WPost: Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>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.

The problem is that you're pushing the threshold of "kids" up. It
_used to be_ 14 for many purposes. Now it's 18 for most, 21 for
some. And you're trying to push it up to 25. Based on ill-defined
"differences in the brain". Well, guess what: There are differences
in the brain between a 25 year old and a 35 year old also. And
between a 35 and a 45 year old, and so on and so forth. Your brain
doesn't stop changing until after you die and it has rotted away.

>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.

I did a lot of stupid stuff driving, but I learned it really was stupid by
doing it.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:

> OK, they are lookign at a scheme similar to this in the UK, but through
> an insurance company that will use a Pay as You drive system, where you
> get a monthly statement for your insurance like a cell phone bill, and
> itr records time of day/night you were driving due to an electronic
> gizmo fitted to the car, and day/night driving are charged at vastly
> different rates.

This would have a tougher time flying in the US. Invasion of privacy, etc.

> > > and do teens have theres loaded as a higher risk than say a more
> > > experienced or even just older driver?

> > Yes.

> Roughly to what degree? can sometime be loaded 5-10 times the level in
> the UK for a young driver compared to his father/mother.

It varies by locale and insurance regulatory scheme, but yes, this is
possible.

> And it is actually a criminal offence to not have insurance

Varies by locale; generally yes.

In article h.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> >> Eliminating crashes is good. Why would you be against that?
>> >
>> >'Cause *stomp* NO FAIRRRRRRRR!!!!
>>
>> I post some reasonable objections
>
>You posted no such thing. Your response amounted to "Is not! Is not! Is
>not is not is not is not!"

Which, no doubt, is why you had to delete the whole thing rather than
let my supposed rant damn itself.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article .com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> The problem is that you're pushing the threshold of "kids" up. It
> _used to be_ 14 for many purposes.

Before the advent of automobiles, oddly.

Does anyone actually consider 14 years old mature enough to do much of
anything an adult does, other than (physically) reproduce?

> Now it's 18 for most, 21 for
> some. And you're trying to push it up to 25.

I don't recall suggesting any certain age.

> Based on ill-defined
> "differences in the brain".

Ill-defined according to you, and the differences exist, by inspection.

> Well, guess what: There are differences
> in the brain between a 25 year old and a 35 year old also.

An absurd example does not prove your point. The difference between 15
and 25 is not the same difference between 25 and 35. 35 to 45 would be
even smaller.

> >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.
>
> I did a lot of stupid stuff driving, but I learned it really was
stupid by
> doing it.

I doubt that. If you had never done those things, and got some
judgement without experience, you would probably recognize some stuff
was stupid without ever trying it. How is that? In the realm of
non-driving experiences, I suspect that there are things you might have
tried to do at 16 that would never attempt at 33.

I still don't see any supporting logic that suggests that 16-year-olds
have the same capacity for risk-assessment as 26-year-olds. No matter
what the activity. Which is precisely the implied claim in your posts.

HAND,

E.P.

On 2/4/2005 4:06 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
>>
>>> 1) What type of driving instruction is required in the US
>>
>>
>> None. There are insurance discounts and lower age thresholds in some
>> states for would-be drivers who *do* complete an approved driving
>> instruction course, and for those who remain in school and get good
>> grades, but most all states have no requirement for driver training; if
>> you pass the licensure test, you get the licence. The tests vary by
>> state,
>> but are by and large a pathetic joke. 10 or 20 multiple-choice questions
>> (invariably including: "True or false: it's OK to go faster than the
>> speed
>> limit if you're only going 10 over, because everybody else does it"), and
>> *maybe* a 1/4-mile trip round the block. Maybe.
>
>
> That was more or less what I was told in the 80's when I went to the US
> for a while and had to drive (just days after passing my UK driving
> test). I thought they were teasing me at the time but apparently it is
> pretty hard to fail a US driving test in the mid-west.
> I presume it is different in the big cities though?

Nope. It is fairly abysmal everywhere in the US. As an example, here is
a sample test from my state:

http://www.dol.wa.gov/ds/test/q01.htm

This sample test is /very/ similar to the test I took in 1996.

>>> 4) When a driving license is issued in the US, how long is it valid for?
>
>
> UK full driving licences valid until you are aged 70 always raise
> eyebrows in the USA.

I'd say so. In my state we need to renew every five years, but as Daniel
said, renewing typically involves *at most* paying a fee and a brief eye
exam. Now we Washingtonians can even renew online, if our previous
renewal was in person.


>>> tyre below the legal tread limit
>>
>>
>> Most states have no periodic motor vehicle inspection scheme.
>
>
> I always find it scary watching derelict rust buckets on threadbare
> slicks with bits dropping off staggering along in the fly-over states.

You must have seen RAD's resident troll, Aunt Judy (AKA Laura Bush
murdered her boyfriend). He claims that "tar in a can" along with the
cheapest used tires you can find are all you really need.


> Is there really no equivalent of a road worthiness test at all?

Not any effective testing, no.


> You have me worried - presumably US Hire Cars from Avis/Dollar/Hertz etc
> are maintained to reasonable international standards of roadworthimess
> to avoid litigation? I always check hire cars for obvious faults.

Presumably, but the reason that the rental companies replace their
fleets so often (a typical rental car gets sold off with less than
20,000 miles on the odometer) is to avoid the more costly maintenance.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

In article ich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
>
>> OK, they are lookign at a scheme similar to this in the UK, but through
>> an insurance company that will use a Pay as You drive system, where you
>> get a monthly statement for your insurance like a cell phone bill, and
>> itr records time of day/night you were driving due to an electronic
>> gizmo fitted to the car, and day/night driving are charged at vastly
>> different rates.
>
> This would have a tougher time flying in the US. Invasion of privacy, etc.

I will be like grocery store 'saver' cards. It will get around any
constitutional issues by the insurance company being a private company.

It work something like this:
1) insurance companies offer a break for those with the monitoring in
test markets.
2) Slowly, the cost of car insurance is raised above and beyond cost
increases.
3) Insurance w/monitoring is offered at the cost it would have been
without this scam in all markets.
4) The moron masses flock to the monitoring option because they have
nothing to hide and the insurance company isn't the government.
5) insurance without monitoring is doubled in price.
6) The government says it's not their problem because you don't have to
sign up for the monitoring, but you have to buy insurance.
7) When the government needs information on a person they serve a warrant
on the insurance company.
8) Thanks to the patriot acts there are no checks and balances on these
warrants or they aren't even needed.
9) insurance without monitoring is phased out for lack of market demand.
or
9) A tragic event causes legislation to be passed outlawing the unpopular
insurance without monitoring because it used to hide criminal activity.

And there it is. That's how it can happen in the USA and barely a peep
would be heard. Cept from known 'kooks' like me.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article ich.edu>, Daniel
> J. Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> >
> >> OK, they are lookign at a scheme similar to this in the UK, but through
> >> an insurance company that will use a Pay as You drive system, where you
> >> get a monthly statement for your insurance like a cell phone bill, and
> >> itr records time of day/night you were driving due to an electronic
> >> gizmo fitted to the car, and day/night driving are charged at vastly
> >> different rates.
> >
> > This would have a tougher time flying in the US. Invasion of privacy, etc.
>
> I will be like grocery store 'saver' cards. It will get around any
> constitutional issues by the insurance company being a private company.
>
> It work something like this:
> 1) insurance companies offer a break for those with the monitoring in
> test markets.
> 2) Slowly, the cost of car insurance is raised above and beyond cost
> increases.
> 3) Insurance w/monitoring is offered at the cost it would have been
> without this scam in all markets.
> 4) The moron masses flock to the monitoring option because they have
> nothing to hide and the insurance company isn't the government.
> 5) insurance without monitoring is doubled in price.
> 6) The government says it's not their problem because you don't have to
> sign up for the monitoring, but you have to buy insurance.
> 7) When the government needs information on a person they serve a warrant
> on the insurance company.
> 8) Thanks to the patriot acts there are no checks and balances on these
> warrants or they aren't even needed.
> 9) insurance without monitoring is phased out for lack of market demand.
> or
> 9) A tragic event causes legislation to be passed outlawing the unpopular
> insurance without monitoring because it used to hide criminal activity.
>
> And there it is. That's how it can happen in the USA and barely a peep
> would be heard. Cept from known 'kooks' like me.

And I suspect exactly the same thing would happen here in the UK only
probably much faster because we have a succession of draconian home
secretaries and a totally apathetic public.

--
Mark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK
E-mail:
PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1
--------------------------------------------------
"There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'"
[Driving, HMSO]

Garth Almgren wrote:

> http://www.dol.wa.gov/ds/test/q01.htm

I think I got 5 wrong, but they were mainly the US centric ones (how
long do you have to get a Washington State license, what is the penalty
(in $USD) for parking in a Disabled space, where do pedestrians have
right of way) that kind of thing.

The UK theory exam/test is 35 questions, you have to get 30 or more
right to be even allowed to do the practical driving test. The questions
are taken at random by a computer from a pool of thousands, and the test
is taken by touch screem.

--
Carl Robson
"Sorry Sir the meatballs are orf"
(The poster formerly known as Skodapilot)
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:

> The UK theory exam/test is 35 questions, you have to get 30 or more
> right to be even allowed to do the practical driving test. The questions
> are taken at random by a computer from a pool of thousands, and the test
> is taken by touch screem.
^^^^^^


There is something the matter with your typing or your keyboard. You keep
typing "M" when you mean "N". Please don't fix it. The error above is
almost as funny as "roadworthimess". ;-)

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
>
>
>>The UK theory exam/test is 35 questions, you have to get 30 or more
>>right to be even allowed to do the practical driving test. The questions
>>are taken at random by a computer from a pool of thousands, and the test
>>is taken by touch screem.
>
> ^^^^^^
>
>
> There is something the matter with your typing or your keyboard. You keep
> typing "M" when you mean "N". Please don't fix it. The error above is
> almost as funny as "roadworthimess". ;-)
Lol, nope wrong with my screen, or typing, it's the brain keyboard
interface this is faulty. The capacity of the brain has expanded over
the years since it was put into production, but nobody thought about an
upgrade path since it's launch.

--
Carl Robson
"Sorry Sir the meatballs are orf"
(The poster formerly known as Skodapilot)
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com