WPost: Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article .com>,
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> You still have to separate those effects to find valid support for
>age
>> restrictions.
>
>No, actually, you don't.
>
>If there are age-based reasons (such as lack of proper judgement), then
>that supports age-based restrictions. The logic is straight-forward.

You haven't demonstrated any effect from age-based reasons if your
data don't separate effects of age-based reasons from effects of inexperience.

In article ich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> > Spoken like someone in their early twenties.
>
>> Thirty-three.
>
>So what's the deal with you blindly raving against age-based driving
>restrictions when they're so clearly warranted?

I find them as clearly warranted as low speed limits, 0.02 blood alcohol
restrictions, and the various other restrictions invented by those who
like control for its own sake.

In article ich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 wrote:
>
>> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
><a bunch of baseless crapola about how teen drivers are great and groovy
>and blameless and perfect and don't deserve to have their driving
>restricted>
>
>> Eliminating crashes is good. Why would you be against that?
>
>'Cause *stomp* NO FAIRRRRRRRR!!!!

Damn. That grumpy old man gene is sure powerful stuff. I post some
reasonable objections, and Old Man Stern has to delete the whole thing
to mischaracterize it and go off on his rant.

Daniel J. Stern > wrote on Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:53:05 -0500:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> >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
>
> ...which it won't. You'd know that if you'd read the article that started
> this thread.

Really?

Even reading the subject of this thread, I see something that claims it
"Could Explain Teen Crash Rate". It's just a theory, with perhaps some
statistics to back it up.

It's certainly not a scientifically accepted fact, so saying "it won't
[shift the crashes to 20-23]" is a tad excessive.

Regardless of whether some crashes are caused by immaturity, a bunch
are definitely caused by inexperience. Those crashes _would_ simply be
shifted to a later age bracket by raising the driving age.

--
David Taylor

"The future just ain't what it used to be."

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article .com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> In article
.com>,
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >If there are age-based reasons (such as lack of proper judgement),
then
> >that supports age-based restrictions. The logic is
straight-forward.
>
> You haven't demonstrated any effect from age-based reasons if your
> data don't separate effects of age-based reasons from effects of
inexperience.

They already exist, as a matter of fact. If the effects of judgement
were not important, then we could allow 10-year-olds to drive. After
all, the operation of a motor vehicle is not a terribly complex thing.
Heck, 10-year-olds are taught to obey traffic laws when riding a
bicycle, right?

The original cite contains information that appears to support the
claim that young age relates to lack of judgement. Just because you
claim it's not good enough does not somehow invalidate the claim.

If judgement is not age-based, then you should be for letting 8 to
10-year olds start driving, right? Or, since physical size might make
a difference, let's go to 12- to 14-year-olds. That should be
perfectly alright with you.

What I'd really like to see you do is prove that teenagers have the
same kinds of ability to arrive at reasoned judgements that
mid-twenty-year-olds have. If that cannot be proven, then your
complaint boils down to, well, complaining.

HAND,

E.P.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>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
> >
> >
> > ...which it won't. You'd know that if you'd read the article that
started
> > this thread.
> >
> >
> >>Is there a "grumpy old man" gene somewhere in your DNA that
switched on
> >>when you reached 21?
> >
> >
> > Naw, there's an "I don't feel like being mown down by some dumb****
> > 18-year-old who thinks he's invincible 'cause his brain isn't
finished
> > growing up" gene. It's different.
> >
> > DS
>
> Personally, IME the *elderly* are the real dangers on the roads, not
the
> kids. Most of the time when I've had a near-death experience while
> driving, it's either due to someone really old, or just some generic
> person. Now I was rearended once by a teenager in a parking lot
> (!?!?!?!?!) but that was the only time I've noticed someone really
young
> doing something that actually affected me.

Actuarial tables do not support this view.

The problem still exists that post-pubescent folks have some
demonstrable lack of judgement. It has nothing to do with
control-freakism, or ageism or anything like that. If kids had good
judgement, they'd vote at 12, sign legal contracts at 14, and start
drinking at 8.

Maybe the ages we pick for these things is not one-size-fits-all, but
that doesn't mean they are completely arbitrary either.

Doesn't anyone remember doing stupid stuff when they were a teenager
that they just shake their heads at today? Come on, now.

HAND,

E.P.

John David Galt wrote:
> 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.
> >
> >
> > Teens crash most. Therefore, restricting teen driving means fewer
crashes.
> > That teenagers will stomp their widdle feet and go "No fair!" is
> > immaterial.
>
> We all go through inexperience. If you raised the minimum driving
age
> to 25, then 25-28 year olds would be as dangerous as teenagers are
now.
>
> So live with it.

Just because you believe this to be true doesn't imply that it *is*
true.

The implied claim is that teenagers have the same judgement as their
10-years-older counterparts.

It's ridiculous on it's face.

HAND,

E.P.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>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
> >
> >
> > ...which it won't. You'd know that if you'd read the article that
started
> > this thread.
> >
> >
> >>Is there a "grumpy old man" gene somewhere in your DNA that
switched on
> >>when you reached 21?
> >
> >
> > Naw, there's an "I don't feel like being mown down by some dumb****
> > 18-year-old who thinks he's invincible 'cause his brain isn't
finished
> > growing up" gene. It's different.
> >
> > DS
>
> Personally, IME the *elderly* are the real dangers on the roads, not
the
> kids. Most of the time when I've had a near-death experience while
> driving, it's either due to someone really old, or just some generic
> person. Now I was rearended once by a teenager in a parking lot
> (!?!?!?!?!) but that was the only time I've noticed someone really
young
> doing something that actually affected me.

Actuarial tables do not support this view.

The problem still exists that post-pubescent folks have some
demonstrable lack of judgement. It has nothing to do with
control-freakism, or ageism or anything like that. If kids had good
judgement, they'd vote at 12, sign legal contracts at 14, and start
drinking at 8.

Maybe the ages we pick for these things is not one-size-fits-all, but
that doesn't mean they are completely arbitrary either.

Doesn't anyone remember doing stupid stuff when they were a teenager
that they just shake their heads at today? Come on, now.

HAND,

E.P.

Dan Holdsworth wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2005 09:01:58 -0800,
> >
> was popularly supposed to have said:
>
> > Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> >> The whole idea of letting teens drive is just crazy. As for
revoking
> >> the DL of drunk drivers under 21 .... that should be done with
all
> >> DUIs.
> >
> > There's no reason why young people shouldn't be able to drive
safely.
> > All we need is a little self control, and the correct tuition for
them.
>
> Been tried; didn't work.
>
> Try imposing power-to-weight ratio limits instead, so they cannot
> legally drive high-powered vehicles until, say, 21?

The problem is that almost all cars are capable of going fast. Almost
all modern cars can do more than 80mph. I don't think power has much
to do with it. If I had a powerful car in most cases I would drive no
faster than I do in my current car. I would accelerate quicker, and go
a bit faster where my Sei didn't have enough acceleration, but they
would be sensible speeds.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> >So what's the deal with you blindly raving against age-based driving
> >restrictions when they're so clearly warranted?
>
> I find them as clearly warranted as low speed limits, 0.02 blood alcohol
> restrictions, and the various other restrictions invented by those who
> like control for its own sake.

What you "find" (you mean "think") is irrelevant; it's not supported by
science.