Ladies, Get Ready For A 25% Hike In Car Insurance

[Realistbear]

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/EU-sex-ruling-drive-insurance-tele-1819962915.html?x=0

EU sex ruling to drive insurance costs higher

Emma "Emerline" Simon, 22:54, Friday 28 January 2011

New European laws could push up motor insurance premiums for women by a quarter and slice retirement incomes for millions of men.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will shortly rule on whether using a person's sex to calculate their insurance premiums breaches equality legislation.

Geese and Ganders or another excyuse to enhance profits? Its getting good now isn't it?

[interestrateripoff]

I thought it was one of the many factors used.

Is the EU suggesting that insurers should use individual profiling of drivers? Surely by the same logic it's unfair on the responsible 18 year old boy who gets lumped in with the idea all 18 year old boys are idiots and will drive like maniacs?

Edited January 29, 2011 by interestrateripoff

[Bloo Loo]

And now everyone will be tested for sickle cell disease, breast cancer and testicular cancer.

Its everyones right to be equal.

[Realistbear]

I thought it was one of the many factors used.

Is the EU suggesting that insurers should use individual profiling of drivers? Surely by the same logic it's unfair on the responsible 18 year old boy who gets lumped in with the idea all 18 year old boys are idiots and will drive like maniacs?

If you charge an 18 year old more to insure his motor than a 40 year old you are then guilty of ageism.

Under EU law, of course.

[Bloo Loo]

If you charge an 18 year old more to insure his motor than a 40 year old you are then guilty of ageism.

Under EU law, of course.

Im feeling a bit queezzie just having eaten a banana with a curve more than 6pisquaredarcover4....EU limits on bent banabas

[singlemalt]

And now everyone will be tested for sickle cell disease, breast cancer and testicular cancer.

Its everyones right to be equal.

+1

Society (actually, policymakers) seem to have an obsession with equality without acknowledging that we are different!

[leicestersq]

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/EU-sex-ruling-drive-insurance-tele-1819962915.html?x=0

EU sex ruling to drive insurance costs higher

Emma "Emerline" Simon, 22:54, Friday 28 January 2011

New European laws could push up motor insurance premiums for women by a quarter and slice retirement incomes for millions of men.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will shortly rule on whether using a person's sex to calculate their insurance premiums breaches equality legislation.

Geese and Ganders or another excyuse to enhance profits? Its getting good now isn't it?

Sheila Squeals?

[Bloo Loo]

Well to be honest I think that is true. The ability of the insurers to use discriminating factors is stopping young men from driving. That is counter productive to our society.

Let's face it insurers and lenders are not allowed to use race as a 'dsicriminating factor' in their scorecards and underwriting criteria. So why should age or sex? Why should you as an individual be tarnished because of other people. Your record should be yours and yours alone - so if you have lots of accidents or you don't pay back your debts, then your costs go up...but not before.

because insurance is based on a likelyhood of probabilities,

In your world, 18 year olds would get insurance for £800...so would the rest of us.

as it is, premiums are adjusted according to probability.

Women tend to drive less miles, so, they may pay less...with some insurers.

and if you do have lots of accidents, your costs do go up....this is crasher discrimination and should be outlawed.

Indeed, life insurance should be sold without discrimination to terminal cancer patients. And travel insurance to pensioners without levy.

[porca misèria]

because insurance is based on a likelyhood of probabilities,

In your world, 18 year olds would get insurance for £800...so would the rest of us.

£800?

If deaths on the road were valued at the level of deaths on the railways (which push up the cost of rail travel something horrendous), then a middle-aged woman driver with lifetime no claims might just get insured for £800.

That is, £800 per month!

The young might be looking at £800 per day!

[R K]

Well to be honest I think that is true. The ability of the insurers to use discriminating factors is stopping young men from driving. That is counter productive to our society.

Let's face it insurers and lenders are not allowed to use race as a 'dsicriminating factor' in their scorecards and underwriting criteria. So why should age or sex? Why should you as an individual be tarnished because of other people. Your record should be yours and yours alone - so if you have lots of accidents or you don't pay back your debts, then your costs go up...but not before.

Agreed.

I think this is a good move.

Targetting and profiling based on events which haven't happened isn't really insurance at all.

It should also help to remove some of these parasitic private sector non-jobs that are a cost burden on the rest of us and drive admin. costs down.

[Stars]

Agreed.

I think this is a good move.

Targetting and profiling based on events which haven't happened isn't really insurance at all.

It should also help to remove some of these parasitic private sector non-jobs that are a cost burden on the rest of us and drive admin. costs down.

It is just the result of an insurance company evaluating the risk to itself of the deal. Unless you leave insurance companies relatively free to do that, i doubt they can provide insurance

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

As a counter argument, the irony of insurance is that it is those least able to pay (the young) and who who at the same time have the most need to drive (to be productive parts of society) who can least afford insurance while the older, retired generation who could live without a car get cheap insurance.

It's worth noting that if they remove the age/sex profiling, you might as well remove privately run car insurance and have a government run sceme paid for through an aditional tax on fuel, as there will be so little variation in insurance prices.

[R K]

It is just the result of an insurance company evaluating the risk to itself of the deal. Unless you leave insurance companies relatively free to do that, i doubt they can provide insurance

NHS manages to do it (we can argue about inefficiencies and whether they're a good or bad thing until the cows come home of course).

Banks could supposedly manage incredibly complex risk to the nth degree too. They went bust.

I see a difference between overall risk and overall pricing and specific risk and differential pricing. There's no particular reason why a car insurance company should assess individual risk and price in the ways it does.

For instance, I'd be in favour of a separate minimum 3rd party insurance cover for everyone perhaps bundled into the petrol price which is a fixed cost, simple to administer and unavoidable. Why should private companies decide whether someone is permitted to drive based on their age and irrespective of their accident record simply because of their risk models? It's pre-event assumption of 'guilt' in the general carried over to the specific. It clearly doesn't work as is anyway.

Edit: Oops Ruffles beat me to it! Perhaps there is merit in doing it that way then if it's so obvious.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Red Karma

[I-hate-scumlords]

It's worth noting that if they remove the age/sex profiling, you might as well remove privately run car insurance and have a government run sceme paid for through an aditional tax on fuel, as there will be so little variation in insurance prices.

That would suit the EU/ LIBLABCON nicely.

[Bloo Loo]

Agreed.

I think this is a good move.

Targetting and profiling based on events which haven't happened isn't really insurance at all.

It should also help to remove some of these parasitic private sector non-jobs that are a cost burden on the rest of us and drive admin. costs down.

You misunderstand insurance.

Insurance is not really a protection for you.

Its a bet, by someone else, on an event not happening to you. You bet it will happen, and they put up the guarantee, their bet, that it wont happen. If it happens, they lose, if it does, you win.

by doing the same thing with a group, Actuaries can make your bet lower and the risk of them losing lower.

Its nothing to do with individuals except where an individual does or is outside the risk area the Actuaries chose...Hence a group of gamblers might like the risk of insuring women drivers...is this sexism?...no...its a bet on a group of individuals.

Next the EU will be demanding that you must buy shares across a group of companies so that proper balance can be seen to be done.

[Stars]

NHS manages to do it (we can argue about inefficiencies and whether they're a good or bad thing until the cows come home of course).

No idea what you mean here

For instance, I'd be in favour of a separate minimum 3rd party insurance cover for everyone perhaps bundled into the petrol price which is a fixed cost, simple to administer and unavoidable.

I have in the past argued for this myself, (the idea has quite serious freerider problems though) but this is a seperate issue to whether someone providing cover to someone else should be allowed to evaluate the risk of such a deal for themselves

Why should private companies decide whether someone is permitted to drive based on their age and irrespective of their accident record simply because of their risk models?

Sure..but what you arguing against here is the statutary requirement for insurance.

Insurance works on statistical models; if you get insurance against a painting being stolen, the insurance company uses statistical models, that may include all sorts of factors, to give you a price. They don't price exclusively on the basis of how often you have lost paintings in the past. The other side of the coin being that insurance companies compete on this price

It's pre-event assumption of 'guilt' in the general carried over to the specific. It clearly doesn't work as is anyway.

There is no assumption of guilt, it is just a fact that people in one group represent a higher risk to insurers than others

Edited January 29, 2011 by Stars

[Wahoo]

Just been quoted £610 renewal.

WTF !! And this is with 65% NCD.

[Bloo Loo]

I don't think we do misunderstand it.

Based on the factors at the insurer's grasp, they try and calculate probabilities to the finest granularity possible because if they don't, a private competitor will 'skim' the market by providing cheaper insurance for 'good risks'.

It requires regulators to take a step back and tell these mortal competitors that what they are doing is damaging society.

As I say, removing race as a factor has already taken place - so why not age for instance. The reduction in cost for younger people would simply be picked up and spread across older people. Given we're all young once - is this a problem? I can't see it.

I see your point, but you forget City Short-termism.

they are interested in this years bonus....next years can go hang, so, the gamblers at Lloyds base their gambles on This years cohort of clients.

Its the reason why medical insurance shoots through the roof the moment you actually need it.

[R K]

No idea what you mean here

The NHS 'health insurance' model doesn't have a charging structure based on individual risk.

I have in the past argued for this myself, (the idea has quite serious freerider problems though) but this is a seperate issue to whether someone providing cover to someone else should be allowed to evaluate the risk of such a deal for themselves

Yes, but the current system has quite serious uninsured problems too and I'm sure very heavy 'policing' and 'administration' costs.

Sure..but what you arguing against here is the statutary requirement for insurance.

Not really. I am arguing against the statutory element of car insurance being assessed, levied and collected on an individual basis by private businesses as a pre-requisite for being permitted to drive. Because it's done that way doesn't mean it must be done that way.

Insurance works on statistical models; if you get insurance against a painting being stolen, the insurance company uses statistical models, that may include all sorts of factors, to give you a price. They don't price exclusively on the basis of how often you have lost paintings in the past. The other side of the coin being that insurance companies compete on this price

Again, that is the current private business model.

There's no particular reason why it is socially beneficial for it to be done this way. There may be very good reasons for lowering the cost of insurance for the young, simply because they're young (and statistically some of them are more accident prone) and raising it for the elderly. One was mentioned above.

Competing on price can be done in many different waysthough. It doesn't have to be at the highly granular level of the individual just because it is done that way. Again, the NHS for instance doesn't use that pricing model. Off the top of my head for instance you could probably develop an argument for pricing a pint of beer based upon someone's age sex and postcode using statistical models on the social harm that will result. But we don't.

I agree that there is an obsession with this sort of pricing based upon complex statistical modelling and it's likely to go much further than at present (specific roads travelled, at specific times of day using tracking and so on) but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for us generally.

There is no assumption of guilt, it is just a fact that people in one group represent a higher risk to insurers than others

Yes, so there is no particular reason why you couldn't widen that group to include everyone rather than specific age groups. As you narrow or widen the group all that happens is the risk and thus the pricing changes. It doesn't alter the overall risk or pricing at the business level.

.

crashed as was replying so not sure if this will format correctly.

Edit: Meant to add - Age isn't a 'preference'. In the same way sex, colour, ethnicity and so on aren't prefences. So if one assesses risk on age logically one ought to also assess it on ethnicity and colour. It may be for instance that black jewish Albanians are more or less accident prone and thus insurance companies are discriminating in favour/against them by not risk profiling them accurately. And so on.......

Edited January 29, 2011 by Red Karma

[Stars]

As I say, removing race as a factor has already taken place - so why not age for instance. The reduction in cost for younger people would simply be picked up and spread across older people. Given we're all young once - is this a problem? I can't see it.

Because old people don't want to shoulder the cost of the driving habits of the young and if people are free to do insurance deals with them, they don't have to.

[R K]

Because old people don't want to shoulder the cost of the driving habits of the young and if people are free to do insurance deals with them, they don't have to.

Old people were by definition young once too, so all they're really doing is shifting the burden temporally to suit themselves.

The argument is really whether old people should be legally able to discriminate against young people in this way.

I think there's a very good argument against them doing so.

Can I have a white's only car insurance policy please?

[Fishbone Glover]

It's worth noting that if they remove the age/sex profiling, you might as well remove privately run car insurance and have a government run sceme paid for through an aditional tax on fuel, as there will be so little variation in insurance prices.

There is a case for doing that anyway, as insurance is compulsory the insurance companies have carte blanche to charge you whatever they like as you've got no choice but to pay it if you want or need to own a car.

[billybong]

New European laws could push up motor insurance premiums for women by a quarter and slice retirement incomes for millions of men.

Who owns the lawmakers. The banks.

And who owns a lot of the insurance and pension companies. The banks.

Even more money being shovelled to them. Raking it in at every turn.

[Stars]

Yes, but the current system has quite serious uninsured problems too and I'm sure very heavy 'policing' and 'administration' costs.

Perhaps, but the public costs are probably not as high as the government insuring the actions of anyone who wants to drive

Not really. I am arguing against the statutory element of car insurance being assessed, levied and collected on an individual basis by private businesses as a pre-requisite for being permitted to drive. Because it's done that way doesn't mean it must be done that way.

Well, if you are going to have private insurance, then you are going to have to allow insurers decide at what price they want to insure someone for

Again, that is the current private business model.

There's no particular reason why it is socially beneficial for it to be done this way. There may be very good reasons for lowering the cost of insurance for the young, simply because they're young (and statistically some of them are more accident prone) and raising it for the elderly. One was mentioned above.

It is done like this because insurers get to decide what services they offer and at what price.

Are you you going to mandate that they must supply x at y price?

Competing on price can be done in many different waysthough. It doesn't have to be at the highly granular level of the individual just because it is done that way.

Sure. and Insurance companies are free to do this now.

Again, the NHS for instance doesn't use that pricing model. Off the top of my head for instance you could probably develop an argument for pricing a pint of beer based upon someone's age sex and postcode using statistical models on the social harm that will result. But we don't.

The NHS is not a private vendor of services so it doesn't matter what its pricing model is as you must pay anyway.

I agree that there is an obsession with this sort of pricing based upon complex statistical modelling and it's likely to go much further than at present (specific roads travelled, at specific times of day using tracking and so on) but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for us generally.

Sure, but the solution isn't to fiddle with the concept of insurance, but to change things so that most of us can easily afford the insurance we need.

Yes, so there is no particular reason why you couldn't widen that group to include everyone rather than specific age groups. As you narrow or widen the group all that happens is the risk and thus the pricing changes. It doesn't alter the overall risk or pricing at the business level.

Feel free to start an insurance vendor and do this

[Rare Bear]

Old people were by definition young once too, so all they're really doing is shifting the burden temporally to suit themselves.

The argument is really whether old people should be legally able to discriminate against young people in this way.

I think there's a very good argument against them doing so.

Can I have a white's only car insurance policy please?

The older people who don't pay so much did in fact pay much more than their elders when they were young.