|
Motor insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate on the basis of gender with effect form 21 December it was announced in a court decision today. Rates for young women are likely to rise steeply - as much as 40% as they rise to meet the rates charged for young men of the same age
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 10:06
|
This is one of those times I do wonder about the EU... Its a known fact that yonger female drivers are safer than young male drivers so why shouldn't they pay less for their insurance, just as I, as an older driver, pay less than my mates 18 year old son who's already had two accidents and been pulled twice as well... Its all about risk, and damn all to do with sexism...
Like this, though...
www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/women's-car-insurance-to-cost-same-as-a-drunk,-blindfolded-monkey's-201103013586/
Last edited by: hobby on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 10:15
|
This is insane. Insurance risks are not discriminatory, it's an equal and flat playing field.
If young men chose to drive responsibly instead of like cretins, they'd benefit from the same low premiums.
|
|
It will also have an effect on pensions. Annuities will become more expensive for men and cheaper for women. Even though women on average live longer insurers will have to charge the same rates.
|
>> This is insane. Insurance risks are not discriminatory, it's an equal and flat playing field.
>>
>> If young men chose to drive responsibly instead of like cretins, they'd benefit from the
>> same low premiums.
>>
It is not a flat playing field
My son is 25, seven years no claims, his insurance premium is affected by the actions of all the other 17-25 year olds.
There is nothing he can do about it!
|
>> It is not a flat playing field
>>
>> My son is 25, seven years no claims, his insurance premium is affected by the
>> actions of all the other 17-25 year olds.
>>
>> There is nothing he can do about it!
He has a 7 years no claims bonus. The others dont.
|
Devils advocate here, a bit anyway.
Young men who don't drive like pratts are unfairly discriminated against at the moment purely on the basis of their gender. Unfair?
|
|
It will be interesting to see how the industry reacts now the ECJ judgement is 'for real'. A lot ofthe stuff about doubling premiums etc is for public consumption in advance, they've now got 9 months to come up with workrounds.
|
Don't think there will be much in the way of work-rounds and in a way the insurance industry doesn't care about the ruling too much. They will simply increase rates for women and reduce those for men to achieve the same overall premium income. It really doesn't matter to them as long as all insurers are playing by the same rules.
|
>> Devils advocate here, a bit anyway.
>>
>> Young men who don't drive like pratts
Does that beast exist? I have my doubts.
|
>> Does that beast exist? I have my doubts.
>>
They are out there. You just don't notice them because they are driving properly without dustbins hanging off their rear bumpers.
|
>>You just don't notice them because they are driving properly without
>> dustbins hanging off their rear bumpers.
>>
:-)
|
|
Yes, I suppose so, A, but I thought that Insurance is all about averages and on average females are safer than males, therefore the lower initial premiums, though those premiums will still be higher than an older person just starting out... Though that safe young male will soon build up his NCD and reduce his premium that way...
Last edited by: hobby on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 10:47
|
The next item on the agenda will be to stop insurance companies loading premiums for those who live in high crime risk areas.
You can expect Alan Milburn, the government's social mobility tsar, to argue that it is unfair to penalise the poor working classes with higher premiums simply because they live in sink estates and cannot afford to live as neighbours of Zero in his expensive posh safest county in England (Elmbridge).
|
The ruling does not state that insurance companies can not discriminate on the basis of risk.
If they can prove that women are a lower risk they can still price thus.
|
>> The ruling does not state that insurance companies can not discriminate on the basis of
>> risk.
Have you found the full transcript of the ruling? I have so far only seen the news reports such as
www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8354129/Women-and-older-drivers-insurance-costs-set-to-soar.html
Women drivers and the elderly are set to be charged much more for their car insurance after the European Court of Justice ruled that risk assessment could not be based on gender or life expectancy.
|
|
You dont base it on gender, you base it on statistics. The ruling was brought in to put an end to the likes of Shielas Wheels and such like who did promote insurance based on gender alone.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 11:15
|
There is no problem with company like Sheila's Wheels continuing to direct advertising towards the female market. They just wont be able to charge differing rates on the basis of gender. In fact Sheila's wheels has always been prepared to quote for men as well as women.
|
>> They will simply increase rates for women and reduce those for men
I guess insurers will love this verdict. They will just raise premium for women and won't do anything for men. More profit. *
* = assuming those women won't drive uninsured instead.
|
Surely premiums for men will drop a little as womens premiums rise?
If insurers are required to charge the same regardless of sex, then they won't just raise womens premiums to men's levels. If they did this, profits would rise and, assuming a competitive market, someone would drop their premiums to get more share (whilst still making a profit). Thus men would pay less than they do now. In theory, everyone should be charged about the mid-way point of mens and womens current premiums.
As a man, that seems entirely fair. Well done EU judges!!
|
"As a man, that seems entirely fair. Well done EU judges!!"
I hope you don't ever need to buy an annuity for your pension. You might not be so happy then. The pension you buy with your annuity is expected to drop around 8% for men as a result of this ruling.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 11:32
|
>> I hope you don't ever need to buy an annuity for your pension. You might
>> not be so happy then.
>>
Having seen how my wife was shafted by Equitable Life, and how poorly pensions have performed, and been taxed, I make my investments for my later life elsewhere!
|
They can't price differently based on race or sexual preferences, yet I have no doubt that if someone played with the statistics long enough they would find one race or sexual preference is higher risk than others. We're not doing that (and rightly so), so why should people be priced on gender either?
Given that, I think I actually agree with this EU ruling.
The insurance companies will now have to think differently. Instead of acting on a possible risk based on gender for unproven drivers, they will have to simply set a high bar for _all_ new drivers, which will come down as that person proves they can drive safely over time. Therefore if guys are crashing more they will pay for it that way and the ladies will pay less if they deserve to. So safer drivers (of either gender) can only benefit from this ruling.
Isn't that fairer than the current system where a bloke with a clean driving record can theoretically pay more for insurance than a girl with a tarnished history? This can and does happen.
|
The fairer sex has demanded equality for a long time - when they do get it they complain bitterly...:-)
Women have fewer accidents generally because the majority of them drive far fewer miles annually then men.
|
>> Women have fewer accidents generally because the majority of them drive far fewer miles annually
>> then men.
>>
Sorry, but that factor is already accounted for in quotes by asking you how many miles you intend to drive in a year.
>> You dont base it on gender, you base it on statistics. The ruling was brought
>> in to put an end to the likes of Shielas Wheels and such like who
>> did promote insurance based on gender alone.
>>
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610
""Taking the gender of the insured individual into account as a risk factor in insurance contracts constitutes discrimination," the ECJ said.
Different risks
For car insurance, women are generally a lower risk to insure than men but will, in due course, have to pay the same premiums.
"The ruling will have a significant effect on the insurance industry which has used the system of risk based pricing to award discounts to lower risk drivers like young females who are statistically safer drivers," said Graeme Trudgill of BIBA."
>> Don't think there will be much in the way of work-rounds and in a way
>> the insurance industry doesn't care about the ruling too much.
>>
Easy-peasy workaround. Load the premium on typical boy-racer cars, reduce the premium on hairdressers or girly type cars; similarly raise the premium based on employment/employer/industry categories for typical boys and reduce premium for typical girly jobs.
>> Surely premiums for men will drop a little as womens premiums rise?
>>
BBC link as above says
"We could see their prices go up 25-30% and men's premiums could fall by about 10%."
|
"Easy-peasy workaround.
Load the premium on typical boy-racer cars, reduce the premium on hairdressers or girly type cars; similarly raise the premium based on employment/employer/industry categories for typical boys and reduce premium for typical girly jobs."
Premiums already vary significantly by type of car. Any attempt to discriminate on gender by the back door on the basis you outline would quickly result in a court case.
|
Just for "fun" I entered in an imaginary 20 year old Jane Smith and Joe Smith who are exactly the same person with the same car and same address, same insurance requirements etc. Except that Joe had 1 year NCD and Jane had 0 NCD and one fault claim.
Put that into the Meerkat and guess what, for a comparable policy with the same excess and cover type, Jane would pay £1600 and Joe would pay £2000.
This EU ruling was long overdue...
|
|
If Zero is right then I guess this is actually just a none story and insurance will still be able to charge more for males. On a selfish point of view I would like it to go ahead as it might if nothing else stop my insurance going up.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 11:46
|
"If Zero is right then I guess this is actually just a none story and insurance will still be able to charge more for males. "
I'm not sure that is what he said and that would be the wrong interpretation. Insurers will no longer be able to charge different premiums for men and women all other things being equal.
|
>> This EU ruling was long overdue...
I don't think so at all. The whole of life is about balancing risks. Offering insurance to someone is the same - if someone asks for cover who's a higher risk, for whatever reason - they pay more. What next - no discriminaton on grounds of age, as someone else mentioned? Ridiculous. No discrimination on previous history of claims? Equally ridiculous. No discrimination on type and cost of vehicle? You can see that that's ridiculous!
|
Or is it that they aren't actually attributing the risks correctly? Not all males under 25 are nut cases, and yet all are treated as such. Not all females under 25 are angels, and yet they clearly get preferential treatment.
As you rightly say, there are lots of other variables you can use to establish risk, e.g. age, type of car driven etc. A male under 25 driving a 1.0 Micra is not in the same risk as another male with a 1.4 Saxo featuring "lexas" lights. You don't need to bring gender into it. The sensible females will demonstrate their different attitude in subtler ways than their sex, the fact that they are female doesn't have to be such a major determinate of risk in itself.
|
>
>> "lexas" lights. You don't need to bring gender into it. The sensible females will demonstrate
>> their different attitude in subtler ways than their sex, the fact that they are female
>> doesn't have to be such a major determinate of risk in itself.
Alas it does.
Young boys are more risk prone, and less mentally matured.
Young women are more risk averse,
Sorry, its all down to hormones and testosterone. Gender in fact.
|
|
Surely the insurance companies can get round this by quoting for Driver 'X' driving a certain car, in a certain area with a stated experience and claims record, regardless of the driver's sex. They can say they are not taking it into account - or not?
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 12:33
|
|
However Zero, you can't argue that all males crash and burn and no females do? Therefore there is more to it than mere hormones. For instance, we all think of young males as alcoholic thugs, and yet it is a female (someone local to me in sad fact) who was the first person in Britain to be banned from all pubs/off licences in the country due to her outrageous behaviour when (frequently) drunk. She's more of a local menace than any of the lads round here, hate to think what would happen if she got a driving licence!
|
Of course not.
But far more, a lot lot more, a hellava lot more, males crash and burn than females.
Due to physical gender.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 12:47
|
Yes, it's roughly twice as many males as females crashing and/or dying in accidents, the data I've seen shows it appears to be regardless of other factors.
However, that doesn't account for the large numbers of males who do not crash, so it is a generalisation, hence why it is ruled illegal.
Insurers need to find the specific reason that some males are more dangerous drivers (or indicators for that difference) and target that instead of sex, if you will.
|
>> Gender in fact.
Or "sex", to be correct. In this new Victorian age where everything is allowed, but the word must not be spoken...
|
>> Not all males under 25 are nut cases, and yet all are treated as such.
This is true - but when someone starts driving they have no history to examine for past claims. When they have a year of "experience", they may get a no-claim discount[1].
1) Interestingly, if they just wait a year after qualifying at age 17, the premium decreases anyway...
|
>> >> Not all males under 25 are nut cases, and yet all are treated as
>> such.
>>
>> This is true - but when someone starts driving they have no history to examine
>> for past claims. When they have a year of "experience", they may get a no-claim
>> discount[1].
>>
Yes, but my Joe/Jane example above shows that even when the male demonstrates safer driving than the equivalent female, they are still punished on their premium. Hence why I think the EU are right.
|
>> my Joe/Jane example above shows that even when the male demonstrates safer driving
>> than the equivalent female, they are still punished on their premium.
That's a bit of a generalisation - didn't your example just show that the insurers still thought that Joe was more likely to cost them money than Jane? Were the risks equal, then I an sure that an underwriter would have spotted the opportunity! They haven't.
|
This makes perfect sense. The law says that you can only charge greater premium based upon a characteristic (such as age, sex etc) if there is clear proof of a direct correlation between it and the risk.
There is a logical trap that a lot of people make, which the courts have managed to avoid.
If there were only 3 men (including me) and 3 women in the world, and if the two other men drove like idiots and the 3 women and I drove sensibly, why would I get charged the same as the other two guys, simply because I am of the same sex? Extrapolated to the population as a whole, that is what the current insurance approach is.
It is expedient for the insurance companies to do this, rather than try to ascertain individual risk, but it is also discriminatory.
The same is arguably true with life insurance. Sure, the average woman lives longer that the average man, but is that something inherent, or is it because the average man takes more lifestyle risks than the average woman?
Back to above example. I and the other 3 women eat healthy and exercise, the other 2 men eat bad food, drink to excess and the only exercise they get it wrestling lions, why should I get charged more simply because I am of the same sex as the risk takers?
Very sensible decision.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 13:08
|
>> Back to above example. I and the other 3 women eat healthy and exercise, the
>> other 2 men eat bad food, drink to excess and the only exercise they get
>> it wrestling lions, why should I get charged more simply because I am of the
>> same sex as the risk takers?
>>
>> Very sensible decision.
You well know full well you over simplified this to childlike level.
We are talking about insurance data from 30 million people, not the 6 people in your circle who are influencing each other.
Also, you can try but fail, to fly in the face of reality and statistics that say on average men die earlier than women.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 13:14
|
>> You well know full well you over simplified this to childlike level.
Yes, I simplified it Zero, to distill it down to the key point.
>> We are talking about insurance data from 30 million people, not the 6 people in
>> your circle who are influencing each other.
This is why I tried to distill it down for the likes of you Zero, because you are getting confused by it being applied to the whole population. And, it has nothing to do with influencing each other.
The insurance data shows that men are more likely to have accidents, but it doesn't show that all more are more likely to have accidents than all women.
Just scale up my example. Say that there are 15 million men and 15 million women. 10 million of the men drive like idiots, that doesn't mean that the other 5 million are more likely to crash than the other 15 million women.
I don't mean to be rude, but I think you don't get the core concept, which is why you think my distilling it down to 3 men and 3 women was childlike.
>> Also, you can try but fail, to fly in the face of reality and statistics
>> that say on average men die earlier than women.
Yes, but you're making the same mistake. Statistics show the averages, not the individual risks. Why does the average man die before the average women, is it something inherent in being a man, or is it down to individual lifestyle factors of men and women?
Applying a perceived or real average characteristic of a group to an individual is the core of discrimination.
It is expedient, as discrimination often is (charge all men more, search all black youths more, give all top jobs to the men etc etc), but it is still discrimination.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 13:39
|
>> The insurance data shows that men are more likely to have accidents, but it doesn't
>> show that all more are more likely to have accidents than all women.
>
Therefore I load my risk calculator accordingly. I would be a fool not to.
>> Just scale up my example. Say that there are 15 million men and 15 million
>> women. 10 million of the men drive like idiots, that doesn't mean that the other
>> 5 million are more likely to crash than the other 15 million women.
Your are assuming that 1/3 of all men don't drive like others. I assert that they do, specially in the 17-24 age group. Assuming that you are right, How do I know which of the group I insure, the 1/3 that don't or the two thirds that do? Oh two thirds do drive like that you admit? Oh dear that means I have a greater chance of insuring crashers.
>> I don't mean to be rude, but I think you don't get the core concept,
>> which is why you think my distilling it down to 3 men and 3 women
>> was childlike.
You dont understand risk. Or the economics behind admin cost per proposal.
Oh and you completely ignore risk models developed over years of REAL data.
>> Yes, but you're making the same mistake. Statistics show the averages, not the individual risks.
Its a factor that HAS to go in my risk model, to ignore it would be financial folly.
>> Why does the average man die before the average women, is it something inherent in
>> being a man, or is it down to individual lifestyle factors of men and women?
It doesen't matter WHY, statistically its a FACT.
>> Applying a perceived or real average characteristic of a group to an individual is the
>> core of discrimination.
Its the core of a risk model and the core of the financials behind running insurance.
Risk is all about discrimination.
Oh and you are falling into the trap of insulting the debater, not the content.
Poor form old chum. Wont win you any points down at the Oxford union.
|
Zero, you're thinking like an insurance company.
Agreed that they want low cost, broad brush generalizations that cover the risk.
Unfortunately they are doing that by discriminating, which the court is saying is not allowed.
If your point is that it is an easy, low cost way for insurance companies to do it, you are right, if you are saying that it is not discriminatory, then you are wrong.
The same goes for life insurance. Nobody is arguing that men on average don't die earlier, and nobody is arguing that it isn't simpler for insurance companies to just charge men more than women. What is being argued is that if you can't prove it is that there is a direct correlation between gender and life expectancy or the likelihood of having an car accident, then you shouldn't be able to discriminate on that basis.
I agreed earlier that using averages is expedient...but it is also discriminatory.
There is a difference between the easiest way for a company to achieve it's goals and what they can do legally.
|
>> The same goes for life insurance. Nobody is arguing that men on average don't die
>> earlier, and nobody is arguing that it isn't simpler for insurance companies to just charge
>> men more than women. What is being argued is that if you can't prove it
Of course you can, the facts, as you admitted yourself, prove it.
>> There is a difference between the easiest way for a company to achieve it's goals
>> and what they can do legally.
They are doing it legally, by the use of statistical models.
Do you know why insurance comapnies exist? To make money. Far too many people think they are a public service to which they are entitiled.
|
>> >> There is a difference between the easiest way for a company to achieve it's
>> goals
>> >> and what they can do legally.
>>
>> They are doing it legally, by the use of statistical models.
Zero, you know full well that the courts have now decided that they are breaching discrimination legislation and therefore acting illegally. They have, of course, been given some time to adapt to this decision.
Use of a statistical model doesn't make something legal.
|
|
It does if you dont get caught.
|
>> The law says that you can only charge greater premium based
>> upon a characteristic (such as age, sex etc) if there is clear proof of a
>> direct correlation between it and the risk.
>>
Isn't that what the "old" law said until now, but from 21 December 2012 (18 months from now) the new law is applied.
"The verdict - which applies from December 21 2012 - will force changes in the current standard practice across Europe of basing insurance rates on statistics about differing life expectancies or road accident records of the sexes. "
"Until now, discrimination in setting insurance rates has been explicitly permitted under EU equal treatment rules, "if sex is a determining risk factor... substantiated by relevant and accurate actuarial and statistical data".
But today the judges followed advice from the court's Advocate-General that "higher-ranking" equality provisions set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Lisbon Treaty must now apply."
|
|
What's the situation for men and women of (say) 40 years old? Are they still charged markedly different premiums? Are the risks similar, or distorted by reasons other than their sex (e.g. mileage)?
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 13:21
|
>> What's the situation for men and women of (say) 40 years old? Are they still
>> charged markedly different premiums? Are the risks similar, or distorted by reasons other than their
>> sex (e.g. mileage)?
>>
There's a link to a 2004 report here:
www.sirc.org/publik/driving.pdf
This shows data for different ages and sexes, both unadjusted for mileage (etc) and adjusted.
|
>> This shows data for different ages and sexes, both unadjusted for mileage (etc) and adjusted.
>>
Yes, to reinforce your post, I can confirm that actuaries do take account of "rate of incidents per mile driven" when comparing male vs. female driver risks.
|
Whatever the rights or wrongs of this are, there is a problem which needs to be solved.
For example, I have the maximum no claims discount possible and have had for decades. I also have a clean licence and have had for decades. My wife doesn't have full ncd and indeed wrote her car off this time last year and has had a number of minor claims over the years but she still gets cheaper insurance quotes than me on the same car for the same usage at the same address.
I am though, statistically, the greater risk it seems.
:-)
|
On the whole I'm happy the way the motor insurance industry balances risk... not at all sure about these latest changes. After all take any one high performance car driver and he/she may not be more likely to crash it as opposed to their family hatch.... however they pay loads more for the fast car because of the averages. It's a system I've grown up with, mostly makes sense and I understand where it might place me, Mrs F or the little F's at renewal time.
|
In many countries, the car is insured rather than the driver driving it.
May be that option will do away with all these discriminiation problems.
|
Tangentially, I have wondered if one factor in the equation which analyses the propensity for men or women to have accidents is the amount of driving they proportionately do.
I would hazard that if a survey were taken of the number of hours / miles typically driven by both that men would be found to drive significantly more.
For example, observe any vehicle occupied simultaneously by a man and a woman and in the majority of cases, though not of course all or indeed exclusively, the man is the driver and the woman the passenger. Sociologically at least, that is the norm.
If that theory has any bearing you could then argue that although in a given couple, the man might or might not be the more experienced or indeed safer driver but if he exposes himself to greater risk by doing much more of the driving he is just more likely to have an accident perhaps by being in danger of doing so more often and for longer.
Anyway, I don't really care, I'm boring myself now...
:-)
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 14:13
|
|
The decent surveys consider this Humph and still come to the same conclusion when mileage is factored in.... us blokes when young are bloomin mad uns.
|
When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail,
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
|
|
To read the posts here so far you'd think any accident was the same as any other. But the accidents the insurers fear are not parking scrapes or bent bumpers at roundabouts, they involve drivers who lose control and wipe out a carload and an oncoming family. And - to a first approximation - those accidents are caused by young, male drivers.
|
I dunno, WDB. My wife has been involved in a parking scrape (hit a low wall, no one else involved, grands worth of damage :-( ), and a minor rear ender at a roundabout, which mildly bent her bumper and inflicted no damage on the car she hit, both in the last 6 months. We have protected no claims and our premium at renewal this month is almost doubling. We're both 41 and have otherwise excellent records, and no convictions currrently. And shopping around doesn't give us much of a saving on that renewal either.
Looks like we'll be paying through the nose for another 4/5 years. Gah. Just when I thought we'd got premiums down to a resonable level.
|
>> our premium at renewal this month is almost doubling. We're both 41 and have otherwise
>> excellent records,
No - one of you has. There is no otherwise about it for the other one.
I think Nicole is physically unable to drive without feeling just how big her car is, and needs to push the boundries of that frequently.
The pristine unmarked Polo was sporting an ugly rear bumbper scar less than 4 weeks into her care.
|
|
I think the insurers would be rightly aggrieved at SS's suggestion that they want broad-brush generalizations. You have only to look at what we all do at renewal time to see that any insurer whose risk model allows it to assign a particular prospect to a lower risk category will seize the opportunity to offer that prospect a lower premium and so steal a customer from a competitor. You can't use a broad brush for that.
|
>> You have only to look at what we all do at renewal time to
>> see that any insurer whose risk model allows it to assign a particular prospect to
>> a lower risk category will seize the opportunity to offer that prospect a lower premium
>> and so steal a customer from a competitor. You can't use a broad brush for
>> that.
This new law is unwarranted meddling.
|
Lazy prediction:
Men's insurance prices rise.
Women's insurance prices rise significantly.
Insurance company makes profit.
|
>> Lazy prediction:
>>
>> Men's insurance prices rise.
>> Women's insurance prices rise significantly.
>> Insurance company makes profit.
Certainly the insurance companies won't be out of pocket.
|
Link to "Daily Telegraph" article on "winners and losers from EU sex ruling":
bit.ly/hHmN8H
|
Whatever be the statistical significance of this, all consumers will lose out because of this!
Female drivers will see their premiums go up.
Male drivers won't see their premium go down (because insurers will impose equality by raising women's)
Combination of male + female (e.g. husband + wife) will also see a rise in premium because wife usually contributed to lower joint premium.
Winners: directors of insurance companies
Losers: everyone else
|
As I said further up the thread.
Insurance companies exist to make money. They are not there as a social service.
|
>> Insurance companies exist to make money. They are not there as a social service.
But judges are supposed to do social service!
Don't know whether insurance works in same way in other European countries.
|
>> >> Insurance companies exist to make money. They are not there as a social service.
>>
>> But judges are supposed to do social service!
Exactly!
|
>> Don't know whether insurance works in same way in other European countries.
The 'non discrimination' principle had been laid down in the EU some years ago. The ECJ was not being asked to look at the rights and wrongs of that so much as whether those countries where gender was used to weight insurance policiy premiums/benefits could continue to benefit from a derogation. So I guess the practice must have been embeded in other
The case decided today was Belgian.
|
>> As I said further up the thread.
>>
>> Insurance companies exist to make money. They are not there as a social service.
Yes, of course they do, as do all companies. But to do that they have to work within the law, including the laws of discrimination.
Society doesn't want companies that maximise profits whatever the cost. The courts are there to make sure that companies (along with everybody else) play by the rules.
|
>> I think the insurers would be rightly aggrieved at SS's suggestion that they want broad-brush
>> generalizations. You have only to look at what we all do at renewal time to
>> see that any insurer whose risk model allows it to assign a particular prospect to
>> a lower risk category will seize the opportunity to offer that prospect a lower premium
>> and so steal a customer from a competitor. You can't use a broad brush for
>> that.
Sure, but only if they can do it easily, such as which postcode they live in, how many years no claims, engine size etc.
The point being that if, say, you take all of the newly qualified male drivers and all of the newly qualified female drivers, once you account for all of the easy to determine attributes, all you can say is that the men are *on average* more likely to have an accident that the women.
That is were they apply a broad brush of "let's charge the all the men, more than all the women".
In other words the "gender multiplier" is broad brush. Same for life insurance. Of course they have complex models that take into account smoking, underlying conditions etc, but when you have a man and a woman with otherwise identical attributes, the man gets charged more, simply for being a man.
|
The problem with insuring something is unpredictability, because the likely events are in the future. So here is my offering for the first absolutely fair insurance:
Everybody pays the same flat rate.
When you pass ages 20, 30, 40, etc your actual accident rate is assessed, and you then get a notional bill for all the claims you have made in the past 10 years (or since 17 in the first instance).
Your actual premiums you have paid are deducted from this, and you may therefore either receive a further large bill, if you really have driven like a prat, or you get a nice refund.
Everything is adjusted for inflation, and builds in a reasonable profit for the insurance company.
|
Sure, but only if they can do it easily, such as which postcode they live in, how many years no claims, engine size etc.
Etc etc etc. All those questions you have to answer at quotation time feed that calculation. They're not using any one of those criteria to assess the risk you pose; they're using all of them.
Remember when there were only seven vehicle groups? Then it went to nine, then 20, then 50. As the insurers' computing power increased, so they found they could make their categorizations - of vehicles and drivers - more precise.
|
>> Sure, but only if they can do it easily, such as which postcode they live
>> in, how many years no claims, engine size etc.
>>
>> Etc etc etc. All those questions you have to answer at quotation time feed that
>> calculation. They're not using any one of those criteria to assess the risk you pose;
>> they're using all of them.
Yes, of course they are using all of them.
|
>> I think Nicole is physically unable to drive without feeling just how big her car
>> is, and needs to push the boundries of that frequently.
>>
Mrs Boxster is the same. I think the insurance companies should charge women more as a result. Oh, hang on ... they can't do that any more, can they?
|
The Association of British Insurers, as quoted in the forum's favourite newspaper, reckon premiums for young men will drop:
"The Association of British Insurers estimates that the decision will actually reinforce price discrimination, with women drivers under 26 in the UK facing a 25 per cent rise in car insurance rates, with a 10 per cent drop in rates for men in the same age group."
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361750/Car-insurance-women-soar-25-men-face-10-CUT-EU-rules.html#ixzz1FMnuGBCr
|
|
But if Women drivers cost insurance companies less than thier male counterparts, if they are requested to pay higher premiums, surely they are being discriminated against?
|
>> women drivers under 26 in the UK facing a 25 per cent rise in car
>> insurance rates, with a 10 per cent drop in rates for men in the same
>> age group."
>>
same info as in the BBC link in my earlier post
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=5373&m=119216&v=e
|
|
I look forward to getting a quote from Sheila's Wheels... :)
|
|
Like: "Get staaafed, Bruce!" (You should be so lucky. Lucky, lucky, lucky).
Last edited by: Boxsterboy on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 23:26
|
" I look forward to getting a quote from Sheila's Wheels... :)"
>
Got the house insured with them very competitive premium
|
Your house has wheels, CG?
};---)
|
|
So if the sea rises and Norwich floods he can move it... planning ahead, thats what i like! ;-)
|
>> But if Women drivers cost insurance companies less than thier male counterparts, if they are requested to pay higher premiums, surely they are being discriminated against?
>>
OK so what if asian drivers cost insurance companies more than their afrocarribean counterparts, could they be required to pay higher premiums?
Frankly this change makes sense to me, treating people as individuals rather than statistics based on stereotyping.
My only concern is that the insurers dont use it as an excuse to raise their overall revenues, i.e. use it to exploit all drivers.
|
>> My only concern is that the insurers dont use it as an excuse to raise
>> their overall revenues, i.e. use it to exploit all drivers.
>>
>>
Reckon thats what will happen... If they can't use gender then the easiest route for them is to charge everyone the same until they've proved they are safe by accumulating NCD...
More profit for the Ins Cos... They can't lose!!
Wonder if they paid the Court to get this result?
|
|
Actually I'm a traveller - all our homes have wheels. Hear there's a big field near you so we might be moving soon :-)
|
Tell you what steelie.
We will add up the costs of ALL the claims and divide it equally by the number of policy holders, and add 30% profit margin.
Your premium will go up, but you will be happy in the fact that no-one is being discriminated against.
Oh and its fully legal for you to subsidise those with worse driving records than you.
|
What makes you think that I care whether people are discriminated against or not? My only point is that the judgment is correct because the current policy is clearly discriminatory.
We all have to subsidise the worst drivers to some degree, except that if they actually do have a bad driving record (i.e. points/convictions) then we subsidise them less (because they actually pay more).
It will just now be that men and women both subsidise the bad male drivers and the bad female drivers.
|
>> only point is that the judgment is correct because the current policy is clearly discriminatory.
>>
Not until now anywhere in the world, and now only to apply in the EU from Dec 2012 due to the warped minds of the EU lawmakers.
Last edited by: John H on Wed 2 Mar 11 at 13:11
|
>> >> only point is that the judgment is correct because the current policy is clearly
>> discriminatory.
>> >>
>> Not until now anywhere in the world, and now only to apply in the EU
>> from Dec 2012 due to the warped minds of the EU lawmakers.
What I think you mean John is that it has not been ruled as unlawful discrimination before. That is very different to whether it is discriminatory.
There was plenty of discrimination against black people in the US, long before the Civil Rights Act made that discrimination unlawful.
|
>> What I think you mean John is that it has not been ruled as unlawful
>> discrimination before. That is very different to whether it is discriminatory.
>>
>> There was plenty of discrimination against black people in the US, long before the Civil
>> Rights Act made that discrimination unlawful.
>>
No, I find your logic absurd. (I hope I am not upsetting you or the sensitive moderators by saying that).
Insurance has always been on the basis of statistical risk analysis. Ask a member of www.actuaries.org.uk/
Zero, I have now found the full judgement. Extracts:
Old rules
(18) The use of actuarial factors related to sex is widespread in the provision of insurance and other related financial services. In order to ensure equal treatment between men and women, the use of sex as an actuarial factor should not result in differences in individuals’ premiums and benefits. ....
(19) Certain categories of risks may vary between the sexes. In some cases, sex is one but not necessarily the only determining factor in the assessment of risks insured. For contracts insuring those types of risks, Member States may decide to permit exemptions from the rule of unisex premiums and benefits, as long as they can ensure that underlying actuarial and statistical data on which the calculations are based, are reliable, regularly up-dated and available to the public. Exemptions are allowed only where national legislation has not already applied the unisex rule. Five years after transposition of this Directive, Member States should re-examine the justification for these exemptions, taking into account the most recent actuarial and statistical data and a report by the Commission three years after the date of transposition of this Directive.’
New rules
30 It is not disputed that the purpose of Directive 2004/113 in the insurance services sector is, as is reflected in Article 5(1) of that directive, the application of unisex rules on premiums and benefits. Recital 18 to Directive 2004/113 expressly states that, in order to guarantee equal treatment between men and women, the use of sex as an actuarial factor must not result in differences in premiums and benefits for insured individuals. Recital 19 to that directive describes the option granted to Member States not to apply the rule of unisex premiums and benefits as an option to permit ‘exemptions’. Accordingly, Directive 2004/113 is based on the premiss that, for the purposes of applying the principle of equal treatment for men and women, enshrined in Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter, the respective situations of men and women with regard to insurance premiums and benefits contracted by them are comparable.
31 Accordingly, there is a risk that EU law may permit the derogation from the equal treatment of men and women, provided for in Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/113, to persist indefinitely.
32 Such a provision, which enables the Member States in question to maintain without temporal limitation an exemption from the rule of unisex premiums and benefits, works against the achievement of the objective of equal treatment between men and women, which is the purpose of Directive 2004/113, and is incompatible with Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter.
33 That provision must therefore be considered to be invalid upon the expiry of an appropriate transitional period.
34 In the light of the above, the answer to the first question is that Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/113 is invalid with effect from 21 December 2012.
Last edited by: John H on Wed 2 Mar 11 at 20:26
|
>> No, I find your logic absurd.
Do you care to elaborate on the flaw(s) you have spotted in my logic? If my logic is absurd I suspect the flaws must be quite glaring, and easy for you to point out.
>> Insurance has always been on the basis of statistical risk analysis.
I never said that it wasn't, or shouldn't be, and the courts aren't saying that either.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Wed 2 Mar 11 at 21:03
|
>> I hope I am not upsetting you or the sensitive moderators by saying that
John H,
You've already been warned for continually belittling and mocking other forum members.
Stop with the snide remarks as well.
This is your final warning.
VxFan - Mod.
|
To me this is fairly straightforward.
It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their race, sexuality or sex, this is now being applied to insurance.
It makes perfect sense, treat people as individuals rather than stereotype.
Of course it is also illegal to discriminate based on age however I am sure insurers would argue that age, along with how long a licence has been held, is indicative of experience which is a relavent factor in assessing risk along with previous accident/claim history.
|
steep rise ahead in premiums for young women - hobby
