If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 17/02/2019 16:56, Wolf K wrote:
On 2019-02-17 10:34, nospam wrote: In , wrote: not only that, but once humans get a license, it's forever. No it isn't. If they seriously screw up, they get banned, made to resit their test or even go to jail. yes, if they seriously screw up. otherwise, it's forever. [...] In Ontario, you must pass an eye test, cognitive test, and sometimes also a driving test, every two years from age 80 onward. I think it should start at a younger age, but not enough over-65 voters agree with me. Actually, older drivers are generally safe. It's the young (men) that need to be carefully checked in terms of the biggest risk to other road users. nope. new drivers and elderly drivers are the highest risk due to lack of skill and loss of ability, respectively. [...] Correct, although the fine-grained details are a bit more complex. Stats show that accident rates increase after licensing, reaching a max around 5 years after obtaining the licence. Since most people (in N. America) get their licenses in the late teens to early 20s, "younger drivers" mid- to late- 20s are a higher risk group. Stats also show that rates decrease until about 40-45, then begin to rise rather slowly, then increase faster from about age 60 onwards. By late 60s to early 70s, accident rates are about the same for younger and older drivers. Not in the UK. Accident rates are worst for the under 30s. One of the main reasons for increasing accident rates among older drivers is reduced peripheral vision, which translates into a smaller visual field, hence reduced awarenessof possible hazards. Hence "I didn't see X" is often the truth. IMO older drivers need re-training to improve old habits and develop new ones. Older drivers self-regulate better than younger ones. They avoid driving in situations which they don't feel safe in e.g. in the dark, or in the wet or motorways. |
Ads |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Wolf K
wrote: On 2019-02-17 15:22, nospam wrote: [...] nonsense. [...] nonsense. [...] nope. [...] Civil discourse at its best. Guaranteed to win hearts and minds and usher in an age of sweetness, light, and rationality. snipping to alter context. not cool. i explained at length why what he wrote was nonsense. you chose to snip it to attack. |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Wolf K
wrote: Correct, although the fine-grained details are a bit more complex. Stats show that accident rates increase after licensing, reaching a max around 5 years after obtaining the licence. nope. newly licensed drivers are the most dangerous, becoming safer as they gain experience, bottoming out in the 30s-50s, and then rising again around 60s. Actually, newly licensed drivers have low accident rate for the first year or so of driving, then the rates go up. false. https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/olddrive/Figure6.gif The usual explanation is that as they gain experience, the gain over-confidence. This fact was discovered when someone decided to take a look not at age but at driving experience. It was one the oddities covered in the course qualifying me as driving instructor. that explanation is clearly wrong. https://www.researchgate.net/profile...tion/6996326/f igure/fig1/AS:601580558618625@1520439390087/Young-driver-crash-rates-as- a-function-of-experience-time-licensed-and-distance-driven.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ication/316105 710/figure/fig3/AS:483001617391620@1492167967997/Crash-rate-in-terms-of- drivers-experience-years-in-driving.png NB, that I pointed to "fine-grained details." The stats usually quoted aren't fine-grained enough. they don't need to be. the trends are clear. |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Chris
wrote: On 17/02/2019 17:04, Ken Blake wrote: On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 16:17:51 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote: On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 15:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Actually, older drivers are generally safe. It's the young (men) that need to be carefully checked in terms of the biggest risk to other road users. That's true. When I was young I always drove much too fast. I was usually trying to impress any girl I was with. One girl decided I was a maniac and left me to go home on the bus. I disagree. I think young drivers are often unsafe, and older drivers are often unsafe because of poor vision, poor hearing, and poor reflexes. The safest drivers are the middle-aged. The below suggests that the 60-79 age group is the safest (in the UK). https://www.roadsafetyobservatory.co.../drivers/older € Ageing brings a number of sensory, psychomotor and cognitive changes that may impact driving performance and safety. in other words, older drivers are not the safest. € Although older drivers are overrepresented in deaths following a car crash, this is mostly due to increased fragility. that's a factor, but not as much as they claim. except that deaths isn't the issue, but safe driving, which means crashes. € In fact, accident involvement for older drivers is generally low. because they drive less. the numbers must be normalized to miles driven. If the rate of slight injury is used as a proxy for accident involvement it can be suggested that, when compared with young and middle age groups, accident involvement is lowest for drivers aged 60-79, and only increases by 20% for drivers 80 and older (Mitchell, 2013). slight injury is in no way a proxy for crash involvement. as the article claims, older people are more fragile. what might be a minor bruise at age 60 is an actual injury at age 80. |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Chris
wrote: Older drivers self-regulate better than younger ones. They avoid driving in situations which they don't feel safe in e.g. in the dark, or in the wet or motorways. not driving doesn't mean they're safer drivers. it just means their exposure is less. however, when they do drive, they're more of a risk than younger drivers. the facts are clear. |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Wolf K
wrote: In article , Wolf K wrote: ... snipping to alter context. not cool. i explained at length why what he wrote was nonsense. you chose to snip it to attack. To alter the topic, actually. actually, not at all. not even close to correct. Your data was interesting etc, but your tone was annoying. It too often is. Pity. ad hominem, which is what you invariably do. stick to the topic. discuss why you think the data was interesting or not interesting. |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Wolf K
wrote: Actually, newly licensed drivers have low accident rate for the first year or so of driving, then the rates go up. false. https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/olddrive/Figure6.gif The usual explanation is that as they gain experience, the gain over-confidence. This fact was discovered when someone decided to take a look not at age but at driving experience. It was one the oddities covered in the course qualifying me as driving instructor. that explanation is clearly wrong. https://www.researchgate.net/profile...tion/6996326/f igure/fig1/AS:601580558618625@1520439390087/Young-driver-crash-rates-as- a-function-of-experience-time-licensed-and-distance-driven.png [...] Newer data. so what? |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Wolf K
wrote: ad hominem, which is what you invariably do. Nope, alerting you to a personal quirk that annoys other people isn't an ad hominem argument. I'm not attempting to refute your argument, merely pointing out to you that too often you tone is annoying. NB that has nothing to do with your logic, but it does affect your persuasiveness. sure it is. your post served no other purpose than to attack. i find your tone highly annoying, condescending and rude, but i don't comment on that in my posts because it's irrelevant to the topic. You don't persuade people by being logical. You persuade people by being civil, by respecting them. Labelling a point as "nonsense" is neither civil nor respectful. when something is nonsense, it's entirely appropriate to call it that. if a someone started babbling about how the earth is flat or the moon landing was faked, the correct response is nonsense, because that's exactly what it is. explaining why it's bs would be a complete waste of time. you also snipped the rest of the post you quoted, intentionally altering the context, which went into great detail as to why i said nonsense. you took words out of context just to attack. not cool. no real surprise there, it's what you usually do. |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Wolf K
wrote: Actually, newly licensed drivers have low accident rate for the first year or so of driving, then the rates go up. false. https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/olddrive/Figure6.gif The usual explanation is that as they gain experience, the gain over-confidence. This fact was discovered when someone decided to take a look not at age but at driving experience. It was one the oddities covered in the course qualifying me as driving instructor. that explanation is clearly wrong. https://www.researchgate.net/profile...tion/6996326/f igure/fig1/AS:601580558618625@1520439390087/Young-driver-crash-rates-as- a-function-of-experience-time-licensed-and-distance-driven.png [...] Newer data. so what? Sigh. There's your incivility again. WTF are you trying to prove? there's your ad hominem again. so what if it's new data? So I was acknowledging that the newer data are relevant. However, they don't necessarily refute the older data, yes it does. you're just spewing what you were once told, which you blindly accepted as being true, without ever questioning it. not only does what you said not make sense, but the facts show it to be false. since any claim about some phenomenon in the real world is always contingent on the facts as they are known or knowable at the time. How the newer data relate to the older data (which predates the cited sources by about 3 decades) isn't clear, and frankly I'm not going to bother finding out the details, since at best it would confirm what's already obvious, that something changed. nothing changed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|