Men have more accidents than Women because Men drive more than Women. If you look at accidents per 100,000 miles driven, the accident rate is indistinguishable between Men and Women. However it's generally too hard to factor miles driven into an insurance policy so this discimination against men has continued until now. Finally, the EU doing some thing useful...

According to a Epidemiology journal study, men crash 5.1 times per million miles, compared to women at 5.7. Men under the age of twenty crash more times than their female counterparts but once over the age of 35, women crash more times than men do.
Essentialy, avoid driving near teenage lads and middle-aged women.

Please don't argue about who is better at driving. Let's just condemn a) this blatantly stupid ruling which has implications far beyond car insurance, and b) the dogma of 'equality' that it is inferred from.

For balance and accuracy, it might be worthwhile pointing out that the ECJ ruling doesn't only affect Car insurance; life insurance, health insurance, income protection annuities and any other form of insurance you might like to consider are affected too.
So women will find themselves paying significantly more for Life insurance - women currently don't buy much life insurance, and will become even less incentivised to do so, which is a Bad Thing.
For annuities, women will receive a lot less for their money at retirement, and men might receive more, depening on the relevant company / pension scheme.
Focussing only on Car insurance, whilst it is the easiest for people to understand, will mean that a lot of people are going to get very big shocks in a year's time when this happens.
Oh. And by the way, did you mention that this change will not be enforced for another year?

I think you all rather miss the point. Surely the issue should not be whether it's fair to charge men and women the same premiums, but whether it's fair in any case to calculate any given person's premium on the basis of their gender.

And yes, the argument might well go 'then surely basing it on age or occupation is similarly unfair'. I would say it is - for one reason.

Car insurance, unlike many other forms of insurance, is virtually compulsory. If you want a car, and many people need a car to hold down a job, you must have insurance. Therefore this particular form of insurance should not discriminate based on age, or gender, or anything else except past driving history of the driver, with perhaps a slightly higher premium for new drivers to recognise the risk an insurance company takes on in not having access to any of the driver's history.

When you look at it that way, when you see that driving insurance is unique because you have no choice but to take it out, then you see that any form of discrimination is unfair because the consumer has no choice but to accept the discrimination if its industry wide. On the other hand, purely voluntary forms of insurance ought to be free to discriminate as they like becayse consumers will make their own minds up about whether they are happy to be discriminated against. If they are not then they can chose not to take out the insurance. For car insurance, that is not an option.

The whole ethos of insurance is discrimination.

People pay a premium entirely dependent on the probability and severity of any claim they may make.

And no wishful tinkering by the EU is going to change this fact. If insurers can't discriminate then the overall cost has to go up.

The EU want to abolish age discrimination in insurance as well.

(Still want to be part of the EU?)

Do say: "This maybe within the letter but is entirely without the spirit of EU anti-discrimination legislation."

It is? is the spirit of anti-discrimination legislation meant to only benefit women?

What a sexist spirit hopefully there is some legislation to stop that.

Third party vehicle insurance, in Oz, comes included in their version of the road tax. The premium applied is the same for everyone, regardless of age, gender or even driving history. And it works, despite the poorly lit / kept roads, longer drives and much bigger engines.

PS: It's around 120 quid a year.
No other insurance is required, under law, for the driver and vehicle to be 'road legal'. Stark difference from rip off UK, isnt it?

So does this mean that in due course insurance companies won't be able to charge more for house insurance for people who live in high crime/high flood risk areas? Or charge higher premiums for life insurance for people who sky dive?

Because I thought all insurance premiums wer based on actuarial risk.

Black people are statistically more likely to be criminals. Does that mean it is fair to subject them to more police searches and so on? Of course not.

The same principle applies to insurance. The reason prejudice is wrong is that denies individuality and judges people on the basis of (real or imagined) group characteristics.

By that logic gender-neutrality should apply to third party insurance only, as it isn't compulsory to have comprehensive cover.

Note the complaints are all about car insurance, from which women will lose, but there aren't many complaintsabout the absence of sex-loading on annuities, from which they will gain.

@ Carkeek, @ Mendoza,

KAPOW!!!

Does this mean that, living in a gentle rural area I will now have to pay the same home insurance as inner cities? European Court of the Absurd.

I am a man, and due to the behaviour of other men I have had to pay higher insurance premiums all my life. My own behaviour seems to have been somewhat secondary (the %age NCD I receive on an-inflated-for-maleness base premium).

All drivers hsould be pleased that our insurance companies are now to judge us on the content of our driving rather than our plumbing. After all, we all know bad female drivers, and safe male ones.

For annuities, women will receive a lot less for their money at retirement, and men might receive more, depening on the relevant company / pension scheme.

I think you've got it the wrong way round on annuities. Because women's life expectancy is longer than men's, they get worse deals on annuities at present. The change will mean that men will now get worse deals on annuities.

See: FT.com annuity rates.

Also @ Mendoza

Then you are claiming insurance should be calculated on the basis of a counter-factual.

If men and women in fact drove equivalent mileage each year, then they should have equal premiums.

However, men and women do not drive equivalent mileage each year.

So, they should not, on point of fact, have equal premiums.

Think of it this way, you have to choose between 2 people, each of whom will roll a die. If they roll a '1' you must pay a £10 charge.

They both have a 1/6 chance of rolling a '1', so your choice doesn't seem to matter. Yet, what if you knew that person A is going to roll the die 10 times, whereas person B is only going to roll the die 7 times.

While it is true that on each individual roll, both A & B have the same chances of rolling a '1', yet on the facts, you would be a fool to choose A since they are, in fact, more likely to create more £10 charges.

my car insurance is due for renewal in a month and i bet my premium has gone up not down (and i am a man - well, i was when i last checked...)

I'm actually deeply gender confused, what with the hormone therapy, the surgery, the voice coaching and all the rest. I'm not so sure if I was ever male heading female or the other way around.

Should I just be grateful that there's one less thing to worry about?

I don't know if it's right or wrong, but if this decision means no more Sheilas' Wheels adverts, then I am entirely in favour of it.

No it means gender will no longer affect motor insurance premiums.

It does not mention home insurance, you should read before posting.

Unless you support racial discrimination in car insurance pricing, you shouldnt support sexual discrimination.

In fact, in the state of Victoria in Australia the TAC charge for 2011 is $225, which is more like GBP146. It is only insurance for third party personal injury, which means nobody sensible relies on it exclusively, as if you write off someones Rolls Royce you would be libable for the entire cost. Insurance is not too expensive, maybe $500-$1000 depending on circumstances.

I don't know about other states.

If it sounds too good to be true... it probably is.

Similar situation in South Africa, a levy on fuel costs, but it will only cover personal injury. With an accident rate almost ten times that of the UK comprehensive cover is astronomical! This weekend almost 50 people killed in minibus-taxi crashes.

I began my life feeling I was a man trapped in a woman's body. I was then born.

Now I realise I have been a man trapped in my car in a man's insurance. Am I about to be reborn?

Seriously, let's put all this and road fund licence on petrol tax -- then the more you drive the more you pay.

Just another piece of nonsense from the ECJ btw - isn't that part of the EU? and aren't Guadianistas drooling to roll over and join that merry throng?

Can't swear to it because I don't drive anymore, but I am fairly certain that premiums in Germany are calculated with a factor of yearly mileage playing a role. It is not a vast difference in the premium, but those who drive less are charged less, in the case of an accident the insurer could check. Whether the British could be trusted not to abuse a scheme designed for grown up Europeans is another matter.

It makes no sense to charge an accident-free male driver more than an accident-free female driver. Young males are most likely than young females to make violent assaults, but we don't proactively gaol them all for a year based on that.

Charge the same high premium for all drivers for their first year of driving, since this is the one with by far the worst record. Then lower it by year of accident-free driving, while raising it sharply for each accident according to its seriousness. If women end up with lower premiums on average over their lifetime, so be it.

Young men get their bad reputation from the seriousness of their crashes. Young women have more accidents, but those accidents are more likely to be minor ones. That is what makes young male drivers on average far more dangerous and expensive than any other category of driver.

Imagine walking into a casino or gaming house and being asked a string of personal questions before being quoted specific (to you) odds on the roulette wheel, crap table, black jack, bandits etc. That is what a rip off insurance is and it is why they like "Acts of God".

In line with Australia we should pay the same basic premium with a set price scale of options if we want them when we buy our road tax. There is no serious competition out there: they are just playing with margins and catering for different groups.

Whilst it may be true that women make more claims per km driven then men, what really matters here is the type of crashes involved. Women make lots more short journeys, taking kids to school, shopping and so forth and so have more 'parking shunt' type claims. Men tend to drive more aggressively, take more risks, and ignore traffic laws even more than the average woman does. Consequently when men have a crash it is likely to be a serious one. Similarly almost 95% of those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving are men.

As they say, many a true word is spoken in jest.

http://www.yourmum.co.uk/web_pages/viz/male_drivers.jpg

Ban men from listening to classic rock whilst driving so they don't subconsciously slip into Top Gear mode and act/drive like a ****.

Ban women from any journey that involves a supermarket car park.

Exactly what part do you find nonsense? Or where you just desperate to write the word 'Gaurdianistas'?

OK, not really fair but if that's how it is does it apply across the board?
For instance medical cover insurance premiums are higher for women, are those premiums going to come down now or is that issue being ignored?

Yes, but you are assuming inter-group homogeneity. The risk of accident is determined by miles driven, not gender. A man who drives 1,000 miles a year is many times safer than a woman who drives 10,000 miles a year, yet the man pays more because men in general have more accidents. That is discrimination. Insurance premiums should be based on odometer readings, not gender. Perhaps with this law change they will be.

I'm charmed by the naivety of the posters who think insurance will be based upon the individual, now that statistics aren't allowed. Your costs will all be raised. If any company would employ the extra time, and staff, to carry out research into each individual insuree, that would also put up costs.

Nobody wins in this situation. It's entirely rhetorical as well as being counter-intuitive, and that's why any talk of 'equality' is worthless. Even the insurance companies are finding it a total ball-ache, and won't profit.

It makes no sense to charge an accident-free male driver more than an accident-free female driver. Young males are most likely than young females to make violent assaults, but we don't proactively gaol them all for a year based on that.

There are one or two of the more outrée sisters on here who have pretty much suggested such a thing. We are all oppressors.

I think you've got it the wrong way round on annuities. Because women's life expectancy is longer than men's, they get worse deals on annuities at present. The change will mean that men will now get worse deals on annuities.

{Cringe}
You're right - I was writing this far too late last night.
And I'm an actuary working in Life insurance. This is why we don't work at 11pm on Sunday nights....
The fundamental point still stands, however, which is that painting this as a "women will pay more for car insurance" issue only is reductive and misses the various other implications.
Women will also pay more for annuities and Life Insurance; depending on age and occupation, men will pay more for Income Protection and Critical Illness cover (broadly; though that rule varies significantly with age).
Although the reality is that everyone will, on average, pay more for a while because the uncertainty that this will introduce will need to be priced in.

It should be neutral overall, but I bet the insurance companies will use the confusion to bump up premiums overall.

It will affect all insurance - no discrimination by gender will be allowed.

In general though I do think actuarial tables defeat the point of insurance as far as the consumer is concerned. Look at the way sick people are priced out of health insurance in the US. The point of insurance is to spread the risk.. to average the cost of any mistakes/disasters across us all.

Basing health insurance premiums on your health means it isn't really insurance at all. Which is why it should probably be state controlled, as the NHS is - and as with that Aussie car insurance.

Insurance has always been a delicate balancing act - try to remain acting in the spirit of insurance by community-rating as much as possible, but trying to avoid the risk of policyholder's behaviour causing losses by taking into account known risk factors.
For example, if a person with cancer knows that one company doesn't ask about cancer diagnosis whereas another one does, then she knows that she will get a more favourable premium from the first company. It would seem logical for her - and anyone else who has cancer - to go to that company.
All other things being equal, that company will then lose a phenomenal amount of money and go bankrupt leaving lots of claims unpaid and lots of people unhappy.
So, it seems fair to take this into account in order to prevent that from happening.
If the risk factor is not so obvious, then most companies can ignore it in pricing but will just monitor their own experience to make sure it never becomes an issue.
For the male/female split, so long as no company can carry out this differentiation, it won't be a problem for the companies; however, what might happen is that certain genders are priced out of the market.
Life insurance, in particular, is one which too few women buy currently. When the cost of this is increased for women, even less will buy it than do today, or will buy less cover, which, as I've stated before, is a Bad Thing.
The uncertainty about how women and men will react to the changed ruling, what percentage of women will opt out of Life Insurance and what percentage of men will opt out of Income Protection, is the cause of concern in the industry and the resulting overpricing will be the cause of concern in the general populace.
I just wish some of the mainstream articles on this issue in the press would stop talking about Car Insurance, because that's an area where the male/female issue - as mentioned earlier - is actually a proxy for the real risk factor. Namely miles driven, average speed, attitude to risk etc.
Whereas in Life Insurance and Health Insurance, they are actually proper biological factors at play and the ruling seems slightly silly.

Very interesting response @madiguana, thanks.

Perhaps there is a case for basing car insurance solely on miles driven.. as the South African model does, roughly. But I don't like having ANY weighting on health and life insurance.

We want our chocolate cake and we want to eat it without putting on weight.

I don't drive but all my mates who do say Asian women are the worst drivers in the country.

The available research shows otherwise. For example:

• There is extensive evidence to show that men, and young men in particular, tend to be more aggressive than women (in all known cultures) and they express aggression in a direct, rather than indirect, manner. This has a very significant impact on driving - encouraging more competitive and hostile behaviour with consequent higher probabilities of crashing.

* Levels of deviant (rule-breaking) behaviour are significantly higher in men than in women. This manifests itself in a greater frequency of violation of traffic regulations, including speed limits, traffic controls, drink-driving, etc.

* Men also exhibit, on average, higher levels of sensation-seeking and risk-taking in a wide variety of settings. The basis for this well-established sex difference has a hormonal and neurochemical basis - it is not simply a product of socialisation or experience.

Sex differences in driving and insurance risk : An analysis of the social and psychological differences between men and women that are relevant to their driving behaviour.

www.sirc.org/publik/driving.pdf

Male motorists were responsible for 88% of all driving offences that resulted in findings of guilt in court in England and Wales in 2002, the Home Office statistics showed. Furthermore, men committed almost all the most serious offences, such as causing death and dangerous driving: women committed just 6% of the death or bodily harm offences in 2002 and just 3% of dangerous driving offences.

Women are safer drivers, figures show. The Guardian. Tuesday 11 May 2004

Lipscombe and Wilkinson (1996) in their study of Scottish speeders found that males were twice as likely to commit minor speeding offences and four times as likely to commit a more serious speeding offence than females. Males were more prone to speeding than females regardless of road type, with the most marked difference being on rural roads. Males were also almost twice as likely to speed as females during leisure periods and were even more likely to speed during peak periods and working hours.

The characteristics of speeders. TRRL Report 440.

Male drivers have a 77 percent higher risk of dying in a car accident than women, based on miles driven.

American Automobile Association (2007)

Etc. Etc.

No doubt female drivers' premiums wil rise when this ruling comes into effect, but to think for a moment they'll drop for male drivers... Yeah right!

i think the point remains, if men are more likely to make an insurance claim then women, insurance companies will charge them more- if they can- because at the end of the day they're not in the game to make sure that if you have an accident, you can get your car fixed, ect. They're in it because they can get more money in via premiums then they pay out in claims, and because everybody- even someone who could afford to pay for any damage done by their car, has to have insurance. They even bought in the no claims bonus, to encourage their customers, even if they have a crush, to avoid making claims on their insurance,
Charging female drivers less then men isn't them being sexist, any more then their charging adults in their forties less then teenagers is them being agest. I predict a long term result of this ruling will be, that although male driver insurance policies will, in the short term, go down, as soon as this kind of reasoning is applied to 'ageism, insurance for 17 year old boys will also go down, a little, and everybody else's will skyrocket. Which won't even be good news for teenagers, they will never get cheep car insurance.

Well does that mean companies are justified in not hiring women who might have children? Because you know there is a chance they will leave the company at some point and it would then be far more beneficial to hire men who won't leave work early or won't take long breaks to look after the kids.

This is where your analysis breaks down. You are assuming no cases where its economically justifiable to favour men over women. Let me tell you in those cases it is still considered sexist and wrong.

If women had more accidents and the insurance industry charged women more for insurance, do you think the Guardian's feminists would accept that or would we get endless articles about the sexist insurance industry. You can't demand the world is gender blind merely when it suits you.

Do say: Elect a nominated driver or take taxis and have a safe xmas.

Don't say: If you're drinking and driving, don't forget the car.

So what happened to equality being what everyone wanted?