Prev: "HELP US PUT a stop to pavement parking"
Next: Wiltshire gang jailed for 'half UK's caravan thefts'
From: Man at B&Q on 6 Mar 2010 13:24
On Mar 6, 2:01 pm, ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
> For those who think its older drivers who are dangerous the IAM
> comment that older drivers are "considerably safer", the 8% of drivers
> who are over 70 contribute to 4% of injury accidents while the 15% of
> drivers who are under 30 contribute to 34% making young drivers 4
> times as dangerous as old.

Now factor in the mileages driven by each class of driver. Are the
older drivers still 4 times safer?

MBQ
From: TJ on 6 Mar 2010 14:12

"ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:non4p5pjdghgemkffeoc13nbvr0d1p2ttr(a)4ax.com...
> For those who think its older drivers who are dangerous the IAM
> comment that older drivers are "considerably safer",

Well they would as most of them are "old". Older drivers are more
likely to be taking a lot of prescription drugs, have poor eyesight and
defects, mental health conditions and disabilities which restrict their
ability to drive in a suitable manner of a safe driver. Their reactions
are also a lot slower. I have filmed and dealt with many older drivers.
Two had cataracts and their doctors lied and said they were fit to
drive. One had dementure and often realised he was in the car but
didn't know why. One drove with prescription drugs that clearly
stated "do not drive". Motability Finance has a lot to answer for too -
they give cars to people who fill in a benefit claim form stating they have
such restricted movement that they wouldn't be able to get in and out of
or even drive a car to the required standard.


> the 8% of drivers
> who are over 70 contribute to 4% of injury accidents while the 15% of
> drivers who are under 30 contribute to 34% making young drivers 4
> times as dangerous as old.

You would also need to post the exact wording of the question that enabed
those statistics to be produced in the way they are described. The source
of
each is also required as we all know how stats are fiddled.

> The IAM are also worried about 50 something
> men under work pressure and far too often seen arguing about the
> accident (or worse) on the hard shoulder.
>

So are they also saying that over 50's have more accidents on a motorway
or were people asked where they have seen people argue about an
accident? The exact wording of the question is required and the source of
the information.

> Mike. .. .

Don't reproduce articles as fact unless you have thoroughly checked out the
information as you are legally responsible for what you post. Most of us
hear
a different story from each organisation and group depending on their
agenda.
You need to learn to ignore the silly articles that are written for a
specific purpose
as the same author and organisation often say something different elsewhere.
Do some research!

It's mainly women and younger men that have more accidents. Whether they
are dangerous is another matter. Someone who is not considered dangerous
and who doesn't have regular accidents can easily have a one-off incident
and
kill a few people. It all depends on circumstances.



From: Ret. on 6 Mar 2010 14:41
Man at B&Q wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:01 pm, ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> For those who think its older drivers who are dangerous the IAM
>> comment that older drivers are "considerably safer", the 8% of
>> drivers who are over 70 contribute to 4% of injury accidents while
>> the 15% of drivers who are under 30 contribute to 34% making young
>> drivers 4 times as dangerous as old.
>
> Now factor in the mileages driven by each class of driver. Are the
> older drivers still 4 times safer?

Difficult to say. Many older drivers cover greater distances than younger
drivers - mainly because they have the opportunity to do so. They are
retired and their cars are not parked up in an employer's car park for 5
days out of 7.

Kev

From: Mortimer on 6 Mar 2010 14:51
"Man at B&Q" <manatbandq(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fdfa24c-87f6-4fa1-9622-b00d6f910b41(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 6, 2:01 pm, ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
>> For those who think its older drivers who are dangerous the IAM comment
>> that older drivers are "considerably safer", the 8% of drivers who are
>> over 70 contribute to 4% of injury accidents while the 15% of drivers who
>> are under 30 contribute to 34% making young drivers 4 times as dangerous
>> as old.

> Now factor in the mileages driven by each class of driver. Are the older
> drivers still 4 times safer?

My grandpa was still driving at 95. Mind you, he seemed to reach his mid
seventies and stop getting any older! He knew his limitations: he didn't
feel confident driving in heavy traffic (irrespective of whether or not he
was safe) so he only drove after the morning rush hour and before the
evening one. But his car was a great lifeline to him, allowing him to go to
the shops, go for a walk in the nearby park (a couple of miles away) and go
to his favourite pub (for a meal, not a drink).

A year or so before he died (complications following a fall while out
shopping) he gave me a lift to the local chippy to get us lunch when I went
to see him. I expected him to drive slowly and to dither at junctions, but
he seemed to be perfectly in control of the car and got up to about 50 on an
NSL road. The only rather dubious habit that he had was to put the car into
neutral on the approach to each junction where he was turning, but mum said
that he'd always done that ever since she was little: it was a fuel-saving
technique used during the war. Ironic that with a modern fuel-injected
engine-managed car it would actually have used marginally *more* fuel than
if he'd stayed in gear with his foot off the throttle.

But he was the exception. I got a lift with someone in their eighties and
she was a menace, at times driving far too fast for the road conditions and
overtaking in stupid places, and yet at other times dawdling and dithering
as soon as there was any other traffic around her.

But the scariest ride as a passenger was from a woman I used to work with
who was in her twenties. She turned from a sweet-natured (and rather
fanciable) lass to a pushy, impatient but absent-minded monster when she got
behind the wheel.


I suppose the *type* of accident that different age-groups causes is
different: younger people (especially men) may be guilty of over-confidence
and taking greater risks, sometimes prompted by showing off. Middle-aged
people may be more likely to be aggressive because they are "late for a
meeting" or because they think they can drive safely after a few pints (*).
Elderly people are probably more likely to suffer from absent-mindedness and
doing something silly: almost all the cases of people driving the wrong way
down a motorway (apart from hit-and-run drivers trying to avoid pursuit)
seem to be elderly.


(*) I worked with a guy who often drank at lunchtime if we went out for a
work "jolly" and then drove home. People who had got a lift with him *to*
the pub often made their excuses to get a lift *back* with someone else!

From: Nick Finnigan on 6 Mar 2010 14:54
Man at B&Q wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:01 pm, ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> For those who think its older drivers who are dangerous the IAM
>> comment that older drivers are "considerably safer", the 8% of drivers
>> who are over 70 contribute to 4% of injury accidents while the 15% of
>> drivers who are under 30 contribute to 34% making young drivers 4
>> times as dangerous as old.

And the other 77% of drivers contribute to 62%

> Now factor in the mileages driven by each class of driver. Are the
> older drivers still 4 times safer?

No, twice as safe; both groups are worse than average.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: "HELP US PUT a stop to pavement parking"
Next: Wiltshire gang jailed for 'half UK's caravan thefts'