Gender Can No Be Considered In Car Insurance

[Pork]

How can that be?

Surely insurance is based on stats from the past but this ruling is now surely saying "you can not differentiate by gender", that all goes out the window?

So this plum in Belgium who's tired of being ripped off for insurance has only resulted in EVERYONE paying more! Do they really believe one gender's premium will fall?!

Struggling to find a link at present, but ECJ have just ruled.

[Bing o]

Pork said:

How can that be?

Because the UK is run by unelected fkwits who run everything counter to common sense and decency.

[MadMullah]

Just heard this on the radio on the way to work

what a fking tool!!

did he honestly think that insurance companies would bring his premium down?

insurance companies must be loving this ruling to some level - chance to push up the premium for 50% of the population even more!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610

[Eric Mc]

Wait for the age related argument next.

[Pork]

Eric Mc said:

Wait for the age related argument next.

They just mentioned that on BBC Breakfast - thats next.

So what will we end up with - insurance that has no relevance to your status? How long until "how can my premium on a Veyron be different to the Ford Ka - I'm being descriminated against!".

Madness, utter madness.

[Bing o]

Eric Mc said:

Wait for the age related argument next.

Why not just a flat premium for all? So much easier to administer. Just divide overall claims by number of policy holders. Job's a good un. We could call it the Simple Insurance Company, Subsidiary of the Simple Bank (copyright Tonym911).

[RemainAllHoof]

European Court, this is for you:



Proof that knowledge != intelligence.

Using their stupidity, I've been considering calling the race card on dating sites who allow you to specify race; clearly, it's encouraging racialists.

I wonder if suddenly 51% of England wants out of Europe.

Edited by RemainAllHoof on Tuesday 1st March 09:39

[Derek Smith]

Pork said:

How can that be?

Surely insurance is based on stats from the past but this ruling is now surely saying "you can not differentiate by gender", that all goes out the window?

Women drive 2/3rd the distance of men and drive mainly in areas of 30 and 40 mph limits. So their claims are lower and therefore are a lower risk. The 'unfairness' is on a male who does the same. Why should his premiums not reflect his lower risk?

If you give your job as househusband then, surely, you should have the same premium as a woman?

Further, the woman who is in full-time work, drives all over the country, at high speed on single-carriageway NSL bits of road is getting a lower premium because of the fact that she's female.

Sex is a very blunt tool.

[elster]

Personally I think the ruling is just.

However the actions will mean that the insurance premiums for woman will now go up, not be reduced for me.

The whole premise was there is no evidence to show that men or woman were are greater risk on a per mile basis.

[RemainAllHoof]

elster said:

The whole premise was there is no evidence to show that men or woman were are greater risk on a per mile basis.

Really? So what do actuaries actually do for a living? (If your statement is true then I will delete my above post.)

[sidicks]

RemainAllHoof said:

Really? So what do actuaries actually do for a living?

[Eric Mc]

elster said:

Personally I think the ruling is just.

However the actions will mean that the insurance premiums for woman will now go up, not be reduced for me.

The whole premise was there is no evidence to show that men or woman were are greater risk on a per mile basis.

In a perfect world, yes, it is just. If the premium rates were then evenly spread amiongst the population - some going up and some going down - then that would be a just outcome. However, we all know that what will happen is that premiums will all go up.

Of course, this is not just a car insurance related issue and we will have to see what impact it has on other sorts of insurances.


The very nature of risk assessment leads to a form of discrimination. High risk factors produce higher premiums.

If every high risk factor is deemed to be discriminatory in some form or other - we could be facing chaos in the insurance world - and a bad deal for low risk groups and areas.

[ringram]

Ageism next? Cheap bus fares, winter fuel payments, pensions vs unemployment benefit, etc, etc....

TBH, treating everyone the same is more fair in my books. I see no problems

[fido]

Derek Smith said:

Sex is a very blunt tool.

It is a blunt tool but it is also a reasonable statistical indicator. I don't know how else you can measure testesterone-induces propensity to take risk - perhaps some sort of medical examination or a series of behavioural tests? TBH It won't make as much difference past 25 and other factors like length of driving experience also weigh in significantly. But agree some of us 'gentler' men do get shafted with this blunt tool.

[RemainAllHoof]

sidicks said:

RemainAllHoof said:

Really? So what do actuaries actually do for a living?

What? I know what they do for a living. The question that has been on the lips of philosophers for centuries: do actuaries actually know what they do for a living?

[greygoose]

ringram said:

Ageism next? Cheap bus fares, winter fuel payments, pensions vs unemployment benefit, etc, etc....

TBH, treating everyone the same is more fair in my books. I see no problems

Annuities are rumoured to be next, so lower payments for men despite us not living as long.

[Mr Sparkle]

So is this really going to increase the premium for ladies to that of men? How could they administer this? Surely the companies will find a way to keep the premiums down since the one who does will get all the business, or come renewal are they no longer able to ask your sex?

[Victor McDade]

How far should insurance companies be allowed to take it though?

I wonder what the stats say about young males of Chinese origin vs young males of Pakistani origin vs young black males etc and their accident risk.

If there is a marked difference in the above figures then should they be allowed to discriminate?

[fido]

Mr Sparkle said:

So is this really going to increase the premium for ladies to that of men?

They will still know your sex but cannot decide the premium based on that information, so for example a '17yr girl' is now a '17yr old' for insurance purposes. The risks will be shared across that entire group which means girls will effectively subsidize boys, albeit in that age profile.

[Einion Yrth]

Victor McDade said:

How far should insurance companies be allowed to take it though?

I wonder what the stats say about young males of Chinese origin vs young males of Pakistani origin vs young black males etc and their accident risk.

If there is a marked difference in the above figures then should they be allowed to discriminate?

If properly gathered and analysed stats show a related difference in risk then of course they bloody well should. It's all supposed to be about risk not the colour of your skin or where you keep your genitals.