saint boggy Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 http://biztech.caledonianmercury.com/2011/02/15/women-drivers-to-be-hit-by-eu-insurance-ruling/ I have personally never used a "women only" insurance company for my car insurance, but IMO groups that are statistically less likely to claim SHOULD be entitled to a discount. If this law gets passed (as is highly likely), companies like Sheila's Wheels and Saga may well struggle to stay afloat (more job losses, just what we need,eh!!) as this law covers ALLSORTS of discrimination, so companies who only deal with drivers over a certain age aswell as those who deal with only women would come under the same restrictions i'd have thought. There are ,obviously, plus sides to this law too, but what are your views on it (and what do you think about the EU dictating our laws AGAIN)........ (Please remember that this is The Lounge)..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 February, 2011 Share Posted 20 February, 2011 http://biztech.caledonianmercury.com/2011/02/15/women-drivers-to-be-hit-by-eu-insurance-ruling/ I have personally never used a "women only" insurance company for my car insurance, but IMO groups that are statistically less likely to claim SHOULD be entitled to a discount. If this law gets passed (as is highly likely), companies like Sheila's Wheels and Saga may well struggle to stay afloat (more job losses, just what we need,eh!!) as this law covers ALLSORTS of discrimination, so companies who only deal with drivers over a certain age aswell as those who deal with only women would come under the same restrictions i'd have thought. There are ,obviously, plus sides to this law too, but what are your views on it (and what do you think about the EU dictating our laws AGAIN)........ (Please remember that this is The Lounge)..... Its a ruling based on the law as it stands, but afasik the law was never intended for this purpose, so I imagine the law will be changed sharpish in light of the court finding. I have no problem with different rates for different risk groups. It doesnt just apply to car insurance, also commercial insurance, shipping, life cover etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint francis Posted 21 February, 2011 Share Posted 21 February, 2011 I'm with Europe on this one, if they choose this path, which I hope they will. Initially I thought that statistical analysis justified the means for pricing of policies, but left unchecked you could choose virtually any stat as a parameter for price. Maybe the Welsh are involved in more accidents than the rest of the UK? Perhaps those with wigs, ingrowing toenails, sausage fingers. Choose your category at will. If I was a seventeen year old male it would be nice if I was given the chance to be a responsible driver before it was decided that I couldn't be because of accidents caused by other people of the same age. At the end of the day I doubt it'll make a difference to careful drivers, more restriction on differentials will I guess push companies to shift the benefits in favour of no claims bonuses, up to twenty years maybe, which is fair to everyone across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint francis Posted 21 February, 2011 Share Posted 21 February, 2011 Possibly second thoughts regards wigs and convertibles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 February, 2011 Share Posted 21 February, 2011 Its a proven stat that a lot of accidents are caused by a driver trying to retrive a lighted cigarette they've dropped - but afaik smoking isnt considered a risk factor for drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 22 February, 2011 Share Posted 22 February, 2011 I didn't think Sheila's wheels could legally turn down a male driver? I thought they just gave women extra discount, so the male premiums with them wouldn't be competitive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint boggy Posted 22 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2011 thinking about it also, if they are looking at EVERY aspect of discrimination, then surely the area that you live in will have to be ignored also (surely you cant discriminate against someone purely because of where they live ,crime rates etc)....(good news for me! LOL) And Saint Francis, you say about ANYTHING being used as a stick to beat you with by insurance companies.......a couple of years ago i was charged £20 extra by an insurer purely because i was "seperated" ,rather than "married"......how effing ridiculous!!!!..(cor, STILL makes me mad,that does!!) LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 22 February, 2011 Share Posted 22 February, 2011 I didn't think Sheila's wheels could legally turn down a male driver? I thought they just gave women extra discount, so the male premiums with them wouldn't be competitive? That's what the article is getting at. They wont/cant do that as they are "discriminating" against their non-target group. Bit odd really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 22 February, 2011 Share Posted 22 February, 2011 I can only regard this "Test Achats" case as being totally potty. The price of insurance in virtually every class will rise, and some products may become unaffordable for many. To give tou an idea: A statistically safer younger female driver will typically see her premiums rise by up to £1000 per year (40%). An increase in term life insurance premiums for women by up to 10-15% and premiums for critical illness insurance for women could rise by 12% An estimation that male annuitant income could be reduced by up to 13% per year - Or in laymens terms male private pensions will pay less. Gender has been a well defined and sound basis for insurance pricing for as long as the industry has been in operation, as strong data exists to "positively discriminate" between sexes keeping premiums affordable for all. Now because of a ridiculous piece of legislation the european population such laws are intended to protect will be all the worse off, because of some un-elected legal entity in Strasbourg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Keith Posted 23 February, 2011 Share Posted 23 February, 2011 i can confirm this is happening. im working at the head office of one of the main insurance companies at the moment, and its carnage. its being announced on Tuesday, but they dont know yet how much transition time they are going to get, but they do beleive it wont be retrospective insurance comapnies are not going to be losing any money over this. main effect will be on young female drivers, as they will begin to be charged the same high rates as young males, which as we all know, are scarily high its not clear yet what other area sof insurance it will apply to, but is certianly motor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 23 February, 2011 Share Posted 23 February, 2011 There was a similar ruling in Sweden a few years ago whereby they could only charge differential prices between genders if the insurance company could prove there was statistical evidence for the disparity. Caused them to hire consultants to do a study and show that there is indeed a difference and everyone moved on as before. I wonder if the same will end up happening here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 23 February, 2011 Share Posted 23 February, 2011 it pains me so that my mates little sister got ****ed up on holiday in Oz - returned home preggo and kept it, and lives a fine life with her new son all on the state. A nice 3 bedroom house in a middle class suburb (worth around £250k), front and rear garden, driveway, council will maintain the property for her. all bills paid up, with £125 a week to spend on her food, petrol, going out on the razz and some new clothes. **** me I wish I had the option to do that! I would jack in work, take my house deposit on a tour of the world, and come back to retire on the state with my new born family. Its good to see the boys fighting back, if only a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 23 February, 2011 Share Posted 23 February, 2011 There was a similar ruling in Sweden a few years ago whereby they could only charge differential prices between genders if the insurance company could prove there was statistical evidence for the disparity. Caused them to hire consultants to do a study and show that there is indeed a difference and everyone moved on as before. I wonder if the same will end up happening here. Insurance pricing was originally exempt from the gender directive because it has been proven time and time again that gender is a statistically sound and relevant pricing differential. Many companies have proven this under challenge - The UK precedent was in 1984 Pinder v Friends Provident. However, it does not suit the pinko agenda from some European "equality is all" mongers! Curses to the politicians both here and in Europe for letting it get this far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint francis Posted 23 February, 2011 Share Posted 23 February, 2011 I don't think anyone disputes that there's a differential, only whether it is fair to judge a new customer based on these parameters. I'm being persuaded that it isn't. An insurance company will still be quite free to choose whatever parameters they see fit within the law, locality, occupation, choice of car etc but these are things that people choose. Age and gender are not, and I'm not sure it is fair to charge people more because of it, even if either one proved to be statistically a higher risk. Companies will just have to choose different, fairer parameters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 23 February, 2011 Share Posted 23 February, 2011 The "fair" price that a person should be charged is what he is expected to claim, on average, plus a small loading for the insurance company to cover expenses and profit. The methods insurance companies use are done to get the best estimate possible of what that average cost is. It is not "unfair" that they choose gender as a factor, its simply part of the process to best hone in on what the "true" price should be. It's not that someone somewhere is deeming that males should be punished for their gender - they are simply likely to cost more. What is unfair is to introduce this legislation and force some people to pay more than their fair price, just because of what gender they happen to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 23 February, 2011 Share Posted 23 February, 2011 I hope it goes through, blatant sexism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 February, 2011 Share Posted 23 February, 2011 Whilst it seems eminently sensible and logical for insurance companies to take the data available to them into account when setting premiums/annuities etc there seems to be no real qualititative difference between that sort of discrimination and many other types of discrimination which are illegal already. For example, if I was recruiting and had two equal candidates, one a 25 year old married male and one a 25 year old married female, then ojectively there is probably a strong case for me taking the male (as the female is probaly quite likely to disappear for several months at some point in the future). To paraphrase the post above, the female is simply likely to cost more. However that would be illegal. It would even be illegal for me to ask her what her plans were re a family. Is there an objective difference between the scenarios? The principle that all discrimination should be illegal is a nonsense IMO. People are discriminated against all the time with respect to their intelligence or their behaviour. That is how decisions are made. The solution is for all discrimination to be perfectly legal and for humans to be better educated and informed. That aint gonna happen though. The result is that the law is left with a very difficult task in codifying what feels "right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 24 February, 2011 Share Posted 24 February, 2011 I don't think anyone disputes that there's a differential, only whether it is fair to judge a new customer based on these parameters. I'm being persuaded that it isn't. An insurance company will still be quite free to choose whatever parameters they see fit within the law, locality, occupation, choice of car etc but these are things that people choose. Age and gender are not, and I'm not sure it is fair to charge people more because of it, even if either one proved to be statistically a higher risk. Companies will just have to choose different, fairer parameters. But by not being able to use statistically robust pricing differentials to keep insurance affordable for all, then nobody wins and everybody pays more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 24 February, 2011 Share Posted 24 February, 2011 Discrimination is a word that is often misunderstood IMO. Discrimination in itself is something we all do, every day. It is the process of discerning differences between people, places, objects, ideas etc... and understanding what those differences are. But in many peoples eyes the word is assumed to mean something automatically bad or illegal. It only becomes a bad thing when decisions are based on those differences with no other reason for the decision. I.e. Racial discrimination is if a decision about a job, for example, is made based PURELY on the persons race, and not subjective and relevant reasons. Now, with a job it's more clear cut, but with insurance I think it's a lot harder. As someone said above, if an individual has no previous history, I can see how it might be deemed unfair to load their premium, and it all comes down to whether statistics are deemed to be a good enough reason. Stats are good for looking at a large group and finding averages or trends, but we're all individuals, so is it then fair to base my premium on the average of a group I happen to be a part of? I'm not saying it is or isn't but it's an interesting situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 24 February, 2011 Share Posted 24 February, 2011 Discrimination is a word that is often misunderstood IMO. Discrimination in itself is something we all do, every day. It is the process of discerning differences between people, places, objects, ideas etc... and understanding what those differences are. But in many peoples eyes the word is assumed to mean something automatically bad or illegal. It only becomes a bad thing when decisions are based on those differences with no other reason for the decision. I.e. Racial discrimination is if a decision about a job, for example, is made based PURELY on the persons race, and not subjective and relevant reasons. Now, with a job it's more clear cut, but with insurance I think it's a lot harder. As someone said above, if an individual has no previous history, I can see how it might be deemed unfair to load their premium, and it all comes down to whether statistics are deemed to be a good enough reason. Stats are good for looking at a large group and finding averages or trends, but we're all individuals, so is it then fair to base my premium on the average of a group I happen to be a part of? I'm not saying it is or isn't but it's an interesting situation. I think this a really sound post. I can see where Benji's post was coming from but the problem is Benji is that whilst some people (you and Minty for example) have the intelligence and wherewithal to make a balanced decision taking into account your prejudices, which we all have, versus the other significant factors, others will just abuse the freedoms that a lack of discrimination protection would give them. Let's face it, there are a few people on this site we can think of where that would be the case. That's not a society that most of the UK would want to live in. There are one or two football clubs that were strongly rumoured in the past not to sign or develop black players - so AOC, Theo or Danny Wallace wouldn't have got a chance if it were their major local club irrespective of talent. If we had no discrimination laws, we'd be back to the bad old days of "suss" by the Police and Courts, and half the population would be consciously excluded from reaching their potential and enriching our workplaces and communities based on ignorance and fear whipped up by uninformed media outlets, by race, disability, gender etc. Of course, the anti-discrimination laws themselves must be applied with common sense. With regard to this, it seems that we still haven't done enough to change the habits of young male drivers, after all, if we did that we wouldn't to offer cheaper insurance for more responsible young female drivers in the first place. One way might be to restrict the driving age to 21, some of the worst cases of irresponsible driving fatalities seem to be teenagers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 24 February, 2011 Share Posted 24 February, 2011 Whilst it seems eminently sensible and logical for insurance companies to take the data available to them into account when setting premiums/annuities etc there seems to be no real qualititative difference between that sort of discrimination and many other types of discrimination which are illegal already. For example, if I was recruiting and had two equal candidates, one a 25 year old married male and one a 25 year old married female, then ojectively there is probably a strong case for me taking the male (as the female is probaly quite likely to disappear for several months at some point in the future). To paraphrase the post above, the female is simply likely to cost more. However that would be illegal. It would even be illegal for me to ask her what her plans were re a family. Is there an objective difference between the scenarios? The principle that all discrimination should be illegal is a nonsense IMO. People are discriminated against all the time with respect to their intelligence or their behaviour. That is how decisions are made. The solution is for all discrimination to be perfectly legal and for humans to be better educated and informed. That aint gonna happen though. The result is that the law is left with a very difficult task in codifying what feels "right". Yes, they are fundamentally completely different. With a job you are being employed to come and do a day's work, and are compensated accordingly. Two people who produce the same output should receive the same compensation, and it is unfair if they do not. Now you are right that in the long run a female is, all things equal, going to cost more than a male due to maternity periods, and so its in an empoyer's interests to hire the male (or equivalently to pay him more for the same role), but since they are doing the same job it seems fair that this should be prevented - hence the legislation. However insurance is different. What is insurance? It is the transfer of risk - swapping an uncertain cashflow stream ("will I pay nothing or will I pay a lot?") for a more certain cashflow stream (the premium), at a price (the profit loading). There is no product or service being exchanged, it's simply swapping money. So the key to a fair transaction is knowing what the "value" of the uncertain cashflow is, so you can properly price the premium. To value the uncertain scenario the insurance company models the average amount you, or someone exactly like you (ie with all your characteristics), are likely to cost them. How is this done? By looking at a huge sample of the population and applying price differentials for every characteristic that's deemed to be a true risk factor. If one of those happens to be gender, so be it. To not allow a statistically significant risk factor is to not allow the true fair value to be determined. This means some people (males) will be making a profit on an insurance contract, on average, while others (females) will be making a loss, on average, just because of the gender they happened to be born as (not sure how transgenders are treated to be honest). That is unfair and should be prevented. In reality, if gender is disallowed, insurance companies will end up trying to pick another characteristic which isn't itself a true risk factor, but can be used as a proxy for gender (pink cars, renault clio, typically female occupations). However as this is only an approximation it just won't be as good, and as someone mentioned above the less statistically robust it is the more it ends up costing everyone. Discrimination is a word that is often misunderstood IMO. Discrimination in itself is something we all do, every day. It is the process of discerning differences between people, places, objects, ideas etc... and understanding what those differences are. But in many peoples eyes the word is assumed to mean something automatically bad or illegal. It only becomes a bad thing when decisions are based on those differences with no other reason for the decision. I.e. Racial discrimination is if a decision about a job, for example, is made based PURELY on the persons race, and not subjective and relevant reasons. Now, with a job it's more clear cut, but with insurance I think it's a lot harder. As someone said above, if an individual has no previous history, I can see how it might be deemed unfair to load their premium, and it all comes down to whether statistics are deemed to be a good enough reason. Stats are good for looking at a large group and finding averages or trends, but we're all individuals, so is it then fair to base my premium on the average of a group I happen to be a part of? I'm not saying it is or isn't but it's an interesting situation. In my opinion, absolutely yes. And why pick on gender? Is it ok to be rated the same way as other drivers who happened to pick the same make of car, happen to live in the same area or happen to work in the same occupation? After all, we are all individuals. Or are we... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 24 February, 2011 Share Posted 24 February, 2011 some people (males) will be making a profit on an insurance contract, on average, while others (females) will be making a loss, on average, just because of the gender they happened to be born as (not sure how transgenders are treated to be honest). That is unfair and should be prevented. Not always. Women aren't inherently safer drivers, its just that they drive fewer miles on average than men. Therefore whilst it is fair to charge men more for unrestricted policies those capped at a certain mileage (eg 5,000 pa) should be priced at parity - but they arent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 24 February, 2011 Share Posted 24 February, 2011 I think this a really sound post. I can see where Benji's post was coming from but the problem is Benji is that whilst some people (you and Minty for example) have the intelligence and wherewithal to make a balanced decision taking into account your prejudices, which we all have, versus the other significant factors, others will just abuse the freedoms that a lack of discrimination protection would give them. Let's face it, there are a few people on this site we can think of where that would be the case. That's not a society that most of the UK would want to live in. There are one or two football clubs that were strongly rumoured in the past not to sign or develop black players - so AOC, Theo or Danny Wallace wouldn't have got a chance if it were their major local club irrespective of talent. If we had no discrimination laws, we'd be back to the bad old days of "suss" by the Police and Courts, and half the population would be consciously excluded from reaching their potential and enriching our workplaces and communities based on ignorance and fear whipped up by uninformed media outlets, by race, disability, gender etc. Of course, the anti-discrimination laws themselves must be applied with common sense. With regard to this, it seems that we still haven't done enough to change the habits of young male drivers, after all, if we did that we wouldn't to offer cheaper insurance for more responsible young female drivers in the first place. One way might be to restrict the driving age to 21, some of the worst cases of irresponsible driving fatalities seem to be teenagers. What upset me is not the anti discrimination but the positive discrimination, where if you are part of a minority group, you are guaranteed an interview for a job regardless if you are qualified for the job just because they are part of a minority group, but because I am a white Anglo Saxon with all the correct qualifications and relative experience, my CV gets thrown in the bin. Everybody should be given a chance based on their abilities. On discrimination and insurance how long will it be before somebody aged 17 claims that they are being age discriminated against them and we all end up paying £1000 a year again lining the insurance companies pockets because "they do not want to upset an EU lawmakers". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 24 February, 2011 Share Posted 24 February, 2011 where if you are part of a minority group, you are guaranteed an interview for a job regardless if you are qualified for the job And your evidence for this is...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 24 February, 2011 Share Posted 24 February, 2011 And your evidence for this is...? When you read in newspapers adverts that applications from certain ethnic groups are actively encouraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 24 February, 2011 Share Posted 24 February, 2011 When you read in newspapers adverts that applications from certain ethnic groups are actively encouraged. And you think that is evidence that a 'minority group' member is guaranteed an interview regardless of whether he or she is qualified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 24 February, 2011 Share Posted 24 February, 2011 Not always. Women aren't inherently safer drivers, its just that they drive fewer miles on average than men. Therefore whilst it is fair to charge men more for unrestricted policies those capped at a certain mileage (eg 5,000 pa) should be priced at parity - but they arent. Sorry Timmy, you're wrong. Women drivers are statistically lower risk than men (remember that includes not only how often you have a crash but also how much it costs when you do). Of course driving more miles will increase your premium, as will other relevant risk factors such as having a more expensive car or parking on the street instead of a garage, but if all other variables are equal women drivers have a lower average cost - it is not parity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 25 February, 2011 Share Posted 25 February, 2011 What upset me is not the anti discrimination but the positive discrimination, where if you are part of a minority group, you are guaranteed an interview for a job regardless if you are qualified for the job just because they are part of a minority group, but because I am a white Anglo Saxon with all the correct qualifications and relative experience, my CV gets thrown in the bin. Everybody should be given a chance based on their abilities. On discrimination and insurance how long will it be before somebody aged 17 claims that they are being age discriminated against them and we all end up paying £1000 a year again lining the insurance companies pockets because "they do not want to upset an EU lawmakers". I do see your point and at one time would have shared it but having a more diverse workforce is good for a number of large companies and other sectors as it enables you to build trust and a rapport with your customer base which will also be mixed. The issue on applications being invited from certain groups is part of this but sometimes it is a reaction to other adverse events (for example the Police training college racism - and it was blatant - highlighted on BBC1). Coming from a recruitment background originally, I can assure you that candidates still have to be excellent to get a sniff of being successful, particularly in professional or managerial roles and that their background would only really be a tie-breaker at most in my experience, the quality, experience and track-record are what counts. Disabled candidates do get a guaranteed interview in participating organisations via the Two Ticks scheme but again, they have to fit all the essential criteria to get one and they still have to be the best candidate at interview and the same criteria as above will apply. I still think from experience that the best candidates will usually win out, whether they are part of group or not although there are some exceptions. Anyone who gets a new role in this current climate has to be decent at what they do and hats off to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 That's what the article is getting at. They wont/cant do that as they are "discriminating" against their non-target group. Bit odd really. I think it's daft then. Surely the whole point of a group of people being able to have lower premiums is that as a collective group, their risk profile is lower than other groups? So are we ALL to pay the same premium? Should I, a 35 year old man, living in the peace and quiet of the country, pay the same as a 17 year old from Aldershot, or a 75 year old who can't turn a steering wheel. It's a ridiculous ruling. That's a whole load of people who look at risk/analytics out of a job then, not needed anymore. We all have the same premiums. Okay I'm being really extreme, but it is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 (edited) This is another example of beaurocrats trying to map perfectly reasonable commercial customer profiling to some kind of "ism". Just because there is a general correllation between "women" and "careful drivers" doesn't mean that any company selling a service or commodity to "careful drivers" is discriminating against men. If men were "careful drivers" (statistically) then they would also fall into the company's target customer base profile. It's simple commercial dynamics. Perhaps banks should start loaning money to "high risk" people again to avoid discriminating against "poor people"....? etc etc Sigh. Edited 1 March, 2011 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 I see that the ruling has been passed. If I wish to ensure myself against getting pregnant, will I have to pay the same premium as a woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefunkygibbons Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Quite crackers The effect on annuity rates is particularly dim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now