Originally Posted by
WickedThump
When compared by miles driven, seniors are significantly worse drivers than teens. Accidents by teens usually have 3 factors: Speeding, nighttime , and alcohol. Senior accidents generally cluster around the 4pm time, do not involve speeding, and do not involve alcohol.
Are you sure about
that?
http://theenergycollective.com/james...ll-it-continue
"Teens" (new drivers) probably don't drive that many miles.
Anyway, it's
more than 3 factors.
You missed the basic ones: inexperience and immaturity (developmental).
And it's not clear (especially without any data) what you mean by "seniors".
Keep in mind that I was responding to the
nutty notion that people older than 60 years-old were dangerous (and people 59 years-old were not). It's that
weird arbitrary cut-off that I was criticizing.
If a "senior" (some one older than 60 years-old), or anybody, can't drive safely, they should be disqualified
by some sort of test. Not just by simple age (certainly not 60!).
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
We don't know what the study means by "young" or "elderly" but it would seem that the peformance of 59 year-olds is very close to the performance of 60 year-olds.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
If you had suggested that everybody qualify due to some sort of test, you might have a reasonable idea. But disqualifying people by simple age doesn't make sense.