Is it fair to discriminate on age, gender or race in insurance pricing?

Toptips

madmish00 wrote: »

The ruling is utterly ridiculous and a completely heavy handed approach to political correctness. At the end of the day insurance is about risk and nothing else. The factors that are 'discriminatory' are the factors that affect risk.

Car Insurance - More young male drivers are involved in accidents.
Life Insurance - Women on average live longer than men so are less of a risk
Pension Annuities - On the reverse because they live longer than men the pension pot needs to last longer so annuities are lower.
Health Insurance - People with pre-existing medical problems are more likely to make a claim. Some conditions are more prevalent in certain populations.

I struggle to see how sexuality is linked to risk and do not understand the earlier comment referencing drink and drug use in respect of this factor.

However, to say that none of these factors can be taken into consideration leaves very little on which to judge the risk of offering that insurance increasing the cost to everyone with the only benefit being reaped by the insurance companies.

That said - other than car insurance which is compulsory - the other concern is that when prices go up less people will take out other forms of insurance because they will no longer feel it is worth it. The knock on effect of that remains to be seen!

I do 50k miles a year; because of daft speed cameras, points are inevitable if you do a lot of miles, I reached 9 points (all on the motorway & all before 6am with nothing on the road). My premiums are 2x what they would be without the points even though I've never driven dangerously or had an accident. I was thinking of having a sex change to reduce the premiums, but fortunately I don't need to now.

madmish00

I do 50k miles a year; because of daft speed cameras, points are inevitable if you do a lot of miles, I reached 9 points (all on the motorway & all before 6am with nothing on the road). My premiums are 2x what they would be without the points even though I've never driven dangerously or had an accident. I was thinking of having a sex change to reduce the premiums, but fortunately I don't need to now.

I do 40k a year myself and I have no points. So as a woman with a clean licence I am now going to have to subsidise you getting to work quicker. The issue of 'daft' speed cameras is another topic altogether that I also have very strong views on (having helped several people challenge unfair tickets) but I don't think they are particularly relevant to this topic

The fact is that it is your points that are increasing your premium and that will not change as a result of this ruling

killick_becki

Clearly the European Union is barmy. The risk factors are based on statistical analysis. If gender or age or any other factor was not significant when it came to assessing risk then it would not be included.

I've ticked all the boxes, as if any of them are significant then they should be able to be used in premium calculations.

What I do find disgraceful is that we have gender discrimination laws and age discrimination laws but the European directive only applies to gender and not age. Presumably because there would have been even more of an uproar if the insurance companies had to charge under 25 drivers the same as over 25 drivers.

The sooner we more to black boxes in cars for all drivers the better. Problem being that the technology isn't quite there yet, i.e. it can't distinguish between different drivers and is too sensitive to isolated incidences.

Gordon_the_Moron

If the insurer can prove there is an increase/decrease in risk its not discrimination in my opinion. They should be able to price according to risk!

art_for_arts_sake

Sand_castle wrote: »

I always thought that car insurance was based on risk but having recently been made redundant the cost of my insurance was increased by over 25%.

This is despite the fact that I have over 15 years of no claims, do not drive any differently now that I am unemployed and I will no longer be driving 30 miles a day in rush hour!

Let's face it, the insurance companies will make any excuse to raise premiums and make more money for their shareholders.

savvy06 wrote: »

Me too driving for 28 years without a claim, but being "unemployed" after redundancy,meaning I drive my car less has increased the cost! How can that be fair or even logical.

Unfortunately what you declare on your insurance proposal will have a significant effect on your premium. Housewives (or even househusbands) don't suffer the same loading on their premiums. I'm not suggesting people make an incorrect declaration but by penalising the unemployed insurance companies are throwing themselves open to accusations of discrimination.

maddad70

I agree its up to insurance business to assess risk and price premiums accordingly. I am surprised that it has been found that any one group can be seen as discriminated against and not another. Does it just mean that the legislature has not got around to deciding that some other group is being discriminating against or is the evidence not good enough? For example, in this poll "religion " was listed. Does the pollster have knowledge of people being discriminated against because of religion and how would this work in the insurance industry. Talking of discrimination what about this one.

On renewing my home insurance recently, one of the questions was about criminal convictions. Not having any myself I was intrigued to be asked whether anyone would be staying in my house even for a short time who had one. When I answered "yes|" the insurance was refused. I then asked if my insurance would be affected if I had a passenger in my car who had a conviction would that affect my premium. "No" apparently. Bearing in mind that there is an estimated 8 million people in this country with a conviction, is this fair or is it discrimination?

stevemcol

Definitely allow insurers to price according to risk.

minicooper272

bitemebankers wrote: »

Age is okay but experience would be better (this is what the insurance companies actually use).

The 421 people who clicked "Race" or "Sexuality" should be hunted down and kicked out of the country. You are not fit to live in a civilised society.

Personally I think 'race' is a bad way to phrase it, better to say whether they learned to drive here or abroad. If they learned to drive abroad and don't have experience of British road systems, then 15 years of experience can completely go out the window. I've heard of plenty of drivers who forgot they were supposed to drive on the left. But I do agree, sexuality doesn't have much influence.

minicooper272

Toptips wrote: »

I do 50k miles a year; because of daft speed cameras, points are inevitable if you do a lot of miles, I reached 9 points (all on the motorway & all before 6am with nothing on the road). My premiums are 2x what they would be without the points even though I've never driven dangerously or had an accident. I was thinking of having a sex change to reduce the premiums, but fortunately I don't need to now.

Never driven dangerously? It's dangerous to speed, it also shows you are more likely to take risks when driving (like racing through traffic lights as they turn red). Having 9 points for speeding shows you are a dangerous driver, and your premiums have been raised accordingly.

stevemcol

minicooper272 wrote: »

But I do agree, sexuality doesn't have much influence.

It doesn't matter whether 'we' think a particular group presnets a higher risk or not. It's the stats that the insurers compile that should influence policies.