Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article
ich.edu>,
> Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
> >On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >
> >> >> Of course, the _intended_ application is to justify more and
harsher
> >> >> restrictions with higher age limits.
> >
> >> >Crash data show that's where the biggest problem is.
> >
> >> Without separating the effects of inexperience from the effects of
age,
> >> such data (presuming it isn't otherwise flawed) does not support
harsher
> >> restrictions with higher age limits.

Inexperience can be trained out. Age-related lack of judgement can
only be solved by time. No amount of experience will eliminate lack of
judgement.

> >Teens crash most. Therefore, restricting teen driving means fewer
crashes.
> >That teenagers will stomp their widdle feet and go "No fair!" is
> >immaterial.
>
> If it merely shifts the crashes from the 16-19 set to the 20-23 set,
> or spreads them out across that period, it's not really an
improvement.

You are forgetting that some subset of the crashes may be due to lack
of judgement. So, in that case, not *all* of the crashes are being
shifted. Some are actually being eliminated.

> Why do your critical thinking skills go out the window any time age
> issues come up?

Spoken like someone in their early twenties.

Eliminating crashes is good. Why would you be against that?
HAND,

E.P.