Gender based discrimination on car insurance now illegal!

Squirm · 01-03-2011 11:06AM

HellFireClub wrote: »

Not true, if you are a male with 15 years driving experience, you are paying more for that insurance than a woman with the same driving experience and record as you, that is boll*x in my opinion.

But safe drivers ARE rewarded with lower premiums for their no claims bonus' and by having zero points. My partner has 13 yrs no claims bonus and is quoted waaaaaaay less than had he none. Personal circumstances can't dictate the premiums 100%. Sure where you live plays a role in your premiums.... but doesn't make you a better or worse driver necessarily. BUT certain areas see more or less accidents and premiums are set accordingly. It is a very complicated science, establishing insurance premiums. Your individual experience can't possible be expected to influence that.

Jimmy the Wheel · 01-03-2011 11:06AM

Apparently this is coming into force because...'higher-ranking' equality provisions set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Lisbon Treaty must now apply.

Actuarial and statistical data no longer apply.

HellFireClub · 01-03-2011 11:07AM

Squirm wrote: »

So should insurance companies start charging based on each, very personal, set of circumstances? Or how do you suggest premiums be set?There is a reason why actuarial finance is so difficult to qualify in and so highly paid.

What is the case in your situation doesn't represent the over-riding trend, unfortunately for you. I have less of no claims bonus than my partner and subsequently am quoted considerably more for insurance. Give me another 5-9yrs and that will change, but I have certainly not seen my premiums be set lower based soley on my gender. And rightly so.

What I'd suggest is that we look at how it is done in Australia, which is that insurance is levied at the petrol pump, so the more miles you drive, the more insurance you pay, which I'd argue is the only true basis for evaluating motor risk.

But sadly we couldn't implement such a logical scheme in this sorry kip of a state because as per the usual form, we'd allow big business vested interests to block change and reform...

pickarooney · 01-03-2011 11:08AM

bonerm wrote: »

I love how middle-class white males get all uppity because one of lifes deck-of-cards is actually stacked against them.

Do they differentiate between races in insurance quotes?

Squirm · 01-03-2011 11:09AM

Jagle wrote: »

because after 4 years of driving, not one accident to speak of my insurance is still higher then a woman starting out with no experience,
someone explain please cos that is bullsh1t

Change provider. My partner has more experience than me and pays less. He's male. I'm female. You're being over charged.

pickarooney · 01-03-2011 11:09AM

bluewolf wrote: »

Great, next they'll have male and female annuity rates the same :rolleyes:

Annuity'd come to this! :mad:

pow wow · 01-03-2011 11:11AM

Squirm wrote: »

I don't see as being remotely discriminatory to investigate who is more likely to be in an accident and set premiums accordingly. Men are more likely to cause an accident, so they pay more. Drive safer- pay less. Women will still benefit from their no-claims bonus' and the fact that they generally have longer periods claim free, but it is ridiculous to suggest that it is sexist in some way to charge a person less if they're less likely to crash......is that not what actuaries are for?! It's not like a group on man-hating feminists set the trend! A lot of men out there are on their partner's insurance as a named driver, to save money... this will effect many more people than the 'women putting their make-up on on their way to work'.

Re; women paying more for health insurance. Pregnancy care is only one aspect of health insurance. Men are more likely to make a health insurance claim also. Due to personal injury, sports injury and due to illness. Men generally demonsrate a poorer state of health as they age also. So it more than negates prenatal care warranting higher health insurance premiums for women.

Your common sense has no place in here

HellFireClub · 01-03-2011 11:11AM

Squirm wrote: »

But safe drivers ARE rewarded with lower premiums for their no claims bonus' and by having zero points. My partner has 13 yrs no claims bonus and is quoted waaaaaaay less than had he none. Personal circumstances can't dictate the premiums 100%. Sure where you live plays a role in your premiums.... but doesn't make you a better or worse driver necessarily. BUT certain areas see more or less accidents and premiums are set accordingly. It is a very complicated science, establishing insurance premiums. Your individual experience can't possible be expected to influence that.

Yes safe driving is rewarded but only to a certain extent. You go on any of the motor insurance websites and get a quote for a male and a female with the same details entered with ten years driving experience, the only difference being gender, and you'll see what I'm talking about...

Buceph · 01-03-2011 11:11AM

HellFireClub wrote: »

What I'd suggest is that we look at how it is done in Australia, which is that insurance is levied at the petrol pump, so the more miles you drive, the more insurance you pay, which I'd argue is the only true basis for evaluating motor risk.

That wouldn't account for people who have been in accidents, or who have been proven to be irresponsible on the road. There could be a premium on top of a standard levy on petrol though.

Jimmy the Wheel · 01-03-2011 11:11AM

pickarooney wrote: »

Annuity'd come to this! :mad:

Actuary, it was always on the the cards.

Celly Smunt · 01-03-2011 11:13AM

Bout time

Squirm · 01-03-2011 11:13AM

NTMK wrote: »

I know more girls that have crashed than lads

i'm 21 ive never crashed because i dont drive like an idiot so why should i have to pay nearly €800 more than a girl the same age as me

No offense but who you know is irrelevant. The data collected to establish premiums concerns millions of drivers.

msg11 · 01-03-2011 11:14AM

About bloody time, you damn well know if it was the other way around. This would have been done years or even decades ago. Was the most obvious case of discrimination if there was one.

You know what they say;

Women drivers, No survivors.

(http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0301/insurance.html)

pickarooney · 01-03-2011 11:14AM

Jimmy the Wheel wrote: »

Actuary, it was always on the the cards.

Another of life's inequities.

Procasinator · 01-03-2011 11:14AM

Jimmy the Wheel wrote: »

It would be a valid point in a debate about health insurance, not car insurance.

I thought the debate was about gender based discrimination, with car insurance being the main focus due to the recent ECJ ruling.

Your argument is that gender based discrimination is allowed sometimes: who decides where?

Squirm · 01-03-2011 11:15AM

HellFireClub wrote: »

Yes safe driving is rewarded but only to a certain extent. You go on any of the motor insurance websites and get a quote for a male and a female with the same details entered with ten years driving experience, the only difference being gender, and you'll see what I'm talking about...

Yes, of course, because- whatever happened in the past- the male is still MORE LIKELY in the future to be in an accident.

HellFireClub · 01-03-2011 11:15AM

pickarooney wrote: »

Do they differentiate between races in insurance quotes?

The only reason they don't is because it's not socially or politically acceptable to do so, whereas it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of gender. This topic emerged a few years ago when an Irish insurance company came out and said that they had noticed an increase in claims arising from foreign national policy holders, but do you think that they would dare load a group on that basis?!? If that is unacceptable to do so, despite claiming that the higher risk is there and can be proven statistially to be there, why is it acceptable to single out males, males with a safe driving record I might add for a policy loading???

Jimmy the Wheel · 01-03-2011 11:18AM

Procasinator wrote: »

I thought the debate was about gender based discrimination, with car insurance being the main focus due to the recent ECJ ruling.

Since the ruling was brought about by discrimination provisions in the Lisbon Treaty, if there are inequalities in health insurance then the same provisions will apply.

Your argument is that gender based discrimination is allowed sometimes: who decides where?

Our EU Overlords, apparently.

yawnstretch · 01-03-2011 11:20AM

I've been discriminated against on the basis of my sexuality for the last 7 years for car insurance.

The crap that's coming out of people saying that if you're a safe driver your premiums go down! Yeah, they go down but still nowhere near the cheapo prices women pay.

Why should I have had to pay tens of thousands more when I haven't had a single claim? Because of an assumption based on my gender.

This change is a long time coming and the faster the better. But where do I claim for all the money I've wrongfully been forced by the law to pay?

Oh and shut it with the "strawman" rubbish. Gender equality is only equality in areas that are handy for women but not for men?

Squirm · 01-03-2011 11:20AM

HellFireClub wrote: »

The only reason they don't is because it's not socially or politically acceptable to do so, whereas it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of gender. This topic emerged a few years ago when an Irish insurance company came out and said that they had noticed an increase in claims arising from foreign national policy holders, but do you think that they would dare load a group on that basis?!? If that is unacceptable to do so, despite claiming that the higher risk is there and can be proven statistially to be there, why is it acceptable to single out males, males with a safe driving record I might add for a policy loading???

They do look at race though. That's why they ask your country of origin and the length of time you have been in Ireland for. They also take where you live and where you primarily use your car into consideration.

I dont know who supplies your insurance, but maybe consider changing provider. My partner is younger than you but, equally, has a lengthy no claims bonus period (no claims ever in fact) and zero points. He only pays a few hundred euro. Maybe it is still too high and we'd all like to pay less, but it doesn't seem astronomical to me. And it's certainly more than I pay.

Celly Smunt · 01-03-2011 11:20AM

Countering discrimination with discrimination isn't actually too bad of an idea

msg11 · 01-03-2011 11:21AM

HellFireClub wrote: »

What I'd suggest is that we look at how it is done in Australia, which is that insurance is levied at the petrol pump, so the more miles you drive, the more insurance you pay, which I'd argue is the only true basis for evaluating motor risk.

But sadly we couldn't implement such a logical scheme in this sorry kip of a state because as per the usual form, we'd allow big business vested interests to block change and reform...

This is all great at the pump. But jesus christ, you know we would be screwed up the arse.

It would end up at 5.00€ a litre or more. That carbon levy is going up 50% in the next 3 years with FG .

The roads in Dublin are in a jock strap. For **** sake, Dublin is the capital of our island at leased have some decent roads, the tourists coming over here must think to themselves 'what the jaysis are these lads up too ?' .

No wonder so many people are killed down the country with the state of the roads, the only reason there are not as many killed in Dublin is the fact the roads are somewhat lit up.

Sorry about that rant.

biko · 01-03-2011 11:21AM

Re-opened by popular demand.
Stick to the topic, women's insurance premiums and a change in legislation.

WindSock · 01-03-2011 11:52AM

Well if it means it is one less minor stick to beat women with over all our so many privileges in the quest for equality then great.

What really shows is the gloating that women now pay more rather men pay less. Way to go. What a victory!

Jimmy the Wheel · 01-03-2011 11:53AM

biko wrote: »

Re-opened by popular demand.
Stick to the topic, women's insurance premiums and a change in legislation.

Can I ask for proof that women cost the health system more?

PrincessLola · 01-03-2011 11:56AM

Does this mean they're now also gonna stop charging women more for life insurance?

biko · 01-03-2011 11:56AM

Jimmy the Wheel wrote: »

Can I ask for proof that women cost the health system more?

Did it sound like that they are a greater risk?
I meant that the women pay less because they pose a lesser risk (according to the insurance companies).

Jimmy the Wheel · 01-03-2011 11:57AM

biko wrote: »

Did it sound like that they are a greater risk?
I meant that the women pay less because they pose a lesser risk (according to the insurance companies).

I was asking about the 'woman costing the health system more' argument.

No matter. I've started a thread elsewhere.

Jagle · 01-03-2011 11:57AM

so if white people pose a greater risk, then if your not white your insurance costs should be lower?

flawed argument

biko wrote: »

Did it sound like that they are a greater risk?
I meant that the women pay less because they pose a lesser risk (according to the insurance companies).

Jesus Wept · 01-03-2011 11:59AM

WindSock wrote: »

Well if it means it is one less minor stick to beat women with over all our so many privileges in the quest for equality then great.

What really shows is the gloating that women now pay more rather men pay less. Way to go. What a victory!

Ah cmon, don't be like that.
For me and any sensible person it has nothing to do with wanting to see women pay more or shaking any sticks. Ignore the arseholes who miss the point.

Here is a post I made elsewhere because this thread was closed...

This is long overdue and a step in a right direction.

It is not 'going too far' whatsoever.
Whether men are more expensive to insure or more likely to be involved in an accident is inconsequential and here is why:

It is not legal to factor for gender when it comes to health insurance.
Females cost health insurance companies more.
Amongst other factors, they live considerably longer (why they live longer is another minefield).

So this is why I said it is a step in a right direction. The playing field needs to be level.

Either gender can be factored into health insurance as it is with car insurance or it can't be in either or any insurance.

I don't really mind which road is taken (if done equitably).
That being said, if they were going to factor it in across the board, they ought to (but wouldn't dare) factor in race too.
Imagine how well that would go down.

Gender based discrimination on car insurance now illegal!

Comments