Brendan Hughes

We were talking about this a few weeks ago.

Here's the Beeb's story:

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Old hands at the wheel

scoobynutta555

Yep, I remember. Still waiting for Leslie to come up with some figures that say the 75+ age group has less accidents, mile per mile, than my age group (25-35). I'll be waiting a long time I suspect

Leslie

Have you got any figures to say the opposite then scoobynutta?

Les

DCI Gene Hunt

Or maybe you won't.......

Look here for the 2004 figures (not stats... figures) and it would appear that Les is in fact quite right

Look here

Leslie

Thank you DCI.

Les

scoobynutta555

I posted them in the other thread and then you disappeared. For the barely literate, I did say mile per mile and not absolute figures of death and injury. Even a moron could grasp that my age group travel far more by car than the elderly.

GrahameS

How does that compare to the number of 25-35 year old drivers in general, compared to the number of 75+ year old drivers?

I would imagine there are a substantial amount more 25-35 year olds on the road than 75+ year olds.

From those figures you could conclude that 8-15 year olds are the safest on the road, if you wanted, which everyone obviously knows isn't the case.

A percentage of accidents compared to drivers would provide a different answer i would guess?

scoobynutta555

http://www.insurance.com/FAQs/autoFA...l.aspx/index/8

I haven't the time to find and show my previous posting. But a brief search on goolge provides this link.

Also, I suggest that any information posted by an organisation like BRAKE will be heavily biased to suit their own propaganda purposes!

DCI Gene Hunt

Wow, insurance.com..... that MUST be accurate then

BRAKE 'BIASED' and peddling 'PROPAGANDA'....... oh dear lord! now you ARE grasping at straws

Well that's nice of you.......

As in 'requires a booster seat fitting'

scoobynutta555

You obviously have the time for searching DCI, I suggest you find mile per mile comparisons by age instead of the misleading information that you posted from a known propaganda machine.

I'd rather grasp at straws than at thin air

powerman1

remember the phrase from the elderly "never been in an accident but seen loads in my rear veiw mirror"

DCI Gene Hunt

And I suggest you provide the back up your own statements, rather than a quote from 'insurance.com' what a pathetic attempt at justification that was

I'm sure you would, you seem to be doing a lot of that recently

scoobynutta555

I originally post up that I'm still waiting for mile per mile figs from someone yet you hassle me for me evidence, where's yours!

Don't worry, when I do have the time I'll get some proper figs, I found them before and posted them. In the meantime show me I'm wrong big mouth

DCI Gene Hunt

How mature I await your concrete evidence


PS - Thanks for the neg rep

Brendan Hughes

I also would be wary of BRAKE. I tried to look at TRL but they don't seem to put any research online?

I went to a road safety conference a few months back where the French had analysed two years' worth of fatal accident stats, about 10 000 deaths. Stats were weighted to include increased risk-taking of youngsters, influence of alcohol, influence of drugs, risk of death due to frail elderly, vulnerability of motorbike riders, etc. A big thing was single-vehicle accidents, where there was a very high probability it was due to driver error, so you didn't have to worry about whether a drunk driver was actually cut up by a sober one.

The odd stat that arose, pointed out by one observer, was that the risk of an accident was statistically higher for a sober 70+ driver than for a stoned 26 yr old. When he pointed it out, a number of senior experts in the room were quick to contribute with various explanations and corrective factors. Quite amusing...

Markus

Here is a wikipedia article on the person/charges.

OllyK

Let me help:
Older drivers: a literature review (No.25)

SJ_Skyline

I'm surprised PSL hasn't reared his wrinkled head on this this one!

I've got to agree though that the statistics are flawed unless they are shown as accidents per hundred thousand miles travelled.

Brendan Hughes

Nice, thanks Olly

scoobynutta555

FWIW I have left no negative feedback for anyone. I have however received this from some spineless idiot, wonder who this could be?

Anyway, enough with the purile nonsense, back to reality. Put your teeth back in and chew on this:

Older drivers drive less than those in other age groups. The rate of motor vehicle crashes per mile driven is higher for the 70-plus age group than for middle-aged drivers, but only after the age of 85 does it reach or surpass the rate for younger drivers. However, older people are, unsurprisingly, over-represented in accidents involving death because of their increased frailty. They drive more slowly than other drivers and they cannot handle traffic conflict situations very well. The 60 to 69-year-old age group have a higher percentage of accidents at junctions in both rural and urban settings. They drive less at night due to deteriorating eyesight, and they have to be closer to signs to be able to read them.

From Hansard, quite an interesting read from end to end.

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Mar 2006 (pt 40)

I rest my case.

DCI Gene Hunt

You, as yet, don't have one...... that was a debate without reference to actual facts!

In truth and mile for mile there would onlly be a slight difference anyway, so after factoring in an error correction (+/- ?%) it would prove as meaningless as your post above

scoobynutta555

Part of an American study:



From May/June 1999, Public Roads

Doesn't look good for your side does it Hunt.

Flatcapdriver

That being the case, why are insurance policies weighted depending on mileage and business use? In both instances, premiums are more expensive which leads to the conclusion that there is an increased risk of an accident with higher mileages, therefore, given that the average coffin dodger travels shorter distances, then naturally their exposure is less.

DCI Gene Hunt

An American study......... well that's toilet paper then

Sorry I couln't hear you for you appear to be squirming

scoobynutta555

LOL me squirm? Where's your facts? You can't find any can you PMSL.

Leslie

Please dont suspect me of "repping" scoobynutta if you thought it was me, I would get no pleasure out of that, and if I had done anything like that I would have identified myself anyway.

This is one of those arguments which probably cannot be resolved satisfactorily due as much as anything to personal bias on either side and also that statistics are not always the real answer since it is impossible to cover all situations.

It is a fact that a young driver is more likely to scream around the place on crowded roads and as quick as his reactions may be, he is reducing his safety margins to where eventually he will run out of luck. At the higher speeds the effects of the ensuing accident will be worse of course.

Elderly drivers tend to drive more slowly because they know that their faculties are not what they used to be and therefore they drive within their own personal limitations. That means they will drive more slowly of course and this is a source of irritation to younger drivers who want to bomb along just for the sheer hell of it. The fact is, on public roads you are fully entitled to drive at less than the posted speed limit as long as you are at a sensible speed and not crawling at very low speeds such that you cause an obstruction. It just means that the rest of us have to exrcise a bit of patience.

Anyone can make a mistake at anything in life and driving or any kind of controlling of machinery will be subject to human error. Yes I had an elderly driver pull out in front of me the other day but since I was driving defensively it was not a problem. If you just belt along thinking that since it is your right of way and therefore you have priority above everyone else and therefore you should not have to make sure all is clear ahead, then sooner or later you will get a nasty shock. Human nature being what it is, it is worth actually expecting a problem may occur and at least being ready for that possibilty. That is why I survived the job I did for many years.

What I mean is that instead of ranting on about older drivers to the exclusion of the errors of the younger ones as well when it comes to taking risks and relying on luck, at least you could have a more fair minded attitude and remembering that one day you might even be an elderly driver yourself and really need your car to be able to get around so you can enjoy some kind of a life!

I must have missed your statistics from your earlier thread.

Les

scoobynutta555

Yes, I hope one day to be elderly.Yes, I may be an elderly driver. I do have a fair minded view on the subject. I do accept that younger drivers are responsible for a good portion of accidents. Testiment to that fact I was rear ended by a 17 year old in my brand new P1, and the accident rate for the youngest group of drivers is frankly terrible. However, I was on about mile per mile accident rate for lower middle aged drivers against elderly drivers, the reason for which escapes me at present. Even with an open mind, it is fairly obvious that elderly drivers account, or even cause, more accidents that the lower middle age group (mile per mile). I will however change my view if presented with mile per mile accident rates which refute my standpoint.

Leslie

Thats fair enough Scoobynutta, and I would feel the same way about true statistics. It can be said that lower middle aged drivers have still got their full faculties and have also lost the "wild hair up it" that an old friend used to to apply to dangerously fast drivers. I certainly drive more circumspectly than I used to do when I was a good deal younger and there was at least considerably less traffic about too.

I do object to some however when they run down older drivers in such an ageist fashion in an unfair manner.

Les