Should Insurance Be Sexless - Martin's Blog & Site Vote

jrawle

People are justifying the differing premiums for men and women on the grounds of statistics: women are statistically less likely to claim, so pay lower premiums. "It's based on stats not prejudice," they say, "so it's OK to discriminate."

However, women are statistically far more likely to have time off work when they have children, and so cost their employer much more in lost productivity, maternity cover, etc. This isn't prejudice, it's fact. Does this mean the employer is entitled to pay all women less? No it doesn't, and quite rightly so. We have, as a society, decided that such discrimination is unacceptable; the fact that it is based on sound statistics makes no difference. The same principle should apply to car insurance.

I think part of the problem is that so many people are set in their ways of thinking. They are used to the fact that women pay less for insurance, so think that's the right way to go about things. Yet gender is only such a big factor in determining premiums because that's how insurance companies (almost arbitrarily) decide to divide people up. They could differentiate people into risk groups just as well using other factors, which might actually be fairer than tarring all male drivers with the same brush.

I also wonder whether the number of males voting against equal premiums in the poll is because they presently get their partner to "front" their insurance...

Anyway, I feel car insurance is just an example of "rip off Britain". I have been discussing it with colleagues from various other countries, and in many, insurance for individual drivers is almost unheard of. Usually you have to insure each car; who drives it is irrelevant. The main reason insurers like the present UK system is that it enables them to fleece people!

peterbaker

The question posed by this thread is actually a no-brainer. It is illegal to discriminate on gender and using gender as a proxy for assessing motoring risk is lazy. As has been discussed already in this thread, there are far more direct ways but quite simply insurers have got far too used to massaging their books of business in traditional (now long-outdated ways).

And to the poster who works for an insurance company who said:

and quite simply if this becomes law all insurers will increase rates to the higher risk levels.

I look forward to reading about the sex discrimination case that will surely follow that if insurers think they can continue to be so lazy.

SueC_2

jrawle wrote: »

However, women are statistically far more likely to have time off work when they have children, and so cost their employer much more in lost productivity, maternity cover, etc. This isn't prejudice, it's fact. Does this mean the employer is entitled to pay all women less? No it doesn't, and quite rightly so.

For what it's worth, I disagree. I think the employer SHOULD be able to pay the woman less. But as many people are saying about insurance, it should be based on individual performance, not gross generalistions.

You want to be treated equal? Fair enough, then act equal.

Women - don't take time off work to have children, and you'll be treated the same as your male colleagues.

Men - don't let your testosterone interfere with your driving ability, and you'll be treated the same as female drivers.

And as I sow the wind, let me reap the whirlwind.......

antonia1

jrawle wrote: »

People are justifying the differing premiums for men and women on the grounds of statistics: women are statistically less likely to claim, so pay lower premiums. "It's based on stats not prejudice," they say, "so it's OK to discriminate."

However, women are statistically far more likely to have time off work when they have children, and so cost their employer much more in lost productivity, maternity cover, etc. This isn't prejudice, it's fact. Does this mean the employer is entitled to pay all women less? No it doesn't, and quite rightly so. We have, as a society, decided that such discrimination is unacceptable; the fact that it is based on sound statistics makes no difference. The same principle should apply to car insurance.
...

Anyway, I feel car insurance is just an example of "rip off Britain". I have been discussing it with colleagues from various other countries, and in many, insurance for individual drivers is almost unheard of. Usually you have to insure each car; who drives it is irrelevant. The main reason insurers like the present UK system is that it enables them to fleece people!

So where do you draw the line on discrimination? Insurance companies use lots more than just gender to determine insurance prices. Should be not allow them to use age? Profession? Postcode? Type of car? What should it be based on? Or should we just all pay the exact same premium? The system you suggest where the car is insured takes absolutely no consideration that a person with 10 years of driving with zero claims would pay the same as someone who has been driving for 1 year and had 10 claims.

I actually also agree that there is a problem with maternity (and paternity) pay. Why should companies have to cover the salary of someone who isn't working through their own choice?

There is a massive difference between prejudice and discrimination. If I were in a wheelchair I wouldn't be allowed to serve in the fire brigade. That would be discrimination, but because it is based on real facts (ie its much harder to rescue someone from a burning building if you are in a wheelchair) rather than prejudice we (ie society) accept it.

jjww_2

Why should insurance companies only be able to remove one 'risk ' factor as basis of discrimination. If all insurance companies have to assess regardless of gender then surely they should have to assess regardless of postcode,vehicle type, miles driven. If it is unfair for men to be penalised for being male why is it then fair for me to be penalised for driving a high powered vehicle and doing double the national average miles a year.

Surely the key word here is statistically and these statistics should as they presently are be based on a number of factors including gender but should be collated by an independant body and published yearly and official figures should be used by all insurance companies.

I am fully willing to accept that as a woman I am going to pay more for personal pension than my husband, as it is based on statistically assessed risk factors. Without a representative from an insurance company sitting in the car with you every day to assess your driving abilities and assessing every car park you park in and every street you drive down surely risk has to be based on broader factors which does include gender, age etc.

A lot of people have commented that insurance premiums should not be based on gender as there would be outcry if it was found they based insurance premiums on race. Racial profiling within the insurance industry does exist why do you think it ask which country you were born in and where you have lived? Lets remember the definition of race is: A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution, therefore is it fair to expect a foreign national who has not driven in the uk before to pay the same as someone who has driven in the uk for the same number of years the foreign national has been driving in another country? Im pretty sure the insurance company would not ask the question if it was not in someway either positvely or negatively going to affect the insurance premium and percieved risk factor.

jrawle

jjww wrote: »

If it is unfair for men to be penalised for being male why is it then fair for me to be penalised for driving a high powered vehicle and doing double the national average miles a year.

You can choose what car you drive. For most people, choosing a different gender is not an option! If you don't like paying so much, get a smaller car - it'll save money on fuel and be better for the environment too.

jjww wrote: »

Without a representative from an insurance company sitting in the car with you every day to assess your driving abilities and assessing every car park you park in and every street you drive down surely risk has to be based on broader factors which does include gender, age etc.

Actually, the tecnhology to do just that does exist. "insurethebox" offer not only limited mileage insurance, but also bonuses for good driving. With a bit of refinement, having such a box monitoring your driving could be the norm.

Gender is too blunt an instrument. After all, there are only two possibilities, and one currently is automatically forced to pay more than the other. It would be far better to use slightly more fine-grained criteria.

jjww wrote: »

Lets remember the definition of race is: A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution, therefore is it fair to expect a foreign national who has not driven in the uk before to pay the same as someone who has driven in the uk for the same number of years the foreign national has been driving in another country?

I think you are confusing race and nationality. What if the statistics showed that south-Asian Muslims have more accidents than white Christians. Do you think the insurance companies would get away with discriminating on those grounds? There may be questions about nationality or residency when applying for car insurance, but they certainly don't ask about race or ethnic origin.

1963jpr

i think to change the rules regarding gender could open up a whole can of worms. if insurance companies charge equally for car insurance regardless of sex then the same could be said of age.
currently younger drivers are considered higher risk than older drivers. my 20 year old son was quoted £4,000 YES £4,000 for his first years insurance for driving a car worth £500.00.
so if we are talking equal rights here, and not risk, then we could all see ourselves up the proverbial creek if age is also taken into consideration. BEWARE.:eek:

PS if we are talking risk, i also wonder why, although insurance is based on the individual, do we have to pay twice if we have a second car?? when we can only drive one at a time!

antonia1

1963jpr wrote: »

PS if we are talking risk, i also wonder why, although insurance is based on the individual, do we have to pay twice if we have a second car?? when we can only drive one at a time!

Perhaps people who drive two cars are more likely to have accidents?:rotfl:

jjww_2

jrawle wrote: »

You can choose what car you drive. For most people, choosing a different gender is not an option! If you don't like paying so much, get a smaller car - it'll save money on fuel and be better for the environment too.

I have no problem with how much my insurance premiums are and I actually pay more in insurance for my car which has a smaller engine than my husband does for his car with an even more high powered engine even though we are both on each policy, both have no points on our licences, have the same number of no claims and drive equally priced cars the only differences being age, gender and length of time we have held our driving licences. So therefore if men are being penalised because of gender I am being penalised twice because of age, I cannot help when I was born (blame my parents for that one) and I cannot help the fact that because of my age having passed my test at 17 i have only been driving 11 yrs as oppose to my husbands 18.

Actually, the tecnhology to do just that does exist. "insurethebox" offer not only limited mileage insurance, but also bonuses for good driving. With a bit of refinement, having such a box monitoring your driving could be the norm.

I agree that this type of technology could and should be more commonly put into practise.

Gender is too blunt an instrument. After all, there are only two possibilities, and one currently is automatically forced to pay more than the other. It would be far better to use slightly more fine-grained criteria.

Gender is not the only statistic being used to assess risk if it was I could fully understand the uproar but if you remove 1 statistically proven risk factor do you then remove them all and just have a standard flat fee insurance system?


I think you are confusing race and nationality. What if the statistics showed that south-Asian Muslims have more accidents than white Christians. Do you think the insurance companies would get away with discriminating on those grounds? There may be questions about nationality or residency when applying for car insurance, but they certainly don't ask about race or ethnic origin.

Race discrimination is defined as "being treated unfairly because of you race. Race includes colour, nationality, citizenship and ethnic or national origins" Therefore asking questions about nationality counts as racial discrimination to the same degree as asking questions about gender. I certainly do not agree with any form of discrimination but how can an insurance company assess risk without using statistics? unless they insist on 'insurethebox' equipment being fitted to every vehicle.

My point is if using one form of statistics is discriminating then surely using any type of statistical information is discriminating, no matter how fine tuned the statistical analysis is there will always be someone who bucks the trend.

derglyn

Having spent most of my working life driving thousandsof accident frre miles (Ave.40,000 pa) I feel reasonably qualified to voice on opinion on this matter.
As far as gender is concerned, although there may once have been a case for arguing that women drove differently to men (note differently, not necessarily better) it has become incresingly apparent that there are at least as many women driving in a dangerous inconsiderate manner as men.
As for age, the same applies, I have had to take evasive action due to at least as many stupid and dangerous manouevers by women as men of similar age groups.
Finally, please do nt jump to the conclusion that I am an "old fuddy duddy" who potters around holding up all and sundry, I still (and always have) drive fast, but safely. It is not speed itself which is dangerous, but where and when it is used. So as you will have gathered, I do not consider it fair to base premiums on gender, particularly as the statistics are distorted by the number of claims submitted in the mans name (as policyholder) although it was the female partner driving at the time.