I forwarded this to my ex-brother-in-law who had done some work for the
insurance institute. Here are his comments:
Woody Hair
I was working with IIHS when this study was done by Allen Williams and Brian
O'Neill, that smarmy little Welshman. I used to have a copy of it and I
remember being pissed about it at the time. The fallacy in the study is
that
the only measure that was used to determine whether a driver was a "safe
driver"
was how many accidents they had been involved in and how many moving
violation
they had been charged with. The theory is that people who are involved in
accidents and moving violations are "unsafe drivers." I think it's time to
conduct the study again with some valid methods. There were no correlations
made of miles driven per year, driving experience, fault or causes in the
accidents cited, etc. Don't forget that IIHS is totally funded by the
insurance
companies.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Steckel" <lorenzoscribe@hotmail.com>
To: <pullg@mindspring.com>; <evolution-discussions@yahoogroups.com>;
<autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [evolution-disc.] Insurance study of racing drivers
> One thing that was probably not considered in the study drivers with SCCA
> competition licenses is that in all prbability those drivers spend a much
> larger number per hours per month on the road. Traveling for work, or
> commuting to events, club meetings, expeditions looking for parts and
simply
> for the joy of driving. Therefore, their exposure to a potential accident
> will be much higher than the general public. That alone could explain the
> higher accident numbers.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|