Car Insurance equality

[onlymark]

Insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.

The decision means that women can no longer be charged lower car insurance premiums than men,

What about in your country?
Since car insurance has been needed by law, women have always been charged less than men in the UK - and rightly so as they are involved in less accidents per person, plus the accidents they are in usually involve less damage. In effect they are "safer" drivers.
But due to a challenge in Belgium this has now been changed. All sexes will pay the same.

Is this fair?
Part of me says it isn't as it is common sense to charge those that are less likely to have an accident less than others.
A thought is if you cannot discriminate on age either, will this be altered as well as older drivers are seen as less risky?
Another part of me celebrates the fact that all the complaining women that bleat on about not being treated equally are now reaping what they sowed.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610

[hwinpp]

It's bloody stupid IMO.
Women cause less damage, they should pay less in premiums.

Same thing in Germany.

[bjd]

I personally think it's stupid too. And it will be the insurance companies that will come out ahead, as usual. They won't average out the premiums, but will just raise everybody's so that everyone will be paying like young males.

[bixaorellana]

I had just read the article about the new "equality" before logging on here. Bjd, you are so correct in what you say. What's infuriating is how immediately the insurers threatened everyone with higher premiums, proving yet again that they hold all the cards.

In the past, surely there were more men drivers than women, but would that still be true and would it play a part in showing men being involved in more accidents?

[Deleted]

France uses the bonus and malus system, so the fewer accidents you have, the less you pay -- and vice versa obviously.

[bixaorellana]

I believe all insurance companies everywhere do that -- factor in accidents & infractions or the lack thereof. Even so, base rates have to be set. I assume rates will remain higher for younger drivers in the UK, with the young women now paying more.

[onlymark]

"No claims bonus" is what it is called in the UK. Usually gives a discount each year without a claim up to a maximum of 60% of the premium.

[onlymark]

Another point - at some point a person (an Actuary?) determines, with the use of a number of factors, the basic cost of the insurance. When you apply for the insurance you fill out a form or pass on a lot of personal information. Calculations are made then as to the risk and the premium asked for reflects this.
It's years since I've done this in the west so I don't know for sure exactly what info they ask for (name, age, place of living etc plus many other things).

But, I expect many of the personal details are considered. My thought, as hinted at in the OP, is that how many of these factors are you lawfully not allowed to discriminate on?
You cannot discriminate now on sex. But age?
Do they need your religious affiliation? Does that affect anything or do they take it in to account anyway?
What factors do they 'discriminate' on yet lawfully they are not supposed to?

[Deleted]

I think that people's texting history should be considered -- this is one area where apparently more women are guilty of causing accidents due to texting while driving than men.

[bixaorellana]

And don't forget putting on make-up while driving. Damned women drivers!

I didn't know that about texting. I thought both sexes were equally guilty when it came to using the phone in the car. A particular bone-headed maneuver is lighting a cigarette as you're pulling into traffic. Personal observation tells me men do that more than women, but that's hardly scientific evidence. My favorite are the people who do it as they're leaving the filling station, as though the time needed to put gas in their tanks made them really overdue for their nicotine hits.

[Deleted]

I confess that I often swerve unacceptably just trying to change the radio station.

[onlymark]

And as for having sex whilst driving............

[mich64]

I have never ever sent a text therefore no fear of me doing it while driving.

I have to admit to applying lipstick though.
Mich

[Deleted]

Now, I would personally like to know if women feel that this insurance deal is unfair, would they like to have full equality with men in all domains, or do they feel that they should be exempted from certain things because women are women and men are men?

(No, I have not prepared a surprise list like combat troops or twist top jars.)

[onlymark]

I would expect the vast majority of women are realists and have no problem with many things being different.

Until it doesn't benefit them.

[onlymark]

Oh yes, just thought, as regards something like the State Pension in the UK where an amount is deducted from your wages when working - women tend to live longer than men so they should pay proportionally more, and the retirement ages should be the same.

[Deleted]

I was actually somewhat shocked when my father died and my mother only received something like 30% as "survivor benefits." Much can be said about the role of the spouse in ensuring that the worker performs his/her job properly for 40 or so years and what the survivor deserves as compensation for the few remaining years of their own life.

Let's not forget that if my mother had died instead of my father, he would continue to receive 100% of his pension, indicating that the presence of a spouse in one's life is worthless.

[mich64]

Kerouac, I can report that each of our Retirement income through our employers upon death is equal, 66% to the remaining spouse. In Canada we have many pay equity laws and good benefits for spouses or life partners. It is a pretty great country to live in. Of course there are many things that could be better, but in whole, a pretty great place to be.
Cheers!
Mich

[Deleted]

You mean the US Treasury is not the best thing ever invented?

[bjd]

Mar 2, 2011 19:49:32 GMT kerouac2 said:

Now, I would personally like to know if women feel that this insurance deal is unfair, would they like to have full equality with men in all domains, or do they feel that they should be exempted from certain things because women are women and men are men?

(No, I have not prepared a surprise list like combat troops or twist top jars.)

To repeat something said on French radio yesterday by a woman in politics -- if the European court is going to insist on equal insurance payments on the basis of sexual equality, why don't they make an effort to insist on equal pay for equal work, lack of discrimination in hiring, etc. etc.

[Deleted]

Well, they have actually been insisting on that for years, but short of putting all the business owners in prison.....

[mickthecactus]

As an insurance broker this is complete and utter nonsense. What will be next - age?

They should stick to what they know (whatever that may be...). They have absolutely no idea about insurance.

[fumobici]

I see the logic in excluding rate setting variables based on birth status- race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation (most agree it is). I can't think of any argument for gender discrimination in rate setting that wouldn't be equally valid for using race/ethnicity as a category. I know actuaries use race as a weighting factor but they avail themselves of census data which includes race as a category to write the algorithms to discriminate by residency address so they have a sufficient measure of deniability. It''s questionable at best morally, but would given the methodology in practice be impossible to outlaw.

[mickthecactus]

Fumobici. it's a very simple argument. Females have less accidents than males. They cost the insurers less therefore they should pay less.

Race is not used as a weighting factor for motor insurance.

[fumobici]

Mar 11, 2011 8:52:29 GMT mickthecactus said:

Fumobici. it's a very simple argument. Females have less accidents than males. They cost the insurers less therefore they should pay less.

Race is not used as a weighting factor for motor insurance.

If it were gleaned from the data that people of Indian/Japanese/African/Irish descent were significantly more or less likely to be involved in motor accidents do you think that race should then be used as a pricing factor using the exact same principle?

Race is used as a factor currently. More or less. An acquaintance in the industry with access to portions of the proprietary actuarial algorithms in an unguarded moment said so explicitly. Realizing he had just blundered he amended his assertion by elaborating that they run the maths by postal code, in what is essentially a reverse redlining practice which allows them to consistently charge significantly higher rates to minorities but as the calculation avails itself of racially categorized census residency data that has been scrubbed of its racial component to leave a risk assessment based on spatial coordinates before it is input into the algorithm it can plausibly be called race neutral because it is putatively based on residency coordinates.

So yes race is factored in, but that factoring in is statistically dithered behind geographic discrimination because it is illegal in the US to use race explicitly and one can arrive at near the same result as racial discrimination by availing oneself of the existing racially segregated spatial demography.

My grandfather was among other things a successful insurance man and was pretty cynical about it as a business. The profit potential is eye watering though and it is generally poorly regulated because it is so dull it doesn't even capture the passions of those paid to regulate it.

[mickthecactus]

Postcode is indeed a factor because theft/damage claims are far higher in inner city areas say than in rural areas. Thus again those areas are deserving of higher rates. The more you take out, the nore you have to put back in.

Race per se is not used as a factor.

I do know that 50+ years ago religion was used as a rating factor though......

[onlymark]

fumobici, don't take this the wrong way, it's not in tended, but I'm wondering if you speak like you write?

in what is essentially a reverse redlining practice which allows them to consistently charge significantly higher rates to minorities but as the calculation avails itself of racially categorized census residency data that has been scrubbed of its racial component to leave a risk assessment based on spatial coordinates before it is input into the algorithm it can plausibly be called race neutral because it is putatively based on residency coordinates.

[onlymark]

I've re-read what you've written and I now follow it, apart from one thing. Can you explain (as put on line 1 of the 4th paragraph) what statistical dithering is?