Cheaper car insurance for women IS discrimination, says EU

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Cheaper car insurance for women IS discrimination, says EU

 

EU judges have ruled that cheaper car insurance for women does fall foul of equality legislation - and insurers are banned from doing it from December 21 2012.

 

Conservative MP Sajjad Karim has already condemned the decision as 'utter madness', and industry watchers are unsure of the impact the decision could have in other areas where payment is based on risk calculations.

 

What a load of bollocks this is. Can't the EU see that womens insurance is cheaper based on complex risk assessment calculations and not on sexism?

 

The facts are simple: young lads are much more likely to have a big crash than their female counterparts, so they should pay more because they represent a greater risk.

 

What's next? Will they argue that's it's unfair to judge you on your age / address / occupation and we'll all pay the same?

[Guest alex]

This reminds me of the ruling whereby Sky had to end their monopoly on showing live PL games. The end result of this consumer 'victory' being that instead of just paying for Sky in order to watch the games, you also had to fork out for Setanta (and now ESPN) as well. This'll just mean women end up paying more rather than blokes paying less imo.

[Renton 20486]

Cheaper car insurance for women IS discrimination, says EU

 

EU judges have ruled that cheaper car insurance for women does fall foul of equality legislation - and insurers are banned from doing it from December 21 2012.

 

Conservative MP Sajjad Karim has already condemned the decision as 'utter madness', and industry watchers are unsure of the impact the decision could have in other areas where payment is based on risk calculations.

 

What a load of bollocks this is. Can't the EU see that womens insurance is cheaper based on complex risk assessment calculations and not on sexism?

 

The facts are simple: young lads are much more likely to have a big crash than their female counterparts, so they should pay more because they represent a greater risk.

 

What's next? Will they argue that's it's unfair to judge you on your age / address / occupation and we'll all pay the same?

 

Insurance is essentially legalised discrimination. Doesn't seem fair to penalise a sensible 20 year old lad because a minority of his peers drive like complete dickheads. Problem is identifying the dick heads I guess.

[NJS 4267]

The under 25 argument is fair enough but as I've said before, I don't see why two 40 yr olds who drive the same car with the same notional mileage should not get equal premiums.

 

Before Rob W steams in with his actuary argument I also read a good comment elsewhere - it might be true that men are overall statisticlally more likely to have accidents but its also true that women are statistically more likely to work less hours and take time off for maternity leave which effects their careers but paying them less is still illegal.

 

Agree there won't be equalisation though.

[Rob W 0]

I wasn't going to stream in - I'd like to see the actual wording of the verdict - it may be that if they do a proper risk assessment instead of "women pay less" they can still get lower premiums

 

Generally the Yuropean Court likes to see people think about things rather than blanket rules

[Toonraider 0]

Cheaper car insurance for women IS discrimination, says EU

 

EU judges have ruled that cheaper car insurance for women does fall foul of equality legislation - and insurers are banned from doing it from December 21 2012.

 

Conservative MP Sajjad Karim has already condemned the decision as 'utter madness', and industry watchers are unsure of the impact the decision could have in other areas where payment is based on risk calculations.

 

What a load of bollocks this is. Can't the EU see that womens insurance is cheaper based on complex risk assessment calculations and not on sexism?

 

The facts are simple: young lads are much more likely to have a big crash than their female counterparts, so they should pay more because they represent a greater risk.

 

What's next? Will they argue that's it's unfair to judge you on your age / address / occupation and we'll all pay the same?

 

Insurance is essentially legalised discrimination. Doesn't seem fair to penalise a sensible 20 year old lad because a minority of his peers drive like complete dickheads. Problem is identifying the dick heads I guess.

 

I agree entirely. It is unfair that my son who has driven for 7 years with no accidents, has to pay more then a female with exactly the same history.

And the same for any age male, he would still have to pay more than his female counterpart, it is wrong.

[manc-mag 1]

Cheaper car insurance for women IS discrimination, says EU

 

EU judges have ruled that cheaper car insurance for women does fall foul of equality legislation - and insurers are banned from doing it from December 21 2012.

 

Conservative MP Sajjad Karim has already condemned the decision as 'utter madness', and industry watchers are unsure of the impact the decision could have in other areas where payment is based on risk calculations.

 

What a load of bollocks this is. Can't the EU see that womens insurance is cheaper based on complex risk assessment calculations and not on sexism?

 

The facts are simple: young lads are much more likely to have a big crash than their female counterparts, so they should pay more because they represent a greater risk.

 

What's next? Will they argue that's it's unfair to judge you on your age / address / occupation and we'll all pay the same?

 

Insurance is essentially legalised discrimination. Doesn't seem fair to penalise a sensible 20 year old lad because a minority of his peers drive like complete dickheads. Problem is identifying the dick heads I guess.

 

I agree entirely. It is unfair that my son who has driven for 7 years with no accidents, has to pay more then a female with exactly the same history.

And the same for any age male, he would still have to pay more than his female counterpart, it is wrong.

 

It's not unfair if he's more likely to have an accident in his 8th year* and she's more likely to have another 50 years of accident free driving though. Purely from a risk assessment (ie insurers) point of view

 

That's not to say I feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. I readily accept there could be more personalised ways of doing the risk assessment that are less sexually discriminative, but equally they'd probably push the premium up too because they'd be more labour intensive.

 

It's a form of sexism that is a fact of life and is not malicious. There are worse examples at the end of the day.

 

*really sorry about the example (it was just that it had to follow on from yours to make the point) and obviously I hope he has a lifetime's accident free driving!!

[LoveTheBobby 1]

"Women's car insurance to insurance to cost same as a drunk, blindfolded monkey's"

 

...just what I heard like

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society...s-201103013586/

[manc-mag 1]

Cheaper car insurance for women IS discrimination, says EU

 

EU judges have ruled that cheaper car insurance for women does fall foul of equality legislation - and insurers are banned from doing it from December 21 2012.

 

Conservative MP Sajjad Karim has already condemned the decision as 'utter madness', and industry watchers are unsure of the impact the decision could have in other areas where payment is based on risk calculations.

 

What a load of bollocks this is. Can't the EU see that womens insurance is cheaper based on complex risk assessment calculations and not on sexism?

 

The facts are simple: young lads are much more likely to have a big crash than their female counterparts, so they should pay more because they represent a greater risk.

 

What's next? Will they argue that's it's unfair to judge you on your age / address / occupation and we'll all pay the same?

 

Insurance is essentially legalised discrimination. Doesn't seem fair to penalise a sensible 20 year old lad because a minority of his peers drive like complete dickheads. Problem is identifying the dick heads I guess.

 

And the cost thereof. In a nutshell.

[NJS 4267]

That's not to say I feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. I readily accept there could be more personalised ways of doing the risk assessment that are less sexually discriminative, but equally they'd probably push the premium up too because they'd be more labour intensive.

 

A lad I worked with signed up on a pilot scheme a couple of years ago that based it on mileage (all they used was a GPS box). Because he cycled to the train station and really only used his car for the occasional night out or shopping on a weekend, his mileage was pitiful and the insurer refused to let him continue on it as wasn't making them any money. I'd guess though that if this applied to everyone they could work out a scale that would give them the same level of income and be demonstrably fair (in my view).

Edited March 1, 2011 by NJS

[Toonraider 0]

Cheaper car insurance for women IS discrimination, says EU

 

EU judges have ruled that cheaper car insurance for women does fall foul of equality legislation - and insurers are banned from doing it from December 21 2012.

 

Conservative MP Sajjad Karim has already condemned the decision as 'utter madness', and industry watchers are unsure of the impact the decision could have in other areas where payment is based on risk calculations.

 

What a load of bollocks this is. Can't the EU see that womens insurance is cheaper based on complex risk assessment calculations and not on sexism?

 

The facts are simple: young lads are much more likely to have a big crash than their female counterparts, so they should pay more because they represent a greater risk.

 

What's next? Will they argue that's it's unfair to judge you on your age / address / occupation and we'll all pay the same?

 

Insurance is essentially legalised discrimination. Doesn't seem fair to penalise a sensible 20 year old lad because a minority of his peers drive like complete dickheads. Problem is identifying the dick heads I guess.

 

I agree entirely. It is unfair that my son who has driven for 7 years with no accidents, has to pay more then a female with exactly the same history.

And the same for any age male, he would still have to pay more than his female counterpart, it is wrong.

 

It's not unfair if he's more likely to have an accident in his 8th year* and she's more likely to have another 50 years of accident free driving though. Purely from a risk assessment (ie insurers) point of view

 

That's not to say I feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. I readily accept there could be more personalised ways of doing the risk assessment that are less sexually discriminative, but equally they'd probably push the premium up too because they'd be more labour intensive.

 

It's a form of sexism that is a fact of life and is not malicious. There are worse examples at the end of the day.

 

*really sorry about the example (it was just that it had to follow on from yours to make the point) and obviously I hope he has a lifetime's accident free driving!!

 

Thank you sweetie! So do I!

 

 

Hey I just thought, bet Shiela's wheels arent happy

[Welsh Magpie 0]

Cheaper car insurance for women IS discrimination, says EU

 

EU judges have ruled that cheaper car insurance for women does fall foul of equality legislation - and insurers are banned from doing it from December 21 2012.

 

Conservative MP Sajjad Karim has already condemned the decision as 'utter madness', and industry watchers are unsure of the impact the decision could have in other areas where payment is based on risk calculations.

 

What a load of bollocks this is. Can't the EU see that womens insurance is cheaper based on complex risk assessment calculations and not on sexism?

 

The facts are simple: young lads are much more likely to have a big crash than their female counterparts, so they should pay more because they represent a greater risk.

 

What's next? Will they argue that's it's unfair to judge you on your age / address / occupation and we'll all pay the same?

 

Insurance is essentially legalised discrimination. Doesn't seem fair to penalise a sensible 20 year old lad because a minority of his peers drive like complete dickheads. Problem is identifying the dick heads I guess.

 

I agree entirely. It is unfair that my son who has driven for 7 years with no accidents, has to pay more then a female with exactly the same history.

And the same for any age male, he would still have to pay more than his female counterpart, it is wrong.

 

It's not unfair if he's more likely to have an accident in his 8th year* and she's more likely to have another 50 years of accident free driving though. Purely from a risk assessment (ie insurers) point of view

 

That's not to say I feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. I readily accept there could be more personalised ways of doing the risk assessment that are less sexually discriminative, but equally they'd probably push the premium up too because they'd be more labour intensive.

 

It's a form of sexism that is a fact of life and is not malicious. There are worse examples at the end of the day.

 

*really sorry about the example (it was just that it had to follow on from yours to make the point) and obviously I hope he has a lifetime's accident free driving!!

 

Thank you sweetie! So do I!

 

 

Hey I just thought, bet Shiela's wheels arent happy

 

 

haha they guy from sheilas wheels was on the news about an hour ago i didnt bother listening much he did say they insure men aswell though. surely it should be mentioned in their pathetic annoying ads. and for this ruling good women moan we want equal pay blah blah blah now pay equal premiums fuckers. statistics dont mean shit

[Guest alex]

A touch of schadenfreude there

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

The under 25 argument is fair enough but as I've said before, I don't see why two 40 yr olds who drive the same car with the same notional mileage should not get equal premiums.

 

Before Rob W steams in with his actuary argument I also read a good comment elsewhere - it might be true that men are overall statisticlally more likely to have accidents but its also true that women are statistically more likely to work less hours and take time off for maternity leave which effects their careers but paying them less is still illegal.

 

Agree there won't be equalisation though.

It's not actually. Women do have more accidents than men, but they tend to be relatively minor (car park dings, running into the back of people etc.), whereas men have less accidents, but when they do they tend to have a higher proportion of the 'though a hedge on its roof' type of crash, which obviously costs a lot more to put right.

[Rob W 0]

"Women do have more accidents than men"

 

Source please?

[Guest alex]

Talk about brass neck.

[TheMoog 0]

One point to take in to consideration would be how many women have accidents while on their husband's or boyfirend's insurance?

[The Fish 10460]

One point to take in to consideration would be how many women have accidents while on their husband's or boyfirend's insurance?

Another is; How many accidents do women cause

[manc-mag 1]

One point to take in to consideration would be how many women have accidents while on their husband's or boyfirend's insurance?

Another is; How many accidents do women cause

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here guys and say I reckon the insurance industry probably crunch those numbers already.

[luckyluke 2]

I am completely opposed to this idea, simply for the fact it means no more Sheila's Wheels adverts where they rhyme "Florence" with "Insurance" in a dodgy Australian accent.

[Monkeys Fist 41380]

"Women's car insurance to insurance to cost same as a drunk, blindfolded monkey's"

 

...just what I heard like

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society...s-201103013586/

I'm not insured.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

"Women do have more accidents than men"

 

Source please?

 

Research by Guohua Li, Susan P. Baker, Jean A. Langlois and Gabor D. Kelen showed that, as of the mid-1990s, women drivers were involved in about 5.7 accidents per million miles driven. Men, on the other hand, were involved in about 5.1. Women were thus 12 percent more likely to be in crashes per mile driven. This is confirmed by another paper, by Dawn L. Massie, Kenneth L. Campbell, and Allan F. Williams, which found women were involved in 16 percent more accidents than men on a per mile driven basis.

 

We might want to think not just about accidents, but about the severity of those accidents. Here again, it doesn’t look good for the ladies. Massie et al. found that for each mile driven women were 26 percent more likely than men to be in crashes involving injuries.

 

So there we have it; with men having fewer accidents and fewer injury accidents per mile, all those women driver jokes from my grandparents’ generation can be dusted off and put to good use.

 

Or can they be?

 

If we move to the next level of severity, fatal accidents, we find quite a different picture. Li et al. found that male drivers are 80 percent more likely to be in a fatal accident than women on a per mile basis. Massie et al. confirmed this, finding men are 55 percent more likely to be in fatal crashes. More recent data, collected by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, paints an almost identical picture.

 

Thus women are somewhat more likely to be in crashes, but men are lots more likely to be in very severe crashes. According to AAMI: Men are more likely than women to be involved in serious accidents – that is, men experience more head-on collisions, roll-overs, loss-of-control crashes and collisions involving pedestrians, cyclists or animals whereas women are more likely than men to collide with stationary objects or reverse into other cars.

[Kitman 2204]

One point to take in to consideration would be how many women have accidents while on their husband's or boyfirend's insurance?

Another is; How many accidents do women cause

 

Excellent point. A related question would be how many accidents involved a woman in the passenger seat talking about family, work or health issues in an unbroken monologue.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Bit more for you Rob:

 

Women Drivers Crash More Than Men

 

The statistics tell a paradoxical story. According to a controversial study by researchers at the John Hopkins Schools of Medicine and Public Health, women are more likely to be involved in car crashes than men - despite the fact that men are three times more likely to be killed when they do crash.

 

As reported in the June issue of Epidemiology, American women were involved in 5.7 crashes per million miles driven. Men, on the other hand, clocked up just 5.1 crashes per million miles. Given the fact that men drive an estimated 74 per cent more miles per year than women, the figure is surprising indeed.

 

"Although risk-taking behaviours may contribute to the excessive injury mortality among men and younger drivers, up to now age and sex discrepancies in death rates from motor vehicle crashes have not been well understood," says lead author Guohua Li, associate professor of emergency medicine.

 

Using crash statistics gathered by the Fatal Accident Reporting System, the General Estimates System and the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, the researchers developed an innovative method called "decomposition" to break down the data into new categories and weigh the relative contribution of three variables: crash fatality, incidence density (number of crashes per million miles) and exposure prevalence (annual average miles driven per driver). Until now, the death rate ratio has always been based on just two factors: fatality and accident rates.

 

The investigators discovered that teenage boys start recklessly, with about 20 per cent more crashes per mile driven than teenage girls. Males and females between the ages of 20 and 35 run almost identical risks. Females over the age of 35, however, are significantly more likely to crash than their male counterparts.

 

Each year, motor vehicle crashes in America claim a staggering 40,000 lives, cause three million injuries and cost the nation $140 billion.

[Kitman 2204]

Are there any stats about accidents whilst applying make-up?

 

The NZ speciality is driving and texting (men and women alike), which is a cretinous thing to do. That and cutting off corners. I mean why bother driving in your lane when it's quicker to round a corner in someone else's?