Sign in / up

back to article UK will obey Euro unisex-insurance rules from 2013

The UK Government is to abide by a European ruling on the use of gender in insurance, although it says the judgment goes against common sense. In March 2011, the European Court of Justice ruled in a test case known as the Test-Achats case that from 21 December 2012 insurers will no longer be able to use gender as a factor in …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      @TheBeardyMan

      Your argument is bollocks. There is no either / or here.

      Insurance is mandatory for some very good reasons that have already been put forward in this thread - this is completely separate from whether insurance companies are allowed to act in a discriminatory manner.

      There is no reason why you can't easily have both - and if you had read / understood the article you will see that from 2013 we will be in that happy place where insurance will be non-discriminatory (on the basis of gender) and the fuckers who drive without insurance will still be fucking criminals.

      0 0
      1. TheBeardyMan
        Reply Icon

        @Lee

        No argument from me against enforced non-discriminatory pricing being the right way to go.

        I'm implying that decriminalizing driving without motor insurance is the only non-misandrist alternative to enforced non-discriminatory pricing, and NOT that it's an alternative that should be seriously considered.

        0 0
  2. Paul
    Boffin

    another way to discriminate on sex

    the insurance companies use a set of metrics to determine risk and therefore the price;it's not about age, sex, race or any other thing that might offend the PC brigade, just a way to put a driver into a pigeon-hole of likely risk categories.

    if they can't use the sex of the driver, they can use the first name instead; there's some overlap of men's and womens names, but it'd be a lot better than nothing.

    they could also ask for information about the hair-style and also use that. or shoe-style. it doesn't mean they have prejudice about, say, blondes, if they do.

    0 0
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      You misunderstand discrimination

      If you chose a different metric which still discriminates against a particular group that you have been preventing from discriminating against then unless you can show the metric is valid in itself and that any connection with a particular group in question is coincidental then you are still guilty of discrimination.

      As an example, say men do cause more higher cost crashes as has been argued here. If you use total cost of fault claims over the last 5 years as a metric for determining risk then although you are likely to end up targeting more men that women (and indeed men more than women) you would have a good case for being non gender discriminatory on the basis that (1) you are basing risk based on proven historical costs and (2) you are applying the cost metric equally to men and women who have had claims.

      Discrimination on names where most names are gender specific (or hair style fro the same reason) is clearly disguised gender discrimination. Insurance companies are not that stupid to try to get away with that, the public also won't let them and the courts can be bastards - especially the competition ones.

      0 0
  3. Rogerborg

    Women shouldn't have to pay as much as men for insurance!

    Why, taken to an extreme, they might get it into their pretty little heads that they should *earn* as much as men.

    0 0
  4. Dave 15

    Cameron continues to be a total waste of space

    This 'ruling' so clearly flies in the face of common sense that it is a joke. Cameron should have stood up and said 'No'. Of course he didn't, like all of our politicians (from whatever major party with the possible exception of ukip), he has both eyes firmly on what nice little job he will pick up when he moves onto the european gravy train.

    If gender makes no difference to how long a person lives or whether they contract illness or crash a car then I guess the next is to say whether you are blind, old, young, deaf, one armed, wombat or human equally makes no difference and in the interests of equality all should pay the same. I'm afraid the reality is different:

    Women tend (on average) to drive less miles, drive less in rush hour and are better organised so less often late - this means they generally have less car accidents.

    Men tend to be employed in stressful or dangerous jobs and die earlier (I suspect their wives often feed them big plates of egg and chips to ensure the process is even quicker :)

    As always our loud mouthed baseless and pathetic politicians fail dismally to protect tyhe uk or its people

    0 0
  5. Dave 15

    no control over gender?

    "It seems to me that the person who wrote the opinion on which the decision was based has not really done a good enough job. Basically they argue that the overriding consideration in this case is that gender should not be a discriminating factor since it is not something over which the individual has control"

    I don't know of anyone who has control over their age, yet this is a discriminating factor.

    Few have real control over where we live - we need to be able to get to where we work, and I have no real control over where the person at the top of my particular tree has chosen to site the office, yet location is also a discriminating factor....

    As most have said, the ruling is barmy, and Cameron is lazy and stupid to let it through, we should just simply ignore it the way the other europeans ignore this pointless and obviously brain free court.

    0 0
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ Dave15

    Not sure if trolling or really that stupid, but I'll bite:

    To take your points:

    "Women tend (on average) to drive less miles" - actually it is fewer miles - but that is easily sorted in a non-discriminatory manner - the insurance companies could start asking us how many miles we drive per year and then use that as a factor - like they already do. So gender discrimination fail by you.

    "drive less in rush hour" - only if they don't work - again the insurance companies could just ask what your employment status is and use that as a factor - like the already do - FAIL number 2

    "and are better organised" - citation needed. Otherwise this is just sexist bullshit as meaningless as stating women can't do science.

    "so less often late" - again, citation needed

    " this means they generally have less car accidents." - we have already accepted women have more car accidents (just with a lower cost) - so yet another fail. This also inherently fails your previous 2 sexist bollocks points

    "Men tend to be employed in stressful or dangerous jobs" - these pesky insurance companies should really start asking us what our occupation is you know.

    "and die earlier" - so? Unless men have a habit of dying at the wheel it is irrelevant - after 70 you need a medical check to retain your license regardless of gender

    "(I suspect their wives often feed them big plates of egg and chips to ensure the process is even quicker :)" - Ah yes, in your world where men work and women stay at home cooking big hearty breakfasts whilst fetching her man his slippers and doing his ironing before another jolly enlightening day of housework and baby raising.

    0 0
  7. Mr Common Sense
    Mushroom

    I think people are missing the forest for the trees.

    There's no point arguing about women or mens driving habits when they'll pull another statistic out their ass to cover the next round of price increases.

    The whole issue of insurance needs to be looked at far more harshly considering the need for cars today.

    At the moment it's like a license to print money based on skewed statistics and pandering laws.

    0 0
  8. Anteaus
    Black Helicopters

    Extortionate spares at root of sky-high premiums.

    Part of the problem with astronomic premiums is extortion in the vehicle spares trade. Insurance repairs are typically done by main dealers, and main dealers may charge anything up to 400% over the actual value of parts supplied to them by spares distributors. Which are themselves already many times the actual manufacturing cost of the part. Even a damaged plastic bumper may cost several hundred as a dealer-fitted replacement, whereas the part itself probably costs a few pounds to manufacture.

    Now, motor factors do have to account for holding large quantities of stock, some of which may never be sold, plus the warehousing space for this stock. But, the situation with dealers' spares prices has gotten totally out of hand.

    -Black helicopter, because with aviation spares it's even worse.

    0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.