Tweet
Ok, so I've been reading MSN articles!?
LINK
Damn it!
So when does it stop being racism and profiling and start being statistical FACT!?
LINK
Living by a church keeps drivers safer
Study finds big difference in accident rates according to what's nearby. The worst? A restaurant within a mile of your home.
By The Associated Press
Living by a church does wonders for a person's driving record, but motorists who reside near a restaurant might want to say an extra prayer before hitting the road, according to the findings of an unusual insurance industry study released Tuesday.
The report by Quality Planning Corp., a risk assessment firm owned by the influential Insurance Services Office, analyzed 15 million auto insurance policies and 2 million claims to map out traffic accidents severe enough to cause property damage.
The bottom line: motorists living within one mile of a restaurant are 30% more likely to crash their cars than fellow drivers, according to QPC.
Alternately, drivers residing within a mile of a church are the safest -- 10% less likely to crash, QPC said.
Will a school across the street increase your premium?
The San Francisco-based firm, formed 20 years ago, tallied the accident rates of motorists with homes near a wide variety of businesses and local landmarks.
Some of the findings weren't surprising. For instance, drivers who live near forests -- typically remote areas with less traffic -- are relatively safe (just 4% more likely to have an accident).
But some of QPC's other conclusions seemed counterintuitive. For example, motorists living near elementary schools wind up in more accidents than those living near a liquor store -- 26% more likely versus 18%.
"By and large, your risks go way up when you are living closer to busy gathering points," said Daniel Finnegan, Quality Planning's chief executive.
"There are usually a lot of people coming and going at schools and sometimes there are a lot of distractions, too," Finnegan said. "As the father of a rambunctious child, I can tell you that's (the equivalent) of two drinks."
Watchdogs say enough is enough
In a statement summarizing the study, QPC claimed its findings "will eventually lead to more accurate rating and could reduce premiums for some drivers."
The leader of a consumer watchdog group fighting for reforms to prevent home addresses from affecting auto insurance price ridiculed the study.
"What's next? A study showing people on low-carb diets cause less accidents than pasta eaters?" asked Doug Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.
QPC's past reports have been bought by several major auto insurers, including Farmers Insurance USAA Insurance and regional affiliates of the American Automobile Association.
ZIP codes have affected auto insurance prices for decades. The insurance industry believes the practice more accurately reflects its loss risks, citing historical data that indicate drivers living in densely populated or crime-ridden area tend to file more expensive claims than motorists living in suburban areas with less theft and violence.
The reliance on ZIP codes means motorists with similar driving records and cars may pay vastly different prices for the same amount of coverage, depending on where they live.
An excuse to discriminate?
Critics like Heller view the geographical influence on auto insurance prices as a thinly disguised excuse to discriminate against drivers living in minority and low-income neighborhoods.
A package of auto insurance reforms approved by California voters 17 years ago dictated that the industry's prices in the state be based primarily on driving records. But after years of staunch resistance, insurers won regulatory approval of a California pricing formula that continues to rely heavily on policyholder ZIP codes.
The QPC study concluded ZIP codes are too broad to serve as an accurate pricing gauge.
"While ZIP codes may be convenient and necessary for speedy mail delivery, they are not a particularly good predictor of ... insurance losses," QPC said.
Heller agreed with that point, but described the rest of QPC's thesis as absurd.
"What happens to the likelihood of getting in an accident if you live near a church that serves Saturday morning pancake breakfasts?"
Study finds big difference in accident rates according to what's nearby. The worst? A restaurant within a mile of your home.
By The Associated Press
Living by a church does wonders for a person's driving record, but motorists who reside near a restaurant might want to say an extra prayer before hitting the road, according to the findings of an unusual insurance industry study released Tuesday.
The report by Quality Planning Corp., a risk assessment firm owned by the influential Insurance Services Office, analyzed 15 million auto insurance policies and 2 million claims to map out traffic accidents severe enough to cause property damage.
The bottom line: motorists living within one mile of a restaurant are 30% more likely to crash their cars than fellow drivers, according to QPC.
Alternately, drivers residing within a mile of a church are the safest -- 10% less likely to crash, QPC said.
Will a school across the street increase your premium?
The San Francisco-based firm, formed 20 years ago, tallied the accident rates of motorists with homes near a wide variety of businesses and local landmarks.
Some of the findings weren't surprising. For instance, drivers who live near forests -- typically remote areas with less traffic -- are relatively safe (just 4% more likely to have an accident).
But some of QPC's other conclusions seemed counterintuitive. For example, motorists living near elementary schools wind up in more accidents than those living near a liquor store -- 26% more likely versus 18%.
"By and large, your risks go way up when you are living closer to busy gathering points," said Daniel Finnegan, Quality Planning's chief executive.
"There are usually a lot of people coming and going at schools and sometimes there are a lot of distractions, too," Finnegan said. "As the father of a rambunctious child, I can tell you that's (the equivalent) of two drinks."
Watchdogs say enough is enough
In a statement summarizing the study, QPC claimed its findings "will eventually lead to more accurate rating and could reduce premiums for some drivers."
The leader of a consumer watchdog group fighting for reforms to prevent home addresses from affecting auto insurance price ridiculed the study.
"What's next? A study showing people on low-carb diets cause less accidents than pasta eaters?" asked Doug Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.
QPC's past reports have been bought by several major auto insurers, including Farmers Insurance USAA Insurance and regional affiliates of the American Automobile Association.
ZIP codes have affected auto insurance prices for decades. The insurance industry believes the practice more accurately reflects its loss risks, citing historical data that indicate drivers living in densely populated or crime-ridden area tend to file more expensive claims than motorists living in suburban areas with less theft and violence.
The reliance on ZIP codes means motorists with similar driving records and cars may pay vastly different prices for the same amount of coverage, depending on where they live.
An excuse to discriminate?
Critics like Heller view the geographical influence on auto insurance prices as a thinly disguised excuse to discriminate against drivers living in minority and low-income neighborhoods.
A package of auto insurance reforms approved by California voters 17 years ago dictated that the industry's prices in the state be based primarily on driving records. But after years of staunch resistance, insurers won regulatory approval of a California pricing formula that continues to rely heavily on policyholder ZIP codes.
The QPC study concluded ZIP codes are too broad to serve as an accurate pricing gauge.
"While ZIP codes may be convenient and necessary for speedy mail delivery, they are not a particularly good predictor of ... insurance losses," QPC said.
Heller agreed with that point, but described the rest of QPC's thesis as absurd.
"What happens to the likelihood of getting in an accident if you live near a church that serves Saturday morning pancake breakfasts?"
Damn it!
So when does it stop being racism and profiling and start being statistical FACT!?
Why, are you beyond a mile of a restaurant? 
Comment