“Discriminatory ruling against safer drivers,” says Euro MP
Date published: 01 March 2011
The European Court of Justice has ruled that insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender.
The ruling means that women can no longer be charged lower car insurance premiums than men.
The European Court of Justice upheld the decision reached by advocate general Juliane Kokott that it is legally inappropriate for insurers to link risk to a person's sex.
Labour Euro MP Arlene McCarthy has described the ruling as “discriminatory.”
Ms McCarthy said: “This ruling by the European Court of Justice will have dire consequences for women and as such is a strike against equal treatment.
“The facts show that women have fewer accidents than men so they should be able to benefit from cheaper premiums.
“Women will now have to pay up to 25% more for their car insurance, whilst men will see a 10% drop in their premiums.”
Ms McCarthy concluded: “The ECJ with a technical legal ruling has completely disregarded the political will of the legislator.
“This is not the end of the line.
“We will continue to fight for women not to be discriminated against because the evidence proves they are safer drivers.
“It is a perverse and discriminatory judgement and undermines the credibility of Europe.”
The requirement for unisex insurance premium and benefits will start on 21 December 2012, giving governments and the European insurance industry time to adjust.
Comments
Ms McCarthy, many years ago women fought for equal rights and they had my full support - equal pay for equal work - so it is only correct that vehicle insurance should be the same, like for like.
Further, Europe should make it unlawful for insurance companies to increase their premiums to drivers who have not claimed against their insurance.
Women don't drive nearly as much as men as they don't know how to drive round roundabouts, reverse, turn right at junctions or drive on the motorway.
It's about time this has happened. No claims bonus accounts for good drivers; the sex of the person does not make them a good driver.
So do we also assume then that under 25s are as safe as over 55s? We can still discrimintae on the grounds of someones age. I would also like to add that after 15 years of driving over 250 miles every week, on motorways on roundabouts round corners and even managing to go backwards and park, I have no points and have only ever had 1 accident, where an idiot (male) hit me head on going the wrong way down a one way street!
So sexual equality only counts when women stand to gain from it?
This smacks of "positive descrimination" against men!
Hope you fail in your appeal.
Well maybe this will open the door to other things, like women paying the same as men for haircuts, (that'll be £5 please instead of £45!)
Mens toiletries are also far cheaper than womens.
Plus all that extra cash in the wage packets when employers are finally forced to cough up.
Under the same ruling, men, who got a bigger pension annuity because they die sooner, will now not do so.
To be honest, insurance should be dealt with on a case by case basis and everyone should be equally liable to crash or get crashed into, thus pay an equal fee. Only those found to be in whole or part liable for a crash should be paying the higher premiums, and remember the Minority Report isn't real, it is fiction.
Have Your Say
And what about us men. Yes evidence may show that women are safer drivers - but not all. Just ask the lady who drove into the back of me! And as for a strike against equal rights. What was equal about women paying far less then men?
By Chill @ 01/03/2011 10:48:37