Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 01.03.2011, 17:54
adrianlondon's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 9,131
Groaned at 170 Times in 153 Posts
Thanked 25,643 Times in 6,892 Posts
adrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
Insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender
This makes perfect sense. They can still charge different premiums based on their propensity to have an accident/claim.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01.03.2011, 17:57
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
Your statement is correct only if you assume accidents are independent of each other. Statistical claims evidence of motor vehicles would suggest not.
No. I didn't say, imply nor do I believe that accidents are independent of each other. They all link back to the driver (which is why the no claims bonus system is a good one IMO). They don't, however, link to or influence each other, which was the discussion with the dice previously.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01.03.2011, 17:59
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
This makes perfect sense. They can still charge different premiums based on their propensity to have an accident/claim.
Exactly, but only after they've been insured for a while. New drivers will have to be insured at the same rate.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01.03.2011, 18:02
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 338 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 26,263 Times in 11,000 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
Your statement is correct only if you assume accidents are independent of each other. Statistical claims evidence of motor vehicles would suggest not.
Other things come into it as well.

So supposing A is a poor driver but only drives rarely, and has therefore had few accidents. Now A changes job or residence and starts driving a lot more. A's accident rate is going to increase but the insurer cannot forsee that because they're not looking at this information.

Reversely, B is a safe driver who drives a lot for work and has, by simple virtue of the large number of hours spent on the road, been involved in a fair number of accidents. B gets a new job where he can commute by public transport and only takes the car for a once a month Sunday visit to Grandma. Yet B will continue to be charged in the high risk bracket.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01.03.2011, 18:12
Carlos R's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Roundn'about Basel
Posts: 7,231
Groaned at 105 Times in 95 Posts
Thanked 9,934 Times in 4,178 Posts
Carlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
Reversely, B is a safe driver who drives a lot for work and has, by simple virtue of the large number of hours spent on the road, been involved in a fair number of accidents. B gets a new job where he can commute by public transport and only takes the car for a once a month Sunday visit to Grandma. Yet B will continue to be charged in the high risk bracket.
Although "B" can reduce his premiums by telling his insurance company that he is not using his car for commuting and only uses for recreational purposes*...

*like I did & do...
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01.03.2011, 18:14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

At the risk of dragging this thread kicking and screaming back on-topic, AFAICS the ruling is inevitable, given the drive towards gender equality that many people would regard as A Good Thing.

The harsh reality is that such equality cannot (or at least, should not) be la carte - "I want gender equality on this, this and this, but I don't want gender equality on that..." - any more than any other "equality".

This in itself can create "inequality" - e.g. positive discrimination, whilst sometimes deemed necessary, also has its negative aspects - but less than maintaining the status quo.


Some may remember the insurance companies' (in)famous question in the late '80s / early '90s, along the lines of "Have you ever had an AIDS test?" The government of the day finally instructed them that this could not be asked as it was discriminatory.

And at the risk of being a crashing bore and contaminating the discussion with facts , here's the UK insurance industry's take on the implications of the ban, from last summer when the ban was still putative...
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #67  
Old 01.03.2011, 18:29
Deep Purple's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 5,273
Groaned at 15 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 5,284 Times in 2,568 Posts
Deep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

There is no need to panic yet on the new regulations. They will not apply until December 2012.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01.03.2011, 18:32
Carlos R's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Roundn'about Basel
Posts: 7,231
Groaned at 105 Times in 95 Posts
Thanked 9,934 Times in 4,178 Posts
Carlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
The harsh reality is that such equality cannot (or at least, should not) be la carte - "I want gender equality on this, this and this, but I don't want gender equality on that..." - any more than any other "equality".
What you mean, like, fair and, you know, equal, for like everyone?

Nah. Can't see that happening...

Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Carlos R for this useful post:
  #69  
Old 01.03.2011, 19:26
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 338 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 26,263 Times in 11,000 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
Some may remember the insurance companies' (in)famous question in the late '80s / early '90s, along the lines of "Have you ever had an AIDS test?" The government of the day finally instructed them that this could not be asked as it was discriminatory.
Surely it would only be discriminatory if they asked the applicant to disclose the outcome of the test. There's not much you can infer from whether or not the test actually took place. It might just indicate that the person was a blood donor for example.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01.03.2011, 20:04
parnell's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 642
Groaned at 219 Times in 140 Posts
Thanked 2,165 Times in 1,024 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
Other things come into it as well.

So supposing A is a poor driver but only drives rarely, and has therefore had few accidents. Now A changes job or residence and starts driving a lot more. A's accident rate is going to increase but the insurer cannot forsee that because they're not looking at this information.
No because this would violate the first condition of his sentence :
"All else remaining equal, if I, economisto have two accidents, the chances of me having a third remain exactly the same. It's exactly the same as the dice argument."
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01.03.2011, 20:11
parnell's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 642
Groaned at 219 Times in 140 Posts
Thanked 2,165 Times in 1,024 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
No. I didn't say, imply nor do I believe that accidents are independent of each other. They all link back to the driver (which is why the no claims bonus system is a good one IMO). They don't, however, link to or influence each other, which was the discussion with the dice previously.
Here is your original statement :
Quote:
View Post
All else remaining equal, if I, economisto have two accidents, the chances of me having a third remain exactly the same. It's exactly the same as the dice argument.
Now compare that to the already quoted definition of probabilistic independence :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_independence
In probability theory, to say that two events are independent intuitively means that the occurrence of one event makes it neither more nor less probable that the other occurs.

Your statement neccessarily implies independence by definition.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01.03.2011, 23:30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
Surely it would only be discriminatory if they asked the applicant to disclose the outcome of the test. There's not much you can infer from whether or not the test actually took place. It might just indicate that the person was a blood donor for example.
Not so - the whole point of the question was that (at that time) only people who perceived themselves to be at risk would have had themselves tested...

The insurance/assurance industry discriminated accordingly against anyone who answered "yes", regardless of a "negative" test result.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swiss Statistics Deep Purple Other/general 2 12.12.2011 13:43
Swiss weather statistics. krlock3 Other/general 9 25.05.2009 13:27
Realtime statistics mark Announcements 7 25.10.2006 20:09


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 21:22.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0