Shearergol 0 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just taking the gender comments to a more serious point I'd accept that young lads can be worse drivers but I do find the "insurance companies can discriminate because women are better drivers" argument to be infuriating. The statistics may show that women have less accidents but I'd love to see a correlation between those stats and mileage/journey times. On the whole men tend to do more driving and in more "accident prone" times like the rush hour. I'd bet "adjusted" figures would show that driving is the same as everything - a range of good and bad across all categories. I can see that the proposed future "road tolls everywhere" could provide the data for "fairer" insurance for everone. 45045[/snapback] I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident... 45051[/snapback] So if I drove 140 miles a day, don't you think I'd statistically be more likely to be involved in an accident that my mother who drives 3 miles to get to work? 45060[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles. 45080[/snapback] Hang on, you've lost me. Are you saying that insurances companies DO actually take into account how far you drive, or are you saying that the distance you drive has no bearing on how likely you are to cause an accident (fatigue for example, no?). I understand what you are saying about the statistics behind how per mile accidents happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that you're more likely to crash driving longer distances than you are short distances. I'd also like to see the stats about how many accidents are on motorways compared to minor roads tbh. In my experience (and I hope I'm not gonna get labelled sexist for sharing my own experience here ) but most (not all) accidents I've seen looked to have been caused by females. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just taking the gender comments to a more serious point I'd accept that young lads can be worse drivers but I do find the "insurance companies can discriminate because women are better drivers" argument to be infuriating. The statistics may show that women have less accidents but I'd love to see a correlation between those stats and mileage/journey times. On the whole men tend to do more driving and in more "accident prone" times like the rush hour. I'd bet "adjusted" figures would show that driving is the same as everything - a range of good and bad across all categories. I can see that the proposed future "road tolls everywhere" could provide the data for "fairer" insurance for everone. 45045[/snapback] I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident... 45051[/snapback] So if I drove 140 miles a day, don't you think I'd statistically be more likely to be involved in an accident that my mother who drives 3 miles to get to work? 45060[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles. 45080[/snapback] Hang on, you've lost me. Are you saying that insurances companies DO actually take into account how far you drive, or are you saying that the distance you drive has no bearing on how likely you are to cause an accident (fatigue for example, no?). I understand what you are saying about the statistics behind how per mile accidents happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that you're more likely to crash driving longer distances than you are short distances. I'd also like to see the stats about how many accidents are on motorways compared to minor roads tbh. In my experience (and I hope I'm not gonna get labelled sexist for sharing my own experience here ) but most (not all) accidents I've seen looked to have been caused by females. 45086[/snapback] Unless you're a road accident investigator then we should probably disregard your less than scientific 'findings' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4386 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles. They do however already roughly correlate mileage with accidents via projected mileage/number of accidents in 5 years questions. Of course these are very arbitrary which as has been said technology may quantify in the future. I just think if they do want to assess risk properly then they should "firm up" the stats or not bother. Another gripe is that insurance in most peoples view is to cope with accidents but the risk of theft via postcode factors are given too high a proportion in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 On a separate note, Alex suffers the indignity of driving a girls car and can therefore feel rightly agrieved that he doesnt qualify for the favourable girls/benders insurance premiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just taking the gender comments to a more serious point I'd accept that young lads can be worse drivers but I do find the "insurance companies can discriminate because women are better drivers" argument to be infuriating. The statistics may show that women have less accidents but I'd love to see a correlation between those stats and mileage/journey times. On the whole men tend to do more driving and in more "accident prone" times like the rush hour. I'd bet "adjusted" figures would show that driving is the same as everything - a range of good and bad across all categories. I can see that the proposed future "road tolls everywhere" could provide the data for "fairer" insurance for everone. 45045[/snapback] I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident... 45051[/snapback] So if I drove 140 miles a day, don't you think I'd statistically be more likely to be involved in an accident that my mother who drives 3 miles to get to work? 45060[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles. 45080[/snapback] Hang on, you've lost me. Are you saying that insurances companies DO actually take into account how far you drive, or are you saying that the distance you drive has no bearing on how likely you are to cause an accident (fatigue for example, no?). I understand what you are saying about the statistics behind how per mile accidents happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that you're more likely to crash driving longer distances than you are short distances. I'd also like to see the stats about how many accidents are on motorways compared to minor roads tbh. In my experience (and I hope I'm not gonna get labelled sexist for sharing my own experience here ) but most (not all) accidents I've seen looked to have been caused by females. 45086[/snapback] Unless you're a road accident investigator then we should probably disregard your less than scientific 'findings' 45087[/snapback] So basically you can disregard anyone else's views on anything which they don't have a profession in? Yeah, ok then I've driven over 300,000 miles in my life, and seen plenty of accidents. I didn't once state that it was scientific fact, and if you look back I actually started with "in my experience". Well done though, very amusing reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 My mate reckons taxi drivers don't have many crashes but they see a few in their rear view mirrors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just taking the gender comments to a more serious point I'd accept that young lads can be worse drivers but I do find the "insurance companies can discriminate because women are better drivers" argument to be infuriating. The statistics may show that women have less accidents but I'd love to see a correlation between those stats and mileage/journey times. On the whole men tend to do more driving and in more "accident prone" times like the rush hour. I'd bet "adjusted" figures would show that driving is the same as everything - a range of good and bad across all categories. I can see that the proposed future "road tolls everywhere" could provide the data for "fairer" insurance for everone. 45045[/snapback] I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident... 45051[/snapback] So if I drove 140 miles a day, don't you think I'd statistically be more likely to be involved in an accident that my mother who drives 3 miles to get to work? 45060[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles. 45080[/snapback] Hang on, you've lost me. Are you saying that insurances companies DO actually take into account how far you drive, or are you saying that the distance you drive has no bearing on how likely you are to cause an accident (fatigue for example, no?). I understand what you are saying about the statistics behind how per mile accidents happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that you're more likely to crash driving longer distances than you are short distances. I'd also like to see the stats about how many accidents are on motorways compared to minor roads tbh. In my experience (and I hope I'm not gonna get labelled sexist for sharing my own experience here ) but most (not all) accidents I've seen looked to have been caused by females. 45086[/snapback] Unless you're a road accident investigator then we should probably disregard your less than scientific 'findings' 45087[/snapback] So basically you can disregard anyone else's views on anything which they don't have a profession in? Yeah, ok then I've driven over 300,000 miles in my life, and seen plenty of accidents. I didn't once state that it was scientific fact, and if you look back I actually started with "in my experience". Well done though, very amusing reply 45092[/snapback] Fucking hell mate! Time of the month? Seriously though, although I was just joking, no I dont actually think the mere fact that you drive that many motorway miles would qualify you to give that sort of an opinion. You're basing your finding on what you've rubbernecked as you drive past shirley? It's not like you're out there taking witness statements and skid measurements etc. I know what you're getting at though generally. You'll note that I've already made the point about rear end shunts and my spacial awareness theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9777 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just taking the gender comments to a more serious point I'd accept that young lads can be worse drivers but I do find the "insurance companies can discriminate because women are better drivers" argument to be infuriating. The statistics may show that women have less accidents but I'd love to see a correlation between those stats and mileage/journey times. On the whole men tend to do more driving and in more "accident prone" times like the rush hour. I'd bet "adjusted" figures would show that driving is the same as everything - a range of good and bad across all categories. I can see that the proposed future "road tolls everywhere" could provide the data for "fairer" insurance for everone. 45045[/snapback] I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident... 45051[/snapback] So if I drove 140 miles a day, don't you think I'd statistically be more likely to be involved in an accident that my mother who drives 3 miles to get to work? 45060[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles. 45080[/snapback] Hang on, you've lost me. Are you saying that insurances companies DO actually take into account how far you drive, or are you saying that the distance you drive has no bearing on how likely you are to cause an accident (fatigue for example, no?). I understand what you are saying about the statistics behind how per mile accidents happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that you're more likely to crash driving longer distances than you are short distances. I'd also like to see the stats about how many accidents are on motorways compared to minor roads tbh. In my experience (and I hope I'm not gonna get labelled sexist for sharing my own experience here ) but most (not all) accidents I've seen looked to have been caused by females. 45086[/snapback] I just wanted to demonstrate that mileage doesn't matter, wether insurance companies do take it into account or not. Your last point is obviously your own (probably a bit clouded) experience. Insurance companies base their whole system on statistics. If all accidents were caused by women insurance companies would charge them higher than men. They just look how many of their insurants cause insured events. And if they see that of their female insurants less events are caused they make them pay less than their male counterparts. I don't know much about the English health system, but in Germany the same kind of discrimination can be found at health insurances. Women statistically get older than men and cause more insured events. That's why they have to pay more for their insurance than men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just taking the gender comments to a more serious point I'd accept that young lads can be worse drivers but I do find the "insurance companies can discriminate because women are better drivers" argument to be infuriating. The statistics may show that women have less accidents but I'd love to see a correlation between those stats and mileage/journey times. On the whole men tend to do more driving and in more "accident prone" times like the rush hour. I'd bet "adjusted" figures would show that driving is the same as everything - a range of good and bad across all categories. I can see that the proposed future "road tolls everywhere" could provide the data for "fairer" insurance for everone. 45045[/snapback] I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident... 45051[/snapback] So if I drove 140 miles a day, don't you think I'd statistically be more likely to be involved in an accident that my mother who drives 3 miles to get to work? 45060[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles. 45080[/snapback] Hang on, you've lost me. Are you saying that insurances companies DO actually take into account how far you drive, or are you saying that the distance you drive has no bearing on how likely you are to cause an accident (fatigue for example, no?). I understand what you are saying about the statistics behind how per mile accidents happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that you're more likely to crash driving longer distances than you are short distances. I'd also like to see the stats about how many accidents are on motorways compared to minor roads tbh. In my experience (and I hope I'm not gonna get labelled sexist for sharing my own experience here ) but most (not all) accidents I've seen looked to have been caused by females. 45086[/snapback] Unless you're a road accident investigator then we should probably disregard your less than scientific 'findings' 45087[/snapback] So basically you can disregard anyone else's views on anything which they don't have a profession in? Yeah, ok then I've driven over 300,000 miles in my life, and seen plenty of accidents. I didn't once state that it was scientific fact, and if you look back I actually started with "in my experience". Well done though, very amusing reply 45092[/snapback] Fucking hell mate! Time of the month? Seriously though, although I was just joking, no I dont actually think the mere fact that you drive that many motorway miles would qualify you to give that sort of an opinion. You're basing your finding on what you've rubbernecked as you drive past shirley? It's not like you're out there taking witness statements and skid measurements etc. I know what you're getting at though generally. You'll note that I've already made the point about rear end shunts and my spacial awareness theory. 45096[/snapback] Hence why I didn't say... "Women cause more accidents = FACT" I said, "in my experience".... and they "look" to have.... Yes, not scientific at all, just thought I'd share it. I'll refrain in future though Oh, and I've been crashed into three times. Twice by women and once by a man. Statistics prove therefore......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just taking the gender comments to a more serious point I'd accept that young lads can be worse drivers but I do find the "insurance companies can discriminate because women are better drivers" argument to be infuriating. The statistics may show that women have less accidents but I'd love to see a correlation between those stats and mileage/journey times. On the whole men tend to do more driving and in more "accident prone" times like the rush hour. I'd bet "adjusted" figures would show that driving is the same as everything - a range of good and bad across all categories. I can see that the proposed future "road tolls everywhere" could provide the data for "fairer" insurance for everone. 45045[/snapback] I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident... 45051[/snapback] So if I drove 140 miles a day, don't you think I'd statistically be more likely to be involved in an accident that my mother who drives 3 miles to get to work? 45060[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles. 45080[/snapback] Hang on, you've lost me. Are you saying that insurances companies DO actually take into account how far you drive, or are you saying that the distance you drive has no bearing on how likely you are to cause an accident (fatigue for example, no?). I understand what you are saying about the statistics behind how per mile accidents happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that you're more likely to crash driving longer distances than you are short distances. I'd also like to see the stats about how many accidents are on motorways compared to minor roads tbh. In my experience (and I hope I'm not gonna get labelled sexist for sharing my own experience here ) but most (not all) accidents I've seen looked to have been caused by females. 45086[/snapback] Unless you're a road accident investigator then we should probably disregard your less than scientific 'findings' 45087[/snapback] So basically you can disregard anyone else's views on anything which they don't have a profession in? Yeah, ok then I've driven over 300,000 miles in my life, and seen plenty of accidents. I didn't once state that it was scientific fact, and if you look back I actually started with "in my experience". Well done though, very amusing reply 45092[/snapback] Fucking hell mate! Time of the month? Seriously though, although I was just joking, no I dont actually think the mere fact that you drive that many motorway miles would qualify you to give that sort of an opinion. You're basing your finding on what you've rubbernecked as you drive past shirley? It's not like you're out there taking witness statements and skid measurements etc. I know what you're getting at though generally. You'll note that I've already made the point about rear end shunts and my spacial awareness theory. 45096[/snapback] Hence why I didn't say... "Women cause more accidents = FACT" I said, "in my experience".... and they "look" to have.... Yes, not scientific at all, just thought I'd share it. I'll refrain in future though Oh, and I've been crashed into three times. Twice by women and once by a man. Statistics prove therefore......... 45098[/snapback] Bit touchy in my experience tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just taking the gender comments to a more serious point I'd accept that young lads can be worse drivers but I do find the "insurance companies can discriminate because women are better drivers" argument to be infuriating. The statistics may show that women have less accidents but I'd love to see a correlation between those stats and mileage/journey times. On the whole men tend to do more driving and in more "accident prone" times like the rush hour. I'd bet "adjusted" figures would show that driving is the same as everything - a range of good and bad across all categories. I can see that the proposed future "road tolls everywhere" could provide the data for "fairer" insurance for everone. 45045[/snapback] I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident... 45051[/snapback] So if I drove 140 miles a day, don't you think I'd statistically be more likely to be involved in an accident that my mother who drives 3 miles to get to work? 45060[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles. 45080[/snapback] Hang on, you've lost me. Are you saying that insurances companies DO actually take into account how far you drive, or are you saying that the distance you drive has no bearing on how likely you are to cause an accident (fatigue for example, no?). I understand what you are saying about the statistics behind how per mile accidents happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that you're more likely to crash driving longer distances than you are short distances. I'd also like to see the stats about how many accidents are on motorways compared to minor roads tbh. In my experience (and I hope I'm not gonna get labelled sexist for sharing my own experience here ) but most (not all) accidents I've seen looked to have been caused by females. 45086[/snapback] I just wanted to demonstrate that mileage doesn't matter, wether insurance companies do take it into account or not. Your last point is obviously your own (probably a bit clouded) experience. Insurance companies base their whole system on statistics. If all accidents were caused by women insurance companies would charge them higher than men. They just look how many of their insurants cause insured events. And if they see that of their female insurants less events are caused they make them pay less than their male counterparts. I don't know much about the English health system, but in Germany the same kind of discrimination can be found at health insurances. Women statistically get older than men and cause more insured events. That's why they have to pay more for their insurance than men. 45097[/snapback] Can someone please tell me why mileage doesn't matter, without throwing the statistics into this. Surely the further you drive, the more likely you are to crash (not statistically, but physically). In the same way that the older the car is, the more likely you are to crash. In the same way that the worse your eyesight is, the more likely you are to crash. Or do you want to look at it the other way, and say that because someone drives 140 miles a day, he becomes a better driver than someone who drives 3 miles a day, as generally drivers become better with experience. I've forgotten what I'm arguing about now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4386 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I know what you're getting at though generally. You'll note that I've already made the point about rear end shunts and my spacial awareness theory. 45096[/snapback] As another view I've been a cyclist as an adult for about 11 years and nearly every minor accident and near miss I've had has involved a woman driver. Before anyone starts I never cycle on the pavement or go through red lights. I don't know whether its a thing of girls not using bikes as much as kids and having no concept of how fast semi-fit adults can go or what but its something I'd stand by within normal "shocking generalisation" levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 It is 'funny' how things like sexism and homophobia are far more acceptable than racism in our society, i.e. you can 'get away' with certain jokes and not others. It's all prejudice at the end of the day. I realise most of the comments on here were probably tongue-in-cheek. 45039[/snapback] If by cheek you mean arse cheek, then I've noticed Smooth Operators tongue in Wacky's 'cheek' a fair bit of late. But thats welcome respite from the rampant homophobia on here. Personally, I welcome this new wave of diversity to the board. 45044[/snapback] There'll be no brown tongueing on my watch thank you. Rampant homophobia? Where? (Dirty, dirty benders!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I know what you're getting at though generally. You'll note that I've already made the point about rear end shunts and my spacial awareness theory. 45096[/snapback] As another view I've been a cyclist as an adult for about 11 years and nearly every minor accident and near miss I've had has involved a woman driver. Before anyone starts I never cycle on the pavement or go through red lights. I don't know whether its a thing of girls not using bikes as much as kids and having no concept of how fast semi-fit adults can go or what but its something I'd stand by within normal "shocking generalisation" levels. 45102[/snapback] They can't throw or catch properly either tbh. In my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I know what you're getting at though generally. You'll note that I've already made the point about rear end shunts and my spacial awareness theory. 45096[/snapback] As another view I've been a cyclist as an adult for about 11 years and nearly every minor accident and near miss I've had has involved a woman driver. Before anyone starts I never cycle on the pavement or go through red lights. I don't know whether its a thing of girls not using bikes as much as kids and having no concept of how fast semi-fit adults can go or what but its something I'd stand by within normal "shocking generalisation" levels. 45102[/snapback] They can't throw or catch properly either tbh. In my experience. 45104[/snapback] They can't throw or catch properly either tbh. FACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9777 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 (edited) Can someone please tell me why mileage doesn't matter, without throwing the statistics into this. Surely the further you drive, the more likely you are to crash (not statistically, but physically). In the same way that the older the car is, the more likely you are to crash. In the same way that the worse your eyesight is, the more likely you are to crash. Or do you want to look at it the other way, and say that because someone drives 140 miles a day, he becomes a better driver than someone who drives 3 miles a day, as generally drivers become better with experience. I've forgotten what I'm arguing about now. 45101[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver. Edited October 12, 2005 by Isegrim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Can someone please tell me why mileage doesn't matter, without throwing the statistics into this. Surely the further you drive, the more likely you are to crash (not statistically, but physically). In the same way that the older the car is, the more likely you are to crash. In the same way that the worse your eyesight is, the more likely you are to crash. Or do you want to look at it the other way, and say that because someone drives 140 miles a day, he becomes a better driver than someone who drives 3 miles a day, as generally drivers become better with experience. I've forgotten what I'm arguing about now. 45101[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver. 45109[/snapback] Gol's driven over 300,000 miles though. Thats half a million of your wacky euro 'kilometres'. You can't argue with logic like that. You're wasting your sausage breath mate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4386 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Can someone please tell me why mileage doesn't matter, without throwing the statistics into this. Surely the further you drive, the more likely you are to crash (not statistically, but physically). In the same way that the older the car is, the more likely you are to crash. In the same way that the worse your eyesight is, the more likely you are to crash. Or do you want to look at it the other way, and say that because someone drives 140 miles a day, he becomes a better driver than someone who drives 3 miles a day, as generally drivers become better with experience. I've forgotten what I'm arguing about now. 45101[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver. 45109[/snapback] Yeah you've described how it works at present but I think mine and SG's point is that it should and future technology might facilitate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 So on a related note, if oyu could prove black people were, for whatever reason, statistically poor drivers, would it be OK to discriminate against them? I don't think so somehow, so why is it acceptable to discriminate against men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Taxi Drivers piss me off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 It doesnt take much for Renton to get started on the blacks does it? Joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Or wimmin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7030 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 i must admit when im in a hurry i do most of these things, however im severely limited by the shitness of my car as to how fast i can drive or overtake people as it has the acceleration of a geriatric tortoise. when i get in my mams car though i think im colin mcrae for some reason. ps, im not a boy racer, but if everyone is trying to get to work on time im not going to sit back and be the only one who is late Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocChip 0 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 As a cyclist and not a car driver, i prefer women drivers. They actually have some regard for my safety. They will not deliberately run into me or coem far too close or drive at me in an intimidating manner just to prove a point. I think women drivers put more emphasis on the preservation of another human being's flesh and blood than trying to gain 10 yards in a traffic queue. Nothing compares to cab drivers though, i believe they stay seated and hidden form ther waist down so that we can't see their goat's hoofs where your feet should be. Spawn of the Dark Lord tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9777 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Can someone please tell me why mileage doesn't matter, without throwing the statistics into this. Surely the further you drive, the more likely you are to crash (not statistically, but physically). In the same way that the older the car is, the more likely you are to crash. In the same way that the worse your eyesight is, the more likely you are to crash. Or do you want to look at it the other way, and say that because someone drives 140 miles a day, he becomes a better driver than someone who drives 3 miles a day, as generally drivers become better with experience. I've forgotten what I'm arguing about now. 45101[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver. 45109[/snapback] Yeah you've described how it works at present but I think mine and SG's point is that it should and future technology might facilitate it. 45114[/snapback] I don't think even with future facilites you'll be able a fair insurance system based on mileage. Look, insurances are basing their system on the cost of insured events. They therefore look how much money they have to acquire. The calculation is mostly based on a year, with insurants paying periodically (I don't think that's different in England). To get a fair system they now have to generate a system where the contribution of each insurant matches the insured events he causes as good as possible. Mileage doesn't fit into this system, because you have one parameter too much. You would have to base this system on insured events/year on one hand and insured events/mileage on the other hand. Well, you could change the system by crossing out the time factor, but then how to calculate the contribution so that they provide the insurance with enough cash constantly. Mileage is also a far too variable. Gender on the other hand is a static parameter. Renton is right, though. You could also base your calculation on other static parameters like race. That would obviously cause a huge uproar. Anyway, there exists an EC-discrimantion act that has to get implemented into national legislation. It prohibits every kind of discrimination of race, religion, gender etc. It is a big topic here in Germany (especially among privat law scientiest like me), because women right groups demand the act to be implemented as soon as possible, because they feel especially discriminated by one economical branch...and guess what...it's the insurance industry that is discriminating women in a lot branches due to their statistically longer life time. It's funny while those women are able to dig out loads of insurance sectors where they are discriminated, men do only come up with one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now