Women drivers: EU rules against lower premiums for females

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Silverfish

Well, statistically speaking, if you can prove that one gender is safer than another, then I think personally it would be okay to base insurance premiums on that knowledge.

Same reason there's a difference in cost from age, occupation, engine size and location.

However, I believe that fair is fair, and if gender discrimination is to be wiped out, then this is a no-brainer. It had to go.

However, it would be nice if they adjusted DOWN the way, rather than everyone's insurance going UP the way. It will still affect men, as those in families / joint incomes will see even more money going out. So it's a bit of a hollow victory in that respect. Still, for the young single male driver it's good.

I wonder if all the drivers discriminated against have a case for compensation?

Silverfish

Can I remind people at this point also to avoid a gender war in this thread.

If you want to vent about female drivers, please use the Ranting and Raving, Motors, or Gentleman's Club forums.

And bear in mind it wasn't women overcharging you in the first place

TheNewMee

Silverfish wrote: »

Well, statistically speaking, if you can prove that one gender is safer than another, then I think personally it would be okay to base insurance premiums on that knowledge.

Same reason there's a difference in cost from age, occupation, engine size.

However, I believe that fair is fair, and if gender discrimination is to be wiped out, then this is a no-brainer. It had to go.

I don't see how you can in any way apply "fair is fair" to this. The whole topic of gender discrimination is a bit of a crazy one when it starts interfering with things that make sense - like basing insurance premiums on statistics and facts rather than on touchy-feely "both sexes are exactly the same" crap.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Little Acorn

Just watching the new there, and the man from an insurance company was saying that this is a case where "equality is coming before fairness".
I don't even drive but I think I agree with that.
It was also said on the news that this will probably start to affect women's life insurance, because women's was lower as statistically women on average live longer than men.
I know that not all young male drivers are bad, and I know that all female drivers are not good drivers, and I know that men can and do live longer than women,
but isn't insurance based on risk analysis?
They can't examine every single person's driving skills, so have to base it on an overall average statistics. It is not fair to the males who are good drivers, but it does seem to be the fairest system overall.

Alkers

But similarly if a company could produce statistics showing that its male employees were more productive/efficient than female ones (hypothetical argument), then people wouldn't settle for that argument if the company tried to pay it's male employees more. As far as insurance goes surely a decent method would be everyone starts on the same base rate and discounts are applyed for no claims or extra training and loadings applyed for performance cars.

Hazys

I think it had to go.

If you were a very safe male 19 yr old driver but you had to pay higher insurance because other young male drivers were dangerous, thats unfair.

Its the same situation now if you are a very safe female 19 yr old driver now having to pay higher insurance because other young drivers were dangerous, thats unfair.

Until they can treat a person as an individual, its very unfair to generalise based on anything.

TBH i'm suprised they can now justify ageism after saying sexism isnt ok.

Silverfish

That's pretty much how I see it.

Let everyone start on a base rate, and then let no claims history and driving record count for itself with every individual.

I'm a driver, and I hate when men lump me in with 'women drivers'. I've been driving for nearly 20 years, never had an accident. (Apart from when another driver *gender witheld* crashed into me changing lanes on a roundabout)
So I'd imagine for any good male driver, being lumped in with the 'male drivers' would be an insult as well.

TheNewMee

Silverfish wrote: »

Let everyone start on a base rate, and then let no claims history and driving record count for itself with every individual.

The problem is that the same ruling is likely to apply to stuff like life assurance - it doesn't make sense to base it on anything other than the statistics because you can't see the future to see how long someone will live.

Up-n-atom!

Yup, I grudgingly agree that it had to go - I'm just starting to drive and I would've liked to avail of the cheaper premiums (I suppose I will for a bit because I don't think the legislation is coming in until 2012) but if I was a guy I would've been pretty pissed off that I was being charged more just because of my sex.

There was a piece in the Motors section of The Times a week or 2 ago about how there were more young male than female drivers, but increasing numbers of female drivers each year - the knock-on effect of which were increasing numbers of accidents involving young women. The end result being that premiums were going to catch up to the male price eventually anyway.

goose2005

TheNewMee wrote: »

I don't see how you can in any way apply "fair is fair" to this. The whole topic of gender discrimination is a bit of a crazy one when it starts interfering with things that make sense - like basing insurance premiums on statistics and facts rather than on touchy-feely "both sexes are exactly the same" crap.

But what if black drivers were twice as likely to crash as white drivers? Would you talk about "touchy-feely "the races are exactly the same" crap"? A driver's risk should be evaluated based on their driving history, not on what demographic group they belong to.

TheNewMee

goose2005 wrote: »

But what if black drivers were twice as likely to crash as white drivers? Would you talk about "touchy-feely "the races are exactly the same" crap"? A driver's risk should be evaluated based on their driving history, not on what demographic group they belong to.

The difference here is that there is evidence behind my statement and no evidence behind your strawman argument.

Macha

If they ban this, then surely they would have to ban every other attempt to distinguish one person from the other. Age, occupation, address etc - otherwise they are being completely inconsistent.

Permabear - dead right, one goes up 25% but the other only comes down 10%...

Little Acorn

Simona1986 wrote: »

But similarly if a company could produce statistics showing that its male employees were more productive/efficient than female ones (hypothetical argument), then people wouldn't settle for that argument if the company tried to pay it's male employees more. As far as insurance goes surely a decent method would be everyone starts on the same base rate and discounts are applyed for no claims or extra training and loadings applyed for performance cars.

But salary isn't based on risk statistics according to sex, it is based on an individual's work performance. If an employee excels they may get a promotion, if they are average they may stay on the same, if they are very poor they will likely get fired.
I agree it would be good if insurance companies could apply a similar policy where, if you are a good driver you get rewarded with a discount, and if you are a poor driver with lots of crashes/points, you have to pay more for it.

There must be some reason though why they don't do this. It could be they make more money doing it this way.
Or it could be because for the insurance company it would make no logical sense to give everyone the same starting rate, when they know that a certain percentage of these people are statistically more likely to claim off them than the rest.
Sure they can then punish that group by then raising their insurance, but that's like locking the stable after the horse has already bolted.
They will already have had to pay out for people, who they already knew beforehand were more likely to claim of them.

I don't know what the statistics for male drivers are, but just say for example there are 20 people, 10 female and 10 male. The insurance company knows that it is 90% more likely to have to pay out in claims to some of the males than it is to some of the females. Why on earth would they gave the same starting rate?

It would definitely be the fairest way to judge on individual's driving record, but it doesn't make much business sense for the insurance companies to do this, as the risk is just way too high for them.
They have to base their rates on probability,because if they just give everyone the same rate they would lose out on money that could have been saved by following their risk analysis statistics.
They are still a profit making business at the end of the day.

That's my take on why it is the way it is anyways, but I don't work in insurance so it could be for other reasons.

Ickle Magoo

Surely the fairest way is to have a basic first time premium for all and then whack an enormous excess on young/learners/first-time drivers and have huge premium hikes every time a driver is in an accident - charge according to their actual driving rather than on a generalised assumption of how they are going to drive.

I can't stand the "women drivers" comments - especially here where bad driving seems to be a national past-time - there is no reason why bad drivers can't be forced to pay for themselves rather than anyone subsidising anyone else or a huge premium discrepancy based entirely on gender.

Unfortunately the cynic in me is inclined to think the insurance companies will just bump everyone's premiums and ultimately they'll be the only winners.

Alkers

Little Acorn wrote: »

But salary isn't based on risk statistics according to sex, it is based on an individual's work performance. If an employee excels they may get a promotion, if they are average they may stay on the same, if they are very poor they will likely get fired.
I agree it would be good if insurance companies could apply a similar policy where, if you are a good driver you get rewarded with a discount, and if you are a poor driver with lots of crashes/points, you have to pay more for it.

There must be some reason though why they don't do this. It could be they make more money doing it this way.
Or it could be because for the insurance company it would make no logical sense to give everyone the same starting rate, when they know that a certain percentage of these people are statistically more likely to claim off them than the rest.
Sure they can then punish that group by then raising their insurance, but that's like locking the stable after the horse has already bolted.
They will already have had to pay out for people, who they already knew beforehand were more likely to claim of them.

I don't know what the statistics for male drivers are, but just say for example there are 20 people, 10 female and 10 male. The insurance company knows that it is 90% more likely to have to pay out in claims to some of the males than it is to some of the females. Why on earth would they gave the same starting rate?

It would definitely be the fairest way to judge on individual's driving record, but it doesn't make much business sense for the insurance companies to do this, as the risk is just way too high for them.
They have to base their rates on probability,because if they just give everyone the same rate they would lose out on money that could have been saved by following their risk analysis statistics.
They are still a profit making business at the end of the day.

That's my take on why it is the way it is anyways, but I don't work in insurance so it could be for other reasons.

Your whole post can be read the exact opposite way around if I inserted business where you are talking about insurance companies as per my previous post.

Little Acorn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely the fairest way is to have a basic first time premium for all and then whack an enormous excess on young/learners/first-time drivers and have huge premium hikes every time a driver is in an accident - charge according to their actual driving rather than on a generalised assumption of how they are going to drive.

I can't stand the "women drivers" comments - especially here where bad driving seems to be a national past-time - there is no reason why bad drivers can't be forced to pay for themselves rather than anyone subsidising anyone else or a huge premium discrepancy based entirely on gender.

Unfortunately the cynic in me is inclined to think the insurance companies will just bump everyone's premiums and ultimately they'll be the only winners.

Yep. It is going to one of two ways. Either they hike up women's rates to match the current male's rates,
or as the actuary on the panel on the news said, men's will come down just slightly and women's will rise to meet this new rate.
Either way women are going to have to pay more insurance, even though they are statistically less likely to claim of the insurance company.
I don't think this is fair, at it just goes against the whole way that insurance works.

If I was a young male who was a very safe driver, of course the price difference would annoy me, but I could still understand that it was just the way insurance works.
I might not like the way insurance works, but seeing as that is how these businesses operate, I would see it as fairer overall for the people who are statistically less likely to claim to pay cheaper. It just makes sense to me.

In an ideal world, there would be no price difference between the sexes, but I can't see the insurance companies agreeing to this if it means they are going to end up paying out more money.

Ickle Magoo

Perhaps there needs to be a closer look at how insurance companies operate then? I find mind-boggling that an insurance company has no issue giving a lower rate of premium to a woman who's driving illegally on a provisional for years than a young male who passed their test first time after a glut of lessons from a reputable driving instructor. I'd be interested to see what the actual statistics are and for what age-groups and the corresponding insurance premiums because despite understanding the whole loading system, it still doesn't add up.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Little Acorn

Simona1986 wrote: »

Your whole post can be read the exact opposite way around if I inserted business where you are talking about insurance companies as per my previous post.

Not sure if I get you, the opposite way around to what? If you are talking about businesses paying employees according to their sex, I don't see how it it would be the same thing, because I am pointing out that insurance companies base their prices according to risk analysis studies, whereas to my knowledge employers don't use risk statistics when judging someone's salary, it is more based on individual experience and performance.To me they are completely different things. Insurance has always been based on risk or probability. That is just how it works, even though people [including me] would like if it was based on an individual person's record, it is probably just not a viable profit making scheme for insurance companies.

Little Acorn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Perhaps there needs to be a closer look at how insurance companies operate then? I find mind-boggling that an insurance company has no issue giving a lower rate of premium to a woman who's driving illegally on a provisional for years than a young male who passed their test first time after a glut of lessons from a reputable driving instructor. I'd be interested to see what the actual statistics are and for what age-groups and the corresponding insurance premiums because despite understanding the whole loading system, it still doesn't add up.

I too, would like to know exactly what the statistics are. They must be fairly strong ones to justify the price differences, because if they are not then it would raise a lot of other questions.

Dr_Phil

Silverfish wrote: »

Well, statistically speaking, if you can prove

Statistically speaking I can prove whatever I want

Ickle Magoo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which would be fair enough but the volume of male drivers paying over the odds seems vastly disproportionate to the number of souped-up corsa drivers who can't keep their wheels on the road...my concern is what started out as risk management is now pure profiteering and the insurance companies are just going to use this as another excuse to increase already inflated premiums.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tinkerbell

All that's going to happen is premiums are probably going to go up for everyone overall when you take all insurance products into account.

Men get cheaper pensions (because their life expectancy is shorter than a woman's) - e.g. a man with €100k pension fund, say that converts into €10k a year pension, a woman with the same €100k would get less, say €7k per year pension; men also get cheaper income protection (less likely to claim long-term sickness).

Women get cheaper term assurance (because they are expected to live longer) and cheaper car insurance (the statistics are there that say that males are a higher risk than a woman).

Say there's total equality - well a man's pension will get significantly reduced and they will pay more for income protection. Women will pay more for term assurance and car insurance. It might end up somewhere in between.

Ickle Magoo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I know all that - I've been driving for longer in my life than I haven't...and I've yet to have an accident.

I'd still be interested in seeing the specific stats and a more transparent premium calculation system. I appreciate the greater risk young men are - it still seems a disproportionate loading, given the numbers of male drivers who don't total their cars at 180km/hr taking out three other cars in the process.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cdaly_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This problem is very easy to deal with. You hit a new driver with a big 5-year premium up front. You then add the proviso that this premium will expire in the year (or half-year) in which they have their first claim. Now your boy-racer's premium will cover less than 1 year while your careful driver will end up paying 1/5th of the premium.

As I've posted elsewhere, I think this is stupid

If it's what the stats show, then that's how it is

Dr_Phil

bluewolf wrote: »

If it's what the stats show, then that's how it is

As long as they are politically correct of course....... I, personally, love stats

Here is a good bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Murder_and_non-negligent_homicide

Bullseye1

Why don't hey just limit the size and power of a car for first time drivers like they do with motorcyclists.

Raze_them_all

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Why don't hey just limit the size and power of a car for first time drivers like they do with motorcyclists.

Wouldn't work, How many first time drivers use vehicles to store stuff for work? You'd be making sure any apprentice plumbers etc can't drive

Stheno

What really gets me with insurance is the fact that you get your premium loaded if you do high mileage.

How can my four years no claims of 120k miles be the same as someone with the average of 36k miles when I've driven more than three times as much and if I was them would be on a 10 years no claims? (if you extrapolated out that for them to drive as much as me claim free it would take them that long?)

Now I've changed jobs and embraced (sarcastic face) the joys of public transport, so I do piddling mileage now, but don't expect my policy to go down, in fact I'll be interested if it does.

Therein in my opinion lies the problem with statistics, actuaries look at the likelihood of you having an accident based on multiple factors and therefore apply a loading.

This ruling impacts far more than insurance for driving it affects all sorts like pensions, life assurance etc.

Bullseye1

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Wouldn't work, How many first time drivers use vehicles to store stuff for work? You'd be making sure any apprentice plumbers etc can't drive

Do these guys have a full license? If your carrying tools are you not more likely to have a small van like a Golf or Focus?

Otis Driftwood

The mileage doesnt effect prem4um however how you are rated does.Alot of people need Class 2 (business use) on their policy because their employer insists they (the employer)are indemnified on the policy.The employer pays the travelling expenses but ensures if you crash going to a meeting they arent held responsible.

Its also illegal for an insurer (as someone on the previous page suggested) to purposfully quote a driver a premium that is so expensive that it is not reasonable to expect anyone to pay it.If it were that simple insurers could quote young drivers 10 grand or whatever for insurance so as to avoid the risk of having them as clients.Its not nearly as black and white as some people may think.

Stheno

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

The mileage doesnt effect prem4um however how you are rated does.Its not nearly as black and white as some people may think.

Why then do insurance companies ask what mileage you do?

I have had policies for years which include occasional business use as I travel with work and always tend towards such policies

I went onto axa.ie and put in my identical details with mileage of 12k kilometres and 40k kilometres per year and you are of course correct! My mistake there.

Otis Driftwood

Its for statistics and to help with dodgy risks.Eg,if you say you use your car for mainly social and domestic use but are clocking up 25,000 miles a year,something doesnt quite add up!

daenerysstormborn3

Well two years left to be a very good girl and not be involved in any catastrophe and get your premium down then I guess.

Stheno

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Its for statistics and to help with dodgy risks.Eg,if you say you use your car for mainly social and domestic use but are clocking up 25,000 miles a year,something doesnt quite add up!

Well I used drive 52 miles each way to work and back each day

52x2 5 x 48 = 24960 even before I drive to the supermarket to do the weekly shop, which statistically is more dangerous as most accidents according to ads occur within three miles of home?

A few years ago that figure of 52 was 75, with the odd 300 mile trip each week!

So lets say 75 x 2 x 5 x 48 = 36000 before I go to the supermarket not including the odd 300 mile each way trip

Normal people do those mileages too they are an exception, and actuaries are unable to deal with any deviations imo

It's just a point to say that high mileage can be safe mileage, were I to drive the twelve odd miles to my current job, I'd reckon the chances of a collision on Dublin roads/streets for that duration of journey are far higher than my previous 52 mile journey all of which bar two miles was motorway

So technically in my individual instance, given the change in my driving patterns, my insurance should go up as the risk is higher

Otis Driftwood

Coincidently,its cheaper to insure a car in Dublin,and in different areas in Dublin the rates vary.

Next thing people outside of Dublin will be up in arms! :pac:

Stheno

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Coincidently,its cheaper to insure a car in Dublin,and in different areas in Dublin the rates vary.

Next thing people outside of Dublin will be up in arms! :pac:

Ha, gotcha there, when I moved from bogland to Dublin, my premium went up by 14 euro a month, so 168 a year

That said it was moving from Portlaoise which has more police per capita than anywhere else in the country

Logical Fallacy

bluewolf wrote: »

As I've posted elsewhere, I think this is stupid

If it's what the stats show, then that's how it is

It's actually not really what the stats show at all, from what i can gather.

More men have accidents, but men also tend to drive further and for longer, clocking up a lot more road time.

This isn't taken into account so as an example if a woman drives for 1 hour and crashes once and a man drives for 24 hours and crashes twice he will be deemed a great risker, despite an hour crash rate that is far lower than the female drivers.

I gotta be honest and say i think insurance companies are awful statistical bending **** and there was no just cause for the huge differences in insurance premiums charged to male drivers all these years.

Sadly women are now going to feel the full brunt of the insurance sectors greed as well.

Otis Driftwood

When was that though?

The reason its cheaper is because in Dublin there is a much higher volume of traffic travelling at greatly decreased speeds so any accidents are likely to be relatively minor damage claims without injuries.

Stheno

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

When was that though?

The reason its cheaper is because in Dublin there is a much higher volume of traffic travelling at greatly decreased speeds so any accidents are likely to be relatively minor damage claims without injuries.

Last year with the 52 miles a day round trip!

Now this is one instance where I agree with the stats as given the fact I was travelling on motorways for 95% plus of my driving, it was safer.

When I asked about it, I was told they grade areas in Dublin on theft, third party damage etc, and load more so on that.

Otis Driftwood

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It's actually not really what the stats show at all, from what i can gather.

More men have accidents, but men also tend to drive further and for longer, clocking up a lot more road time.

This isn't taken into account so as an example if a woman drives for 1 hour and crashes once and a man drives for 24 hours and crashes twice he will be deemed a great risker, despite an hour crash rate that is far lower than the female drivers.

I gotta be honest and say i think insurance companies are awful statistical bending **** and there was no just cause for the huge differences in insurance premiums charged to male drivers all these years.

Sadly women are now going to feel the full brunt of the insurance sectors greed as well.

I work in the industry and Ive seen 2 big claims,both involving young male drivers that have paid out around 1.8 million between them.Thats 2 claims in one company for 2 drivers.The problem is that the average person on the street doesnt know things like this and reckon that its simply some conspiracy to rip the consumer off.

Stheno

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I work in the industry and Ive seen 2 big claims,both involving young male drivers that have paid out around 1.8 million between them.Thats 2 claims in one company for 2 drivers.The problem is that the average person on the street doesnt know things like this and reckon that its simply some conspiracy to rip the consumer off.

Wow.

I've had one claim in four plus years that was for €180 that I settled myself.

Just a personal comparison against yours. I'm female, mid thirties.

Logical Fallacy

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I work in the industry and Ive seen 2 big claims,both involving young male drivers that have paid out around 1.8 million between them.Thats 2 claims in one company for 2 drivers.The problem is that the average person on the street doesnt know things like this and reckon that its simply some conspiracy to rip the consumer off.

I am not entirely sure i the relevance to the point i have made?

You are talking about two very specific cases where the recipients of the payments quite clearly were not in the wrong, as if they were...the company would not have made any payout.

I am talking about the measures taken into account by companies to establish the apparent risk of a driver and how they may, just may, be angling to make as much money from said "stats" as possible.

Not being a wanker here, just honestly cannot apply the relevance of your post to the one you quoted.

zuroph

Before I say this, please be advised it is not an attack on women, or an invitation to gender war.

It can also be statistically proven that men are more adept to heavy lifting and manual labour, should they therefore be paid more?

IMO, everyone should be judged on their own merits, and not on their genitals. Hibernian are a step in the right direction with ignition testing and discounts for advanced driving courses completions. Insurance companies have traditionally made their highest profits on the young male market, hopefully this ruling will start to weed that out.

Yes, statistically young male drivers may be more of a risk, but its now up to the insurance companies to work out which ones are the higher risk, instead of using the lazy "he's got balls, mark him up".

fullstop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are girl equivalent of 'boy racers' too you know, and up until now they've been paying pittance for insurance compared to their comrades.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again, this is a generalisation. I know girls who are absolute lunatics on the road whereas I'm male and would tend to be fairly cautious, so why should I pay more for my insurance than a girl who can't successfully negotiate a carpark?

bluewolf wrote: »

As I've posted elsewhere, I think this is stupid

If it's what the stats show, then that's how it is

Why is it stupid? Do you only want equality when it suits women?

fullstop

fullstop wrote: »

Why is it stupid? Do you only want equality when it suits women?

I'm all for women paying higher annuity rates too, so no

If they want to stop risk pooling as much, then do like Hibernian and have that Ignition course and various other ways of proving yourself. Do more stats and do them per mile as someone else has said and see what happens and load up based on THAT. But ignoring the stats we do have just in the name of wishy washy fairness, I don't like that