Why do car insurance systematically break the sex discrimination act?

IF this was a case of pay or working conditions or job description, the womans lib and campaigners for EQUAL rights would be hopping mad, they would be marching down the street but NO, when it comes to being FAIR, they are not in the case of car insurance. Anyone ever wondered why women pay less for car insurance yet if your in an accident and your a man, your no claims is effected whilst the womans NCB isnt? I believe that theirs a big case of Sex Discrimination with these insurance brokers and no one has ever challenged them before so they still continue.... Your thoughts? I am talking from experience too, the number of accidents I have been in and it not been my fault and the other driver is a woman, FFS, IM the one who has lost out and yes IM annoyed that I AM DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!!! I dont care what Insurance compnays pull out of the hat with statistics because they can make number say what they want, People who drive Red cars are more likely to have an accident than a Blue car.... Is that fair? So why should sex determine cover in insurance? Think about it.... As for AGE related, I dont see why that should be relavent, what I do find relaventt is the "TIME" that has been spent driving, so if your Licence was gained at 17 Years old, and your 34, you have 17 years worth of experience on the road, where as a 17Year old who has just passed their test has had Zero years experience on the road. I See that as more relavent, not age related because if you are a Cyclist then a Motorbike user and then progress to car, you gain allot of experience and can have a couple of years driving experience in hand before using a car.

Public Comments

1. It is a proven fact that men, young men especially, are less cautious drivers than women. They are an insurance liability.
2. read the facts
3. Insurance firms use real statistics to assess risk and set their premiums accordingly. As most claims involve young males, it pushes the premiums up for that group. Therefore women and older drivers pay less.
4. Well, unless you can fend off the lobbyst in Washington.....women will always pay less car insurance than males. Just by mere statstics, women are safer drivers than men. They don't get as many speeding violations as men do. Look at your state's dmv for statistics. Now an argument you can make is that traffic violations hsould not be reported on the basis of sex....you might have a point there. But then how do you eliminate race, creed, and ethnicity?? They have statistics based on which races are prone to more car accidents and who is least likely to reort an accident and such. The latter is big for insurance company. Most women will call the police and report the accident, while most men will try and solve the accident on their own terms. Insurance companies also make their decision based on this. I think your assesment provides a valid point. But there are too many interests, which will make it impossible for equality. In the end, one of the two sexes is going to have to pay more.
5. The insurance companies base their rates off of many things. One of them is statistics which can be based on age group, marital status, sex, and location to name a few. Statistically it is proven that men in a certain age group are at a higher risk of having traffic infractions than others. When the statistics change then the rates will change.
6. Car insurance rates and policies are based of facts and profit. Only the factual raw data plays a part in determining who pays what and who's rates go up for what infractions. Men have worse driving records than women, that's why men pay more. There is no, "political correctness" attached to it. It's just the reality of "pay-in vs. pay-out" and if men cause the "pay-out" to be higher then women, then the men have to "pay-in" to compensate. Can I make it any plainer?
7. Insurance is based on an individual's risk. To determine the individual's probability of having an accident, traffic violation, or other claim, his information is compared to similar individuals. It has been statistically proven that men, particularly young men, have more accidents than women of the same age. Their risk of claim is higher, therefore their costs are higher. This is not discrimination. Young drivers and older drivers are the two highest risk categories and their insurance rates are based accordingly. It's not just gender that is considered, either. Age and credit scores are factors as well. It's the credit score part that bothers a lot of people. The insurance folks figure that if you are reckless with your credit, you will be reckless with your driving and that if you are responsible with your credit, you will be responsible with your driving. Why don't they just start giving psychological tests when you get insurance quotes??? "hmmm...you hate your mother.....that makes you a bad driver so we should charge you more..." I don't believe you have a case for sex discrimination since there is a TON of accident and claim research to back up the rate difference. Everyone's number of claims is affected if a claim is made though. I was in a wreck years ago caused by a girl who had the same insurance company I did. She was at fault and ticketed so the accident was on her record. However, every 6 months, the company tried to raise my premiums when they saw that they had paid a ton on an accident I was involved in. I had to fight with them every time and prove that while my car had been hit, it was the other girl's accident, not mine.
8. Insurance companies want to use as much info as possible to accurately ascertain the risk involved with any individual driver. They have found that there is a statistical significant difference between males and females. Women are generally less aggressive on the road and therefore safer, therefore women tend to get lower insurance premiums. I personally don't have a problem with it because it is based on statistics and facts, rather than people's personal bias views on men and women. But I must admit there is certainly a double standard in America. You are almost certainly correct that if men were safer and got the lower premiums, the women's organizations would be suing the insurance companies for discrimination.
9. yes it clearly is discrimination. to others that claims stats this or stats that ask them if it is ok for woman to be paid less because stats show they are a less valuable works/less productions and take times off for children(there are stats that say that) also ask why race isn't in their anywhere? that seems like ti could be a relevant characterization. how about citizenship? it is pure garbage intended to hurt the white male.
10. Insurance companies were given exemption from the sex discrimiation act because they could proove statistically that women overall were a better risk i.e. less money was paid out. Failure to do so would have meant that women would have had to pay substantially more than their risk profile warranted - which would be a travesty and against the principle of insurance that people contribute based on their likelihood and amount of possible claims. Whilst we are talking about this, you might like to know that we came within a whisker of insurance companies not being allowed to discriminate on the AGE of the policyholder. I don't know your age but would you like to be subsidising a 17 year old boy racer by paying the same premium?
11. if it was the other way round there would be an outcry