European Court changing how insurance works for gender

northernneil

http://www.trethowans.com/news_resources/news/imminent-threat-to-insurers-use-of-gender_3585/

Car insurance for example will now be the SAME for women as men. It will be illegal to discriminate on gender.

Same for life insurance where men will get LESS payout now despite it being biologically more likely you will live less longer - it will simply be illegal to give one price to a man and one to a woman.

Shielas Wheels are f*&ked!

this is just bonkers in the extreme ....

MaxwellBygraves

With the whole Shiela's wheels thing, I always thought it was funny that if there was a, say, hypothetical 'Geezers wheels' which meant lower prices for just men, a lot of people would get rather annoyed about that.

rake

wright or wrong seeing how everything else has gone this is long over due. there are that many discrimination laws, it would be half arsed not to apply it here, otherwise there is no priciple for the concept. love the line about sheilas wheels . my sister still enjoyed car premiums similar to mine with her car several times the value and over double the engine size at 3.5 litre dispite having dodgy eyesight and 3 cars going to a total loss and other vehicles while my record was clean over 10 years.

northernneil

but the very basis of insurance is 'risk'

gender, occupation, location, lifestlye are all factors which affect premiums, to make it illegal to take one of these into account - especially for something like life insurance, where its a biological fact that men live longer for women is simply crazy.

at the end of the day once again we will all pay more

zanelad

I thought that insurance premiums were based on risk. If women are less likely to have an accident, why shouldn't they pay less?

I don't pay the same to insure my car as my son would. If age can be taken into account, why not sex?

Stewie Griffin

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

With the whole Shiela's wheels thing, I always thought it was funny that if there was a, say, hypothetical 'Geezers wheels' which meant lower prices for just men, a lot of people would get rather annoyed about that.

Shielaswheels has never actually said that we dont insure men or that they will charge us more though have they? If the handbag cover is that important to you then maybe you can add it on

rogerthecat

About time for this to come in, it's been doing my head in, women are some of the most inconsiderate drivers on the road; of all the altercations that I have had with cars whilst on my bike they have been female, just don't get me started on the way they drive :evil:

Yes it’s true insurance is based on risk (apparently), so how is it then that my wife and I are charged a different rate for the same car at the same address I have been driving longer than she and have had less points on my licence. I have had no claims on my insurance; although I have been hit by 3 women on separate occasions and claimed on their insurance as it was proven they were at fault.


Getting more wound up must stop!

:evil: :evil: :evil:

Aggieboy

Surely they'll pay a higher premium if they're blonde!!?

DIESELDOG

Aggieboy wrote:

Surely they'll pay a higher premium if they're blonde!!?

Nah, sales of hair dye will go up.

We're too smart for you.

DD

Aggieboy

DIESELDOG wrote:

Aggieboy wrote:

Surely they'll pay a higher premium if they're blonde!!?

Nah, sales of blonde hair dye will go up.

We're too smart for you.

DD

Fixed to what yopu meant to write.

DIESELDOG

Aggieboy wrote:

DIESELDOG wrote:

Aggieboy wrote:

Surely they'll pay a higher premium if they're blonde!!?

Nah, sales of brunette hair dye will go up.

We're too smart for you.

DD

Fixed to what yopu meant to write.

Likewise

DD

snailracer

northernneil wrote:

but the very basis of insurance is 'risk'

gender, occupation, location, lifestlye are all factors which affect premiums, to make it illegal to take one of these into account - especially for something like life insurance, where its a biological fact that men live longer for women is simply crazy.

at the end of the day once again we will all pay more

But the point of insurance is to spread risk. If the risk, and therefore premiums, for every driver could be calculated with perfect crystal-ball accuracy, there would be no point having insurance in the first place. Hell, in some European countries the cars are insured - it doesn't even matter who owns the car or who drives: man, woman or reckless teenager - the premium is the same.

I think the ruling is fair - not all men are riskier than the average woman, so why generalise?

I also think it is correct that "discrimination" is outlawed for factors that people have no control over, such as race or sex. Other risk factors, such as your occupation, smoking habits or address, are down to individual choice* - thus it is fairer to allow "discrimination" on the basis of those factors.

* Sex change no longer necessary for lower car insurance

daviesee

Stewie Griffin wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

With the whole Shiela's wheels thing, I always thought it was funny that if there was a, say, hypothetical 'Geezers wheels' which meant lower prices for just men, a lot of people would get rather annoyed about that.

Shielaswheels has never actually said that we dont insure men or that they will charge us more though have they? If the handbag cover is that important to you then maybe you can add it on

From their website -

"Is Sheilas’ Wheels ‘woman only’ car insurance?
While we cater especially for ladies, men are welcome to take out a policy with us but our benefits are ones that women will appreciate. Of course you can also cover the men in your life (husbands, partners, sons) on your policy as additional drivers"

That'll be how they get around any "discrimination".

ddraver

I'm with this - Fed up of having higher premiums than some of my girl friends (separate words) who have lower premiums despite having had 2 or 3 crashes vs my none (touching wood crazily!!) and having more points on their licence!

Ollieda

daviesee wrote:

Stewie Griffin wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

With the whole Shiela's wheels thing, I always thought it was funny that if there was a, say, hypothetical 'Geezers wheels' which meant lower prices for just men, a lot of people would get rather annoyed about that.

Shielaswheels has never actually said that we dont insure men or that they will charge us more though have they? If the handbag cover is that important to you then maybe you can add it on

From their website -

"Is Sheilas’ Wheels ‘woman only’ car insurance?
While we cater especially for ladies, men are welcome to take out a policy with us but our benefits are ones that women will appreciate. Of course you can also cover the men in your life (husbands, partners, sons) on your policy as additional drivers"

That'll be how they get around any "discrimination".

It would have been discrimination in the first place to simply not insure men at all. There will be lots of ways around any law on this, however if it looks like all insurance companies are likely to stick to the spirit of the law and increase womens premiums to match mens whilst all the hate for the increase is directed at the EU, then I think they might just not bother searching for loop holes!

snailracer

This works both ways.

For car insurance, men get subsidised by women. For pensions, women get subsidised by men.

verylonglegs

Ollieda wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Stewie Griffin wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

With the whole Shiela's wheels thing, I always thought it was funny that if there was a, say, hypothetical 'Geezers wheels' which meant lower prices for just men, a lot of people would get rather annoyed about that.

Shielaswheels has never actually said that we dont insure men or that they will charge us more though have they? If the handbag cover is that important to you then maybe you can add it on

From their website -

"Is Sheilas’ Wheels ‘woman only’ car insurance?
While we cater especially for ladies, men are welcome to take out a policy with us but our benefits are ones that women will appreciate. Of course you can also cover the men in your life (husbands, partners, sons) on your policy as additional drivers"

That'll be how they get around any "discrimination".

It would have been discrimination in the first place to simply not insure men at all. There will be lots of ways around any law on this, however if it looks like all insurance companies are likely to stick to the spirit of the law and increase womens premiums to match mens whilst all the hate for the increase is directed at the EU, then I think they might just not bother searching for loop holes!

This is what I thought when I heard this story, will they increase the women's premiums to meet the men's or drop the men's or settle for something halfway...hmmn I wonder.

neiltb

I get pissed off at my dad paying less, I hope that's next, age discrimination that is.

Bozman

Major point!
Are insurance companies going to split the difference or go with the cheaper policy? Are they f**k, this is bad news for everyone!

LazyBoycp

snailracer wrote:

But the point of insurance is to spread risk. If the risk, and therefore premiums, for every driver could be calculated with perfect crystal-ball accuracy, there would be no point having insurance in the first place.

But it's never going to be possible to classify risks with such accuracy, since whether or not you are involved in an accident is essentially random.

snailracer wrote:

I think the ruling is fair - not all men are riskier than the average woman, so why generalise?

Do you not think that using less granular information (i.e. aggregating data on male & female risks) will result in more generalisation?

neiltb, I think you may have to wait until you get to your Dad's age - an opinion I've heard is that while you can't change your gender (and hence it's discrimination to charge different premiums based on this), over a lifetime you won't be discriminated against as a result of your age.

P.S. I'm really, really glad I don't work in life insurance/pensions - rumour has it that the ECJ may decide that the judgement applies to policies already in force as well as future policies, which would cause massive problems.

snailracer

LazyBoycp wrote:

snailracer wrote:

But the point of insurance is to spread risk. If the risk, and therefore premiums, for every driver could be calculated with perfect crystal-ball accuracy, there would be no point having insurance in the first place.

But it's never going to be possible to classify risks with such accuracy, since whether or not you are involved in an accident is essentially random....

But that is what each insurance company tries to do, in principle, to gain an advantage over competitors, or to prevent competitors from gaining the advantage over them by "creaming off" low-risk drivers. As long as the rules are the same for all insurance companies, there is no commercial reason to object to the changes.

LazyBoycp wrote:

snailracer wrote:

I think the ruling is fair - not all men are riskier than the average woman, so why generalise?

Do you not think that using less granular information (i.e. aggregating data on male & female risks) will result in more generalisation?

That's just a poor choice of words on my part, I should have said, "I think the ruling is fair - not all men are riskier than the average woman, so why discriminate?"