Women's insurance discounts - sex discrimination ?

[Hetzkes Ballet Teacher]

Originally Posted by spitfire

The categorisation of women is in fact discrimation. If they were categorised for something which was a disadvantage to them then there would be hell on. Statistics can alweay be manipulated to purpose.

Good point. They should ignore sexes, and classify by the amount of testosterone in your blood. That should be more accurate, and get a few dodgy members of each gender into the right insurance bracket anarl.

[Bob Fleming]

It's a rating factor based on statistics so I don't see anything sexist in it personally. The difference probably decreases with age too.

But there is another thing. Stats show young drivers to be the most likely yo have an accident so rightly their premiums are highest. Will that now be challenged as ageist?

If the court rules sex cannot be a rating factor it opens a can of worms and one thing is for definite - everyone's premiums will just go up.

[Muppet]

Originally Posted by Bob Fleming

It's a rating factor based on statistics so I don't see anything sexist in it personally. The difference probably decreases with age too.

But there is another thing. Stats show young drivers to be the most likely yo have an accident so rightly their premiums are highest. Will that now be challenged as ageist?

If the court rules sex cannot be a rating factor it opens a can of worms and one thing is for definite - everyone's premiums will just go up.

Premiums going up is a problem in itself as more and more drivers will just sack off having insurance altogether, particularly if the car is worth less than the insurance. The punishments for not having insurance are worth the risk, which leaves the honest among us shelling out even further.

[not spavin]

Originally Posted by CatRyan

boils my piss

they can sort this out but they can't ensure women get paid the same as men for the same jobs?

The big variable there that has the biggest impact is maternity leave.

[spitfire]

Originally Posted by not spavin

The big variable there that has the biggest impact is maternity leave.

and their raging emotions

[ShieldsBlackCat]

Originally Posted by supernaut1968

If we were to say that all young women only wanted to get pregnant and obtain a council flat, we'd be rightly acused of sexism and tarring every woman with the same brush.

Also, you can't assume that every 17 year old lad is a massive bell end and will crash his car within hours of buying it.

I've seen quite a few women struggle with the basics of driving and there's also a large number of women that routinely drive dangerously.

Maybe, the decision should be taken on the number of attempts you take to pass your test, plus a basic report from the examiner that either states you passed with flying colours (and get lower insurance) or that you're an average/poor driver (higher insurance).

Quite right. This issue has infuriated me to the point I really feel I am mentally unable to put together something that voices what I truly feel inside about this outrageous violation.

This is the 21st Century. A supposedly uber modern and advanced society. And we still have such frankly, primative and archaic ways of treating people in a harmful way such as prejudice. Something this century was meant to have seem stamped out long ago. And what is more, prejudice formed not by a social group but an entire industry sector. Insurance companies.

How can they do this so brazently and blatantly? How can insurance firms blatanly and brazenly make such unfounded and unfair assuptions about all men based on the lawless and reckless percentage?

It isn't sexism that is the key reason why male drivers are suffering greatly financially. They aren't being forced to pay more just because they are men. Surely insurance companies are forcing men to pay more, not because of women, but other men. Those men that give substance to the stat that they go on, that the percentage of men who are involved in accidents caused by themselves may well be more than that of women who are involved in accidents caused by themselves.

[the streaker]

Originally Posted by Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

Court ruling due today. This will affect many other things - anywhere where men and women are subject to different cost scales (pension, health cover, life cover, etc).

Personally I can't see how it's discrimination. If there is reliable data showing that Category A is higher risk than Category B, it shouldn't matter what actually determines the categories - age, sex, height, being called Kevin vs. being called something else, punks vs skins, IQ, innies vs. outies, etc.

Thoughts?

Known about this for a while and it will blow a lot of things I deal with professionally to kingdom come..............

[LouCarpenter With A Shave]

If the ruling goes against the insurance companies, I wonder how long before there's an age discrimination case?

[not spavin]

Originally Posted by LouCarpenter With A Shave

If the ruling goes against the insurance companies, I wonder how long before there's an age discrimination case?

Or a 'rising tide lifting all boats' style price hike across the board.

[janiep]

Originally Posted by spitfire

The categorisation of women is in fact discrimation. If they were categorised for something which was a disadvantage to them then there would be hell on.

Spot on. Take pensions for example.

Originally Posted by Harry Angstrom

The major impact on this will be private pensions.

Blokes don't live as long and therefore get higher pensions. If you cannot discriminate, it will cost blokes a fortune.

This.

The European Court of Justice giveth and the European Court of Justice taketh away. Blessed be the European Court of Justice.

Seriously, I don't care really either way, either on car insurance or pension annuities.