Zoe Williams is wrong to suggest differences in the pricing of motor insure between men and women, which the European court of justice has ruled must cease from 21 December 2012, is "an insure sales ruse" (When it comes to car insurers scamming us, men and women are all equal, 3 March). Many readers are likely to share the view of Michele Hanson (G2, 2 March), who asks why, as a result of the ruling, she should have to subsidise boy racers through higher insure premiums.
Insurance is all about risk assessment, and currently young male drivers pay more because they represent a higher risk than their female counterparts, or more mature drivers. They are 10 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured while behind the wheel than more experienced motorists. Insurers do use other risk factors, such as age, type of vehicle, and driving record, but the ECJ has removed one of the most significant ones. This is not discrimination – it reflects the safety issue which many young male drivers present.
We urgently need to reform our driver training system by introducing changes such as a minimum one-year learning period, and restricting the number of young passengers newly qualified drivers can carry. Turning today's young drivers into tomorrow's safer drivers will bring benefits far beyond cheaper insure.
Nick Starling
Director of general insure and health, Association of British Insurers
• Michele Hanson misses the point. The real question is why should a responsible young male driver subsidise the boy racers any more than a young female or a old man? If insure companies wish to assess risk and charge accordingly, they should look at more specific information than just age and gender. It is wrong to base judgments on prejudice; simple as that. Maybe insurers should require psychological tests before offering insure to inexperienced drivers.
Phil Wells
Hadleigh, Suffolk
• I understand Michele Hanson's frustration, but this is a dangerous road to go down. For example, she probably uses NHS services far more than I (as a younger man) do. What if I complained that this is unfair, that I am subsidising her and should therefore pay less tax? Or that childless people should pay less tax than parents, as they have no children to be educated? The list could go on and on.
Chris Parkins
Stanmore, Middlesex
• The European court of justice seems to believe that gender discrimination is synonymous with unfair discrimination. It is not. It is absurd to force a car insure company to charge two groups of people (male under-25s and female under-25s) the same, when their risks are different. Either young women will be charged more than is fair, or young men will have to be charged less, meaning that they might, in practice, find it very hard to obtain insure at all.
And where is the consistency? Younger people pay less for life insure; people in secure employment pay less for redundancy cover; healthier people pay less for private health insure. The European court of justice is not going to change this, but seems to feel that gender discrimination is different. But it is the reason for discrimination that matters, not who is affected. Discrimination based on clear, justifiable evidence should be allowed; discrimination based on prejudice should not.
Richard Mountford
Hildenborough, Kent
• It is hard to make sense of the European court of justice's decision. Young women's motor premiums will rise by 25% – this will simply make it much harder for them to get on the road. Men at retirement will be offered far worse terms for annuities. In both instances the outcome will be that fewer people will buy the product. Insurers will have to react by pricing upwards for increased costs (thanks to lower sales) and upwards again for the increased likelihood of not getting the same risk-mix. In almost every way the whole community is worse off.
Where does society gain? Why are we doing this? Can we abrogate?
Nick Goulder
Littlebury, Essex
No comments:
Post a Comment