James BryceMILLIONS of women drivers could face a huge increase in the cost of their car insurance following an EU ruling.
The decision means women will no longer be able to benefit from cheaper car insurance, despite being less likely to have an accident than men.
The legislation – which comes into effect on December 21 and will affect all insurance products – has been slammed by critics who have described the ruling as ‘madness’.
Women of all ages could see their premiums increase by an average of 24 per cent, in contrast to a nine per cent drop for young men.
This is despite men under 22 being 10 times more likely to have a serious crash than women, 25 times more likely to commit a driving offence and twice as likely to make an insurance claim.
Until now, discrimination in setting insurance rates has been permitted under EU equal treatment rules, allowing the market to base the price of a financial product on the statistical likelihood of certain scenarios.
I was worried there for a moment …. just fair really, sure they are causing ton’s of accident. I am content as long as it doesn’t mean that they get equal pay for the same job …….
EQUALITY OF SEXES is great! That means they could possible get the same PAY for the same work men do (only fair – they’re more competant anyway)AND, they get to PAY much more $$ for ALL car insurance, Home insurance, Life insurance…. etc, even tho the statistics show over decades that they cause less losses to insurance firms. Women suffer, insurors prosper… isn’t the EU GREAT!?!? and MEPs only have 26 WEEKS of holiday time off. Some are IDIOTS to permit this: “Taxation without representation is (STILL) tyranny”. Sorry – I just cannot see how the EU justifies spending 26 MM GBP for a “Foreign Office” in…. FIJIfor bananas Meanwhile, Cameron & ilk say EU expravegant costs are “unacceptable” but keep signing the checks to pay from Taxpayers’ money! Is there Impeachment?, a Vote of NO Confidence? Investigation & Litigation to remove him for Not Acting to Represent Taxpayers positions?… etc.
If we follow this way of thinking in the insurance business, why don´t insurance companies stop using actuaries,as they are likely to use “prejudice” when calculating the risks: against older or younger people (agists!),smokers,overweight people, etc.
Madness is a appropriate comment. And I do believe that “reverse prejudice” is a good thing in many cases…especially when backed up by statistics.
I believe this story is being misreported.
The law makes it illegal to discriminate on grounds of sex.
Discrimination by definition can only happen when a person is treated less fairly for no reason.
So unless insurance companies are discriminating now, ie charging men differently to women for no reason based in fact, this law should have no effect on premiums.