ECJ gender ruling 'could throw insurance into turmoil' Insurance companies could have the methods they use to calculate premiums thrown into turmoil tomorrow when the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rules on whether or not they can discriminate between male and female customers. Tomorrow the Court will publish its ruling that could remove the exemption from equality laws that …
But what's the point of insurance companies asking all these questions supposedly to risk assess you when they have already made pre-judged decisions about you ?
Insurance should be sold on the risk assessment of the INDIVIDUAL and not just because you are male, female, gay, black, white or any other kind of bullshit.
I for one welcome this ruling.
"Lets face it asking how old you are or how experienced a driver you are is ageist. Asking whether you have had any recent claims discriminates against the unfortunate"
Nope, it checks to see if you are possibly a crap driver who attracts insurance claims.
Age is discriminatory -- it ensures that the most careless/reckless drivers are not old but young, older drivers tend to be a bit slower and usually take less risks.
The 'unfortunates' are those who have to claim against them - not the other way round.
Ban discrimination against my advanced age and you will end the affordability of life insurance for younger parents of younger children who need this much more than I do. Banning discrimination against men like me who earn more than average women earnings forces low earning women to pay more expensive driving insurance. So women drivers are less likely to be able to afford to drive and so will have to work from home more and earn even less. This doesn't reduce overall gender discrimination it increases it by increasing the pay gap between men and women, so these effect of the stupid equality law behind this ruling is to increase inequality overall.
As an older male I want insurance to discriminate against me in these 2 risk assessment respects because accurate insurance premiums are clearly better for society at large. Having very expensive insurance for young males likely to have too much testosterone encourages them to have to drive much less powerful cars until they have learned how to drive more safely, which is a social good for everyone around them. This daft ruling will clearly increase the injuries and deaths caused by irresponsible young male drivers, with most of the victims being in other social groups.
Sheila's wheels will be stuffed.
So why, when there is a huge amount of statistical evidence to support the insurance industry's premium differentials, are people complaining about this?
Is it just jealousy? Is _SHE_ paying less for her insurance that _them_? How about me, I pay more for health insurance than a twenty year old. Should I complain and get a refund for the last 30+ years of private health insurance?
How about premium differentials within genders but by age? A younger driver pays more than an older driver. they pay more because they are a higher risk. Both of these drivers pay less than a very old driver. Again because they are a higher risk again.
None of these decisions are made on the basis of gender, they are all made purely on perceived risk for each person.
All these complains and (if made) judgments will do is drive up the premiums for everybody. NOBODIES premiums will go down.
So well done whoever you were. You can be pleased with yourself that you took a working system and broke it. Well fucking done.
Anyway, if there's a company called Sheila's Wheels purely for the girlies, why can't we have a Mike's Motors, or Clarkesons Cowboys for the boys? Gotta keep things equal dontchaknow.
>So why, when there is a huge amount of statistical evidence to support the insurance industry's premium differentials, are people complaining about this?
When applied to a large group it may be true that men have more expensive accidents than women but insurance isn't sold to a 'large group' it is sold to an individual (Well an individual and a car usually). If you compare two similar individuals, male and female, then just charging more to the bloke is clearly ridiculous if you don't look at other factors including history. To an individual how you drive, where you drive and where you leave you car unattended are far more important than your gender when it comes to risk. Insurance companies use gender as a lazy way of guessing those things. (Of course if they could show that there was very little variation within the large groups e.g. 99% of men aged 18-25 make a claim for £2000 then this would be justifiable, but they can't. Safe male drivers get lumped in with unsafe male drivers - this is discrimination.)
>How about me, I pay more for health insurance than a twenty year old. Should I complain and get a refund for the last 30+ years of private health insurance?
Are you more or less healthy than a twenty year old. A large group of twenty year olds may be, on average, healthier than a large group of your peers (don't know how old you are). But if you are a healthy 50 year old (say) in peak fitness, eating the right things, doing exercise and no history of medical problems and you pay more than a twenty year old obese diabetic who eats nothing but cake and considers lifting your arm to grab the phone and dial 999 exercise, purely because of your age then yes this is discrimination.
Should you complain? Maybe, you could kick start the revolution in private health insurance, (although people are more worried as car insurance is mandatory where health insurance is optional)
>How about premium differentials within genders but by age? A younger driver pays more than an older driver. they pay more because they are a higher risk. Both of these drivers pay less than a very old driver. Again because they are a higher risk again.
Tricky because older age implies more experience (although not necessarily the case), which can tend to mean less mistakes (although many of these mistakes will not necessarily translate into accidents). However very old drivers (however you define that) can become unfit to drive. Obviously this is not always the case (and if I suggested it was no doubt I would get loads of old but competent people yelling at me!) I would assume age is discrimination but years driving is not. (One of my mates is a couple of years older than me and had a driving license five-ish years before me - he shows up as lower risk than me even though he doesn't own a car and hasn't driven since passing his test - typical, no but does show problems inherent in the system.) And when people 'get old' (what ever age that is) the only was to check if people are safe is to look at them as individuals not market segments but this means testing and assessments which people hate (or involve every car having a big brother black box or such like).
I suspect this will be addressed some point soon by the courts, but the current case is only looking at gender discrimination.
>None of these decisions are made on the basis of gender, they are all made purely on perceived risk for each person.
These decisions are made on perceived risk of a group of people to which the individual belongs, a big one of which is gender.
>All these complains and (if made) judgments will do is drive up the premiums for everybody. NOBODIES premiums will go down.
Source?
I presume some of the more dodgy insurers will do as you suggest but in the whole (and with the aid of comparison sites) I think in the short term women's insurance will go up and men's down slightly until insurers come up with a better, (hopefully) more accurate and non discriminating form of calculating risk.
>So well done whoever you were. You can be pleased with yourself that you took a working system and broke it. Well fucking done.
They took an example of discrimination prohibited by law and told them to stop breaking the law!
>Anyway, if there's a company called Sheila's Wheels purely for the girlies, why can't we have a Mike's Motors, or Clarkesons Cowboys for the boys? Gotta keep things equal dontchaknow.
Shelia's wheels provide quotes for men too, they are just stupidly high (because they are men - guess what discrimination is illegal!)
You could have opens up a Clarkson's Cowboys insurance for men, but if you group people into these larger groups, rather than treating them as individuals, then you would assume they are all high risk an still charge high rates.
If this ruling means the end of the infuriating Sheila's wheels ads, I'm all for it.
PS very old drivers - It's my personal opinion that their premiums should go up too. Not because of their *direct* risk to themselves and their vehicles, but the risk *they pose to others*.
Yeah, I'm look at you, you old bastard - the one who took about 4 seconds to clock the next door neighbours kid running into the street, and put him in hospital. Only minor injuries, thankfully, given the old bugger was driving at his maximum speed...10mph. He could barely open the door or walk, never mind press the pedals for an emergency stop. Of course, this little incident (like many others I suspect - like the time some old dear ran a red light and crossed a dual carriageway, almost causing total carnage) won't show up on the insurance stats.
Sorry, but when I start running kids over on residential streets because I'm too slow/blind/infirm to stop in time, or to even see them - even at 10mph - you're more than welcome to ramp up my insurance or even take my licence.
I would like to see some recent statistics to back this up, traditionally more men drove and would also drive for longer periods, this has changed.
Now that more women are driving to work under the same pressures as men I would like to see some new statistics showing age,travel duration, distance travelled per year and if driving was necessary to their job.
The insurance companies themselves will have that data, since they are the ones who hold the details of their customer claims. However, they would (should?) use the data to determine risk and set premiums; so that data and their analysis of it may be held as 'company confidential' since it can give them a competitive advantage against other insurers in the same market sector.
I don't know how the insurance companies operate at this level, so perhaps somebody who does know can chip in here...........
...there is a lot of statistical evidence for this.
However, it depends what you mean by dangerous.
Broadly speaking, and I do mean 'broadly' this is how it works :
More men work than women
More men drive to work than women
More men drive more miles than women
.... therefore.....
men are , statistically, more likely to have some sort of bash.
It does not mean men are more 'dangerous' or 'worse drivers' but, if you spend more hours behind the wheel, you are more likely to need the T-Cut every now and then.
P.
. . . the stats also suggest that it's the girls who come off worse in a crash.
Drivers have a higher survivability rate than passengers -especially front seat passengers, which are frequently the girlfriend.
If it is possible to stop them showing off (unlikely) thier (in)-expert driving skills gleaned from many months behind the wheel and reducing passenger deaths then it'd be no bad thing.
It's clearly bullshit, why should companies not be able to charge male customers more if the statistics support it. Insurance companies should be able to profile customers based on race and religion as well.
If you're a male you pay X for your car insurance, if you're a female you pay Y, if you're a black you pay X if you're a white you pay Y and so on and so forth. I'm sure insurance companies have a wealth of data they could dive into and generate supporting statistics from.
Anonymous Coward wrote
"If you're a male you pay X for your car insurance, if you're a female you pay Y, if you're a black you pay X if you're a white you pay Y and so on and so forth. I'm sure insurance companies have a wealth of data they could dive into and generate supporting statistics from."
Of course they do. And what this equality doesn't appear to address is the simple device that will no doubt be used by insurers "Decline to accept" the risk.
Should make for some interesting situations as it becomes illegal for an insurance company to know the gender of the insured.
What's likely to happen is that motor insurance will not simply become more expensive for all younger people, it will simply become almost impossible to obtain at all.
it is the right thing to do.
Non-discrimination means exactly that - although young men in general are statistically more likely to claim (and their claims are also more likely to be higher) it is not proof that a particular young male driver will rack up expensive claims.
This was inevitable - young women are statistically more likely to take time off work than young men (the baby thing kind of dictates that) but only a retarded misogynist of epic levels of retardation would suggest it is OK to pay young women less than young men for doing the same job.
Equally worth mentioning is that this ruling will probably mean male pensions are reduced and female pensions increased (statistically men die earlier than women so the same pot will be used over a shorter time) as well, so basically what you gain on the swings you lose in the equality.
"although young men in general are statistically more likely to claim (and their claims are also more likely to be higher) it is not proof that a particular young male driver will rack up expensive claims."
If anyone will have a proof that you will rack up an expensive claim you will not get any insurance, period. Insurance works on getting small payments from everyone with expectations that only some of them will claim in the future. If, on average, one category of people claims more often than others the insurers must either raise the premia for that riskier category (fair) or smear the increase over everybody (not fair).
"This was inevitable - young women are statistically more likely to take time off work than young men (the baby thing kind of dictates that) but only a retarded misogynist of epic levels of retardation would suggest it is OK to pay young women less than young men for doing the same job."
Employers normally pay for work already done and not for work which the employee is likely to do in the future, with the exception of sign-on bonuses or some other motivational incentives. Once again your grasp of the role of statistics in the real world is disturbingly lacking...
It should depend on the risk category. Your driving record is a good category, as is your line of work, proposed use of vehicle or indeed any underlying health problems. Your gender is as useful a means to decide on risk as your race, religion, sexuality or political affiliations. Sure they may be a correlation if you look hard enough but to do so is discriminatory.
If someone is a member of a risky category by dint of action or behaviour then it is fair to treat them accordingly - where their membership is based purely on the accident of their birth it is unfair.
Your lack of understanding of the point of "discrimination" is rather disturbing. And kind of comedic also.
"Employers normally pay for work already done and not for work which the employee is likely to do in the future, with the exception of sign-on bonuses or some other motivational incentives. "
Where you come from maybe, however where I come from you tend to get a salary (and a banding) which covers work not done, as well as work done. This is especially relevant where we are talking about stuff like childbearing where plainly a woman is going to need a substantial time off work. You want to ask a grown up, they will tell you how things work, as long as you've been a good boy, that is.
Once again your lack of intelligence is rather amusing. I hear your village calling........
@Elmer Phud: RE: men taking time off work at the drop of a hat and women not doing so:
You sir, are a dick. A dick I say.
Three words: Statutory Paternity Leave.
Granted, it's not as generous as the Maternity Leave, but the father also doesn't have to be pregnant and give birth. Also, unfortunately, young women ARE still often paid less than young men. This is a Well Known Problem. There are various reasons for this, ranging from misogyny to market forces, to gender bias in the job market (e.g. what percentage of nursery nurses are male? I'll give you a clue; it's not a large number). My general feeling on this is that society should pay for this as a whole, and women should be paid the same as men. I also think footballers should be paid the same as office cleaners, and politicians should work for free but unfortunately in a capitalist society, market forces have an effect so in cases you must legislate against them...
You want to re-read what I wrote and then re-write that diatribe^^
Particularly where I specify "for the same job" but you then go on about different jobs. The clue is in the question. "same" go look it up. Or the bit where you seem to think paternity = maternity but then contradict yourself immediately?
And where the fuck do you get all that crap about footballers from? Where on God's green earth did I write anything at all which makes that relevant? You want to spout commie bollocks, feel free, but please leave me the fuck out of it - we are talking about non-discrimination here not redistribution of the wealth and property being theft.
This post has been deleted by its author
.... and it is terrible idea.
It is people who cause the accidents, not the car.
When it is based on the car, it is much more difficult to asses risk, because, as you say, anyone can drive the car, regardless of whether that 'person' is a twit or not.
A muppet in a Fiesta 1.1 is still a muppet and should be charged muppet rates.
What does "increased customer detriment" mean? Are we customers sitting on a slope and going down? I thought we were trying to improve our world? No?
It might make perfect sense to someone well-versed in insurance lingo, but it sounds more like the wooly word salad we usually deride buzzword spewing suits for. Or maybe this is an unintended slip on the dark view the industry has on its "customers". So. Please do explain.
Thinking logically, I think the idea of forcing the insurance companies to treat everyone the same is not a good thing. As someone further up the thread posted: there are differences between men and women, live with it.
On the other hand, I can't stand insurance companies (or, I have yet to encounter one that I can stand, for those that don't like sweeping statements), they're a necessary evil, and I would like to see things as difficult for them as possible. (stoppng at the point where premiums have to go up, of course. Although, they don't need much of an excuse for that).
you mean dancing, rejoicing and fapping over the extra money they are going to get then yes, since they will just up the prices for women, you have more chance of Gaddafi admitting he was a crap leader and stepping down than them putting the prices down.
When i come to power insurance people are first up the wall to be shot.
The epicness of this failure has more zeros on the end of it than a MEPs salary, after expenses.
I love all the slaves to statistics. You do realize stats just model right? They do not equate to reality. They can even be wrong *gasp*.
Statistically, men are more likely to commit a crime than women. Hands-up for volunteers that want to be pre-emptively imprisoned based on gender.
I've had a licence for 5 years, have 4 years no claims bonus, never had an accident (or any other claim) yet I'm paying 3x what my dad pays while driving a smaller, less powerful, and cheaper car, simply because I am 23. This is even though my dad wrote his car off in the snow last year...
Simple fact is, age has given him time to accumulate massive NCB, and he's probably able to afford to protect them too, given the low rates.
Sucks being young, but we were all young once too, and we all mortgaged our souls to get the NCB's. A couple more years of safe driving, and you wonder what all the fuss was about.
Now excuse me, while I pop out for a wee spin on my £193-per-year-full-comped BMW K1200S. While I'm still young enough to enjoy it.
This is the worst myth as insurance claims are all too often based on "who shunted into the back of who", it does not mean it wasn't the person in front who caused the accident in the first place!
if I had a fiver for every time a woman driver in front of me cruising along at 30 slammed on the brakes because she suddenly saw a parking space about to open up almost causing a shunt I'd be a rich man!
Personally, I am a driver that has never made a claim with 10+ years no claims on my insurance and a clean license, I know that both sexes can be as bad as each other. So lets charge them all the same.
Discrimination based on stats is still discrimination, lets not have a double standard here, one standard is just fine.
"if I had a fiver for every time a woman driver in front of me cruising along at 30 slammed on the brakes because she suddenly saw a parking space about to open up almost causing a shunt I'd be a rich man!"
Well, I could replace the 'woman' bit with 'man' especially if it's when I'm riding my bike and not driving. If I had a fiver for every twat male that insists on using a phone while driving near my local school, I'd be well over £100 every day.
Actually it doesn't show you are driving too close.
Many cars don't have ABS and many others do, when it was introduced there was a statistical increase in the number of shunts because ABS cars stop a lot more sharply than normal.
I don't tailgate, and I allow for plenty of room but even so some cars are more efficient at braking when someone slams on the pedals than others.
the real question is how do you manage the risk of that.
Do you charge drivers with cars that have ABS less because they are less likely to shunt anyone else, or do you charge them more because they are more likely to be shunted into by having it?
"if I had a fiver for every time a woman driver in front of me cruising along at 30 slammed on the brakes because she suddenly saw a parking space about to open up almost causing a shunt I'd be a rich man!"
Here you admit you either don't pay enough attention or habitually try to drive up the exhaust of the car in front of you, you aggressive fool. He or she may need to stop suddenly at any time if a child or dog runs out in front anyway, and you have clearly not allowed enough space between you and the car in front for that possibility either.
If I had a fiver for every arsehole who seems to want to bugger my exhaust I'd be a richer man than you ever would. Best technique in this situation is to slow down very gradually until the idiot behind learns the hard way that they will get from A to B a little more quickly if they allow a proper distance behind the car in front, especially if I am driving it.
As much as I hate tailgaters, even the best driver can momentarily lose concentration. So slamming the anchors on at random does risk an accident, even if the person behind you is a reasonably good and careful driver.
You would take that risk if a child ran out in front of you, but not just because you spotted a parking place.
Sorry, can you point out the bit where he said he hit someone???
Without that critical bit of text, I can't really see how you can come up with "Here you admit you either don't pay enough attention or habitually try to drive up the exhaust of the car in front of you, you aggressive fool."
>>If I had a fiver for every arsehole who seems to want to bugger my exhaust
But of course, that could never ever be a problem with your driving.
>> Best technique in this situation is to slow down very gradually
Here you admit you that you are an aggressive fool. Do you really think that driving with the express intention to annoy other road users, is not aggressive? Idiot.
is the transference of risk. that's it pure and simple.
If a person is within a group which the insurance companies have found to be a higher risk, then they will be charged more. This is irrespective of age gender colour or religion. If you are in a group which has shown itself to be a low risk then you will pay a reduced premium. The questions that you're asked on your application are all about identifying _precisely_ which group you belong in.
Insurance companies have huge data sets to mine for this type of information and, in a hugely competitive market, they cut their margins as much as possible.
If you wish to complain about sexual discrimination in insurance then have a go at companies like Sheila's Wheels, companies who only sell to a single gender.
But complaining that you fit into a group which has a higher than average number of claims every year is pointless. Do something to get out of that group, take the advance drivers tests. That will lower your premium.
But no, it's far easier to just whinge at the insurance companies and blame them.
Yes, I am a DBA for an insurance / reinsurance company in the city.
I do feel sorry for them all, they'll just have to pick up their pencils and stick their little tongues out whilst they do the sums to figure out how they can a) make themselves the same profit as normal or more likely b) make even more profit than they used to.
"Eureka! If we can't charge men more than women, we'll just charge women the same as men!"
Give them each a gold sticker, on top of their annual bonuses, naturally...bless 'em!
2 people apply for first-time car insurance. Both have just passed their test, neither has any criminal record nor has had a car accident. Should they pay the same amount of insurance, for the same cover? Until there's some DATA to say otherwise, the only realistic answer is yes.
However, once one driver can be shown to be more careful/responsible/aware/lucky or the other one shown to be the opposite. the situation changes. At that time you now have the smallest amount of information on which to assess the risk involved in insuring these two people - you can now expect their insurance rates to change, however unfairly to reflect the new conditions. That is no longer discrimination, it's actuarial analysis. (Though with only one single datum, not very reliable but better than nothing - barely)
So maybe we can expect a future where people start off by paying the same premiums for the same cover but very quickly, given the frequency that some individuals have accidents or cause claims, diverge in what their insurance costs. Maybe even to the point of it changing every few weeks depending on the miles they drive and the conditions (day/night/summer/winter/city/country) they encounter. Of course, all that extra administration would cost money, so premiums would inevitably go up, but at least the premiums would be fact-based.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
