The European Court of Justice has ruled that Insurers can no longer discriminate on grounds of gender: It is thought that age discrimination will be the next in the firing line.
This is going to impact on car insurance premiums for women, who will pay highter premiums and also the cost of pensions annuities, resulting in lower pension income for men.
Surely Insurance is based on risk factors and insurers should be able to take gender into account when assessing those risks, if one gender is proven to be a higher risk?
Being the cynic ( realist ) I am, there is no way that any premiums will be reduced as a result of this ruling.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Another bonkers ruling from Europe?
last reply
64 replies
2.9k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by Max777
Being the cynic ( realist ) I am, there is no way that any premiums will be reduced as a result of this ruling.
The insurance companies were never going to lower mens quotes to be inline with womens, even Stevie Wonder could have seen that.
But now that the European Court of Justice has made this ruling (which really grips my shit because as far as I am concerned we have an elected Parliament to set our laws for us, we are not Europeans) how long before someone campaigns about age discrimination?
If it will be made illegal for an insurance company to discriminate according to gender, then surely by the same logic, a 25 year old with 3yrs NCB should have no different quote than a 40 year old with 2yrs NCB?
You can blame it all on the TORIES, they took us into the EU and we have suffered ever since.
It used to be "buy British" "fly the Flag" now its sorry folks.
Its time we left them to it, and looked after our own little island.
Since maggie sold everything that we had to her "MATES" at knock down prices, we now produce bugger all for britain and everything for the rest rest of the world.
So as long as we remain EUROPEANS we have to abide by the rule of the EC.
It used to be "buy British" "fly the Flag" now its sorry folks.
Its time we left them to it, and looked after our own little island.
Since maggie sold everything that we had to her "MATES" at knock down prices, we now produce bugger all for britain and everything for the rest rest of the world.
So as long as we remain EUROPEANS we have to abide by the rule of the EC.
Quote by robbo-bi1
You can blame it all on the TORIES, they took us into the EU and we have suffered ever since.
It used to be "buy British" "fly the Flag" now its sorry folks.
Its time we left them to it, and looked after our own little island.
Since maggie sold everything that we had to her "MATES" at knock down prices, we now produce bugger all for britain and everything for the rest rest of the world.
So as long as we remain EUROPEANS we have to abide by the rule of the EC.
Yes, you can blame the Tories, it is a common thing for people to do, but if things were that bad, then 13yrs of Labour rule should have corrected many of those problems.
But they didn't.
Sex God
Quote by essex34m
the European Court of Justice has made this ruling (which really grips my shit because as far as I am concerned we have an elected Parliament to set our laws for us, we are not Europeans)
Except that one of our elected Parliaments signed a binding, legal treaty known as the European Communities Act that says that where European Law is concerned, the European Court of Justice has final authority?
There's no point pissing and moaning about how Europe does this, and Europe does that, cos we never voted for 'em having all these powers? We did vote for it, 'We' being both the majority elected Parliament of the day, and those who retrospectively endorsed entry into the European Union in one of the few referendums we've ever had. If you're not happy with it, UKIP will be pleased to make your acquaintance I'm sure. :PIf it will be made illegal for an insurance company to discriminate according to gender, then surely by the same logic, a 25 year old with 3yrs NCB should have no different quote than a 40 year old with 2yrs NCB?
Insurers are in my experience clever folk Essex. They've managed to wriggle out of paying full value for most of the stuff I've had robbed in me time anyways, so I dare say they'll get round this somehow, don't you worry? Perhaps with a No Claims Bonus plus Years Since Qualified plus various other sub-clauses which allow them to discriminate without being overtly discriminatory in an ageist or sexist way?
;)N x x x ;)
Surely if we can kick out giving votes to prisonors then surely we can kick out this ruling that effects our insurance and not europes?
when are we going to learn that being part of europe does not meen europe dictating to us on what seams a daily basis.
our daughter will suffer from this ruling next year. it is obvious that young men ARE more a risk than young women anyone can see that so should pay more on there insurance, it is a shame that the people who make these rulings have blinkers on.
when are we going to learn that being part of europe does not meen europe dictating to us on what seams a daily basis.
our daughter will suffer from this ruling next year. it is obvious that young men ARE more a risk than young women anyone can see that so should pay more on there insurance, it is a shame that the people who make these rulings have blinkers on.
Sex God
Women have more accidents per mile than men.....the figures are skewed by the fact that less women drive and those that do tend to cover fewer miles....women are NOT safer drivers than men
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
Surely if we can kick out giving votes to prisonors then surely we can kick out this ruling that effects our insurance and not europes?
When did we kick out votes for prisoners exactly?
I was under the impression that the European Court had noted that a blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners that goes back to the Forfeiture Act of 1870, or the 1983 Representation of the People Act if you prefer, was seemingly incompatible with Protocol 1, Article 3 of the 1950s European Convention on Human Rights, and consequently they'd asked us to have a little word with ourselves to see if we can't sort it out among ourselves before they have to get all judicial on us and wave pieces of paper wot we have signed in our faces, which we've now done?
We've not kicked anything out, yet. We've done what we were obliged to do pending further legal argument. No more, no less.
N x x x ;)
Sex God
Quote by neilinleeds
Surely if we can kick out giving votes to prisonors then surely we can kick out this ruling that effects our insurance and not europes?
When did we kick out votes for prisoners exactly?
I was under the impression that the European Court had noted that a blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners that goes back to the Forfeiture Act of 1870, or the 1983 Representation of the People Act if you prefer, was seemingly incompatible with Protocol 1, Article 3 of the 1950s European Convention on Human Rights, and consequently they'd asked us to have a little word with ourselves to see if we can't sort it out among ourselves before they have to get all judicial on us and wave pieces of paper wot we have signed in our faces, which we've now done?
We've not kicked anything out, yet. We've done what we were obliged to do pending further legal argument. No more, no less.
N x x x ;)
neil.....you have I believe committed a cardinal sin and one for which there is no excuse ....pointing out the truth about the E.U. rather than the popular fiction is to become a hanging offence within the next parliamentary sitting..(this may not be true but I think I just made a tabloid journalist cum ) ...Sources in Europe etc. etc.
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Women have more accidents per mile than men.....the figures are skewed by the fact that less women drive and those that do tend to cover fewer miles....women are NOT safer drivers than men
Do you have any official statistics to support your claim Stagger? If so, I'd be interested in seeing them.
Some interesting statistics here which might suggest otherwise, although there is no details of mileages driven.
Sex God
“MPs have voted overwhelmingly in favour of maintaining a blanket ban preventing prisoners from voting, strengthening the government's hand as it seeks to water down a ruling from the European court of human rights.
Ministers will start drawing up a compromise proposal after MPs voted by 234 to 22, a majority of 212, in favour of a cross-party motion that said parliament should decide on such an important issue.”
So not a vote ruling it out but one that says Parliament and not Strasbourg should decide
“The non-binding vote …................"Although the vote is not legally binding on the government, "
Heavily edited obviously but nevertheless.......
Ministers will start drawing up a compromise proposal after MPs voted by 234 to 22, a majority of 212, in favour of a cross-party motion that said parliament should decide on such an important issue.”
So not a vote ruling it out but one that says Parliament and not Strasbourg should decide
“The non-binding vote …................"Although the vote is not legally binding on the government, "
Heavily edited obviously but nevertheless.......
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
sorry i thought this had some meening?
It does mean something. It means that this Parliament has agreed that they are bound by the Rule of Law they espouse, and they are consequently having a debate as to how they go about doing that exactly, which is all they were ever required to do by the European Court. It's all still up for negotiation once we decide which way we're gonna jump?
Can I ask what you think it means, cos I'm not sure we're singing from the same hymn sheet?
N x x x ;)
Sex God
Quote by Max777
Women have more accidents per mile than men.....the figures are skewed by the fact that less women drive and those that do tend to cover fewer miles....women are NOT safer drivers than men
Do you have any official statistics to support your claim Stagger? If so, I'd be interested in seeing them.
Some interesting statistics here which might suggest otherwise, although there is no details of mileages driven.
To be honest Max no I haven't....I may have made the mistake of believing something I read in the paper
.....I'll look into itIn edit...
There are many other reports of the same study
...I include this for a little light relief
It would seem there is some evidence to support the idea that women have more crashes per mile driven than men.....thank you 'The Metro' ...I shall in future be reading only the free papers
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Women have more accidents per mile than men.....the figures are skewed by the fact that less women drive and those that do tend to cover fewer miles....women are NOT safer drivers than men
Do you have any official statistics to support your claim Stagger? If so, I'd be interested in seeing them.
Some interesting statistics here which might suggest otherwise, although there is no details of mileages driven.
To be honest Max no I haven't....I may have made the mistake of believing something I read in the paper
.....I'll look into itIn edit...
There are many other reports of the same study
...I include this for a little light relief
It would seem there is some evidence to support the idea that women have more crashes per mile driven than men.....thank you 'The Metro' ...I shall in future be reading only the free papers
I had seen that link, the "report" is copied ad infinitum on other internet sites. Would be interesting to see the original report, even though it is based on US statistics.
This is the link to the abstract of the original published article.
Interestingly similar studies are available showing that older drivers are more dangerous than younger.
Thats statistics for ya eh.
The reason insurance companies differentiate (or pre-judge if you prefer) by gender and age for car insurance is because it is a cheap and effective way to identify higher risks. That doesn't make it right because the risk has nothing to do with gender or age and everything to do with driving behaviours such as number of miles and time of day. So I am wholly in favour of a less broad brush approach to risk assesment for car insurance. It will be interesting to see how the insurers take the real factors into account in future. They may well decide that its less costly not to bother or ask for assurances regarding annual mileage and time of use. There have already been cheaper insurance deals for instance for young people prepared to avoid driving after 10pm, regulated using an in car box of tricks. I can foresee a major shake up that will ultimately lead to a fairer distribution of what after all is simply a shared cost that only exists because our society is over reliant on personal transport.
I am pretty sure that the mortality and morbidity risks used for life health and pensions are based on more robust data. Changing that aspect seems a bit bonkers to me.
Interestingly similar studies are available showing that older drivers are more dangerous than younger.
Thats statistics for ya eh.
The reason insurance companies differentiate (or pre-judge if you prefer) by gender and age for car insurance is because it is a cheap and effective way to identify higher risks. That doesn't make it right because the risk has nothing to do with gender or age and everything to do with driving behaviours such as number of miles and time of day. So I am wholly in favour of a less broad brush approach to risk assesment for car insurance. It will be interesting to see how the insurers take the real factors into account in future. They may well decide that its less costly not to bother or ask for assurances regarding annual mileage and time of use. There have already been cheaper insurance deals for instance for young people prepared to avoid driving after 10pm, regulated using an in car box of tricks. I can foresee a major shake up that will ultimately lead to a fairer distribution of what after all is simply a shared cost that only exists because our society is over reliant on personal transport.
I am pretty sure that the mortality and morbidity risks used for life health and pensions are based on more robust data. Changing that aspect seems a bit bonkers to me.
I blame the Torries for taking us in though at the time it was a good idea.
I blame the Labour party and the Tory party for keeping us in.
I blame the Labour party and the Tory party for allowing the EU to increase our financial input to the EU more than other equally sized or larger population Countries.
I also blame them for allowing the EU to impose all that they do without fighting our case, Margaret Thatcher (not everything she did was bad) didn't stand for it and when she was in power Europe listened and for the most part made the correct concessions.
That said I agree with this in part, if we allow blanket discount on gender it is wrong, based on the number of miles driven by men and by women and based on the number of insured men and insured women it has been proven that the accident figures are not actually disimilar.
Age on the other hand has a very large bearing on the number of accidents by both men and women, experience does make a difference.
I blame the Labour party and the Tory party for keeping us in.
I blame the Labour party and the Tory party for allowing the EU to increase our financial input to the EU more than other equally sized or larger population Countries.
I also blame them for allowing the EU to impose all that they do without fighting our case, Margaret Thatcher (not everything she did was bad) didn't stand for it and when she was in power Europe listened and for the most part made the correct concessions.
That said I agree with this in part, if we allow blanket discount on gender it is wrong, based on the number of miles driven by men and by women and based on the number of insured men and insured women it has been proven that the accident figures are not actually disimilar.
Age on the other hand has a very large bearing on the number of accidents by both men and women, experience does make a difference.
Sex God
Equal rights for all I say, sounds like a great idea to me 
Quote by Bluefish2009
Equal rights for all I say, sounds like a great idea to me
it does indeed bluefish but what is going to hapen to all that extra money those insuranse companies are going to make in extra premium money?
that surely will come into billions of pounds,will the rest of us get a discount on our car insuranse next year?
I guess that we will get nothing extra at all, poor insuranse companies
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
I blame the Labour party and the Tory party for allowing the EU to increase our financial input to the EU more than other equally sized or larger population Countries.
Just not true,see.....
here....
here...
and here...
Quote by MidsCouple24
I also blame them for allowing the EU to impose all that they do without fighting our case, Margaret Thatcher (not everything she did was bad) didn't stand for it and when she was in power Europe listened and for the most part made the correct concessions.
It was Mrs Thatcher who negotiated the much criticised Maastricht treaty on our behalf and her poodle John who signed it.
There are myths ,fudges and outright lies printed about both Mrs T. and europe 't believe the hype,as I believe Chuck D once said
Quote by Ben_welshminx
This is the link to the abstract of the original published article.
Interestingly similar studies are available showing that older drivers are more dangerous than younger.
Thats statistics for ya eh.
The reason insurance companies differentiate (or pre-judge if you prefer) by gender and age for car insurance is because it is a cheap and effective way to identify higher risks. That doesn't make it right because the risk has nothing to do with gender or age and everything to do with driving behaviours such as number of miles and time of day. So I am wholly in favour of a less broad brush approach to risk assesment for car insurance. It will be interesting to see how the insurers take the real factors into account in future. They may well decide that its less costly not to bother or ask for assurances regarding annual mileage and time of use. There have already been cheaper insurance deals for instance for young people prepared to avoid driving after 10pm, regulated using an in car box of tricks. I can foresee a major shake up that will ultimately lead to a fairer distribution of what after all is simply a shared cost that only exists because our society is over reliant on personal transport.
I am pretty sure that the mortality and morbidity risks used for life health and pensions are based on more robust data. Changing that aspect seems a bit bonkers to me.
So the data used was US based and from 20 years ago? The link that I posted was data from 2009 and related to the UK, maybe just a little more relevant. The following quote can be found in section 1.3
"Young male drivers are more than twice as likely to be involved in a KSI crash as young female drivers"
IMO this means that BOTH gender and age have a bearing upon the risk factor. I'm also sure that young women drive just as much a young men these days and at similar hours.
Sex God
No need for Actuaries anymore then?
For fear of polarising the world insurance companies will be unable to insure according to risk? This goes against the very basis of how insurance came to be - civilised bookmakers. If we carry on down this line then bookmakers will not be able to create odds on any kind of human competion as it would appear to represent discrimination of one sort or another.
This has to be the most ridiculous bit of meddling by an unelwcted body that I have ever seen and flies in the face of good practise in any business albeit particularly insurance/bookmaking - assess risk and prepare for it.
For fear of polarising the world insurance companies will be unable to insure according to risk? This goes against the very basis of how insurance came to be - civilised bookmakers. If we carry on down this line then bookmakers will not be able to create odds on any kind of human competion as it would appear to represent discrimination of one sort or another.
This has to be the most ridiculous bit of meddling by an unelwcted body that I have ever seen and flies in the face of good practise in any business albeit particularly insurance/bookmaking - assess risk and prepare for it.
Sex God
So there are no other ways of assessing risk available ? sex is the only yardstick ? or just the easiest
Sex God
Quote by flower411
So there are no other ways of assessing risk available ? sex is the only yardstick ? or just the easiest
There`s loads of other criteria !!!!
What does being easy have to do with it ?? Of course anybody assessing risk and putting money on line is going to look at things in the most simplistic way possible !!! Why the hell shouldn`t they ?
Because it's unfair?? .....just throwing it out there you know,I thought possibly that fairness might be a factor, so thought I'd suggest it if that's ok
Sex God
Quote by flower411
Women have more accidents per mile than men.....the figures are skewed by the fact that less women drive and those that do tend to cover fewer miles....women are NOT safer drivers than men
I`ve just read this again ..... it doesn`t matter that women have more accidents per mile than men (even if that`s true) it still means that men are a higher risk for insurance purposes.
I`m failing to see your point ....except for the later one of "unfairness"
That`s why insurance companies take lots of stuff into account ....not just gender.
It suggested to me that the sex of a driver is a poor measure of the risk they pose.... a high mileage woman driver is by these criteria a far higher insurance risk than a low mileage male driver,but would using current rules (probably) be paying a lower premium....so as I say using sex as (and it does often seem to be the case)the deciding factor in risk assessment is unfair....and apparently woefully inadequate
Sex God
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
So there are no other ways of assessing risk available ? sex is the only yardstick ? or just the easiest
25 times as many men get convicted of dangerous driving than women. In the under 25 category male drivers are 10 times more likely to have a reported accident. This is according to an Actuary interviewed on 5 Live.
In terms of assessing risk - how else could that be broken down to make it non sexist?
This opens the door for discrimination cases on many grounds including age and could mean that a 17 year old male new driver will have the same insurance quote as a 55 year old male who has been driving for nearly forty years. It could also mean that insurance companies would not be able to vary life insurance quotes on the grounds of age or sex which is plain stupid.
Seems like an appropriate time to use the old scuary joke.
What is two plus two.
The man in the street says 4.
The accountant says 3.
The actuary says "what do you want it to be".
The point is that such headline figures do not reflect the underlying reasons which often have little to do with gender. For example I could state that 99% of troops killed on active service are male. And then charge women less for life assurance on active service. Equally ridiculous and wrong if you think about it.
What is two plus two.
The man in the street says 4.
The accountant says 3.
The actuary says "what do you want it to be".
The point is that such headline figures do not reflect the underlying reasons which often have little to do with gender. For example I could state that 99% of troops killed on active service are male. And then charge women less for life assurance on active service. Equally ridiculous and wrong if you think about it.
