This is one of those cases where good science would have to say "well, lets look at the numbers, but if they are correct then there must be somthing here".
Call me a skeptic, but I'd like to see their source data, as well as their methods for getting data...
I'm gonna have to go with "Wierd Al" Yankovic on this one. From "Your Horoscope for Today":- (Full lyrics here:- linky)
Could this be related to the educational year does anyone think? See people who are born in May-June July-August (safest drivers) will be youngsters when they arrive at school for the first time. Where as the more dangerous drivers would be older. A few months makes no difference when your 25 but how about when your 4? I'd suggest that the different ages of the kids in school would affect the roles they took in class and therefore the type of person they became. Now that would be an interesting and useful study.
Without that actual figures for each grouping this report is useless Statistically you would expect each group to have a similar level with such a large base to work from, however, the results will vary between groups with one at the top and one at the bottom. If one group has a significantly higher percentage than the other then it would be worthy of further investigation. Maybe it has to do with those turning of age and driving for the first time in winter conditions ?
What a big pile of donkey turd. Utter crap. If there is any relation its to do with what Matkubicki said, and nothing more. I can happily say that anyone I meet who is willing to accept that their life is nothing more than a string of pre-determined moments controlled by some all powerfull system is a complete tard and should keep believing the shite these people feed them as it keeps them and their stupid ideas away from me.
All these statistics things are rubish. I mean you can use statistics for anything but mean nothing. Out of all those drivers I wonder how many had armpit hair. Then you will find that the most people that crash have or dont have armpit hair. means nothing.
I also wonder how the numbers stacked up for each sign, were the pecentage of Libra's higher than that of the other signs?
Exactly, and I hope insurance companies don't adpot this strategy since my car insurance would probably rocket (I'm Libra). And no, I haven't had an accident *touchwood*.
I'm going to go with Mark Twain on this one: "There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
How long before insurance companies sieze upon this as a way to squeeze yet more money out of us for higher premiums? Cynical, moi?
If there *is* a pattern, it means something... If Librans account for 20% of accidents and Capricorns account for 1% of accidents, charge Aries more and Capricorns less. They can effectively charge what they want now. If you don't like their horoscope premiums, go somewhere else. If all companies start watching the stars then you are no worse of than you are now. Mr WillyWonka might say "I'm a Libra but my driving record is impeccable'. But if Librans are statistically more accident prone they are going to get charged more. Likewise, U25s have more accidents, as do people with speeding convictions, as do people with drink-driving convictions, and people who live in Southampton (for example). It doesn't mean that 24yr old Libran, Mr WillyWonka (with his 9 points & previous ban for driving under the influence) is going to actually have an accident driving around Southampton - it just means that he is statistically more likely to do so. Who cares why it is that Librans statistically have more accidents... If they do, the insurance companies will charge them accordingly. I always thought it strange that they ask your for your occupation. It's not just a case that they want to spot people who drive a lot or whatever; it's because statistically that bank workers crash more often than council staff, and when plumbers crash it's more expensive than when midwives crash. It doesn't matter why there are these patterns, only that there *are* these patterns.
I've always wondered why insurance companies should be exement from ageism legislation and sexism. What if a company came along and said "well, we've found that white guys are more likely to crash so we're going to charge them more," would that be ok, and if not why is it different from age or sex?
Depends. Flip a coin 20 times. You will find that it results in a specific pattern of Heads and Tails. Does it mean anything? You will only be able to tell if you repeat the sampling. lf you get a statistically significantly similar pattern, it may suggest that the coin is weighted (although that is just one theory and now you have to test it with more systematic experiments). lf you get another pattern which turns out to vary randomly, then the first, original pattern did not mean anything at all except for being, well, a random result. This is why scientific experiments have to be reproducible. Another issue, particularly in clinical sciences is that of statistical vs. clinical significance. Data may indeed reveal a pattern that is not random. But it may have no practical value or application. For instance, Librans could be, say, twice times as likely to have a car accident than a Leo. But if the probability of a Leo having a car accident is 0.000001, then how significantly accident prone is a Libra? Then the are other, "freakonomic" variables. For instance, is the age of these people equally distributed? This is significant. Consider for instance, the post WWII generation. All these soldiers coming home in time for Christmas around November, December 1945, not having seen their wives for a long time... Come September, October 1946 there is a glut of new baby Librans. Problem is, 60 years later their eyesight is failing them a bit in their old age, as are their reflexes. But because a disproportionate part of this elderly population is Libran, they really push up the average for this star sign in the general population. Now I am not saying that this is exactly how the data should be explained; I am just pointing out the dangers off not considering what you are messing with. Perhaps when you are looking at star signs, you really want to be looking at age...
I hope not too because I'm in the 'high risk' category for being a Libran even though I have not had an accident since I started driving (8 years now).
Please do that in private. Over here the term is knock on wood. If its anything its a coincidence. I was born in june, am I at risk for anything like that?
