This has to be one of the most ridiculous rulings I've ever heard. Statistically, male drivers are more dangerous, so why should women now subsidise this behaviour? It's pure ideological lawmaking, designed to show how egalitarian the EU is by in fact foisting a law upon its citizens which is completely disconnected from reality.
In their attempt to achieve "equality" and "fairness," they've actually achieved neither - the two concepts are mutually exclusive in the insurance world. The whole concept of insurance, like life itself is predicated on inequality in the boolean algebraic sense of the word. It just proves how meddlesome the Eurocracy is becoming.
Besides, where does it end ? It's likely now that male pension annuities, up till now cheaper than female ones, due to the earlier death of the average male will increase too.
That's not "fair," is it?
It seems to me your intention here was not to point out the perceived wrongness of this particular decision, but to provide "yet another case of Brussels bureaucrats meddling in our lives". In doing that, you're purposefully confusing the lawmaking and judiciary parts of the legal system to create an imagined body which you creatively name the "Eurocracy", while this was a court decision independent of those actually making the law. In short, your intention was to rant, using this ruling as an excuse, and not to provide potentially interesting information.
As for the ruling itself, I don't see what's wrong with it. It's gender discrimination, and gender discrimination is (IMO rightly) unlawful. I have never been in a car accident, I'm a careful and relatively safe driver and I don't appreciate having to pay more just because I happen to be male.
I'm sure you can come up with statistics that show people of a certain ethnicity are more likely to be in an accident too, but insurance companies know that's a no-go. Discriminating by gender is exactly the same; it's based on something you are that you can't change, unlike driving experience and where you live which you can.
If the fact that "Statistically, male drivers are more dangerous" would mean that no matter how safe am i driving, my insurance cost will be higher than my wife's insurance would prob make me feel discriminated based my gender. I want my_insurance= f(driving_experience, incident_count, my_car, my_area, etc) not my gender.
Premiums are based on the groups to which you belong. Some of those groups are driving experience, your car, your area, your incident count, etc. Another is, of course, your gender. If a valid statistical correlation can be found between gender and revenue, they will adjust the premium to compensate.
so what about if next study will show that statistically afro-american drivers are more or less risky that others? still fine to have different rates for them???
I dont know much about how car insurance are calculated but if their formulas still have some gender discrimination - this should be banned.
That would be fine if insurance companies had the administrative manpower to tailor policies to each individual customer, but they deal in generalities so they rely on a risk profile derived from people similar to you. Also, your function is not applicable to a first time driver who has no previous experience or incident count.
"deal in generalities" should not be function of my gender(which is 1)initially not under my control 2) even unclear how to define in some "complex" cases? ).
my funtion is perfectly applicable for firsttimers. in this case some of the args are zero So first time male/female drivers in same region, age, cars, other characteristics should have similar costs for their first ins_period.
Again I dont see any troubles with this initiative, to me it makes perfect sense.
"It is a statistical reality that young men have more accidents than women so it should be reflected in their premiums."
I am so tired of seeing that line of comment thrown around. It is incorrect.
Statistically, a woman is more likely to have an accident than a man while driving. The difference lies in the severity of the accident.
A woman is more likely to have a minor bump or scrape [many of which will go unclaimed via insurance as it will be cheaper than the excess], while a man will end up with far more damage which requires going through insurance.
Also, I've seen report of studies that show that while younger women are safer drivers than younger men [taking less risks]; older men are safer drivers than older women. Yet the premiums have never reflected this.
Anecdotally, I've seen more women drive badly than men too - I see vastly more women on the phone while driving than men. Then there's also the school runs, which are more likely to be women driven, where the driver will be potentially getting distracted by unruly children in the back.
Again anecdotally, I've had to make a lot of dangerous manoeuvres to avoid terrible driving from women, who have then driven on oblivious to the near damage they've caused. [My dad's saying has been "women cause accidents; men have them"]
Insurance companies are loving this, probably rubbing their hands together in glee. Especially in the UK as insurance is a legal requirement and this year has already increased by nearly 30% for no reason at all.
I got the impression that insurance companies build a large Bayesian network and do parameter estimation using their tons of data to estimate, given a person with a specific profile, what his expected costs are (plus calibrated "error rate").
That is why I put it in quotes. They "can but wont" which translates to "We can't because insurance for men costs more because of the statistics". Given that rule of thumb they will increase females premiums.
Not only have I worked for insurance companies, but if I was one, this is exactly what I would do if I was told everyone had to be treated equally.
How do you figure? It's unlikely insurance companies will reduce their premiums for male drivers, they'll just increase the premiums for female customers.
Let me try and explain my maths, previously the fee where £100/£50 (M/F) income of £150. So they will have to increase F fee, so it will be (£100/£100) income of £200. Due to competition someone will then lower their fee to be (£75/£75) back again to £150 income.
So in the long run, my statement stands, it will cost me less.
I think you are seriously over-estimating the level of true competition in the UK Car Insurance Market. (hint; there are almost certainly less actual distinct insurance providers than you think...)
That is why I put it in quotes. They "can but wont" which translates to "We can't because insurance for men costs more because of the statistics [showing men have more claims therefore have to pay higher premiums]". Given that rule of thumb they will increase females premiums to make them equal.
Not only have I worked for insurance companies, but if I ran one, this is exactly what I would do if I was told everyone had to be treated equally. How can I charge men less if I know that they are going to make more claims?
In their attempt to achieve "equality" and "fairness," they've actually achieved neither - the two concepts are mutually exclusive in the insurance world. The whole concept of insurance, like life itself is predicated on inequality in the boolean algebraic sense of the word. It just proves how meddlesome the Eurocracy is becoming.
Besides, where does it end ? It's likely now that male pension annuities, up till now cheaper than female ones, due to the earlier death of the average male will increase too. That's not "fair," is it?