It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


When anti discrimination laws become discriminatory (European court madness)

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:12 AM
Scanning through the BBC news today I came across this

Insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled. The decision means that women can no longer be charged lower car insurance premiums than men, and the cost of buying a pensions annuity will change.

So now an insurance company, who's entire business is based upon being able to charge different amounts for premiums based upon your risk to insure as a person is not allowed to judge you on one of the most obvious factors that effect your risk.

My question is, doesn't this law now become discriminatory in itself. if your a young woman driver you are now going to be put into the same insurance bracket as all of the testosterone filled, grand theft auto playing, 18 year old guys that are (based on actual real life statistics) much more of an insurance risk then you.
How is forcing an insurance company to ignore the biggest factor effecting your risk to insure, just because you are a girl not sexually discriminatory?

I'm assuming of course that this will just be used as an excuse to put everyones premiums up anyway


posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:50 AM
yes, I read that and was shocked, but I can actually see a light at the end of the tunnel with this one, as the big insurance companies may well challenge it, they've got a lot of money tied up in women only policies, with the end result that some of the pc madness which has spiralled out of control in Europe may be brought into check.

Well, we can hope anyway!

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:24 PM
Holy crap, this doesn't go into effect until:

The requirement for unisex insurance premiums and benefits will start on 21 December 2012, giving national governments and the European insurance industry time to adjust.

I guess for all those women whose premiums are set to raise, that really will be the end of the world.

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:04 PM
Sorry I posted and ran on this thread but I have had a busy day indeed.

What I really don't get is that surely the whole point of insurance is that they asses your risk and insure you according to that, if judging based on sex is discriminatory then surely everything else is too like age and judging someone on the area they live in or social status.

I don't see where this can end once it starts, a flat rate insurance fee for everyone from 18-100 because anything else is discriminatory

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:05 PM
This ruling sound perfectly fair to me.

Women may cause fewer accidents, but having different insurance premiums based on gender discriminates against the majority of male motorists who do not cause accidents.

If statistics showed that more black people caused car accidents than people of other races, would it be fair to charge someone more because of their skin colour ?

I do not see how charging people different amounts because of which gender they belong to is any different than charging people unequally along racial lines.

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:10 PM
Im male but drive like an old lady, so why cant i get the same rate as women for my insurance. Why should i be charged more just because other men drive like idiots?

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:21 PM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

I would agree with that, once you have a solid driving history behind you then you should be judged solely on that, but how are insurance companies supposed to come up with premiums for brand new drivers accept relying on statistics of who is most likely to have accidents (i.e. you males)

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:36 PM
personally i always put it down to there being more accidents with male drivers because there are more male drivers on the road than female drivers. I do not think gender makes a difference in driving ability.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:54 AM
reply to post by moosevernel

Well I was going to say that although women arnt in the accident it doesnt mean they didnt cause the accident, leaving it behind in their rear view mirror.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:42 AM
Now, Now boys...

There are a number of factors in arriving at these statistics, but it is men who have the highest fatalities, drive aggresively and take more risks. Here's a Link

The ruling doesn't really affect me anyway, as I have a full no claims discount and have been driving for 23 years...though notably the one write off I did have was a man broadsiding me...he accepted full liability, was driving too fast and was faffing around with his stereo!

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:04 AM
reply to post by davespanners

I'm assuming of course that this will just be used as an excuse to put everyones premiums up anyway

It's my experience is that they put up insurance premiums anyway dave.

I have been driving for 35 years, all accident free, claim free and driver-conviction free. The no claims bonus is all BS. My premiums increase every year no matter how much no claims bonus I have. They NEVER ask for premiums that are less than the previous year, always more. So what is all that about then? BS is what it is all about - absolutely.

Also, they impose conditions and sub-conditions and sub-sub-conditions etc, etc, and continue imposing them as they go along, to get out of paying out on any claim you are entitled to.

Insurance companies NEVER lose out because, like banks, they make their own rules up in their own favour as they go along, continually 'moving the goalposts' so to speak.

I hate insurance companies and banks.


log in