In NZ, car insurance companies openly use location, gender and age in pricing.
Men under 25 pay the highest premiums due to their repeated statistically demonstrated tendency to take far more risks and accordingly have far more serious accidents.
(And good luck getting full insurance if you're male, under 25 and own a vehicle with a turbo.)
Likewise, women 30+ get lower premiums than men because while they have more fender benders, they have far less serious crashes - and our insurance companies proudly advertise to women on that basis.
And your car premium will vary based on your location's car theft rates, although how you store your car (garage vs. driveway vs. street parking) and installed antitheft devices will reduce it.
However, race based pricing is very much not a thing.
It probably could be, as a proxy for socio-economic status, as the indigenous people of NZ are over-represented in all negative socio-economic indicators, thanks to colonisation followed by about a century of government policy, some deliberate (e.g., Tohunga Suppression Act 1907), some accidental (Manpower Act 1944).
And poor young men are even more at risk of serious accident than other young men.
That said, as no insurer will pay out if your car didn't have a current warrant of fitness (proof that your car meets minimum safety regulations), or current registration (just a tax, used to fund road maintenance and our no-fault accident insurance scheme), that effectively discriminates against poor people anyway.
Incidentally, NZ doesn't have compulsory third party insurance.
And I strongly support that - making it compulsory only benefits insurance companies by reducing their risk (which they aren't compelled to pass on to customers as lower premiums), and because once something is mandatory, you can charge far more than is fair, and people can't respond like a rational market would by just not buying your service.