Posts tagged ECJ Ruling
Rise of the stop-start driver
Apr 1st
We all stop and start when driving, it’s how we get to where we want to go and avoid crashing but a recent survey has identified a significant trend in the UK that looks set to get worse.
Approximately 1.5 million drivers in the UK drive so infrequently that they pose a serious risk to other road users, driving less than twice a month, forgetting the highway code and generally being a little bit clueless and hazardous.
The reason for this growing trend in occasional drivers is – you’ve guessed it – the high cost of owning, running and insuring a car. This looks like a trend that might become more pronounced with the upcoming ECJ ruling.
A third of young women “may drive without insurance”…
Mar 28th
More fallout from the European Court of Justice ruling on gender discrimination…
This news from a recent OnePoll survey of 3,000 motorists indicates that around 35% of women between the ages of 17 and 24 would consider driving without insurance rather than face a steep hike in premiums.
The ABI estimates that women in this age group can expect to see a 25% increase in premiums as a result of the recent ECJ ruling. According to the survey, this might mean that 12% of young women drivers would be forced to give up driving altogether, 15% would have to change jobs and 5% would have to give up attending school or college!
Interestingly, the same survey showed that 34% of mean agreed that the ECJ ruling was unfair.
If we can’t use gender, can we use haircuts to set insurance premiums?
Mar 8th
The only famous non-fictional Belgian we could think of at short notice
There’s a lot ot talk about the new ECJ ruling at the moment. Some have even gone as far as calling the ruling “bonkers”. Harsh words.
Well they clearly don’t think so in Belgium where they’ve had unisex car insurance since 2007.
So the question arises – if it works for them, what have they done to replace gender as a criteria for assessing risk? If sex is effectively a “substitute criterion” which insurers have used as a shorthand, what could we come up with that replaces gender? According to The Economist, actuaries say that “using other factors in their calculations besides sex is perfectly possible”.
So if the aim is to keep up the premiums of the reckless minority, we’re opening up a debate here and inviting suggestions for what criteria we could use to replace gender when assessing risk.
Here are some suggestions…
- Musical taste – Mozart on the CD brings an instant 10% reduction. Hardcore, Drum and Bass and anything by the Black Eyed Peas carries a hefty additional premium
- Hair cut – 10% off for a neat side parting, 30% if it’s a nice shade of grey. Anything that’s too short, too long or has funny shapes in it costs an additional premium
- An extra 10% added for every discarded KFC wrapper in the footwell
See? It’s easy. These actuaries just need to think a little more laterally…