Insurance sex discrimination illegal - EU

dyer

The European Court of Justice has ruled that setting insurance premiums on the basis of differences between men and women is discriminatory.


Insurers claim the judgment means that in Ireland and other EU member states, female drivers could face a significant rise in car insurance rates, with a fall in rates for men.


The judges ruled that using differences between men and women as a risk factor in setting premiums for car and medical insurance and pension schemes breaches EU rules on equality.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0301/insurance-business.html

amdublin

Any opinion on the ruling Dyer?

andrew

This is a bit crap I think. Insurance is based upon charging more risky people more and less risky people less; it's only fair. It's not a value judgment on men and women, it has a completely value free statistical basis. Equality is about ensuring people are equal in a normative sense, and so I think the judge has got it wrong here.

dyer

have i got an opinion?

hmmm well... does this boil down to statistics or popular belief? do a load of young lads drive around wrecklessly endangering other people? sure. do all of them? of course not.. statistically speaking, women cause more accidents per km than males. not that it bothers me.. it just happens to be the truth (statistically)

lumping an entire gender into one box because of the mistakes of a few is however, quite unfair.. as any responsible male driver under the age of 25 could tell you.

andrew

dyer wrote: »

have i got an opinion?

hmmm well... does this boil down to statistics or popular belief? do a load of young lads drive around wrecklessly endangering other people? sure. do all of them? of course not.. statistically speaking, women cause more accidents per km than males. not that it bothers me.. it just happens to be the truth (statistically)

lumping an entire gender into one box because of the mistakes of a few is however, quite unfair.. as any responsible male driver under the age of 25 could tell you.

That's pretty interesting. Source?

kneeelix

What I'd like to know is the quantity of male and female drivers on the road and their average time spent driving?
Something tells me there will be alot more male drivers and men spend longer on the road on average...Just a thought:rolleyes:

think he meant per year, which is a more believable statistic.

Think this is an absolutely atrocious ruling tbh. Clearly the judges have failed to understand statistics and made an absolutely outrageous decision based on being Publicly Correct even though it results in Statistically Incorrect models being used.

I think its absolutely bizarre that 2/3 years after the world has been hit with a huge crisis which had the underestimation and poor understanding of risk at the heart of it, that the EU would go and completely underline that the issues of risk still are completely misunderstood in the courts if not everywhere!

andrew

kneeelix wrote: »

What I'd like to know is the quantity of male and female drivers on the road and their average time spent driving?
Something tells me there will be alot more male drivers and men spend longer on the road on average...Just a thought:rolleyes:

But that doesn't matter. If you're a man, and you drive more, and that means you're more likely to claim insurance, then your insurance should reflect that.

GerardKeating

andrew wrote: »

But that doesn't matter. If you're a man, and you drive more, and that means you're more likely to claim insurance, then your insurance should reflect that.

If Males are a greater risk because they tend to drive more, then the risk factor is the annual mileage, not the gender of the driver.

andrew

GerardKeating wrote: »

If Males are a greater risk because they tend to drive more, then the risk factor is the annual mileage, not the gender of the driver.

But it's not possible to predict accurately, without using gender, how much someone is going to drive during the insurance period. If there was a better predictor of future mileage, I presume insurance companies would use it. I can't think of a better predictor anyway (apart from occupation, but that'd come under company vehicle insurance policies, which I assume are calculated taking this into account).

dyer

males spend more time on the road than women, easy to imagine when you consider the transport industry etc. males are also twice as likely to die in a car crash, the figure is up there in the 70's.. however, does that apply to the entire male gender, or just a specific group? females have a greater number of crashes, which are minor in comparison.. does that suggest males drive faster and so, when they do crash, the damage is exponential? more than likely.

on that end.. as an insurance company you would, as they have done, charge huge premiums on male drivers.. but that in effect is unfair to the entire market.. because, not every male driver, actually drives like that.. and for them to have to pay a massive premium for the mistakes of few, based soley on their gender.. doesnt really make sense.. in this world of 'equality'.

if things are going to change, well, that responsibility belongs to all of us.. where's the point, in pointing fingers.

Keith186

AFAIK males have a lower frequency of accidents per 100 compared to females.

The reason their insurance is higher is because the accidents are typically more severe accidents i.e. persons injured/crippled versus women drivers who have lower cost accidents such as bumping another car when parking.

The question is where will this stop now? Will all 17 year old drivers be entitled to the same quotes as 50 year old claims free drivers? Will there be a universal motor insurance similar to health insurance?

The ruling goes against the principles of insurance that you make a proportionate contribution to the pool in my opinion.

the thing is though, it makes perfect and absolute sense. Two "Equal" people will pay the exact same premium.

Find me two equal people though...

andrew

dyer wrote: »

on that end.. as an insurance company you would, as they have done, charge huge premiums on male drivers.. but that in effect is unfair to the entire market.. because, not every male driver, actually drives like that.. and for them to have to pay a massive premium for the mistakes of few, based soley on their gender.. doesnt really make sense.. in this world of 'equality'.

if things are going to change for the better, well, that responsibility belongs to all of us.

AFAIK not all male drivers are charged the same premium. It depends on age, and probably other factors too. What you've mainly got is young males being charged huge premiums, which means some careful young males are charged too much, which is unfair. This change doesn't make things any more fair. Now, women's premiums will go up, so now it's just women and men paying for the actions of young male reckless drivers. That's just as unfair - there's no reduction in unfairness here, it's just spread about more. The only way to make the situation completely fair would be to charge each individual a premium based upon how likely they are as an individual to crash, which in practice is impossible.

dotsman

andrew wrote: »

This is a bit crap I think. Insurance is based upon charging more risky people more and less risky people less; it's only fair. It's not a value judgment on men and women, it has a completely value free statistical basis. Equality is about ensuring people are equal in a normative sense, and so I think the judge has got it wrong here.

So you believe young men should be charged far less than women for health insurance? And, likewise, that elderly people be charged a lot more (to the point that they can't afford it)?

To be honest, I'm in favour of the ruling on 2 grounds:

1. If it was the other way around, and women were charged more than men, I think we all know that it would have been stopped a long time ago.
2. Secondly, I hope that it focuses the risk assessment away from the person's genitalia and more on their ability. Just because a few young men are dangerous/risky drivers, it doesn't mean they all are. People should be assessed based on their personal attributes/circumstances, and not boxed into a large demographic.

dyer

yeah, i totally agree with everything you've said, it's nice to play the devils advocate sometimes

but as you say if it's just women and men paying for the actions of young male reckless drivers, perhaps people might take the issue a bit more seriously, on both sides.

dotsman

dotsman wrote: »

So you believe young men should be charged far less than women for health insurance? And, likewise, that elderly people be charged a lot more (to the point that they can't afford it)?

To be honest, I'm in favour of the ruling on 2 grounds:

1. If it was the other way around, and women were charged more than men, I think we all know that it would have been stopped a long time ago.
2. Secondly, I hope that it focuses the risk assessment away from the person's genitalia and more on their ability. Just because a few young men are dangerous/risky drivers, it doesn't mean they all are. People should be assessed based on their personal attributes/circumstances, and not boxed into a large demographic.

Sounds good.

Tell me how this can possibly be done, in a way that is economic (i.e, that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to introduce, as this will have to be factored into the Insurance Premiums)

andrew

dotsman wrote: »

So you believe young men should be charged far less than women for health insurance? And, likewise, that elderly people be charged a lot more (to the point that they can't afford it)?

To be honest, I'm in favour of the ruling on 2 grounds:

1. If it was the other way around, and women were charged more than men, I think we all know that it would have been stopped a long time ago.
2. Secondly, I hope that it focuses the risk assessment away from the person's genitalia and more on their ability. Just because a few young men are dangerous/risky drivers, it doesn't mean they all are. People should be assessed based on their personal attributes/circumstances, and not boxed into a large demographic.

a) Health insurance isn't the same as car insurance. For one thing, when people don't have health insurance (and the state doesn't provide healthcare) then they die, which is bad. Worse than going without a car. But in the case where the state does provide healthcare, then absolutely - older people, etc. should pay more for health insurance, given they're more likely to use it.

1. If it were the other way round? Mad speculation there. Gender discrimination abounds in both directions, still.

2. Higher insurance premiums for men doesn't imply that any randomly selected young man is a dangerous driver. All it says that men are, in general, more likely to claim insurance. I agree that people should pay based on individual attributes, but until that's feasible then insurance companies will have to use whatever attributes are available to them. It's not people's driving ability which determines whether they'll crash as much as it is their propensity to take risks. A boy racer might be a great driver, and ace a driving test, but he'll still be more likely to crash than a less good driver because he's a mad boy racer. And since only the individual knows their propensity to take risks, the insurance company can't charge premiums on that basis - they have to use the aggregate basis that men as a whole are more likely to take risks.

dotsman

andrew wrote: »

a) Health insurance isn't the same as car insurance. For one thing, when people don't have health insurance (and the state doesn't provide healthcare) then they die, which is bad. Worse than going without a car. But in the case where the state does provide healthcare, then absolutely - older people, etc. should pay more for health insurance, given they're more likely to use it.

We do have state provided healthcare. As soon as the government introduces your ideas, then I will gladly support young males paying more for their car insurance.

andrew wrote: »

1. If it were the other way round? Mad speculation there. Gender discrimination abounds in both directions, still.

I don't think it's that mad. Are you honestly saying that you don't think gender discrimination would have been disallowed if it was women who were the ones being discriminated against?

2. Higher insurance premiums for men doesn't imply that any randomly selected young man is a dangerous driver. All it says that men are, in general, more likely to claim insurance. I agree that people should pay based on individual attributes, but until that's feasible then insurance companies will have to use whatever attributes are available to them. It's not people's driving ability which determines whether they'll crash as much as it is their propensity to take risks. A boy racer might be a great driver, and ace a driving test, but he'll still be more likely to crash than a less good driver because he's a mad boy racer. And since only the individual knows their propensity to take risks, the insurance company can't charge premiums on that basis - they have to use the aggregate basis that men as a whole are more likely to take risks.[/QUOTE]

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds good.

Tell me how this can possibly be done, in a way that is economic (i.e, that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to introduce, as this will have to be factored into the Insurance Premiums)

Any number of methods:

• Advanced driving tests
• Far more efficient enforcement of road regulations where it matters (ie speeding on country roads late at night as opposed to a suburban dual carriageway during the day for one).
• Repeat testing. Ultimately, the (improved) test should be re-sat every X years.

I accept that when staring out, a driver can't prove that they are a safe, skilled driver, but with better testing you can at least try. By further detecting (and punishing via penalty points/increased premiums), one can, statistically, segregate safer drivers from riskier ones.

andrew

dotsman wrote: »

We do have state provided healthcare. As soon as the government introduces your ideas, then I will gladly support young males paying more for their car insurance.

But what has the actions of the government got to do with your opinion of the way in which insurance should work? Anyway, doesn't change the fact that car insurance is a completely different kettle of fish compared to health insurance.

I don't think it's that mad. Are you honestly saying that you don't think gender discrimination would have been disallowed if it was women who were the ones being discriminated against?

Yeah. Because it's not gender discrimination. Gender discrimination implies a normative value judgement that one gender is better than the other. This is just discrimination on the basis of gender, in terms of risk. No value judgment implied.

Any number of methods:

• Advanced driving tests
• Far more efficient enforcement of road regulations where it matters (ie speeding on country roads late at night as opposed to a suburban dual carriageway during the day for one).
• Repeat testing. Ultimately, the (improved) test should be re-sat every X years.

I accept that when staring out, a driver can't prove that they are a safe, skilled driver, but with better testing you can at least try. By further detecting (and punishing via penalty points/increased premiums), one can, statistically, segregate safer drivers from riskier ones.

[/QUOTE]

Penalty points are already used to determine insurance premiums, so it's not like this change will impact how they're used in insurance. I agree making sure more people who deserve penalty points get penalty points would be a good thing. But I completely disagree with you about the whole repeat/advanced testing thing, since it's I'd say that people's skill which determines whether they'll crash as much as it is their propensity to drive in a risky manner.

Bruscar

dotsman wrote: »

I don't think it's that mad. Are you honestly saying that you don't think gender discrimination would have been disallowed if it was women who were the ones being discriminated against?

andrew wrote: »

Yeah. Because it's not gender discrimination. Gender discrimination implies a normative value judgement that one gender is better than the other. This is just discrimination on the basis of gender, in terms of risk. No value judgment implied.

+1 andrew. Comes down to risk/cost per group (age, gender, experience etc).

Women generally pay more for a pension annuity. I've never heard a fuss about it. Perhaps this is because it is accepted that on average women live longer, so cost pension companies more.

dotsman

andrew wrote: »

But what has the actions of the government got to do with your opinion of the way in which insurance should work?

Because they already dictating how health insurance works. Either apply the same principles to both or none. But forcing young men to subsidise riskier women/elderly on the one hand,

andrew wrote: »

Anyway, doesn't change the fact that car insurance is a completely different kettle of fish compared to health insurance.

How is car insurance a different kettle of fish? In fact, I would say they are both very similar. They are both very common types of insurance, used by many to cover day-today activities (driving/living healthy). In fact, more people "need" car insurance (as it is compulsory) than health insurance (who can avail of public-only medical services).

andrew wrote: »

Yeah. Because it's not gender discrimination. Gender discrimination implies a normative value judgement that one gender is better than the other. This is just discrimination on the basis of gender, in terms of risk. No value judgment implied.

So, you are saying that you are in favour a company recruitment/promotion being for "males only" as males are (obviously) a lower risk of requiring maternity leave?

andrew wrote: »

Penalty points are already used to determine insurance premiums, so it's not like this change will impact how they're used in insurance. I agree making sure more people who deserve penalty points get penalty points would be a good thing. But I completely disagree with you about the whole repeat/advanced testing thing, since it's I'd say that people's skill which determines whether they'll crash as much as it is their propensity to drive in a risky manner.

I'm glad we agree on the penalty points. With regards the repeat/advanced testing, I also agree that it is not the be-all-and-end-all of determining if someone will have a crash. But I would say that it certainly would help determine more than relying solely on gender as insurance companies do now.

Bruscar wrote: »

Women generally pay more for a pension annuity. I've never heard a fuss about it. Perhaps this is because it is accepted that on average women live longer, so cost pension companies more.

With regards women paying more for an annuity, I agree, their gender is a role in that decision. However, there are several points to note.

• The state Pension is not gender specific
• Public sector pensions (to the best of my knowledge) are not gender specific)
• Many (all?) private sector defined-benefit pensions are not gender specific
• The gender discrimination is not as "harsh", and the "average" is more applicable. It is not the actions of a few women living to 1,000 years of age who are causing the increased "risk" to females. It is the fact that the vast majority of women will outlive the equivalent male. With regards Car insurance, if it was a case that the majority of males will claim a small bit more than their female counterparts, then I would have no problem accepting gender discrimination. However, the vast majority of men will claim similar amounts as their equivalent female.

amdublin

I think it's bad news for us all. Essentially insurance rates are going to go up to cover all risks

Eg.

Car insurance
The female rates will go up to the male rates to cover the male risk

Annuitys
Males will end up paying the higher female annuity rates

Life assurance
Again females have been traditionally less than males.
But this also will change - females will pay as much as men,

But hey! It will all be equal!!!!

:rolleyes:

GerardKeating

andrew wrote: »

But it's not possible to predict accurately, without using gender, how much someone is going to drive during the insurance period.

Why predict, one is usually asked when applying for insurance how many miles you drive a year, use this as part of the pricing instead of gender, slight more difficult to enforce, but I am sure they can think of something.

Maybe instead of "annual polices", one gets a policy for the next 10,000km driven, and one renews when the mileage is up.