Texas idiots on ice (NMC)

pws > wrote:

>It is nice to know that not every idiot lives in Texas.

Nope. He moved to DC.

>Then, a large percentage of our U.S. population decided that giant,
>ill-handling, gas-guzzling vehicles that roll over easily were the thing
>to drive.

I don't care if someone needs a vehicle like that for work, or because they have
a big family (a guy I used to work with had seven kids, a Camry just doesn't cut
it).

It's the ones driven by one person, to go get a few groceries, that I just shake
my head at. And then they say things like "I like my SUV because it's so high
and I can see so much better." But when you watch them, they're the most
inattentive drivers on the road!

--
Craig Wagner, craig(dot)wagner(at)gmail(dot)com
Portland, OR

"Don't ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

Craig Wagner wrote:
> pws > wrote:
>
>
>>It is nice to know that not every idiot lives in Texas.
>
>
> Nope. He moved to DC.

Now that is funny. :-)


> I don't care if someone needs a vehicle like that for work, or because they have
> a big family (a guy I used to work with had seven kids, a Camry just doesn't cut
> it).

It sounds like he needed a box of condoms more than a larger vehicle.
Three was bad enough for my parents, I can't imagine them having to deal
with more than double that number. ;-)

> It's the ones driven by one person, to go get a few groceries, that I just shake
> my head at. And then they say things like "I like my SUV because it's so high
> and I can see so much better." But when you watch them, they're the most
> inattentive drivers on the road!

It is strange to see your own thoughts written by another person, almost
like deja-vu or something.

Pat

"Craig Wagner" > wrote in message
...
> pws > wrote:
>
>>It is nice to know that not every idiot lives in Texas.
>
> Nope. He moved to DC.
>
>>Then, a large percentage of our U.S. population decided that giant,
>>ill-handling, gas-guzzling vehicles that roll over easily were the thing
>>to drive.
>
> I don't care if someone needs a vehicle like that for work, or because
> they have
> a big family (a guy I used to work with had seven kids, a Camry just
> doesn't cut
> it).
>
> It's the ones driven by one person, to go get a few groceries, that I just
> shake
> my head at. And then they say things like "I like my SUV because it's so
> high
> and I can see so much better." But when you watch them, they're the most
> inattentive drivers on the road!

So according to you, it's OK to own an SUV if you "need" one. But
apparently you think that in order to go to the store, the whole family
should pile in for no reason other than to fill the car, or the family
should have to own a second car just for those times when one one person
needs to travel.

And no, the most inattentive drivers on the road are young drivers.

"Frank Berger" > wrote:

>So according to you, it's OK to own an SUV if you "need" one. But
>apparently you think that in order to go to the store, the whole family
>should pile in for no reason other than to fill the car, or the family
>should have to own a second car just for those times when one one person
>needs to travel.

Yep, that's exactly what I think should happen. <shrug>

>And no, the most inattentive drivers on the road are young drivers.

Statistically, people over 55 get in more accidents per mile driven than any
other age group.

--
Craig Wagner, craig(dot)wagner(at)gmail(dot)com
Portland, OR

"Don't ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

"Craig Wagner" > wrote in message
...
> "Frank Berger" > wrote:
>
>>So according to you, it's OK to own an SUV if you "need" one. But
>>apparently you think that in order to go to the store, the whole family
>>should pile in for no reason other than to fill the car, or the family
>>should have to own a second car just for those times when one one person
>>needs to travel.
>
> Yep, that's exactly what I think should happen. <shrug>
>
>>And no, the most inattentive drivers on the road are young drivers.
>
> Statistically, people over 55 get in more accidents per mile driven than
> any
> other age group.

I found several sources on the web that contradict this. They say that the
16-24 group (male and female) have higher accident ratesthan even the 70+
age group.

On 2005-12-11, Craig Wagner > wrote:

> Statistically, people over 55 get in more accidents per mile
> driven than any other age group.

That doesn't seem to be what the insurance rates indicate. Of
course what do insurance companies know about statistics.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! RELAX!!... This
at is gonna be a HEALING
visi.com EXPERIENCE!! Besides,
I work for DING DONGS!

"Grant Edwards" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-12-11, Craig Wagner > wrote:
>
>> Statistically, people over 55 get in more accidents per mile
>> driven than any other age group.
>
> That doesn't seem to be what the insurance rates indicate. Of
> course what do insurance companies know about statistics.
>

Think about it.

70+ drivers spend les time on the roads than 16-24Yo.

Insurance is not per mile driven, but per time the car is owned. A 70+yo
who drives 1000Mile each year at a a rate of one write-off per 10,000Mile is
a better insurance risk than a 17yo who drives 100,000 miles each year at a
rate of one write-off per 100,000Miles.

Mal Osborne
2003 V6 Pontiac GTO wagon (sorta)

"Mal Osborne" > wrote:

>>> Statistically, people over 55 get in more accidents per mile
>>> driven than any other age group.
>>
>> That doesn't seem to be what the insurance rates indicate. Of
>> course what do insurance companies know about statistics.
>
>Think about it.
>
> 70+ drivers spend les time on the roads than 16-24Yo.

Exactly!

--
Craig Wagner, craig(dot)wagner(at)gmail(dot)com
Portland, OR

"Don't ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

"Frank Berger" > wrote:

>I found several sources on the web that contradict this. They say that the
>16-24 group (male and female) have higher accident ratesthan even the 70+
>age group.

Looks like the stats have changed since I last looked them up. This information
is almost 10 years old, but it states:

"On the other hand, there's cause for concern when elderly people do drive
because they have higher rates of fatal crashes per mile driven, per 100,000
people, and per licensed driver than any other group except young drivers."

http://www.luhs.org/depts/injprev/Transprt/tran3.htm

Keep in mind that the number of elderly drivers has increased in the 10 years
since this study, so the data may be inaccurate.

Regardless, being 2nd in this particular race isn't exactly something to be
proud of either.

--
Craig Wagner, craig(dot)wagner(at)gmail(dot)com
Portland, OR

"Don't ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

"Craig Wagner" > wrote in message
...
> "Frank Berger" > wrote:
>
>>I found several sources on the web that contradict this. They say that the
>>16-24 group (male and female) have higher accident ratesthan even the 70+
>>age group.
>
> Looks like the stats have changed since I last looked them up. This
> information
> is almost 10 years old, but it states:
>
> "On the other hand, there's cause for concern when elderly people do drive
> because they have higher rates of fatal crashes per mile driven, per
> 100,000
> people, and per licensed driver than any other group except young
> drivers."
>
> http://www.luhs.org/depts/injprev/Transprt/tran3.htm
>
> Keep in mind that the number of elderly drivers has increased in the 10
> years
> since this study, so the data may be inaccurate.
>
> Regardless, being 2nd in this particular race isn't exactly something to
> be
> proud of either.
>
> --
> Craig Wagner, craig(dot)wagner(at)gmail(dot)com
> Portland, OR
>
> "Don't ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

The distinction seems to be fatal accidents vs. all accidents. I guess the
old drivers are either more likely to die when they have accidents or they
cause worse accidents. The former seems more likely. Whatever.