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

jrawle

SueC wrote: »

Top tip, albeit it a little too late... had all those people who have allegedly distorted the statistics by putting the policy in the man's name put them in the female name instead - they'd have got cheaper premiums.

Another one of life's golden missed opportunities!

But that would be illegal "fronting". If the man is the main driver of the car, but the woman uses it occasionally and then has an accident, the situation derglyn describes then arises.

Who knows how old the statistics the insurance comapnies use are, or how they are calculated? Do they take into account who was driving? Do they go so far back that they are from a time when most "main" drivers were men and women tended to stay at home and drive only occasionally?

Googlewhacker

SueC wrote: »

I really don't get it. Gender and age are clearly issues that need to be taken into account in lots of situations, and it should be perfectly acceptable to do so without accusations of discrimination.

Women over the age of 50 are automatically referred for a mamogram. Is this sexist AND ageist? Or simply prudent because statistically they are at higher risk of breast cancer?

Let's play hypotheticals for a moment...

On the basis of yesterday's ruling, the European Court would presumably decide the above situation is indeed discriminatory (please god, don't let anyone ever bring that case). In the absense of funding and resource availability to screen every single person of every single age and gender, screening would presumably be withdrawn altogether in order to ensure absolute equality of treatment.

And that's progress?

So on your basis you would be happy for women to be discriminated against at work? Statistically they are more likely to have time of for pregnancy!

Nohney

This potentially is opening a can of worms! If it is on basis that one man should not be penalised for another man's bad driving. I ask should one young guy be penalised for another young guys reckless driving would you say this was ageist?? There are good and bad in all ages and sexes in my humble opinion!:)

Blonde_equestrienne

charliegeorge2004 wrote: »

I currently work for a UK insurer and quite simply if this becomes law all insurers will increase rates to the higher risk levels. However, going forward occupation will have a bigger impact on rating information - eg majority of primary school teachers are female and this means statistically they will be better drivers. Sorry guys women are safer drivers on the whole. Whilst this means increased premiums the insurance industry doesn't really want it as the admin is a huge headache and cost.

Which is not fair for women like me who work in male-dominated professions (I'm an actuary!)

Gorgeous_George

On Radio 2 yesterday Martin said that women live longer than men and that this is a biological fact. I'm not sure.

(Generally speaking) men may drink more, work in worse conditions and wear their bodies out more quickly than women. Maybe smaller people live longer because their hearts don't work so hard pumping the blood around - maybe women are generally smaller. Equal rights in the workplace may mean that the mortality rates will become much more aligned in the future.

GG

pjfromuk

I have two kids, both recently passed their test and to my mind both are responsible drivers. Therefore why does it cost more to insure my son? As previously questioned, should he be penalised because some other young males crash a lot? So if we have to stop sex discrimination, perhaps we need to stop age discrimination too?

All that said, shouldn't the Government simply tell the European Courts to mind their own business, and let the UK govern the UK without interference?

Gorgeous_George

I'd prefer an option where the insurance is cheaper for youngsters but with a huge excess (£5K?) payable upfront. No accidents and the £5K can be returned - a bit like paying a deposit when you rent a house.

GG

pensionsexpert

I wonder if the difference between men and women in the poll so far would be the same if all forms of insurance were considered. Male pension annuities about to get more expensive, it's all about cars so far but we haven't even begun yet people.....

SueC_2

Googlewhacker wrote: »

So on your basis you would be happy for women to be discriminated against at work? Statistically they are more likely to have time of for pregnancy!

SueC wrote: »

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.......

I think I already answered your question.

Googlewhacker

SueC wrote: »

I think I already answered your question.

Yes you have, amazed but fair play for the honesty.