Statistical discrimination is still discrimination
"Surely insurance is all about risk assessment and as gender is proven to be a significant factor in car incidents it's a valid factor."
Well this is a crux of the argument - should the right of insurance companies to make a profit, trump laws on discrimination? The court decided no. Traditionally insurance companies have had far greater leeway to statistically discriminate than say, employers. But it's not clear that it should be that way.
There is also some argument to say that statistical discrimination should be okay whilst predujical discrimination (where there is no basis for the generalisations) isn't. But there are still examples of statistical discrimination that we would still consider unfair (not allowing women in the army; or an employer saying that women are statistically more likely to get pregnant).
Note, if *you* are a poorer driver, it's fair game to charge you more. The problem here is that people were being judged not on their driving ability, but the average driving ability of the gender that they were lumped in with. Also AFAIK, the laws only cover certain classes (gender, race, etc), so it's not like this will ruling will ban all forms of discrimination.
For anyone complaining about paying for other people - that's the whole *point* of insurance. You pay money, to cover other people's accidents. If you're a good driver, you'll most likely lose out. If you're a bad driver, or unlucky, you'll gain from it. But it seems an odd thing to complain about. Look at it this way - if you lose out from insurance, it means you've been lucky to have had no or fewer crashes. (If I never have to claim on my home insurance, or my health insurance, I'll be glad!)
Even if it did end up with everyone paying the same (although presumably things like cost of your car/home/etc would always still have an effect), would that be so bad? That was the whole point of insurance. When insurers use all these endless risk factors, remember, they're not doing it for your benefit - they're doing it so they can increase their profits.
"What's next, banning insurance "discrimination" against boy racers with idiotic car modifications and 9 points on their licences?"
Er, no, because that's not discrimination. There the judgement is based on individual merit. Choosing to have car modifications also is unlikely to ever be a protected class.