DanTheMan 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] So that backs up Gol's claim....... Still at least he's not on his own! 45305[/snapback] He's never on his own, he always has you to arse lick him. 45351[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 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] So that backs up Gol's claim....... Still at least he's not on his own! 45305[/snapback] He's never on his own, he always has you to arse lick him. 45351[/snapback] 45384[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6293 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] So that backs up Gol's claim....... Still at least he's not on his own! 45305[/snapback] He's never on his own, he always has you to arse lick him. 45351[/snapback] Oooo is that Emmeline Pankhurst with her handbag out again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8868 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 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. 45161[/snapback] I can't speak for british car insurances, but here in Germany we have something called "no claims bonus". The longer you drive without an accident the less you have to pay. Beginners start at 190% of the standard rate. If they stay accident free the rate can down onto to 30%. And if SSR's statistic is right and people who drive more are more likely to be involved in an accident, they should pay more, don't they... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 It's the same here it's even got the same name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocChip 0 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 It's the same here it's even got the same name. 45514[/snapback] They've obviousley nicked it tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I can't speak for british car insurances, but here in Germany we have something called "no claims bonus". The longer you drive without an accident the less you have to pay. Beginners start at 190% of the standard rate. If they stay accident free the rate can down onto to 30%. And if SSR's statistic is right and people who drive more are more likely to be involved in an accident, they should pay more, don't they... 45511[/snapback] The no claims bonus is the starting point but then other factors are applied - type of car, age, gender and strangely occupation. You can then of course have a protected no claims bonus which means I can "recklessly" have accidents without losing it. I guess you're right about the likelihood thing but I see it in terms of the ratio of accidents per amount driven as an indicator of "safeness". Perhaps the future technology will be used in the exact opposite way to that I've suggested earlier and "heavy use" drivers will be charged more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 people who drive average cars and think that the age of the car has some relevance to its speed/ quality. nobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 people who drive average cars and think that the age of the car has some relevance to its speed/ quality. nobs 45644[/snapback] Well in some cases, it's right, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 234 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster 0 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Nobody has mentioned the 'Hat Rule' yet. The next time you see someone driving a car with a hat on, watch out. They will fall into three categories: 1) Boy racer with a baseball cap. 2 ) Geriatric fart with a checked cap on. 3 ) Slightly insane woman with a bonnet on. In all these cases use extreme caution as their driving is highly likely to be disastrous. Who in their right mind would get into a car with headwear of any sort on anyway? Exactly - a knobber. In case you don't believe me or think this is a wind up, remember the next time you see a driver wearing a hat of some description - you'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishMag 0 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Non use of indicators is a sure-fire winner for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 People who don't indicate on roundabouts annoys me. Especially if you're trying to turn right and could've had a gap otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Newly qualified drivers who think they own the road annoy the fuck out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieMessiah 0 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Newly qualified drivers who think they own the road annoy the fuck out of me. Worse than being stuck behind a learner driver when you're running late for a meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 God, that reminds me. The other week I was stuck behind a learner most of the way from Harrogate to Leeds. The A61 is mostly 60mph speed limit, but this bitch was dawdling along at a maximum of 35. And I was five cars behind them so I couldn't overtake. People like that should be shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Newly qualified drivers who think they own the road annoy the fuck out of me. Just because you're my driving subordinate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radgina 1 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Newly qualified drivers who think they own the road annoy the fuck out of me. Just because you're my driving subordinate. brok gunneytellll them fuck offff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Not indicating at roundabouts should result in a punishment beating. Middle-lane hogs should be pulled over, tested on the highway code, then fined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 JCB's, tractors and cranes should be banned from using the roads between 730am to 9am and 430pm to 6pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 When you are at a set of traffic lights and want to go straight on but the brainless fucker in front of you who is turning right is sat in the middle of the road blocking your path instead of pulling over to the centre line to let you slip past on his/her left. GRRRRR! I'm on a roll now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 People who parallel park in a busy area leaving three quarters of a car length in front and behind them. You should be entitled to knock their wing mirror off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gejon 2 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 This isn't really "other drivers" but slow drivers piss me off when you are trying to cross a road. They arent going slow enough for you to risk it but they go slow enough so the group of cars a lot further away has the chance to make up the space so you have to wait even longer to get across! Honestly this women must have been doing 20mph the other day on a long, straight, clear bit of road! People like that should not be allowed to drive! She actually looked really scared as she drove past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Trucks that don't pull over for miles and miles on single lane A-roads, despite the fact they can't even see the end of the queue in their mirrors, and their are parking lay-bys every few miles fuck off you hairy cunts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Trucks that don't pull over for miles and miles on single lane A-roads, despite the fact they can't even see the end of the queue in their mirrors, and their are parking lay-bys every few miles fuck off you hairy cunts Yep, and the two lorry drivers on a dual carriageway doing overtaking maneuvers that go on for miles because one of them is doing 56mph and the other one is doing 56.5 mph. 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