Playing the odds

Insurance companies are like bookies, they figure out a set of odds on a set of circumstances happening and give you a quote based on the likelihood of your failing to avoid those circumstances. After that it's up to you whether you figure the cost is worth it, even with car insurance it's the same for all it's supposed to be mandatory to have it, some people (particularly those who are not good a good bet at avoiding accidents) will choose not to take out the insurance, after all, they are rarely caught and if they are, the fine they get is usually less than their premium.
Well, that used to be the way the system worked until the equality industry got involved...
Mail.

Millions of women drivers could have to pay an extra £362 a year for their car insurance after a ruling by European judges, it emerged yesterday.
The increase follows a decision that men cannot be charged more for their policies even though they are more likely to have a serious crash.
The ruling, described by critics as ‘madness’, means that from December 21 women drivers – although generally safer – will no longer be able to access cheaper car insurance rates because of their gender.
Labour transport spokesman John Woodcock said female drivers face an ‘insurance timebomb’ and called on ministers to curb the impact of the ruling.

First off, this judgement happened on Labours watch, their record on ameliorating ECJ rulings is precisely nil, all that they are doing in this case is using it as a stick to blame and beat the government with (as I'm sure the Tories would have done if the positions were reversed)

Insurance experts warned that younger women will be hit particularly badly as they will end up having to pay the same premiums as ‘boy racers’.
A woman under the age of 22 pays around £1,682 in car insurance while a young man is charged an average of £2,750.
This is because men under 22 are ten times more likely to have a serious crash, 25 times more likely to commit a driving offence and twice as likely to make an insurance claim.
Policies with more than one named driver will be adversely affected if the main policy holder is a woman.
When a man is the main driver and a woman the ‘named’ driver, premiums are likely to come down. The changes will be forced through without Parliament having the chance to fight the ruling by the European Court of Justice.

As you can see, it was all pretty much about odds, statistically women are safer drivers (lets not go down the path of better) in that they have fewer accidents. That meant to insurance companies they were a better risk overall compared to men so could be charged less, it was all about risk after all.
Instead because some idiot consumer group based in Belgium brought a case before the ECJ insurance groups are no longer allowed to play the odds (by giving a good quote) based on gender. As Douglas Carswell put it "Three weeks ago the Prime Minister held a meeting for the insurance industry at Downing Street. But because we are not prepared to do anything about Europe, we can do absolutely nothing about this madness."
Again and again foreign judges are interfering with the way we live our lives, yes I know the ECJ isn't the EU, however it is still allowed to interfere in the laws of this land without taking into account our wishes, after all, what might work for one country may not work for another, but they put a blanket ruling in anyway.
The EU, the ECJ, the HRA, all interfering in our rights, all without a squeak of protest other than the odd bit of media mention and various bloggers plugging away.
When will our politicians start representing us and tell them where to get off or we'll leave?
Don't hold your breath on that one, they are traitors and panderers to the grand European dream.