Insurers Can No Longer Discriminate Against Your Sex

[Monkey]

Even if they end age discrimination for insurance, it will still be based on length of time you've held a licence, which seem fair.

that doesnt even work. in 2006 i did these quotes for my self and my G/F as main and only driver, just to see

26 year old male, no points, no accidents, 4 years NCD (passed test at age 22) 1.4L Micra X plate Value £3000, 15000 miles per year Fully comp. £758 was the cheapest

25 year old female, No points no accidents, no NCD as she passed her test 3 weeks earlier 1.4L Micra X plate Value £3000, 15000 miles per year Fully comp. £410 was the cheapest

if i put her on my insurance it dropped to £430, if i was put on hers it went up to £650

how is that right?

[cica]

No, it's not.

If you're aged 75, and have never had an accident, is it right to be charged more than a 65-year-old with a long history of causing accidents?

Right or wrong they won't sell any policies if another company is putting its money where it's mouth is and believes they are assessing risk better.

[Lepista]

Best to stick to the old formula: the higher the risk the higher the premium. End of.

I agree. MY risk should be based on ME - not some demographic that I conveniently slot into. I therefore get my risk based on my merit, and my efforts. If I prove myself to be a low risk, my premiums become less.

Insurance at present is a little bit like saying that because there are a higher proportion of gay people in Brighton, then we will treat everybody there as if they are gay.

[Sledgehead]

What happened to the lament about a selfish, godless society in post number 8?

well, I wasn't making that post for my benefit but for those who think they've won somehing here. They were looking to their own interests. Incidentally, it's been pointed out I made a stupid error by including lifestyles of choice in that post, which I will accept .... however ... I believe we will find in the future that people have little choice over much in their lives. We are already talking about genetic causes of lifestyle (yearning for fatty food, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, dangerous pursuits etc). Bet some guy in the future wins a case to the effect that his genes gave him no choice but to be a smoker and therefore must be entitled to the same health insyrance premia.

[Lepista]

well, I wasn't making that post for my benefit but for those who think they've won somehing here. They were looking to their own interests. Incidentally, it's been pointed out I made a stupid error by including lifestyles of choice in that post, which I will accept .... however ... I believe we will find in the future that people have little choice over much in their lives. We are already talking about genetic causes of lifestyle (yearning for fatty food, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, dangerous pursuits etc). Bet some guy in the future wins a case to the effect that his genes gave him no choice but to be a smoker and therefore must be entitled to the same health insyrance premia.

So you are saying that if at some point in the future they find a gene that give you a greater probability of becomming a smoker, you should automatically have a higher health insurance premium? Nice.

[Lagarde's Drift]

if i put her on my insurance it dropped to £430, if i was put on hers it went up to £650

how is that right?

Why are you complaining then? Only £20 more so she can drive you to/from the pub on occasion. It is based on risk, young men are more likely to rev the tits off that Micra at 4am on a cold icy night and smash it into a tree. Young women aren't as likely to do that. End of.

Plus, how many miles did you put on yourself, compared to hers-only policy? That does affect the premiums.

[cica]

So you are saying that if at some point in the future they find a gene that give you a greater probability of becomming a smoker, you should automatically have a higher health insurance premium? Nice.

That wouldn't make sense. It would be down to whether you smoke or not and tax revenue from tobacco in the UK does attempt to address this.

[Home_To_Roost]

I was the victim of a non-fault accident. My insurance company were disinterested, and the other party's insurers tried everything in the book to avoid paying out. My "legal cover" was a joke. I had to keep chasing them ... and even then it took months.

Several years later, I received a text message from a law company ..... "Our records tell us that you could STILL be entitled to £4000 of compensation!!".

There are too many law graduates !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sledgehead]

No, it's not.

I've just caught up with my own thoughts (which granted can be somewhat chaotic in the first flush of annoyance).

You refer to being a squaddie or smoking as a lifestyle choice. I guarantee that advances in our understanding of genes will allow some lawyer to prove a fat person has no choice but to crave cakes, cheese and bacon, and should not be penalised by having medical treatment removed merely because they can't stop eating. Probab;y find the same with smoking and base jumping.

How will you ideas work then?

If you're aged 75, and have never had an accident, is it right to be charged more than a 65-year-old with a long history of causing accidents?

You have two extreme choices:

- treat these two people as groups and judge them statistically, something you object to;

- treat them as clean sheets.

Remember that this is a legal ruling. Past crimes should not be used to judge guilt or innocence. Why include anyone's previous in their premia?

[Lepista]

I've just caught up with my own thoughts (which granted can be somewhat chaotic in the first flush of annoyance).

You refer to being a squaddie or smoking as a lifestyle choice. I guarantee that advances in our understanding of genes will allow some lawyer to prove a fat person has no choice but to crave cakes, cheese and bacon, and should not be penalised by having medical treatment removed merely because they can't stop eating. Probab;y find the same with smoking and base jumping.

How will you ideas work then?

I refer you to my post above.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=160348&view=findpost&p=2911989

You have two extreme choices:

- treat these two people as groups and judge them statistically, something you object to;

- treat them as clean sheets.

Remember that this is a legal ruling. Past crimes should not be used to judge guilt or innocence. Why include anyone's previous in their premia?

What crime did they commit?

[Sledgehead]

So you are saying that if at some point in the future they find a gene that give you a greater probability of becomming a smoker, you should automatically have a higher health insurance premium? Nice.

No, quite the opposite. The premise you are working off of (correct if wrong):

- treat me as an individual;

- charge me more if I choose a riskier lifestyle.

However, genetic discoveries may well prove we have little choice in many aspects of what we call lifestyle. Thes discoveries may well show that people are born with a predisposition to tobacco craving. If that were the case would it be right to charge smokers higher health premia, given that some live very long, healthy lives. For instance:

George Burns lived to 100:

Should he really have paid higher health insurance premia all his life for being a smoker, especially if he was BORN (by virtue of his genes) a smoker?

By the way, it's all a bit sketchy in my head and I'm trying to do other things, but I am enjoying talking this through and I don't mind what answer we come up with.

[Sledgehead]

What crime did they commit?

the guy who has a history of crashing , well, crashed. I use the term crime loosely. I'm applying a principle.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

I have noo problem with people who have accidents being priced off the roads.

I have no problem with people who cause accidents being priced off the roads.

Insurance companies have been discriminating for years. A family friend who worked in the insurance industry for 40+years said that in the 1970's they used to automatically slap black people with an immediate 50% premium across the board.

Possibly because black people are 50% more likely to cause accidents?

If male premiums go down even more people will needlessly die.

I very much doubt that. Male car insurance policies are based on the economic damage caused by car accidents, not the number of people killed. The vast majority of motor accidents cost a lot of money to put right, but do not result in any injuries or deaths. In fact, I remember reading once (can't remember where - sorry), that the majority of accidents which do result in serious injuries and/or deaths are caused by women. They tend to follow the 'go big or go home' principle - they are far less likely to cause accidents, but the ones they do cause tend to be like this one - more serious.

Re the question of age discrimination and driving:

Many car and van hire companies will not hire vehicles to anyone over 70. Surely this is age discrimination.

Ditto the fact that many travel insurance companies will not provide medical cover for foreign travel for over 65s.

The one piece of age discrimination I would support is an upper age limit for driving, which I'd set at 90, with no exceptions. If we have a lower limit of 17, why not an upper one?

My reasoning is that:

1) most people don't live to 90

2) most people who reach 90 will have given up driving by that age.

3) of the small proportion of people over 90 who do still drive, most will be unfit to do so.

Yes, but why discriminate against the even smaller proportion of over 90s who continue to drive without causing a disproportionate risk? There is an easy answer to this one - simply require all older drivers to retake their test (at their own expense, of course) at regular intervals: I'd suggest every five years from 65 and then every two from 80.

[cica]

I very much doubt that. Male car insurance policies are based on the economic damage caused by car accidents, not the number of people killed. The vast majority of motor accidents cost a lot of money to put right, but do not result in any injuries or deaths. In fact, I remember reading once (can't remember where - sorry), that the majority of accidents which do result in serious injuries and/or deaths are caused by women. They tend to follow the 'go big or go home' principle - they are far less likely to cause accidents, but the ones they do cause tend to be like this one - more serious.

You've linked to a single Daily Mail article of an instance. Here's a study giving the opposite conclusions My link

Crashes involving male drivers often are more severe than those involving female drivers

References given.

[dandandan]

What about age discrimination? Surely the next step is that it will be illegal to discriminate against policyholders on the grounds of age.

It's an established fact that women are better road drivers than men but there are some alarming exceptions!

I have a theory as to why young women tend to be safer drivers than young men. If we leave out the good young drivers of both genders, and look at the bad drivers, I think there's a difference. Young women who manage to pass their test but believe themselves to be poor drivers will tend to avoid driving or even give up driving. With young men the situation is different, since the worst young male drivers tend to be car enthusiasts - boy-racers, petrolheads - the group who is least likely of all to give up driving. Car enthusiasts are an unusual case. Usually someone who does something as a hobby - cooking, gardening or suchlike, does it better than the average person - and yet car enthusiasts are usually worse drivers than the average motorist.

I was never a boy racer. Apart from being more experienced, I drive the same now as I did when I was 17 - e.g. 'by the book', obeying speed limits. If more people did that insurance premiums would be a lot lower all round. Perhaps I have a 'female' driving brain!

I think your making lots of generalisations that are not really founded in fact. as a car enthusiast i wont proclaim to be a better driver than average but having had a classic car for 7 years now i can tell you any insurance company offers a substantial discount if you are a member of an associated club or organisation, to the point it more than pays to subscribe to the club given the reduction in premium, they wouldn't do this if they thought you were a greater risk. what your doing there is assuming all 'car enthusiasts' are boy racers and its just not the case.

I support the new law, the assumption that all male drivers are worse than female without any other consideration is wrong and unfair. Insurance premiums should be calculated on an individual basis, and most of all risk. If a male and a female driver of the same age, that have the same years worth of clean driving and do the same annual mileage, their premiums should be no different. The current system is unfair simply because the premiums would not be the same. Obviously it is more complex than that but in principle that is how it should be in my opinion.

[Lagarde's Drift]

You people who think that they can price bad drivers off the road are living in cloud cuckoo land. My sister is a JP (sits on motoring offences) and driving without insurance is already widespread and often the fine she can level is cheaper than the insurance quote would have been.

The solution to all this is to have a basic 3rd party state insurance, taken from fuel taxes (you drive more. you pay more) and give drivers the choice of expanding their cover if they want to.

Buckers

What he said.

Rather than women drivers having the cough up more, I think this is just another excuse for the insurance companies to charge us all more, much more. Partially due to the above.

[snowflux]

In fact, I remember reading once (can't remember where - sorry), that the majority of accidents which do result in serious injuries and/or deaths are caused by women. They tend to follow the 'go big or go home' principle - they are far less likely to cause accidents, but the ones they do cause tend to be like this one - more serious.

That sounds like total ******** to me. I'd like to see you back it up!

I'd have been almost certain that the reverse was true. In my experience, women tend to cause accidents through inattentiveness, usually resulting in minor shunts, whereas with blokes the cause is more likely to be recklessness, often resulting in a completely totalled vehicle and deaths/injuries.

[Monkey]

Why are you complaining then? Only £20 more so she can drive you to/from the pub on occasion. It is based on risk, young men are more likely to rev the tits off that Micra at 4am on a cold icy night and smash it into a tree. Young women aren't as likely to do that. End of.

my point was not just the male/female thing, at the time i had 4 years driving experience, with no accidents or points on my licence at all, and for the same details except name and sex, it was £348 cheaper for a female with no driving experience, having past her test 3 weeks before the quote. where is the logic in that

Plus, how many miles did you put on yourself, compared to hers-only policy? That does affect the premiums.

i know, that why if you read my post you will see i put that in.

that doesnt even work. in 2006 i did these quotes for my self and my G/F as main and only driver, just to see

26 year old male, - ,15000 miles per year

25 year old female,15000 miles per year

[ccc]

Is this probably just so they can chanrge more across the board ? more than likely. However as an aside to that it is an interesting debate.

And I am quite pleased with the result. Now we will have birds who understand that this great drive for 'Sexual equality' goes both ways. Up until now I think the vast majority thought it all went in their favour. Which for most things it does. Now perhaps things like this will start to dampen this over the top obsession this country has with 'equal rights'. As many of the woman bedhind it will now have to accept the 'bad' stuff along with the 'good'. They are not gonna like that.

As for young male drivers being more dangerous than your female ? Is it not probably based on the fact that young male drivers spend far longer in their cars than their female opposite ?

Young blokes pass their tests and tend to spend the next year driving themselves and their pals around. Young birds in general do not. The fact more blokes get in accidents is not really a huge surprise. However I don't think it makes them necessarily 'worse' drivers.

Perhaps how many miles you drive per year should be weighted more than it is today - rather than just looking at the sex aspect.

Miles driven increased weighted in calculations. Sex aspect removed. Seems reasonable to me.

[Injin]

You people who think that they can price bad drivers off the road are living in cloud cuckoo land. My sister is a JP (sits on motoring offences) and driving without insurance is already widespread and often the fine she can level is cheaper than the insurance quote would have been.

The solution to all this is to have a basic 3rd party state insurance, taken from fuel taxes (you drive more. you pay more) and the money blown on duck huses, foreign wars and perma tanned ex prime ministers.

Buckers

Fixed.

[R K]

Car insurance is a small part of this.

The huge impact will be in the annuity/pension industry I'd have thought.

All those mortality/risk models and grossly overpaid actuaries. Have you ever visited an actuaries office? I've been in loads - The wealth oozes from the walls.

Insurance gravy train is over.

[Lepista]

No, quite the opposite. The premise you are working off of (correct if wrong):

- treat me as an individual;

- charge me more if I choose a riskier lifestyle.

However, genetic discoveries may well prove we have little choice in many aspects of what we call lifestyle. Thes discoveries may well show that people are born with a predisposition to tobacco craving. If that were the case would it be right to charge smokers higher health premia, given that some live very long, healthy lives. For instance:

George Burns lived to 100:

Should he really have paid higher health insurance premia all his life for being a smoker, especially if he was BORN (by virtue of his genes) a smoker?

By the way, it's all a bit sketchy in my head and I'm trying to do other things, but I am enjoying talking this through and I don't mind what answer we come up with.

Exactly the opposite.

The OP was showing that the insurers discriminate on the grounds of what dangly bits you have, and has nothing to do with YOUR actual risk.

Imagine if your sex could only be determined by a gene test, but the probabilities remained the same as to whether you had an accident or not. Would it still then be acceptable to offer different premiums?

Or is it fairer to base the offer based on the persons behaviour - what they actually DO?

['Bart']

Maybe it's cos they've lost religion, or don't have any sense of national pride or never wonder what the aliens will think if they arrive, or simply don't give a toss about future generations.

Well that's me summed up in 1 paragraph then.

[SarahBell]

Insurance gravy train is over.

You think it'll be the insurance/annuity world that loses out?

[Injin]

Car insurance is a small part of this.

The huge impact will be in the annuity/pension industry I'd have thought.

All those mortality/risk models and grossly overpaid actuaries. Have you ever visited an actuaries office? I've been in loads - The wealth oozes from the walls.

Insurance gravy train is over.

Its getting stolen to keep the state ticking over.

There can't be much left for them to nick before collapse now, to be quite honest.