

It'll soon be illegal in Europe to differentiate insurance risk by gender... - echubb
http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/ecj-insurance-ruling-condemned-by-meps/

======
echubb
This has to be one of the most ridiculous rulings I've ever heard.
Statistically, male drivers are more dangerous, so why should women now
subsidise this behaviour? It's pure ideological lawmaking, designed to show
how egalitarian the EU is by in fact foisting a law upon its citizens which is
completely disconnected from reality.

In their attempt to achieve "equality" and "fairness," they've actually
achieved neither - the two concepts are mutually exclusive in the insurance
world. The whole concept of insurance, like life itself is predicated on
inequality in the boolean algebraic sense of the word. It just proves how
meddlesome the Eurocracy is becoming.

Besides, where does it end ? It's likely now that male pension annuities, up
till now cheaper than female ones, due to the earlier death of the average
male will increase too. That's not "fair," is it?

~~~
vgurgov
sorry, I don see any problem here.

If the fact that "Statistically, male drivers are more dangerous" would mean
that no matter how safe am i driving, my insurance cost will be higher than my
wife's insurance would prob make me feel discriminated based my gender. I want
my_insurance= f(driving_experience, incident_count, my_car, my_area, etc) not
my gender.

~~~
michaelcampbell
You have that now.

Premiums are based on the groups to which you belong. Some of those groups are
driving experience, your car, your area, your incident count, etc. Another is,
of course, your gender. If a valid statistical correlation can be found
between gender and revenue, they will adjust the premium to compensate.

~~~
vgurgov
so what about if next study will show that statistically afro-american drivers
are more or less risky that others? still fine to have different rates for
them???

I dont know much about how car insurance are calculated but if their formulas
still have some gender discrimination - this should be banned.

~~~
stuartjmoore
The real question is: what makes a group okay to "discriminate" against?

Is it my driving experience (i.e. age)? How many incidents I have had? My
ability to afford a safe car or live in a nice area?

Where are we allowed to draw the line?

------
captf
"It is a statistical reality that young men have more accidents than women so
it should be reflected in their premiums." I am so tired of seeing that line
of comment thrown around. It is incorrect.

Statistically, a woman is more likely to have an accident than a man while
driving. The difference lies in the severity of the accident. A woman is more
likely to have a minor bump or scrape [many of which will go unclaimed via
insurance as it will be cheaper than the excess], while a man will end up with
far more damage which requires going through insurance.

Also, I've seen report of studies that show that while younger women are safer
drivers than younger men [taking less risks]; older men are safer drivers than
older women. Yet the premiums have never reflected this.

Anecdotally, I've seen more women drive badly than men too - I see vastly more
women on the phone while driving than men. Then there's also the school runs,
which are more likely to be women driven, where the driver will be potentially
getting distracted by unruly children in the back. Again anecdotally, I've had
to make a lot of dangerous manoeuvres to avoid terrible driving from women,
who have then driven on oblivious to the near damage they've caused. [My dad's
saying has been "women cause accidents; men have them"]

------
thirsteh
> The ruling will take effect on 21 December 2012.

Great; we'll get to enjoy that for one day ;)

------
Roridge
Insurance companies are loving this, probably rubbing their hands together in
glee. Especially in the UK as insurance is a legal requirement and this year
has already increased by nearly 30% for no reason at all.

------
orijing
I got the impression that insurance companies build a large Bayesian network
and do parameter estimation using their tons of data to estimate, given a
person with a specific profile, what his expected costs are (plus calibrated
"error rate").

Perhaps I was too naive?

------
PHPAdam
In the long run, I will get cheaper insurance so wont argue too much about it.

~~~
Roridge
In the long run everyone's insurance premiums go up. They wont reduce male
drivers premiums because they "can't" so they will increase female ones.

This ruling is terrible, I have been benefiting from having my girlfriend on
my insurance for 10 years.

~~~
PHPAdam
Why "can't" they? .. Happy to be proven wrong:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2298570>

~~~
Roridge
That is why I put it in quotes. They "can but wont" which translates to "We
_can't_ because insurance for men costs more because of the statistics". Given
that rule of thumb they will increase females premiums.

Not only have I worked for insurance companies, but if I was one, this is
exactly what I would do if I was told everyone had to be treated equally.

