WPost: Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate

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? Are you trying to conserve
by acting half your age on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and the other
half on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and weekends?

DS

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!!!!

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

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.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

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.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:

> Personally, IME the *elderly* are the real dangers on the roads, not the
> kids.

Well, nate, that's why we have science: So that we don't base laws on your
opinion or mine. The data show that elderly drivers are the _second_ most
crash-prone group on the road.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>Personally, IME the *elderly* are the real dangers on the roads, not the
>>kids.
>
>
> Well, nate, that's why we have science: So that we don't base laws on your
> opinion or mine. The data show that elderly drivers are the _second_ most
> crash-prone group on the road.

I believe that, but I'd be interested to see single vs. multiple-vehicle
crashes. I really don't care if someone kills themself, but if they
take me with them, I'll be ****ED. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of
the teen crashes involve running off the road at high speed, while the
elderly just bump into things (like other cars)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Personally, IME the *elderly* are the real dangers on the roads,
not the
> >>kids.
> >
> >
> > Well, nate, that's why we have science: So that we don't base laws
on your
> > opinion or mine. The data show that elderly drivers are the
_second_ most
> > crash-prone group on the road.
>
> I believe that, but I'd be interested to see single vs.
multiple-vehicle
> crashes. I really don't care if someone kills themself, but if they
> take me with them, I'll be ****ED.

Actually you'd be dead and finally at peace.

> I'd be willing to bet that a lot of
> the teen crashes involve running off the road at high speed, while
the
> elderly just bump into things (like other cars)
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:

> > Well, nate, that's why we have science: So that we don't base laws on
> > your opinion or mine. The data show that elderly drivers are the
> > _second_ most crash-prone group on the road.

> I believe that, but I'd be interested to see single vs. multiple-vehicle
> crashes. I really don't care if someone kills themself, but if they
> take me with them, I'll be ****ED. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of
> the teen crashes involve running off the road at high speed, while the
> elderly just bump into things (like other cars)

Don't bet -- go check it out!

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, IME the *elderly* are the real dangers on the roads, not the
>>> kids.
>>
>> Well, nate, that's why we have science: So that we don't base laws on
>> your
>> opinion or mine. The data show that elderly drivers are the _second_ most
>> crash-prone group on the road.
>
> I believe that, but I'd be interested to see single vs. multiple-vehicle
> crashes. I really don't care if someone kills themself, but if they
> take me with them, I'll be ****ED. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of
> the teen crashes involve running off the road at high speed, while the
> elderly just bump into things (like other cars)

The profiles have more in common than you might think. Though the
elderly are much less likely to be overtaking on a blind bend. Both
groups are prone to making serious errors at fast junctions. But the
elderly are mostly risk averse and try to avoid nasty road junctions.

A fair proportion of multiple collisions where I live are caused by
drivers falling asleep at the wheel or making late overtaking/lane
change moves and losing control clipping another vehicle. And these tend
to be middle aged high mileage road warriors.

Statistics are available from most national or regional governments if
you ask or probe around on their websites. Inexperience coupled with
teenage belief in their own immortality makes for some very bad
judgement calls. You also have to scale by the fraction of the
population represented by each age range 16-19 vs 60-85...

Regards,
Martin Brown