I wasn't being PC. Just saying, gender probably has a measurable biological effect, far more so than race, so this is different to insurers discriminating on racial grounds.(Original post by Hazular)
I wasn't specifically targeting Asians, they're just the first racial group that popped into my head, heh.
I dunno, why would testosterone cause blokes to be bad drivers? When I'm driving along, I find that men and women are equally terrible, although usually on different aspects, like men usually speed more but women usually cut across lanes and swerve all over the road-.-
Yes women are statistically more likely to crash (I think), but men are more likely to cause bigger accidents and cost more money, and I'm pretty sure this could be linked to biological factors affecting aggressiveness, desire to show off and so on.
Of course, this is all generalisation: I'm a guy, but I consider myself a pretty laid back driver; I quite often exceed the speed limit on motorways/NSL zones, but am not one for pimping out my car, going into the right lane at lights, or being very revvy.
But insurers need some grounds for narrowing down their criteria. Ideally, they would base this more on accident history and so on, but I can see why it's fair to discriminate on gender or age grounds. I think this ruling goes too far. Also I can't stand it when the EU starts nannying.
Tons of places at all these high-ranking unis