Women drivers: EU rules against lower premiums for females

donfers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

there's not a hope of turning this around

yes more young men according to the statistics are involved in car accidents than women

yes the insurance companies have to pay out more because of young guys getting involved in accidents

does this mean all men should pay more and all men should pay less? NO

it means that the safe men and women drivers simply have to share the burden for the few irresponsible male drivers and very few irresponsible female drivers - in my view that is fair

What is not fair is expecting the many safe male drivers to pay for the few irresponsible male drivers simply because they happen to be male.

The old way was discriminatory because the safe male driver was expected to contribute more than the safe female driver. Purely and simply that is discrimination, you can dress it up or present it in any which you which but it was discrimination based on gender and the EU doesn't want that and I really don't understand why some people are trying to defend what is indefensible here....however I am glad to see that many have stated this is wrong and I applaud the consistent line they take to cases of gender discrimination.

If employers had it enshrined in their legislation that they would impose a much greater tax on women under 40 than men under 40 because of the statistical likelihood that these women would go on paternity leave and it would cost them, I'm pretty sure most reasonable people would say this was outrageous despite the statistics and facts saying that a lot of these women would go off and have babies. But that doesn't happen thank god and tax rates don't discriminate along gender lines....we all contribute.............................women also use the health system more than men, again we all contribute, there's no premium health tax placed on women or workplace child-bearing potential tax, there also more women entering university these days - let's slap a tax on them shall we!

the whole premise that the car insurance premium imbalance was based on was unfair and no amount of statistics or spin will convince me otherwise because Society is about men and women and all of us contributing to help each other, not saying we won't pay here and there because the other gender has a higher cost burden there than our own, that in my opinion is a very unhealthy, insidious and divisive mindset

jill_valentine

On the one hand, I'm not looking forward to paying more, and I've some experience of young male drivers causing more serious accidents than their female counterparts by their own fault.

On the other hand, I am greatly looking forward to less whining about this in After Hours every single time anybody mentions women in any context whatsoever. Next time I pay my premium, I'll think of that and smile contentedly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

donfers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think the majority have thankfully never got involved in serious incidents, and this majority, safe men, safe women, lucky men, lucky women, black, white , yellow, red, Irish, Polish, Somali, single, married, Christian, buddhist, jedi knight etc. shouldn't nitpick too much about having to pay a bit extra for

a) those unlucky enough to be involved in a serious incident

b) in case they themselves become involved in one

(if drivers are irresponsible are dangerous then let's improve the policing of these offences)

I understand your point and of course discrimination is a part of the business but all i'd suggest is a more targetted, intelligent, sophisticated fair and non gender-based form of deciding premiums as it is too broad a stroke to hit people with to simply say "men pay more because your gender are involved in more incidents". The rationale is understandable but the principle behind it is simply unjust and although I am not an expert I'm sure some find actuarial minds out there can come up with fairer ways to take our money.

zuroph

Insurance companies make their highest profits from young male drivers. That is blatant discrimination.

sollar

This move could cost lives. It will mean more young men can afford to get insured, also more of them will be able to get insured in higher powered cars.

Otis Driftwood

zuroph wrote: »

Insurance companies make their highest profits from young male drivers. That is blatant discrimination.

I have a 1.4 litre Golf,you have 3.5 litre Porsche 911.We are the same age,same licence,full no claims bonus,same mileage etc.There is a difference of 800 quid in our premiums.Are you being discriminated against?

Silverfish

sollar wrote: »

This move could cost lives. It will mean more young men can afford to get insured, also more of them will be able to get insured in higher powered cars.

I'm sure you mean more young men who could potentially be dangerous drivers, rather than just 'More young men'.

sollar

Silverfish wrote: »

I'm sure you mean more young men who could potentially be dangerous drivers, rather than just 'More young men'.

Yeah a greater number of young men therefore that percentage that drive dangerously will also rise.

Maguined

I wonder how this will effect those insurance companies that deal exclusively with women only? Will they still be allowed provide a service specifically to one gender with discrimination based on gender now removed? If they are allowed then it won't change that much as these companies can still charge the same prices as they have no male clients. Or will they now have to accept male applications?

zuroph

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I have a 1.4 litre Golf,you have 3.5 litre Porsche 911.We are the same age,same licence,full no claims bonus,same mileage etc.There is a difference of 800 quid in our premiums.Are you being discriminated against?

no, theres a massive difference in the value of the vehicle? what did you think this proved??

if you had a vagina, the difference would be 1000, if i had, the difference would be 600. there's the discrimination. Insurance should be based on teh vehicle we drive, and how we drive it.

hatrickpatrick

Can I honestly just ask here, if the genders were reversed, how many of you women defending the higher price men pay would be ranting (rightly in my view) about "discrimination"?

Otis Driftwood

So Zuroph,you do agree that if a rating factor thats used to calculate insurance is in a statistically AND proven higher risk category then it should be rated accordingly?

hatrickpatrick

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

So Zuroph,you do agree that if a rating factor thats used to calculate insurance is in a statistically AND proven higher risk category then it should be rated accordingly?

If it was "specifically proven" that Black people or Jews were more likely to claim on their insurance (NOTE: *claim* on their insurance. N one has suggested Women are involved in fewer crashes) would you regard this as a reasonable basis for discrimination? All black people automatically have to pay higher insurance?

I can almost 100% guarantee you there would be an effing ****storm

zuroph

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

So Zuroph,you do agree that if a rating factor thats used to calculate insurance is in a statistically AND proven higher risk category then it should be rated accordingly?

i didnt say that, i said the car was more expensive/valuable, so therefore needed to be insured for a higher amount.

Male is no more a category than skin colour, race, nationality. hell, if we say its Irish drivers that crash, then everyone falls under the same bracket. my point is they havent gone far enough in breaking up the categories. "male" isnt a streamlined enough category, it covers half the population FFS. narrow it down to certain people driving certain types of cars at certain speeds in certain conditions. the technology is there, is viable and is offered. people kick up fuss about using it, fine, dont, and dont get the associated discount.

as i said a few pages ago, men are statistically better able to perform manual labour, should they be paid more for that? How about jobs like Gardaí, should the female gardaí be paid less because they are statistically weaker and less able to to their jobs??

Sex shouldnt be the category used, its too broad.


I'll give you my example. I have been driving on company fleet insurance for 6 years now, covering close too 100thousand KMs a year. not a single penalty point, or accident. However, when i eventually leave my job and go to get insurance, i will have no no claims bonus, and because I have testicles, will Would (thank you EU!) be deemed to be in a risk category?! How is that fair? it needs to be judged on other factors, not genitalia


EDIT MERGED POSTS

Otis Driftwood

The thing is though,the difference in premium between the average 25+ male and female driver,with an average car is actually pretty marginal,generally between 5 and 10 percent.

Also Zuroph,just as an aside for your present situation,the company I work for,and Im sure others too,will allow you some level of no claims bonus depending on what you are driving (vehicles like artics or rigids are a bit iffy) once you can get a letter from your employer stating you were driving on the fleet policy and a letter from their insurance company stating no claims were registered under your name.Ive given the benefit of a full NCB to alot of people that were driving vans for employers during the boom years but hadnt owned a car themselves so all is not lost.

zuroph

Ah so you work in insurance. No wonder you're so disappointed

I've made my point, and thankfully, the european courts agree. Insurance companies need to work harder and make the system fairer on everyone.

pickarooney

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I have a 1.4 litre Golf,you have 3.5 litre Porsche 911.We are the same age,same licence,full no claims bonus,same mileage etc.There is a difference of 800 quid in our premiums.Are you being discriminated against?

Were you born with the car or did you choose it?

ztoical

Interesting quote from Admiral Car Insurance chief executive in the London Evening Standard who says "As an insurer I'm pleased. We will raise rates for young women, we won't bring them down much for young men" which is pretty much what I figure all insurance companies are going to do.

The Admiral Ex goes on to say "My consumer hat says this is a mistake. There is a difference between treating people equally and treating them the same."

I can understand the need to find a more balanced way to assign insurance rates as it's not fair for a safe young male driver to have to pay for other people acting the twat on the roads nor an unsafe female driver getting off cheap for the good driving of other people but all I can see happening with this ruling is all of us paying more.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is still discriminatory as most men will not end up in accidents. Wouldn't a fairer way to do it be individual psychological evaluations?

Now that would of course cost a fortune and not appeal to insurance companies, though that does not justify them charging safe drivers more over their gender.

If you argue men should pay more for being male you are by proxy arguing businesses should be allowed to give promotions and responsibility to men over women, because they cannot get pregnant. Or that nightclubs can refuse Black males in Britain over crime statistics.

dfx-

zuroph wrote: »

Insurance companies make their highest profits from young male drivers. That is blatant discrimination.

It only becomes discrimination if the profit is because they are young male drivers. There is no way insurance companies can say this isn't the case. The status quo is indefensible in all bar the balance sheet of the insurance companies.

Some people say it is not feasable to judge on individual merits, well of course it isn't when your gender is a much easier and lazier outlet. It can be done on the phone using a computer program. If it was the companies' financial or legal interest to judge on individual merits, I would imagine there'd be tests pouring like rain out of the sky. And with some luck, this sort of ruling is the first step.

It is lazy greed. And I'm not a driver. Though I am male, so obviously I am a dangerous driver in waiting. Maybe a dangerous pedestrian too.:)

WindSock

I am quite happy to shoulder the burden of my fellow brethren as it is unfair that they should be all lumped into the same category as their hormonally challenged counterparts.

I hope now the lumping of women into the same category will be abolished In kind and the actions of a TD leaving the Dail is not to do with her gender.

Stheno

donfers wrote: »

If employers had it enshrined in their legislation that they would impose a much greater tax on women under 40 than men under 40 because of the statistical likelihood that these women would go on paternity leave and it would cost them

I'm in a terribly nit picking mood today (blame it on work ) but women go on maternity leave not paternity leave (which is leave for fathers), and unless an employer chooses to pay above the statutory maternity benefit, it costs them no more than it costs to pay a new employee who covers/takes over from a male employee who leaves the job.

In regards to the insurance/pensions change, I think it will affect age groups as opposed to genders, younger female drivers will face a hit in their premiums, but older drivers shouldn't. It will be interesting to see how it hits couple premiums, where a couple have their cars insured on a joint policy such as Axa are offering.

donfers

Stheno wrote: »

I'm in a terribly nit picking mood today (blame it on work ) but women go on maternity leave not paternity leave (which is leave for fathers), and unless an employer chooses to pay above the statutory maternity benefit, it costs them no more than it costs to pay a new employee who covers/takes over from a male employee who leaves the job.

In regards to the insurance/pensions change, I think it will affect age groups as opposed to genders, younger female drivers will face a hit in their premiums, but older drivers shouldn't. It will be interesting to see how it hits couple premiums, where a couple have their cars insured on a joint policy such as Axa are offering.

yes i know it's called maternity leave, i am half alseep when i write these posts and type too fast

well yes it costs them no more than when a male leaves but when we filter out those men and women who voluntarily leave work, the simple fact is women have babies and men don't so I think that's a slightly fallacious argument you are making as maternity leave is quite a common occurrence in the workplace and only affects women and I don't think they should be penalised additionally for the potential cost burden on the employer they impose (recruiting and training of new employee, loss of business as new employee gets up to speed etc) if they do take maternity leave just because they happen to be women.........yes men and women both leave jobs voluntarily but only women have the option of taking a long-term leave of absence and all women shouldn't have to pay more because of this

there is an argument that having a baby is a normal part of life and being involved in an accident suggests a lack of care or responsibility and thus it is acceptable to be discriminatory in the latter case but I still return to the key principle, imposing extra fees/taxes on a gender entire just because they happen to belong to the gender that has a higher burden of cost in that particular area is wrong

let's all help each other out where that help is needed, we all have mother,fathers, brothers, sisters, boyfriends and girlfriends - i don't buy the divisive pick and choose politicking of some, it smacks of self-interest and hypocrasy...however almost all on here, men and especially women have been gracious in acknowledging the fairness behind these reforms, i'd like to think that if the cases were reversed men would be equally as gracious as their womenfolk in welcoming the changes if they themselves are penalised by them (which is the case with pension annuities I believe and that's fine and dandy with me)

Blush_01

"40 years after the Equal Pay Act, women working full-time in the UK are still paid an average 16.4 per cent less per hour than men. This is equivalent to men being paid all the year round, while women work for free after 2nd November."

Tell me that doesn't compare to different weighting in insurance rates across genders, or do you think that women being paid less for doing the same job isn't compensating for their (possible) ability to bear children and penalising them accordingly?

Statistically more women than men give birth (what with the whole womb -v- no womb thing) and therefore take leave from work for an extended period, but how many women are having the very large families in a short period these days that would lead to numerous, closely spaced maternity leave periods, creating a situation in terms of training and business recovery that wouldn't otherwise be comparable to someone moving from the position to another role elsewhere or another industry? If someone leaves a role to take another one, should they be penalised because the company has to find a replacement and train them?

I'm curious, if you were to prove infertility would that lead to you getting equal pay to a man in the same position with comparable qualifications and experience?

Tragedy

Blush_01 wrote: »

"40 years after the Equal Pay Act, women working full-time in the UK are still paid an average 16.4 per cent less per hour than men. This is equivalent to men being paid all the year round, while women work for free after 2nd November."

Slight problem, you, like everyone who uses statistics(including myself) are making the statistics say what you want them to.

That isn't saying that women working equivalent full-time jobs in the UK are still paid an average 16.4 per cent less per hour than men.

Scanlas The 2nd

Blush_01 wrote: »

"40 years after the Equal Pay Act, women working full-time in the UK are still paid an average 16.4 per cent less per hour than men. This is equivalent to men being paid all the year round, while women work for free after 2nd November."

Tell me that doesn't compare to different weighting in insurance rates across genders, or do you think that women being paid less for doing the same job isn't compensating for their (possible) ability to bear children and penalising them accordingly?

Statistically more women than men give birth (what with the whole womb -v- no womb thing) and therefore take leave from work for an extended period, but how many women are having the very large families in a short period these days that would lead to numerous, closely spaced maternity leave periods, creating a situation in terms of training and business recovery that wouldn't otherwise be comparable to someone moving from the position to another role elsewhere or another industry? If someone leaves a role to take another one, should they be penalised because the company has to find a replacement and train them?

I'm curious, if you were to prove infertility would that lead to you getting equal pay to a man in the same position with comparable qualifications and experience?

We don't know that women aren't being paid equally though. I think men are a lot more likely to ask for a pay rise or threaten to quit if they aren't given a pay rise. For all we know women could be being paid more all things equal.

metrovelvet

What about the cost to the employer who has to hire a temp?

Or the cost to the public when the service being provided for is in suspension?

For example, I willl have to travel to Dublin now to take my son to the dentist because the only pediatric dentist in my region is on maternity leave, for who knows how long.

How does this affect the GP shortage when the government gives out free education to train women to be doctors for them to leave when they have babies?

[Sorry ladies, have to play devil's advocate here.]

ztoical

metrovelvet wrote: »

What about the cost to the employer who has to hire a temp?

Or the cost to the public when the service being provided for is in suspension?

For example, I willl have to travel to Dublin now to take my son to the dentist because the only pediatric dentist in my region is on maternity leave, for who knows how long.

How does this affect the GP shortage when the government gives out free education to train women to be doctors for them to leave when they have babies?

[Sorry ladies, have to play devil's advocate here.]

My mums a GP and has had leave to have 3 babies in her career and took the grand total of 2 and half weeks off for each one which frankly isn't more then an average person would take for holidays during the year. She got a locum in to cover her work which is what most doctors do and paid for it out of her own pocket. The example of the pediatric dentist would imply a shortage of pediatric dentists in the country rather then some issue with maternity leave....a male doctor can get sick and need to take leave, they can have family issues come up that require them to take leave. My mothers partner is a male GP and he's taken far more time off then she ever has - she at least took leave to have babies, he takes it off to go play golf with his mates.

stephendevlin

TheNewMee wrote: »

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

Evidence that is not based on the whole truth though.

Statistics are based on number crunching. Do they relate this to the difference between quantities????

How many men are on the road VS how many women are on the road.

I would like to think that this would have a big impact on this so called evidence.