|
So much for equality! - now it`s going in reverse!
|
. . . those in the trade collectively breathed a sigh of disbelief.
Yup. I do that all the time.
Or would do, if I hadn't decided a while ago that those in power are quite mad.
|
|
The article mentions that younger drivers will be adversely affected - specifically young female drivers. Disregarding the fact that the most dangerous driving I've seen is actually from the just.mentioned demographic, couldn't they now argue that they're being discriminated against on age grounds?
|
When I added my wife to my insurance the premium went down quite a lot.
Are the dastardly foreigners going to change this? Over my dead body, probably.
|
|
The next move will be to outlaw discrimination on the basis of driving ability or accident record.
|
I dislike the EU, so I am more than happy to blame them for stuff, however, that's not really what happened here.
Essentially the EU passed a law that states that there may be no discrimination in the access of goods and service based upon gender, race, religion etc. etc.
I would assume that we all agree with this. Actually if you don't agree with that, stop reading now, you're an a***.
The EU had already tried to give a time delay to insurers. The original discrimination law passed in 2007 had said that applying unisex premiums and benefits may be avoided as long as the insurer can prove the underlying statistical evidence. It stated that this must be reviewed after 5 years for re-justifcation
Then a CONSUMER GROUP (!) in Beligum (Test Achats) went to the courts and said "hold on a moment, given this rule, how can it possibly be fair that insurance companies charge differently based on gender?"
The Belgium courts sent it to the EU courts with a "Yeah, what about that?" message.
The EU Court was pretty much trapped between a rock and a hard place. They've stated "no inequalities" and like it or not, this is an inequality.
And I have to say, I can see the issue. You wouldn't (or I wouldn't) accept black people being charged more because they were black. Or Gay people, or Catholics, or Labour voters (well, that last one would be ok).
So what do you expect?
Equally the truth is that gender is too much of a generalisation. You can achieve much more at a greater level of granularity without using gender. It just doesn't make such a good publicity point - Sheila's Wheels anyone?
Also, insurers have been hiding behind this for some time. You don't really believe that females were paying 20% less, do you?
I think you'll find it was males paying 20% more. And that doesn't sound quite so good, does it?
But it wouldn't make front page news.
And why do you think that Insurers are unhappy and complaining about this move? Because they'll be forced to charge females more? Yeah right.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 9 Sep 12 at 15:04
|
>>those in the trade collectively breathed a sigh of disbelief.
Like hell they did.
|
And you can ignore anything Viviane Reding says as publicity seeking rubbish. 6 years ago she was giving me nightmares in the broadcasting industry.
She is forever on her soapbox grandstanding, and she's wrong as often as she's right. If not more so.
|
The EU gender ruling will affect car insurance ... - devonite
