Intolerance on this newsgroup

The Reids writes:

Why do insurance companies charge less for women drivers?

They have fewer accidents.

why do insurance companies charge less for older drivers?

They have fewer accidents. In areas where they don't, the insurance
companies don't charge less.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Dave Smith writes:

The more important issue may be why they charge more
for young males.

Same thing. They charge more for young males because young males have
more accidents.

I would suppose that it is because there is the old belief that
in years gone by, young women tended to be better drivers
than young men.

It's not an old belief, it's a modern fact, supported by the statistics.

I don't know what you are seeing on the road these days, but what
I see is a lot of young women speeding, failing to stop, failing
to yield, making improper turns, and often with a cell phone stuck
to their ears.

But you don't notice people who are driving safely.

With the graphed data being based on miles per mile driven, men
may have lower accident rates per mile driven more total accidents
or a higher percentage of accidents due to the greater distances they
travel.

You are speculating. The existing statistics are not speculation, and
they make it very clear that young men are particularly prone to
accidents.

Once again, it may be partially attributed to the fact that
the graph I described was based on accidents per distance driven.
Older people don't drive as much. They don't go to work on a
daily basis, no long commutes, tend to stay local.

Once again, you're speculating. If you are unwilling to accept the hard
statistics, why are you willing to speculate based on pure conjecture?

The data the insurance companies have is subject to manipulation.

More speculation. Insurance companies don't have to manipulate data;
they can make all the money they want by using the real statistics.
Indeed, if they don't use real statistics, they will lose money.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:11:35 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

The Reids writes:

Why do insurance companies charge less for women drivers?

They have fewer accidents.

No.
They have less expensive accidents.
They have more accidents, but generally only small dents, as opposed to men
who tend to wreck the car. Statistically speaking.

--
Tim C.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:15:46 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

You are speculating. The existing statistics are not speculation, and
they make it very clear that young men are particularly prone to
accidents.

This is backed up be insurance mortality tables - there is a significant
peak for males around 17.18 and drop after age 21 (~motor accidents and
suicides)- the rate being roughly 5 times that for women at age 17, whereas
women's mortality rates show a peak in the late 20s (~childbirth problems).

Source: Ettl-Pagler.

--
Tim C.

Following up to Tim Challenger

They have fewer accidents.

No.
They have less expensive accidents.
They have more accidents, but generally only small dents, as opposed to men
who tend to wreck the car. Statistically speaking.

Yes, its often said a woman is likely to dent your car, which is
irritating, while a man is likely to kill you in a major pile up.
Mrs Average is inattentive, non competitive and sees no point in
taking risks, Mr Average is technically better at driving and
more experienced, but needs to be as he drives more aggressively
and probably enjoys speed for its own sake.
Mr Average youth is doubly dangerous as he lacks Mr Averages
skill and experience but has added testosterone, surviving
driving only by the skin of his good reaction times.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Thanks BB - a deserved admonishment. I only recently got back into
usenet and am using a ridiculous Google form of access which leaves me
no control at all. Before I criticise i guess i should sort myself out!

BB wrote:
On 9 Feb 2005 11:24:50 -0800, Steve wrote:
Ten years ago I was able to get instant, accurate and helpful
information here on travel conditions in Northern Spain. I don't
think
that would happen now - someone would say Spanish surrender monkeys
etc and a whole thread of nonsense would result.

Not really. I recently posted a thread about Brittany (in
France...easily
could have gone the "surrender monkey" route), and the responses
(though
few) were all on-topic.

Most of the off-topic posts are in off-topic threads. If you can get
a
newsreader that places all the posts in threads (most do), they're
easy to
ignore. If you can get a newsreader that allows you to do some decent

filtering, you won't even know that most of the "intolerant" threads
even
exist.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:10:38 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

And I'll jsut bet you can cite the statistics to back that up.

Looking at case reports makes this clear.

Name them.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Following up to Steve

I only recently got back into
usenet and am using a ridiculous Google form of access which leaves me
no control at all.

that explains all, I suspect a lot of unhappy posters come by
that route. Download Free Agent ASAP!
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap