ChocChip 0 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... 45157[/snapback] All by the by IMO 'cause as we all know, most blacks don't have insurance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 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... 45157[/snapback] I see what you're saying but.... My view is that if they do include a factor for "likeliness to have an accident" which is based on the number of accidents someone has had in the past then they should consider all of the factors that actually produce those stats and look further than "less women have accidents". I think its the glib use of the phrase "women are safer drivers" that I object to - not because I don't think its true but because its basis is flawed imo and I don't think it should be applied to the cost on such an arbitrary basis. On the equality issue in general there have always been swings and roundabouts - not so common now but the differential retirement ages being a classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44811 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I've just come back from lunch whereupon I witnessed some of the worst parking I've ever seen. Next to a disabled spot was a tiny gap that clearly wasn't meant to be a parking space, and next to it were some bollards. Someone had parked diagonally so that their front bumper was literally an inch from the disabled person's car, and their passenger door an inch from the bollard. How the hell they got out of the car I don't know. Needless to say I noticed a woman walking away from the scene, and she turned round and pressed the button on her keyring, and lo and behold it was the lights on this appalingly parked Polo that flashed. I've even done a bit of a drawing so you can see what it was like - it doesn't get any more scientific than this. Silly fucking bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 (edited) I've just come back from lunch whereupon I witnessed some of the worst parking I've ever seen. Next to a disabled spot was a tiny gap that clearly wasn't meant to be a parking space, and next to it were some bollards. Someone had parked diagonally so that their front bumper was literally an inch from the disabled person's car, and their passenger door an inch from the bollard. How the hell they got out of the car I don't know. Needless to say I noticed a woman walking away from the scene, and she turned round and pressed the button on her keyring, and lo and behold it was the lights on this appalingly parked Polo that flashed. I've even done a bit of a drawing so you can see what it was like - it doesn't get any more scientific than this. Silly fucking bitch. 45163[/snapback] What does this prove? Men can't draw? Edited October 12, 2005 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I've just come back from lunch whereupon I witnessed some of the worst parking I've ever seen. Next to a disabled spot was a tiny gap that clearly wasn't meant to be a parking space, and next to it were some bollards. Someone had parked diagonally so that their front bumper was literally an inch from the disabled person's car, and their passenger door an inch from the bollard. How the hell they got out of the car I don't know. Needless to say I noticed a woman walking away from the scene, and she turned round and pressed the button on her keyring, and lo and behold it was the lights on this appalingly parked Polo that flashed. I've even done a bit of a drawing so you can see what it was like - it doesn't get any more scientific than this. Silly fucking bitch. 45163[/snapback] In case anybody missed it the other day, this man was actually offered a fucking PAYRISE to stay with his employer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44811 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I've just come back from lunch whereupon I witnessed some of the worst parking I've ever seen. Next to a disabled spot was a tiny gap that clearly wasn't meant to be a parking space, and next to it were some bollards. Someone had parked diagonally so that their front bumper was literally an inch from the disabled person's car, and their passenger door an inch from the bollard. How the hell they got out of the car I don't know. Needless to say I noticed a woman walking away from the scene, and she turned round and pressed the button on her keyring, and lo and behold it was the lights on this appalingly parked Polo that flashed. I've even done a bit of a drawing so you can see what it was like - it doesn't get any more scientific than this. Silly fucking bitch. 45163[/snapback] In case anybody missed it the other day, this man was actually offered a fucking PAYRISE to stay with his employer! 45168[/snapback] Worth every penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 thats looks like some of the parking at rake lane hospital - buggers will park anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 "I think its the glib use of the phrase "women are safer drivers" that I object to - not because I don't think its true but because its basis is flawed imo and I don't think it should be applied to the cost on such an arbitrary basis." Insurers use actuaries (the most boring people under the sun) to calculate the rates for everything - if women have lower rates its beacause the insurance company is less likely to have to pay out i.e they have less accidents - the question of "better" drivers doesn't come into it - its straight (but complaex) maths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6682 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 We've got a 'name and shame' thing going on at work at the moment. Any shit parking, it's photographed by security and put on the intranet.... People moan like fuck that they're being 'exposed' but as they're told, if they bothered to park sensibly, their cars will never appear on the list! Invariably it's the females who are on there - but I'm saying nowt for fear of Bridget telling me I'm talking shite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21588 Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 "I think its the glib use of the phrase "women are safer drivers" that I object to - not because I don't think its true but because its basis is flawed imo and I don't think it should be applied to the cost on such an arbitrary basis." Insurers use actuaries (the most boring people under the sun) to calculate the rates for everything - if women have lower rates its beacause the insurance company is less likely to have to pay out i.e they have less accidents - the question of "better" drivers doesn't come into it - its straight (but complaex) maths 45223[/snapback] Is Gemmill an 'actuary'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Without wishing to simply ingratiate myself to the female members of the board, I would say, generally speaking (it would have to be generally speaking I suppose) women are the superior gender. That's just my point of view and I don't consider Margaret Thatcher to be a woman either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21588 Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 Without wishing to simply ingratiate myself to the female members of the board, I would say, generally speaking (it would have to be generally speaking I suppose) women are the superior gender. That's just my point of view and I don't consider Margaret Thatcher to be a woman either. 45230[/snapback] As if! That strikes me as an odd thing to say mind. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by superior. Stronger? More intelligent? etc. It strikes me that it is men who have largely driven the world we live in, for whatever reason. I certainly don't think we are inferior to women, just different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Without wishing to simply ingratiate myself to the female members of the board, I would say, generally speaking (it would have to be generally speaking I suppose) women are the superior gender. That's just my point of view and I don't consider Margaret Thatcher to be a woman either. 45230[/snapback] As if! That strikes me as an odd thing to say mind. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by superior. Stronger? More intelligent? etc. It strikes me that it is men who have largely driven the world we live in, for whatever reason. I certainly don't think we are inferior to women, just different. 45233[/snapback] Unlike you to disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 "I think its the glib use of the phrase "women are safer drivers" that I object to - not because I don't think its true but because its basis is flawed imo and I don't think it should be applied to the cost on such an arbitrary basis." Insurers use actuaries (the most boring people under the sun) to calculate the rates for everything - if women have lower rates its beacause the insurance company is less likely to have to pay out i.e they have less accidents - the question of "better" drivers doesn't come into it - its straight (but complaex) maths 45223[/snapback] Is Gemmill an 'actuary'? 45229[/snapback] Unlikely they are very very good at stats and maths, they get paid a fortune but they are never allowed out into the light the standard joke is "they couldn't stand life in the fast lane that is accountancy" real geeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sicklee Sausage Roll 0 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 (edited) There was a recent study which revealed that no specific group (Gender, age, car size, etc. etc.) was more likely to be involved in a road accident, and that time spent driving was the main factor in being in a crash. People who drove for a living ie. Sales Reps, Taxi Drivers etc. were higher risks because of their time spent on the road, rather than any particular way of driving. Edited October 12, 2005 by Sicklee Sausage Roll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Unlikely they are very very good at stats and maths, they get paid a fortune but they are never allowed out into the light the standard joke is "they couldn't stand life in the fast lane that is accountancy" real geeks 45244[/snapback] When I was young I wanted to grow up to be an actuary, none of these gung-ho notions of being an astronaut for me. What a dull child I must have been that my greatest aspiration was a life of probability. Strange that they're almost equally as difficult to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6682 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 There was a recent study which revealed that no specific group (Gender, age, car size, etc. etc.) was more likely to be involved in a road accident, and that time spent driving was the main factor in being in a crash. People who drove for a living ie. Sales Reps, Taxi Drivers etc. were higher risks because of their time spent on the road, rather than any particular way of driving. 45298[/snapback] So that backs up Gol's claim....... Still at least he's not on his own! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 There was a recent study which revealed that no specific group (Gender, age, car size, etc. etc.) was more likely to be involved in a road accident, and that time spent driving was the main factor in being in a crash. People who drove for a living ie. Sales Reps, Taxi Drivers etc. were higher risks because of their time spent on the road, rather than any particular way of driving. 45298[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 This Bridget sounds like a right vinegar tits, what's up Bridget? Not enough cock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Look i'm happy to talk, whatever your problem is there's a way around it! If you ever need to chat pm me and i'll help you through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44811 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Smooth Operator vs. Bridget. Class. And Renton, I am not now, nor have I ever been an actuary, you c-word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catmag 337 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 This Bridget sounds like a right vinegar tits, what's up Bridget? Not enough cock? 45353[/snapback] With no disrespect to Bridget, that quote in itself deserves to go into the Gold Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 There was a recent study which revealed that no specific group (Gender, age, car size, etc. etc.) was more likely to be involved in a road accident, and that time spent driving was the main factor in being in a crash. People who drove for a living ie. Sales Reps, Taxi Drivers etc. were higher risks because of their time spent on the road, rather than any particular way of driving. 45298[/snapback] SOURCE???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Unlikely they are very very good at stats and maths, they get paid a fortune but they are never allowed out into the light the standard joke is "they couldn't stand life in the fast lane that is accountancy" real geeks 45244[/snapback] When I was young I wanted to grow up to be an actuary, none of these gung-ho notions of being an astronaut for me. What a dull child I must have been that my greatest aspiration was a life of probability. Strange that they're almost equally as difficult to achieve. 45302[/snapback] Actuaries don't make the front pages - on the other hand they rarely die early either 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