Bonkers EU insurance logic

[Dave2002]

Now insurance companies have to offer car insurance to men and women with no consideration of the fact that female drivers generally appear to have lower risk.

I just saw an advert for Female Cancer insurance.

Maybe the EU hasn't noticed.

I'm not generally anti-EU (ala UKIP, and sometimes David Cameron and his merry men), but the EU has probably got it wrong with insurance and discrimination.

Looks as though the insurance industry is happy to have discrimination when it suits.

[Beef Oven]

Now insurance companies have to offer car insurance to men and women with no consideration of the fact that female drivers generally appear to have lower risk.

I just saw an advert for Female Cancer insurance.

Maybe the EU hasn't noticed.

I'm not generally anti-EU (ala UKIP, and sometimes David Cameron and his merry men), but the EU has probably got it wrong with insurance and discrimination.

Looks as though the insurance industry is happy to have discrimination when it suits.

I'm generally anti-EU (ala UKIP et al), but I think that the EU has got it right, given what they are trying to do.

Edit: most of my post did not appear! It should continue.......

That is eradicate gender based discrimination. Take my son. He is an extremely sensible young man. Rarely goes out, shows no interest in girls and drives like a nun. He's quite a disappointment. However, why should he be stereotyped and then charged more than his sister?

[ahinton]

I'm generally anti-EU (ala UKIP et al), but I think that the EU has got it right, given what they are trying to do.

I'm not about to comment upon the extent to which I may or may not be anti-EU (and my views on UKIP are already sufficiently well known but likewise irrelevant here), I think that EU has either got it wrong or interfered unacceptably in this, since the any decision about insurance risk should be taken by insurers' expert actuaries, not governments and, after all, insured drivers pay their premiums not to governments but to insurance companies; if it is indeed an actuarial fact that female drivers are deemed to be lower risk, governments have no business in passing legislation that wilfully ignores that factor.

[Richard Tarleton]

since the any decision about insurance risk should be taken by insurers' expert actuaries, not governments and, after all, insured drivers pay their premiums not to governments but to insurance companies; if it is indeed an actuarial fact that female drivers are deemed to be lower risk, governments have no business in passing legislation that wilfully ignores that factor.

Exactly - baffling.

[Beef Oven]

Exactly - baffling.

What's baffling about eradicating things like racial profiling and gender discrimination?

There's plenty of 'experts' out there who'll give you the ammo you're looking for if you want to profile and discriminate.

[ahinton]

What's baffling about eradicating things like racial profiling and gender discrimination?

There's plenty of 'experts' out there who'll give you the ammo you're looking for if you want to profile and discriminate.

All that appears to be "baffling" here is that, much as many of would like to see such eradication, all kinds of risk assessment are by definition based inevitably in part upon analyses of various aspects of profiling. Where driving is concerned, premiums for those who are only a year or two above the minimum age for taking a driving test are often loaded, as are those for people with certain health issues, those with previous driving convictions and so on. It is not obvious (to me, at least) that making, or basing insurance decisions upon, a statement to the effect that, in general terms, female drivers pose a lower risk than do male ones (provided, of course, that it is true and can be reliably corroborated) constitutes "gender discrimination" per se of an avoidably adverse nature and as, in any case, I am not aware that actuaries consider drivers of a paticular race to be at a higher risk than those of any other races, racial profiling does not appear to be of interest or relevance here, either to legislators or to actuaries.

If insurers do not assess all relevant aspects of risk before issuing insurance and/or setting premiums, they'd be in dereliction of their duty and could be the victims of formal complaints of which some might lead to litigation and/or regulatory censure.

[Richard Tarleton]

What's baffling about eradicating things like racial profiling and gender discrimination?

As ahinton says. I was just going to say that insurance supposed to be about risk.

There is a belief, I think an urban myth, that owners of red cars (I have a red car) pay higher premiums, as the colour choice is an indication of the driver's aggressive tendnecies [in my case it was the only one left in that model]. Whereas, in reality it is just that red cars are more likely to be stopped by the traffic police because as is well known they play "snooker", whereby every other car they stop (until they get to the colours) has to be a red one.

[Beef Oven]

I was just going to say that insurance supposed to be about risk.

There is a belief, I think an urban myth, that owners of red cars (I have a red car) pay higher premiums, as the colour choice is an indication of the driver's aggressive tendnecies [in my case it was the only one left in that model]. Whereas, in reality it is just that red cars are more likely to be stopped by the traffic police because as is well known they play "snooker", whereby every other car they stop (until they get to the colours) has to be a red one.

It's not really about car insurance, it's about profiling and then discriminating on the grounds of gender. Not all young men are higher risks than young females.

My train-spotting, butterfly-collecting nephew has an impeccable driving record over the two years he's been driving. My wild niece on the other hand has had three prangs in as many months of driving experience.

It is unfair discrimination to require him to pay more than her, just because he's male.

[Flosshilde]

It's not really about car insurance, it's about profiling and then discriminating on the grounds of gender. Not all young men are higher risks than young females.

No it's not, it's about discriminating on the grounds of risk. Young male drivers, as a group, have more accidents, so they should pay higher premiums. If an individual young male driver (eg your nephew) has a record of careful driving with no accidents, & therefore no claims, his premiums will be reduced by a no-claims bonus. Your niece, on the other hand, will quite possibly find her premiums increased as she is a poor risk (at the least her premiums won't be reduced). 'Discrimination' in insurance exists in all sorts of ways - if your car is parked on the road rather than in a garage or on a drive, for example, you will probably pay more, or if you live in an area with a high rate of house burglaries you will probably pay more for your household contents insurance.

[Beef Oven]

No it's not, it's about discriminating on the grounds of risk. Young male drivers, as a group, have more accidents, so they should pay higher premiums. If an individual young male driver (eg your nephew) has a record of careful driving with no accidents, & therefore no claims, his premiums will be reduced by a no-claims bonus. Your niece, on the other hand, will quite possibly find her premiums increased as she is a poor risk (at the least her premiums won't be reduced). 'Discrimination' in insurance exists in all sorts of ways - if your car is parked on the road rather than in a garage or on a drive, for example, you will probably pay more, or if you live in an area with a high rate of house burglaries you will probably pay more for your household contents insurance.

No that's not right. It's discrimination on the grounds of gender. That's why the EU have out-lawed it.

You don't often find me defending the perfidious EU!!

It's not the same as paying more in insurance if your car is parked on your drive and less if it's on the road (your burglar finds it easier to work out which Mercedes is yours when it's on your drive).

[MrGongGong]

Try hiring a car or van and tell them you are a musician

You can't do it in many cases .................

There's a big difference between calling yourself a Musician (Classical) and a Musician (Popular) ........ I always struggle with these things as there is never a category for Musician (Weird electronic nonsense that no one likes)

Good on the EU IMV
without it we would loose so much that we value

[ahinton]

Try hiring a car or van and tell them you are a musician

NEVER try that if you want to partake of any insurance of any kind at all at any subsequent time! That's the very worst thing that you can claim yourself to be when applying for any kind of insurance!

[Rolmill]

It's discrimination on the grounds of gender.

No it isn't - it's applying the results of a statistical analysis of a group to all of the members of that group. That's what insurance companies do. If you insist that insurance must be literally personalised, then it will simply become uneconomic for insurance companies to provide it. The EU ruling effectively denies insurance companies the ability to price on the basis of risk, which rather defeats the point of insurance and is therefore, as the OP rightly says, bonkers.

Presumably you also think it is discriminatory for insurance companies to differentiate on the basis of age (whether very young or very old)? Or, in the case of house and contents insurance, location?

Actually, in my view the EU ruling discriminates against young women, because it forces them to pay a higher price per unit of risk (however that is defined) for their car insurance than young men. As the father of three daughters, I am very unimpressed with this....

[LeMartinPecheur]

I'm not very sure which side I favour on this issue. But I think it worth unpicking some of the assumptions about risk among men and women drivers. It is no doubt absolutely true that men have more accidents. But some of them do undertake more risk on behalf of society as a whole. There are more men than women among the ranks of delivery drivers, long-distance travelling salesmen, ditto lorry drivers, policemen, firemen etc who are compelled by work pressures to hare around the country at silly speeds. This is undertaken to provide cheaper services to women just as much as men. There is therefore at least some argument that women should bear the cost of such risk equally with men.

As somebody seems to have said, we are all in it together!

[Beef Oven]

No it isn't - it's applying the results of a statistical analysis of a group to all of the members of that group. That's what insurance companies do. If you insist that insurance must be literally personalised, then it will simply become uneconomic for insurance companies to provide it. The EU ruling effectively denies insurance companies the ability to price on the basis of risk, which rather defeats the point of insurance and is therefore, as the OP rightly says, bonkers.

Presumably you also think it is discriminatory for insurance companies to differentiate on the basis of age (whether very young or very old)? Or, in the case of house and contents insurance, location?

Actually, in my view the EU ruling discriminates against young women, because it forces them to pay a higher price per unit of risk (however that is defined) for their car insurance than young men. As the father of three daughters, I am very unimpressed with this....

For example, the LAPD had that sort of 'statistical analysis' when they were beating down Rodney King. So do the Border agencies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc. Black people must be relieved to know that they are not being discriminated against because of the colour of their skin, but merely being subjected to the analysis of demographic sub-sets.

It is a very dangerous thing when we treat people according to their race or gender in this way.