I'd say it is.

It's not really based on gender alone. Statistically speaking, teenage boys exceed the speed limit more often and have more accidents because they take more risks. It's a testosterone thing. Sorry guys, but insurance agencies work off the numbers and the numbers say teenage boys are a greater risk.

Unconstitutional would mean that there is a constitution stating that it must be so. I don't believe the forefathers of America considered automobiles at the time. I do think that insurance companies are businesses and businesses are set to make money. While in California, it does seem a bit unfair since insurance is mandatory, one has to consider how insurance rates are calculated. It is not, in fact, based on gender but on a statistical fact that boys get into more accidents than girls (possibly skewed since less girls drive than boys, but also skewed since "demand" is higher from male teen drivers than female teen drivers). The extreme example of the reasonableness of this idea is selling car insurance to a driver without fingers. If there were a number of these drivers on the road and they all got into accidents for obvious reasons, the insurance company would need to have an exorbitantly high rate in order to compensate for expected losses. Sexist? No. Try improving the driving of all the teenage boys in your community, which means ending all street racing. If you can achieve that, I'm sure your insurance adjuster will be happy you did and rates will go down as long as accidents stay down. Additionally, you can offset car insurance with a couple of other easy tactics, depending on the insurance company. Some offer a good grades discount (cause nerds get in fewer accidents) and some offer a discount based on parental driving records. Consider doing community service, getting a part-time job and bringing accident correlation statistics to your adjuster and plead your case. If all else fails, buy the most expensive car you can't afford. At that high a level, insurance rates are exorbitant enough to disregard gender disparity.

Statistical discrimination has not yet been ruled unconstitutional and never will if the insurance lobbyists in Washington have anything to say about it.

If the insurance companies worked out that teen boys are more likely to claim off their insurance than teen girls, then it's just business sense. If the constitution stated that both young sexes should pay the same price I bet insurance companies would raise the price for girls, who then would complain that it's not fair that they should pay as much as boys when they are nowhere as high risk as them and guess what: they'd be right. Yet after a few years of driving, good drivers get to pay according to their driving history and not their sex so go ahead and build up a good history.

Idk...for the 5 years I DID have a license I racked up an insane amount of points driving like a TOTAL dick and spent tons on a lawyer and tickets and I'm still waiting to get my license back. - a male driver