scracth). One girl just totaled her car because she tailgaits and drives like a lunatic, and another woman almost drove right into me yesterday because she didn't look before pulling out. Yes there are a lot of boys that drive like idiots just trying to show off to all the important people in the wal-mart parking lot, but a lot of girls drive stupidly too. The lower insurance is just not fair because even though generally their reasoning is true, there are many exceptions. I just don't think it's right that I'm labeled an at risk driver because I have a willy oh well

Tough...

Generally true is what insurance is all about...

If you want cheaper insurance talk to those insurance comapnies that specialise in those exceptions, ie classic, owners club, kit car,etc,etc they take into account other factors that may demonstrate you are less of a risk.

Young men statiscally are much more a risk than young women... Just stateing that you are ok and you know a few girls that are rubbish drivers is very naive. It also sounds like you are overconfident in your own abilities (another typical young man fault).

It sounds like you have actually had a number of 'minor' accidents, how many and how much did each one cost the insurance company.

B

[JMGS4]

[anorak on]
Lets get our facts straight first off..
1) 60% of women drivers drive cars NOT insured to themselves (so their accidents do NOT go on their (womans) insurance, they go onto their husbands or partners or fathers)
2) women drivers have per 100000km driven on average 5 times more accidents than men!
3) women drivers tend to have less serious accidents
(so they don't bother to report them or get them repaired)!

All this from the EU statistics office... DON'T try to tell me that the average female driver is better (less accidents only) than the average male.....IT IS JUST NOT TRUE!!!!
[anorak off]

[Balmoral Green]

'Plans by the EU to force women'

Please save us from piss poor made up reactionary anti EU journalism.

There were no EU plans, the Greeks proposed it.

The EU looked at it (i.e. all the member states) it was rejected by them.

'force' good word, the journalist should be proud of that, along with 'booted out'.

How can an idea that was presented by one member state and rejected by the majority of other member states be reported as EU nonsense. The whole news article is full of ridicule and suggests completely the opposite of what really happened.

>> Edited by Balmoral Green on Wednesday 23 June 21:02

[bjwoods]

JMGS4 said:

[anorak on] Lets get our facts straight first off.. 1) 60% of women drivers drive cars NOT insured to themselves (so their accidents do NOT go on their (womans) insurance, they go onto their husbands or partners or fathers) 2) women drivers have per 100000km driven on average 5 times more accidents than men! 3) women drivers tend to have less serious accidents (so they don't bother to report them or get them repaired)! All this from the EU statistics office... DON'T try to tell me that the average female driver is better (less accidents only) than the average male.....IT IS JUST NOT TRUE!!!! [anorak off]

All that may be true...

BUT the other fact is male young male drivers COST the insurance industry more than young female drivers, hence the premiums..


Cold statistics

B

[pdV6]

JMGS4 said:

3) women drivers tend to have less serious accidents (so they don't bother to report them or get them repaired)!

So in that case they don't cost the insurer as much, thus allowing for lower premiums?

[thru5h]

" young blokes, 17-24 have the worst accidents, more often"

you mean they claim more often.

people aged 30+ often settle on the roadside for claims rather than claim on there insurance, be it because they are more financially well off or have more to loose ie. large no claims bonus.

[Yugguy]

It is unfair - women have less accidents, not because of any better driving, but because they do less mileage over time than men do. Their accident rate per head is no better, but per year it is.

So they are a better risk for insurerers.