StatCounter

Sunday 22 July 2007

Sexual discrimination on the web

Sheilas's Wheels is an offshoot of esure.com and sells cheaper car insurance to women only. As their website says, "Sheilas' Wheels is a division of esure - one of the UK's leading direct insurers. esure has always recognised the importance of ensuring that women get a great deal when buying insurance. In 2004, esure strongly opposed an EU directive that would have seen women forced to subsidise men through their car insurance premiums. The idea for Sheilas' Wheels grew from research we carried out at that time.

We found that women claim less, are responsible for far fewer driving convictions and have attitudes towards cars, driving and other road users that are often more considered than those of their male counterparts. We wanted to reward these differences and decided that we needed a new brand and a whole new look at car insurance for women to make it happen...

Price was relatively easy. By focusing on women, we know that our customers are likely to make less costly claims and we have reflected this in our premiums. A Sheilas' Wheels quote should be competitive through and through.

We recognised that women are far more likely than men to carry a bag containing their purses and valuables with them when driving. Yet with most insurers there's limited cover to reflect this. Stolen, lost or damaged handbags often have to be replaced by very low "personal belongings" limits (often just £100). Sheilas' Wheels was designed with special handbag cover as standard and our limit goes up to £300."

Sheila's Wheels will cover male drivers, or at least their website will quote for a man with no female named driver, but this is at a higher price than for a woman with otherwise exactly the same details. How is this allowed, surely this is sexual discrimination? Wasn't there a fuss when men were quoted a lower price for annuities even though that was because men die younger?

1 comment:

CLovIS said...

"In 2004, esure strongly opposed an EU directive that would have seen women forced to subsidise men through their car insurance premiums."

Trying to argue the sex discrimination here would be as productive as banging your head against a brick wall. Ironically, you are arguing on the grounds which have been set out by various equality groups etc in recent times – that is, no matter what the actual reasons or logic behind the disparity, “equality” needs to be achieved.

I don’t have anything against women paying less for their insurance IF they are indeed better drivers. As the website states, why should women subsidise men through their premiums? What I do have a problem with, much like you have highlighted, is the fact that “sexual discrimination” is a one way street. For example, even if it was proven beyond any doubt that men were indeed safer drivers - and that their insurance premiums should similarly reflect this, the notion that men should pay less than women for their car insurance would be considered the height of sexism.

It just wouldn’t fly!