European ruling could see women facing £9,000 more on car insurance premiums
UKMikey
Posts: 28,728 Forum Member
✭✭✭
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/856737-european-ruling-could-see-women-facing-9-000-more-on-insurance-premiums
Have women cause for complaint if equality legislation which has helped them in the past disadvantages and inconveniences them today?
TBF this arbitrary £9,000 figure isn't even annual but covers the years between ages seventeen and twenty six.Metro wrote:Europe is likely to outlaw policies based on gender because they breach equality rights.
In the worse case, a 17-year-old female will have to pay an extra £9,300 in premiums by the time she is 26. Conversely, young male drivers could save £3,250.
Critics say the ruling will mean the British insurance industry will have to raise £936million to cover itself against ‘new uncertainties’ created in the market, meaning most people will have to pay more than they do at present.
Stephen Booth, of think-tank Open Europe, said it was a ‘perfect illustration’ of the cost to consumers of giving power to unelected judges.
Basing insurance rates on the differing life expectancies or road accident records of men and women is common across Europe, as countries have the right to side-step anti-discrimination rules. But those powers are expected to be swept away by the European Court of Justice tomorrow because of new rights in the Lisbon treaty.
The case was brought by Belgium’s consumer association and, if successful, will affect private medical insurance, pension schemes and annuities as well as car insurance.
However, it is unlikely to come into effect immediately, with insurers given up to three years to make the changes.
Have women cause for complaint if equality legislation which has helped them in the past disadvantages and inconveniences them today?
0
Comments
The whole point of insurance premiums is that you pay in proportion to the risk you present.
If female drivers present a lower risk then they're entitled to lower premiums.
What's next? Insisting that blind drivers pay the same as those with perfect vision because it'd be prejudicial to do otherwise?
Totally agree with this.
To be honest people should only be "penalised" if they have done something to deserve it (like drink drivers or people who crash every month).
So new drivers should start off on an equal footing until such point they do something to deserve a higher premium.
I saw that £9k figure, spread over 9 years...
'kinell that's a grand a year - I've never even paid that much, never mind it costing that much extra :eek:
Even the male drivers saving £3k over the same period - I've never even paid that much over 9yrs either.
I agree, it's getting a bit pathetic.
Why? Insurance is about assessing risk. Are you really saying that a 17 year old, who's just passed their test should pay the same as someone who's 40, been driving years and has never had a crash in their lives?
That's also what NCBs are all about - The longer you show that you are low-risk, the greater discount you get,
Maybe or maybe not. The article says males could see a reduction of £3,000+ a year. So you might get more male drivers on the road to balance it out.
No, I am saying that a 17 year old male driver should be treated the same as a 17 year old female driver and have the same premium based on the car they are driving and their mutual inexperience.
Basically the male shouldn't have to pay an extra premium just for being male.
Premiums would then be adjusted based on their actions - so if the boy did turn out to be a boy racer then his premium would sky-rocket the next year.
Right, so insurance companies should be allowed to assess risk in some areas (age) and not in others (sex). Why the difference
Funny how they can't bring the cost down to say female driver levels but have to hike it all up to mens level of insurance.
I agree with this. I shouldnt be penalised because some men are crap drivers - just because I happen to have similar genetalia.
The above suggestion would penalise the crap drivers - male or female.
What about race then - should that be ok too?
Well they have to balance the books somehow. If they brought everyone down to female levels all their profit would get swallowed by paying out higher risk male drivers.
I'm not sure what the evidence is for quality of driving between races. If there is a difference then yes fine. An insurance company is there to asses risk and charge accordingly.
It's not about equality it is about insurance companies being in a risk business. The higher the risk the higher the premium. Or that at least is how it should be.
What next, will we have the ethnic minorities demanding that their home insurance can't be higher if they live in an high crime area?
In race discrimination it is illegal to ask for someone to live in a certain area and has been for years as it is indirect racial discrimination based on excluding the ethnic mixes in the areas that have been excluded. You can if it is a genuine requirement for the job but not based on whims.
This is dangerous stuff and totally bliddy ridiculous.
If you're a lady you can look forward to your premium going up to cover the boy racers who now can't be charged any extra, we, the safer drivers, will cover that.:mad:
But isnt the "on average" idea a bit outdated.
You couldnt use that argument to justify a difference in pay between men and women.
If a man and woman were doing the same job - would you think it acceptable to suggest that the man gets paid more - because studies had shown that men generally do that particular job better - even if, in the case of these two individuals - the woman actually outperformed the man.
New drivers are inexperienced drivers and therefore more likely to have an accident. Risk should balance with cost.