So women are now to pay more .....

[LTD]

... for their Car Insurance since it's now been deemed unfair to discount them on the basis of sex.

Is penalising the young and rewarding the old now ageist ?

Discuss in less than 300 pages

 

[corned]

I note that the Richard* Turpin Industry has decreed that women's premiums will increase to fall into line with the new EU equality law.

I wonder why they didn't decree that men's premiums should decrease to fall into line?

Discuss...



* Apparently net nanny doesn't like his real name

 

[Druk]

The EU are now to decide on whether separate Male/Female toilets are discriminatory and are to force employers to offer female employees courses on how to aim at urinals from two feet away.


:bannana:

(ps. seems an ideal opening for Ringway)

 

[Deleted member 37751]

...discount them on the basis of sex.

You mean women have been using SEX to get discounts?

Well, why didn't someone tell me?

 

[LTD]

You mean women have been using SEX to get discounts?

Well, why didn't someone tell me?

Look at the decor in your house .......... then think about WHEN you redecorated.

Snakes with **** .......

 

[st4]

Derek, women will also need upskilling on the "who can pee the highest" objective in urinals....

HR will have a fit if they are not included in "the spirit" of the office,.

 

[jonnyboy]

All joking aside this is very worrying for both the insurance industry and the buyers of insurance. What is to stop a flood of "discriminations" like "i live in a lovely area but it backs onto the ghetto of my locale, why should I pay more???" and the likes.
It's crackers. Insurance is all about risk, and statistics. How can you price any policy when the "right" to use statistics is taken away.
We'll all end up paying vastly inflated premiums to cover those very very poor risks. Ah yes, it's just like the "toxic debts and banks2 all over again - the innocents paying.........

The EU at work eh? What a load of b****cks

 

[Adam230K]

I'm sorry but I don't see it as anything more than a cunning excuse for insurance companies to yet again make more money than they already are.

 

[Charles Morgan]

The really worst part of it is the effect on men who have to buy an annuity to pay for their retirement. As men have lower life expectancy than women, they get a higher return on their annuity. So the effect of this is to lower men's money purchase pensions on retirement by 8% per annum. Thanks for that EU.

 

[MOCAŠ]

It's crackers. Insurance is all about risk, and statistics. How can you price any policy when the "right" to use statistics is taken away.

Yes, risk should be the key factor in determiming relative premiums. But statistics can be manipulated to show pretty much anything you want. I'm prepared to bet that more people called "John" make claims than people called "Rupert". So should people called John pay more for their insurance?

There is no proof that women are inherently safer drivers than men; in fact, it's been demonstrated that they have more accidents per mile driven, but tend to drive fewer miles. But either way, it's not because they are women.

The idea that women are entitled to cheaper premiums has always been specious and is long overdue for dismissal.

 

[st4]

Can I get a reduction of insurance premium as I drive more than the annual milliage?

Seems to shoot my premiums up

 

[Roamer]

The ugly part isn't womens insurance premiums going up, it's mens annuities going down.

 

[Rayny]

In 1910 car insurance premiums were based solely on the value of your car and horsepower rating, with non-transferable No Claims Discounts of up to two years (If you ever go down to Beaulieu Motor Museum you can see a copy of the ratings chart). At that time people, and their relatives, accepted that being in a motor vehicle was potentially dangerous and did not think of claiming if they were injured whilst a passenger in a motor vehicle. The days when driving was dangerous and sex was safe.

Over the last 100 years insurance companies have developed ever more sophisticated calculations in order to offer premiums based on other risk factors. Also, it seems to me, that over the over the past 35 years people have been finding more and more ways to claim money from car related incidents.

Shall we go back to the old days of no discounted premiums for low mileage, safe drivers, low risk postcodes, long term ownership Etc. ?

Remember that most/every question that you are asked when getting a quote for car insurance can vary the premium that is offered.

 

[markjay]

I note that the Richard* Turpin Industry has decreed that women's premiums will increase to fall into line with the new EU equality law.

I wonder why they didn't decree that men's premiums should decrease to fall into line?

Discuss...



* Apparently net nanny doesn't like his real name

Indeed. A spokesman for BIBA told BBC radio 4 today that the premiums for women will increase but those for men will not go down. Go figure.

 

[grober]

Ironically the original " opinion" which the judges have just deliberated on was put forward by a woman. Juliane Kokott, an advocate-general at the European Court of Justice Juliane Kokott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia She's got six kids! Makes you wonder where she gets the time. Wonder if she has a driving licence?

here's the opinion

RECENT CASE-LAW - Results

here's the judgement

RECENT CASE-LAW - Results

 

[markjay]

Yes, risk should be the key factor in determiming relative premiums. But statistics can be manipulated to show pretty much anything you want. I'm prepared to bet that more people called "John" make claims than people called "Rupert". So should people called John pay more for their insurance?

There is no proof that women are inherently safer drivers than men; in fact, it's been demonstrated that they have more accidents per mile driven, but tend to drive fewer miles. But either way, it's not because they are women.

The idea that women are entitled to cheaper premiums has always been specious and is long overdue for dismissal.

The insurance industry is apparently allowed to calculate risk based on a number of factors such as age, occupation, etc. They claim statistical/empirical validly based on accident data.

It is all good and well to say that - for whatever reason - greengrocers have more accidents than accountants - assuming that you have the data to substantiate it of course.

However, saying - for example - that Catholic are more accident prone than Jews - or White European than Black Caribbean - is a no-go zone, even if such data did exist.

All that the EU has done is say that gender is the same as race or religion, and not as age or occupation.

This is in line with other current values. In 1995, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Paul Condon, said that many muggings in London were perpetrated by black youths, and was heavily criticised. However, there would be nothing controversial in saying that most of the knife stabling in London is carried-out by under-eighteens. It is OK to generalise based on age, but not based on race - or gender, as the EU now ruled.

 

[Charles Morgan]

Yes, risk should be the key factor in determiming relative premiums. But statistics can be manipulated to show pretty much anything you want. I'm prepared to bet that more people called "John" make claims than people called "Rupert". So should people called John pay more for their insurance?

There is no proof that women are inherently safer drivers than men; in fact, it's been demonstrated that they have more accidents per mile driven, but tend to drive fewer miles. But either way, it's not because they are women.

The idea that women are entitled to cheaper premiums has always been specious and is long overdue for dismissal.

We may be able to prove anything with statistics, although they are much misunderstood. But without statistics we are reduced to the purely anecdotal, which truly can't be the basis for any complex understanding. It would have been interesting had the Court determined that the use of statistics was in error, however, I have yet to meet a numerate lawyer, so they stuck to grandstanding about the evils of discrimination. So your statement is a bit of a red-herring, as the basis for judgment was the application of some universalist poppycock.

Your name is quite a good indication of your likely risk. Read Freakonomics.

Actually there is plenty of evidence that women are a better risk than men. You quote their propensity to have accidents as though that were the sole measure of risk, but neglect to point out that those accidents tend to be of the backing into walls and smashing lights ones, whose cost to the insurance companies is minimal. Propensity to claim times likely cost of claim = quantum of exposure. Men on the other hand do have less accidents, but they tend to be of the Gotterdammerung type, which involves far more death, destruction and expense. The difference between male and female cortical development at the age when people start driving is especially marked, which is why age alone cannot be an adequate proxy for risk behaviours.

Had the Court held that insurance was a public good which should be charged out evenly and held by everyone then I might have been more persuaded of their essential good sense. The exclusion of large pools of drivers through risk based pricing does not necessarily make for lower cost insurance throughout the population - as we see, the phenomenon of the ever growing uninsured imposes considerably higher costs on the rest of us. That at least would have been interesting and economically pragmatic. Basing it on some universalist nonsense though is depressing. Our regression into irrelevance continues apace.

 

[grober]

Does pose the prospect of some interesting questions on the insurance proposal form though. How often due you use a conditioner on your hair? Due you or have you ever driven a car with stiletto heeled shoes? Could you become pregnant during the duration of this policy? Tupperware parties--a good or bad thing? please tick the box that applies.

 

[snoop51]

Just another indication of "political correctness" being out of control. Giving insurance companies reason to raise more money through increasing women's car insurance premiums and as Charles Morgan said
Quote
"The really worst part of it is the effect on men who have to buy an annuity to pay for their retirement. As men have lower life expectancy than women, they get a higher return on their annuity. So the effect of this is to lower men's money purchase pensions on retirement by 8% per annum. Thanks for that EU."
Just makes paying into pension scheme's less attractive in my eyes. I can't do a damn thing about car insurance other than sell my car and not drive but as a self employed person I can choose NOT to pay into a pension and save it in some other investment vehicle instead. This bears some investigation methinks!

 

[Charles Morgan]

However, saying - for example - that Catholic are more accident prone than Jews - or White European than Black Caribbean - is a no-go zone, even if such data did exist.

Just at this moment the Government is planning the census which will contain ever-greater sets of questions about ethnicity and religion. They hold these to be important - people of Afro Caribbean descent suffer significantly greater propensity to Sickle Cell anemia and Schizophrenia than the generalised population, so in planning health services in areas it is vital that such information about ethnic population statistics is collected, it is a neutral exercise. I really can't see any fundamental reason why such information shouldn't be used as part of an insurance based analysis of risk - health insurance in particular should take into account likely danger of certain conditions no?

In my (entirely) anecdotal experience, the driving patterns of people of around the world can be significantly influenced by religion. When travelling in India I am very inclined to question the driver on their beliefs before setting off. Any that states that a fatal accident would simply be God's will and so nothing should be done to prevent it will be replaced at the next convenient moment. Give me a US Mormon over a Pakistani Moslem as a driver any day. Or am I not allowed to even think that any more?