Eu ruling on insurance gender pricing - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Eu ruling on insurance gender pricing

callum84 Avatar
5y, 9m agoPosted 5 years, 9 months ago
What does everyone think about the European court of justices decision to ban gender pricing on insurance products?
Right? Wrong?
Is it really unfair to use the statistic, males are more likely to have an accident than females?
At the end of the day looks like the insurance companies will be profiting by raising females policy's but leaving males right where they are.
Tags:
callum84 Avatar
5y, 9m agoPosted 5 years, 9 months ago
Options

All Comments

(71) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
banned 2 Likes #1
Quite frankly, the decision comes from the same group of people who decided you cant sell banana's which are too straight or too curved. Its just a shame no one told them to do something useful and worthy. Insurance risks are based on statistics. What next life insurance the same price for over 80's as for 18 year olds because is ageist?

Complete morons, who get paid riduclous sums of money for messing things up. Sounds the bankers really.
#2
guv
Quite frankly, the decision comes from the same group of people who decided you cant sell banana's which are too straight or too curved. Its just a shame no one told them to do something useful and worthy. Insurance risks are based on statistics. What next life insurance the same price for over 80's as for 18 year olds because is ageist?Complete morons, who get paid riduclous sums of money for messing things up. Sounds the bankers really.

The EU said no such thing about bananas. Five seconds of research would give you the actual story.
banned 2 Likes #3
pghstochaj
guv
Quite frankly, the decision comes from the same group of people who decided you cant sell banana's which are too straight or too curved. Its just a shame no one told them to do something useful and worthy. Insurance risks are based on statistics. What next life insurance the same price for over 80's as for 18 year olds because is ageist?Complete morons, who get paid riduclous sums of money for messing things up. Sounds the bankers really.
The EU said no such thing about bananas. Five seconds of research would give you the actual story.

This is Misc. Since when do facts need to be told. 3 seconds in Misc would have told you that.
1 Like #4
The insurance scheme is now corrupt, and a money making exercise. It has got out of hand.

My sister just ran a trial quote on her car, changing only Miss to Mr. The quote doubled from £700 for Miss to £1400 for Mr. The short sighted people who got this into court though didn't see that it would raise prices from women. They naively thought it would lower prices for men.

I think it would be best to have a standard starting point. ALL new drivers, of whatever age, pay £1000 for the first year. Then for every year of NCB they get 10% knocked off until they get to 70%. If they have an accident, then there insurance doubles from the price they paid last year, and the NCB is reset. For example, Mrs Jones has a crash in Year 3 of driving. She paid £700 so her last insurance so double it to £1400. Reset the NCB and after Year 1 she will have a 10% discount again.
#5
guv
pghstochaj
guv
Quite frankly, the decision comes from the same group of people who decided you cant sell banana's which are too straight or too curved. Its just a shame no one told them to do something useful and worthy. Insurance risks are based on statistics. What next life insurance the same price for over 80's as for 18 year olds because is ageist?Complete morons, who get paid riduclous sums of money for messing things up. Sounds the bankers really.
The EU said no such thing about bananas. Five seconds of research would give you the actual story.
This is Misc. Since when do facts need to be told. 3 seconds in Misc would have told you that.

At least you now know, even if you are pretending not to care. The EU did not ban curved bananas.
#6
guv

This is Misc. Since when do facts need to be told. 3 seconds in Misc would have told you that.


LOL.

I think its about time.
I understand that Men are a higher risk and should be higher (statistically) but to the extent that men are essentially getting ripped off it needs to stop. I pay several hundred pounds more than a few female friends with similar no claims, driving time and car class, even those who have had accidents or have points on their licence.

I have never had an accident, yet i pay more. Its about time it changed.
#7
I dont have any knowledge but I wonder if this is not just another example of Rip of Britain. I have wondered if the insurance costs that we pay in the UK are comparable to those paid by other European residents.
Is it just a money making scheme by insurance providers as my gut tells me?
#8
Females should go up and Males come down to a half way point as other wise insurance companys just creaming extra(more) profits and the only reason men are more likely to have a accident as there are a lot more males that drive and they drive further distances now if the statistics showed men have more accidents per mile than women which they dont it may be fair but they dont so only right this should happen plus it is sexism to let women have it cheaper and they want or did want equal rights can have equal rights only when it suits.
#9
WoolyM
Is it just a money making scheme by insurance providers as my gut tells me?


Since insurance is compulsory for every car on the road, and soon even every car off the road, unless SORN, then the insurance companies have us over a barrel and can charge whatever they want.
#10
Why are insurance costs for young people (of both sexes) so high? Do they really cause so many accidents?
If they do, maybe we should look at that - raise the driving age? Have the drink/drive limit at zero? Have restrictions on the cars they can drive?
I don't see how making it even more expensive helps anyone (apart from the insurance companies), except making it more likely that there are people driving with no insurance.
#11
Butterbean
Why are insurance costs for young people (of both sexes) so high? Do they really cause so many accidents?
If they do, maybe we should look at that - raise the driving age? Have the drink/drive limit at zero? Have restrictions on the cars they can drive?
I don't see how making it even more expensive helps anyone (apart from the insurance companies), except making it more likely that there are people driving with no insurance.


Yes young drivers do have a significantly higher accident rate.

The drink drive limit should be Zero
Driving age is fine as it is (in the US it's 15 in a lot of places!)

Its not so much the type of car driven etc its simply inexperience in a lot of cases causing accidents.
#12
Insurance is worked out on statistics, which arent inherently sexist, the fact is young men cause the most accidents, therefore are a higher risk for insurers, so pay higher premiums, which is how it should be, another rediculous decision by europe.
#13
peodude
WoolyM
Is it just a money making scheme by insurance providers as my gut tells me?


Since insurance is compulsory for every car on the road, and soon even every car off the road, unless SORN, then the insurance companies have us over a barrel and can charge whatever they want.

Totally agree
banned#14
Jetpac
Butterbean
Why are insurance costs for young people (of both sexes) so high? Do they really cause so many accidents?
If they do, maybe we should look at that - raise the driving age? Have the drink/drive limit at zero? Have restrictions on the cars they can drive?
I don't see how making it even more expensive helps anyone (apart from the insurance companies), except making it more likely that there are people driving with no insurance.


Yes young drivers do have a significantly higher accident rate.

The drink drive limit should be Zero
Driving age is fine as it is (in the US it's 15 in a lot of places!)

Its not so much the type of car driven etc its simply inexperience in a lot of cases causing accidents.


you can't have it at zero, due to many other products having alcohol in them, maybe set it at the same as a half pint.
#15
colinsunderland
Jetpac
Butterbean
Why are insurance costs for young people (of both sexes) so high? Do they really cause so many accidents?
If they do, maybe we should look at that - raise the driving age? Have the drink/drive limit at zero? Have restrictions on the cars they can drive?
I don't see how making it even more expensive helps anyone (apart from the insurance companies), except making it more likely that there are people driving with no insurance.


Yes young drivers do have a significantly higher accident rate.

The drink drive limit should be Zero
Driving age is fine as it is (in the US it's 15 in a lot of places!)

Its not so much the type of car driven etc its simply inexperience in a lot of cases causing accidents.


you can't have it at zero, due to many other products having alcohol in them, maybe set it at the same as a half pint.

Think the limit as it is now is fair, got to remember not all people are same so a 110 kg guy could be fine on half a pint and 50kg girl over limit. I think drinking anything then driving Is irresponsible, even half a pint but the limit has to be set somewhere realistic.
#16
Restricting engine sizes or car sizes won't help. I had a Citroen C1 courtesy car, which 'allegedly' does 80mph on the motorway. Plus, the fastest roads, the motorways, are the safest roads. Most accidents happen on urban roads with 30/40 limits, which any car can do.

Young male drivers now are struggling to get anything below £3000 for a basic 1.2 Corsa. That's ridiculous.
#17
colinsunderland

you can't have it at zero, due to many other products having alcohol in them, maybe set it at the same as a half pint.


A few countries have a DD limit of Zero BAC. Ours is what 0.08% most countries are <0.05%.
#18
Some places have a curfew on young drivers, so they are not allowed to drive between the hours of say 11pm and 6am, because that is when most accidents happen. Maybe young drivers should be given the option of electing to have that in their insurance, kind of like a voluntary excess, to lower their premiums?
#19
Jetpac
colinsunderland

you can't have it at zero, due to many other products having alcohol in them, maybe set it at the same as a half pint.


A few countries have a DD limit of Zero BAC. Ours is what 0.08% most countries are <0.05%.


The Blood Alcohol Levels

* 0.0 mg per ml– Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary
* 0.2 mg per ml– Norway, Poland, Sweden
* 0.4 mg per ml- Lithuania
* 0.5 mg per ml- Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (Germany is 0.3 if you’re in an accident), Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Cyprus (North)
* 0.8 mg per ml– UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland
* 0.9 mg per ml- Cyprus (South)
#20
peodude
Restricting engine sizes or car sizes won't help. I had a Citroen C1 courtesy car, which 'allegedly' does 80mph on the motorway. Plus, the fastest roads, the motorways, are the safest roads. Most accidents happen on urban roads with 30/40 limits, which any car can do.

Young male drivers now are struggling to get anything below £3000 for a basic 1.2 Corsa. That's ridiculous.

Yeah, it's getting beyond a joke, I can understand insurance companies trying to restrict losses but the current prices for young drivers are simply daylight robbery
banned#21
Butterbean
Some places have a curfew on young drivers, so they are not allowed to drive between the hours of say 11pm and 6am, because that is when most accidents happen. Maybe young drivers should be given the option of electing to have that in their insurance, kind of like a voluntary excess, to lower their premiums?


The EU would ban that for discrimination to hours!
#22
peodude
Jetpac
colinsunderland

you can't have it at zero, due to many other products having alcohol in them, maybe set it at the same as a half pint.


A few countries have a DD limit of Zero BAC. Ours is what 0.08% most countries are <0.05%.


The Blood Alcohol Levels

* 0.0 mg per ml– Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary
* 0.2 mg per ml– Norway, Poland, Sweden
* 0.4 mg per ml- Lithuania
* 0.5 mg per ml- Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (Germany is 0.3 if you’re in an accident), Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Cyprus (North)
* 0.8 mg per ml– UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland
* 0.9 mg per ml- Cyprus (South)

How many countries from the 0.0mg category do you think actually enforce drink driving laws to the extent we do in this country
1 Like #23
peodude
Jetpac
colinsunderland

you can't have it at zero, due to many other products having alcohol in them, maybe set it at the same as a half pint.


A few countries have a DD limit of Zero BAC. Ours is what 0.08% most countries are <0.05%.


The Blood Alcohol Levels

* 0.0 mg per ml– Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary
* 0.2 mg per ml– Norway, Poland, Sweden
* 0.4 mg per ml- Lithuania
* 0.5 mg per ml- Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (Germany is 0.3 if you’re in an accident), Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Cyprus (North)
* 0.8 mg per ml– UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland
* 0.9 mg per ml- Cyprus (South)


Can't Malta make up it's mind?
#24
I dont know about how car insurance works as never had a car, but growing up I saw various(small) accidents each time by a woman and each time the woman trying to flutter her eyelashes and get the man to take the blame despite it being her fault so I would say that accounts for at least a very small percentage of why men are higher risk.

That and the teenage boy racers who have girls in the back seat(I have seen girl racers too)

But a lot of it comes down to the way men and women see the world, male drivers seem to be that little more agressive whereas women drivers seem to be less concious of things around them,

But this is all opinon.
3 Likes #25
Absolutely fantastic ruling - can't quite understand why some think it isn't.

Statistically women may be less likely to crash their car, which results in men having high premiums, it's still a sexist and unfair way of assessing the risk and cost.

It should be purely risk assessed based on a persons driving history.

Year 1, a flat, fair and unilateral premium is charged to every driver. Dependant on the car in which they wish to insure.

Year 2, the driver has demonstrated that they are less likely to claim, premium goes down.

Year 3.. Year 4... And so forth.

Unfortunately, what was happening - male premiums were higher across the board, regardless of driving history.. Which was unfair and sexist.

Lets face it, insurance companies aren't exactly the most honest bunch.

Edited By: spritey on Mar 05, 2011 14:11
#26
spritey
Absolutely fantastic ruling - can't quite understand why some think it isn't.Statistically women may be less likely to crash their car, which results in men having high premiums, it's still a sexist and unfair way of assessing the risk and cost.It should be purely risk assessed based on a persons driving history.Year 1, a flat, fair and unilateral premium is charged to every driver.Year 2, the driver has demonstrated that they are less likely to claim, premium goes down.Year 3.. Year 4... And so forth.Unfortunately, what was happening - male premiums were higher across the board, regardless of driving history.. Which was unfair and sexist.Lets face it, insurance companies aren't exactly the most honest bunch.

How can it be sexist? young men have more accidents than young women and are therefore a higher risk to insure, so pay more, it's perfectly logical.
3 Likes #27
Randa1
How can it be sexist? young men have more accidents than young women and are therefore a higher risk to insure, so pay more, it's perfectly logical.


You completely missed the point

Statistically, women are less likely to claim on their insurance than men.. True.. This is a great way to initially judge the risk of a male or female, who has no history of car insurance.

You then take a man and a women, both with 5 years driving history without incident.. The women will receive a lower premium than the man, so the assessed risk of the individual is being unfairly judged in favour of the women.. Which is sexist.


Edited By: spritey on Mar 05, 2011 14:18
1 Like #28
Randa1
How can it be sexist? young men have more accidents than young women and are therefore a higher risk to insure, so pay more, it's perfectly logical.


What he is saying is why tar everyone with the same brush? Just because some men are speed freaks why should ALL men be punished for it? Are all women in Essex slágs? Are all family in Norfolk incestuous? Do all Welsh people have relations with sheep?

Start everyone at a base rate and then insure them based on their own individual records. If the man crashes a lot and the woman doesn't, then that will be reflected in their premiums.


Edited By: peodude on Mar 05, 2011 14:18
1 Like #29
^ Exactly what peodude said.

It would of been ok if insurance companies only judged a mans risk in the first 1-2 years based on their likelihood to crash a car over a female. Unfortunately, they didn't.

Women would receive cheaper premiums regardless of driving history, rather than somebodies individual driving history being the main factor.

Gender statistics become somewhat irrelevant once an somebody has a couple of years driving under their belt. It was unfairly penalizing men.

Edited By: spritey on Mar 05, 2011 14:25
banned#30
spritey wins the thread.
#31
bykergrove
spritey wins the thread.

Never knew it was a competition
banned#32
spritey
Gender statistics become somewhat irrelevant once an somebody has a couple of years driving under their belt. It was unfairly penalizing men.


It isn''t though is it.

Men will still continue to drive more aggressively and women less so. Whilst you could argue, that doesn't necessarily equate to more accidents, I'm guessing their own statistics back that up. I don't suppose you have all the figures to back up your beliefs?

To be honest, I'm surprised that anyone would ever think Insurance companies give better premiums for any other reason than the risks are less. Though to be honest, I do think any women wearing a Burkha for example should obviously pay a higher premium on account of the impaired vision that would occur. I expect some will disagree with that thought, but I know when I drive, my head is constantly moving from side to side to view all around and anything covering my eyes would be an enormous hinderence.

Whats even more laughable is the fact some believe that premiums for males will go down. I doubt they will, or if they do, it will be marginal. There will be no midway point equilibrium. All that will happen is less womens on da road to take us geezers to the pub. Not cool.
#33
guv
spritey
Gender statistics become somewhat irrelevant once an somebody has a couple of years driving under their belt. It was unfairly penalizing men.
It isn''t though is it.Men will still continue to drive more aggressively and women less so. Whilst you could argue, that doesn't necessarily equate to more accidents, I'm guessing their own statistics back that up. I don't suppose you have all the figures to back up your beliefs?To be honest, I'm surprised that anyone would ever think Insurance companies give better premiums for any other reason than the risks are less. Though to be honest, I do think any women wearing a Burkha for example should obviously pay a higher premium on account of the impaired vision that would occur. I expect some will disagree with that thought, but I know when I drive, my head is constantly moving from side to side to view all around and anything covering my eyes would be an enormous hinderence.Whats even more laughable is the fact some believe that premiums for males will go down. I doubt they will, or if they do, it will be marginal. There will be no midway point equilibrium. All that will happen is less womens on da road to take us geezers to the pub. Not cool.

Men definitely take more risks than woman, must be a testosterone thing. Not meaning to sound in any way racist but I think driving in a burkha should be illegal
banned#34
callum84
Men definitely take more risks than woman, must be a testosterone thing. Not meaning to sound in any way racist but I think driving in a burkha should be illegal

Its 100% true and my missus annoys the crap out of me for being overly cautious when I'm in the passenger seat. I'm always being told to stop being a back seat driver when challenging "what was wrong with pulling out then"..... Of course the answer was nothing, but maybe one time, that little risk will come unstock and she'll be still sitting at the junction saying "I told you so".

And of course Burkas should be banned behind the wheel. Only a racist would claim everyone else's safety was less important. If they want to wear one, don't drive.
#35
guv

Whats even more laughable is the fact some believe that premiums for males will go down. I doubt they will, or if they do, it will be marginal. There will be no midway point equilibrium. All that will happen is less womens on da road to take us geezers to the pub. Not cool.


You will prob see mens premiums down by 10% Womens up by 20%

The ruling is correct, the remainder is foolish.
Insurance premiums for cars should be more tightly regulated, with more enforced guidelines.
Insuring each individual on their own merits whilst of course taking experience/time driving into account.

I am not a poor driver, nor a boy racer, nor do i drive taking a lot of risks. Ive seen more than my fair share of accidents to put me off doing that, so why should i be paying the excess to support those who think that the road is a playground.

What about "Girl Racers" lord knows i see enough of them around here with their "100% B***h" stickers in their back window driving recklessly.... I would put my house on their insurance being cheaper than mine!
banned#36
Jetpac
You will prob see mens premiums down by 10% Womens up by 20%

So womens insurance will still be cheaper!

Insurance premiums for cars should be more tightly regulated, with more enforced guidelines. Insuring each individual on their own merits whilst of course taking experience/time driving into account. I am not a poor driver, nor a boy racer, nor do i drive taking a lot of risks. Ive seen more than my fair share of accidents to put me off doing that, so why should i be paying the excess to support those who think that the road is a playground.

You may well be a "women driver" (and I dont say that in a patronising way - honest!), but statistically far too many men do drive agressively and unfortunately apart from a no claims bonus to ease your burdon and lower your premium, I'm unsure exactly what you are actually wanting in terms of experience and "own merits". Premiums are lowered for good drivers who dont have accidents. How can they make a personalised premium? Watch you drive? (Which would be pointless because once you are out of view, who knows what you do!)

What about "Girl Racers" lord knows i see enough of them around here with their "100% B***h" stickers in their back window driving recklessly.... I would put my house on their insurance being cheaper than mine!

Sorry.... I have never in my life seen a girl racer. Thats not saying Ive not seen bad women drivers and cussed "bet thats a women" when I've been held up and alike. I just genuinely feel this PC has overstepped the mark on this subject.
#37
thing is insurence is a thing you HAVE to have if you drive so the government have more control over it
life insureance is all private insurance

and also if a woman wins the same as a man at wimbledon and yet she plays for less time and the match doesnt get as many supporters, why should she have to pay the same amount of car insureance.
#38
guv
It isn''t though is it.


But it is...

In order to evaluate risk, they'll use various types of statistical data.. Analysing the accident rate of men opposed to women allows them to see who claims more frequently, therefore adjusting the premium to account for this. The issue being, it's a rather broad statistic. Furthermore, it's a ridicules one to use in the first place.

Black men don't live as long as white men, should black men receive better rates on pensions because they represent less of a financial burden to an insurer? No..

Should women receive higher premiums when under a provisional license, as they typically take longer to pass their test than men and have a higher failure rate, so represent more of a risk to the insurer? No..

There are some things that should not be considered in terms of assessing risk by insurers, as they are not representative of "fairness"..

The point isn't so much that the statistics don't back what insurers have done - it's more than their are far more fair and accurate ways to measure risk. Such as the type of car, age of the driver and time in which they have been driving without incident. Which are perfectly adequate for an insurer to be able to determine cost.

Male drivers in the U.K far far... far... outweigh female drivers, they also drive longer distances on average.. It's no surprise that insurers would want to keep male premiums higher, exploiting the already matured demographic.. Then keep women's insurance down, in order to exploit and encourage of growth of that demographic.

I'll quote

Leanda Barrington-Leach, spokeswoman for the Brussels-based European Women’s Lobby, who says the issue is about what criteria to use to set premiums. "A black man may typically have a shorter life expectancy than a white man, but you could not use race as a factor to set his premium," she says. "There are other factors that can and should be taken into account."


aurianne Krid, policy manager at FIA, which represents motoring clubs around the world, makes a similar argument to support Tuesday’s ruling. "Women are safer drivers statistically, but they should pay according to their real risk, which can be calculated objectively," she says. "We want insurance to be based on criteria like type of vehicle, the age of the driver, how much you drive during the year, and how many accidents you have had."


Edited By: spritey on Mar 05, 2011 17:06: .
banned#39
spritey
guv
It isn''t though is it.
But it is...In order to evaluate risk, they'll use various types of statistical data.. Analysing the accident rate of men opposed to women allows them to see who claims more frequently, therefore adjusting the premium to account for this. The issue being, it's a rather broad statistic. Furthermore, it's a ridicules one to use in the first place.Insurers should use statistics are more accurately measure risk.. Such as the type of car, age of the driver and time in which they have been driving without incident.Black men don't live as long as white men, should black men receive better rates on pensions because they represent less of a financial burden to an insurer? No..Should women receive higher premiums when under a provisional license, as they typically take longer to pass their test than men and have a higher failure rate, so represent more of a risk to the insurer? No..There are some things that should not be considered in terms of assessing risk by insurers, as they are not representative of "fairness"..I'll quote
Leanda Barrington-Leach, spokeswoman for the Brussels-based European Women’s Lobby, who says the issue is about what criteria to use to set premiums. "A black man may typically have a shorter life expectancy than a white man, but you could not use race as a factor to set his premium," she says. "There are other factors that can and should be taken into account."
aurianne Krid, policy manager at FIA, which represents motoring clubs around the world, makes a similar argument to support Tuesday’s ruling. "Women are safer drivers statistically, but they should pay according to their real risk, which can be calculated objectively," she says. "We want insurance to be based on criteria like type of vehicle, the age of the driver, how much you drive during the year, and how many accidents you have had."

Premiums are based on Car type and performance, age and experience of driver, number of accidents. Its all based on risk. A young inexperience driver in a performance car will pay more than an older driver in a slow car who drives less miles per anum. Can't believe you'd put forward and argument to effectively suggest that wasnt the case!

I know when I swapped over when I bought my new car, my premium went up. Was I more risk? Not really, but certainly the cost to repair / replace had risen significantly. Its all part and parcel of the equation.

That said, don't think I think that insurance companies are fair and trustworthy. They are not. However on this issue I think they dont have it wrong and thing the EU has made a major booboo and opened a huge can of worms in the process. Male drivers wont benefit to anythink like what expected... women drivers will lose. I'm sure well see if I'm wrong and the premiums will end up in the midway point as they are now. I bet they wont.
#40
guv
Premiums are based on Car type and performance, age and experience of driver, number of accidents. Its all based on risk. A young inexperience driver in a performance car will pay more than an older driver in a slow car who drives less miles per anum. Can't believe you'd put forward and argument to effectively suggest that wasnt the case!

I know when I swapped over when I bought my new car, my premium went up. Was I more risk? Not really, but certainly the cost to repair / replace had risen significantly. Its all part and parcel of the equation.

That said, don't think I think that insurance companies are fair and trustworthy. They are not. However on this issue I think they dont have it wrong and thing the EU has made a major booboo and opened a huge can of worms in the process. Male drivers wont benefit to anythink like what expected... women drivers will lose. I'm sure well see if I'm wrong and the premiums will end up in the midway point as they are now. I bet they wont.


No, once against you misunderstand what is being said.

There are perfectly adequate ways to judge risk, they do not need to further discriminate based on sex.. Which was the entire reason why the EU ruling went against the insurance companies, they were unable to justify it.

I don't care whether male drivers don't benefit (although most estimate that male drivers will see a 10% reduction), i care that the system in place is fair.

Statistically guv, you're a bit dim. Would it be fair to set your premium based on that. Or on accurate, measurable and less broad areas.

Edited By: spritey on Mar 05, 2011 17:36

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!