Martina Devlin: EU needs to realise that we are not all the same
Thursday March 03 2011
LET'S start with my favourite women drivers' joke. A man arrives at work looking rattled and his colleague asks what's wrong.
"I've just had a bad experience on the dual carriageway," he says.
"I looked across to the inside lane and saw a woman driver using the rear-view mirror to do her makeup. It gave me such a shock, I dropped my breakfast roll into my coffee and disconnected an important call on my mobile. No two ways about it, women drivers should be banned."
So, there are careless motorists in both genders, just as there are careful motorists in both groups. This means it is prejudicial to charge men higher insurance rates than women simply on the basis of chromosomal difference.
But is it a necessary form of discrimination? Well yes, if you are an insurer interested in offering discounts to the sector you believe is least likely to lodge a claim. It is irrelevant if that group comprises women, or if it is made up of people who wear glasses or have moles on their backs. What matters are the probabilities thrown up by risk calculation.
A motor insurance risk assessor's job is to try and work out which factors make a customer more prone to accidents. Statistics show that gender is a dynamic, as is a driver's age.
That's why women have lower premiums, along with experienced drivers of both sexes, and the engine size of their vehicles is also taken into account.
Cheaper bills are their payback for being less apt to cost the insurance company money. Correction: cheaper bills were their reward -- the European Court of Justice has ruled them to be an example of sex discrimination when applied to female motorists. Unisex insurance is now in the driver's seat.
Welcome to a world in which everyone must be treated precisely the same, irrespective of their strengths and weaknesses. No one wins awards for excellence any more because judging people is wrong.
Everyone pays the same rate of income tax because it is unfair to charge a high earner a different rate to a low earner. All employees in a company receive the same salary regardless of qualifications, experience or job.
Public lavatories no longer have 'fir' and 'mna' marked on them because that discriminates against users. Maternity leave is eradicated on the basis of preferential treatment to mothers above men and childless women.
Ladies' nights are consigned to the past (as has already happened in California and other US states). And children are encouraged to take legal action against parents for not passing on the genes for blonde hair, long legs or a facility with languages.
That's the sort of straitjacket world for which this EU ruling is grooming us.
Objecting to its implications has nothing to do with feminist cherry picking and everything to do with applying common sense.
Risk assessment matches risk to cost. What is the point in insurance companies compiling data to establish risk if they are obliged to ignore it?
Of course there are inept women drivers on the road, just as there are boy racers. The worst car accident I was caught up in, in which two people died, was caused by a middle-aged woman.
Stereotyping is a form of discrimination, and it is unjust to typecast all young male drivers as speed fiends. But insurance is not an exact science -- it deals with probabilities. Unfortunately, this means many safe male drivers pay through the nose. Insurance companies attempt to address the bias with reductions in premiums for men who take advanced driving courses, and such initiatives should be encouraged.
However, it is impossible to ignore the road accident figures. 2009 statistics for Ireland show that young male drivers aged 17 to 24 are seven times more liable to be killed. Even in the 25 to 49-year-old age bracket, they are almost four times likelier to meet their deaths.
Differences in premiums are not used to punish but to reward and incentivise. Gender is just one of a number of grounds on which quotes are based.
Should non-smokers pay the same as smokers for health insurance? Should sports cars be insured for the same as Smart cars? Should owners of small apartments pay the same insurance as owners of large properties?
How about householders located beside a river prone to flooding -- should they be entitled to a standard insurance rate? Having a house alarm triggers a discount. Is that discriminatory?
If insurers are legally obliged to charge both sexes matching rates, it will mean only slightly cheaper car insurance for men -- but much dearer pension cover, although their life expectancy is shorter than a woman's. Just as it will mean costlier driving for women, and only marginally less pricey pension cover. One will not counterbalance the other. Overall, premiums will rise.
'New uncertainties' in establishing risk will increase charges for all customers; estimates will become less accurate and actuaries will add a greater margin for error.
So unisex insurance will lead not to equality but to expense.
Let's not allow this daft decision to fuel euroscepticism, however. From time to time all courts make nonsensical rulings, whether in Europe or elsewhere. Indeed, an Irish judge is a member of the EU court.
But policymakers in Europe need to get back behind the wheel right now. They must formulate another law allowing insurance companies to offer competitive rates to low risk categories -- regardless of whether it is men or women who benefit.
Political correctness has its place, but it also has its limits.
- Martina Devlin
Irish Independent
