Older Drivers
That Canadian Kid
http://www.crawfordandcompany.com/UserUploads/United.States/CrawfordCareMan
agement/CCMBrochures/OlderDriver.pdf
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=62181
http://agingparents.com/driving/
I could go on and on but I think this shows enough. But I am sure this will
go nowhere....
myh...@mts.net
-->http://www.drdriving.org/elderly/
-->
-->http://www.crawfordandcompany.com/UserUploads/United.States/CrawfordCareMan
-->agement/CCMBrochures/OlderDriver.pdf
-->
-->http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=62181
-->
-->http://agingparents.com/driving/
-->
-->I could go on and on but I think this shows enough. But I am sure this will
-->go nowhere....
You do realize that even though the older drivers can drive us all nuts at
times with their slow and sometimes aimless driving. But younger drivers
representing only 10% of licence holders cause 77% of deaths and bodily injury.
Middle age up to the elderly are in or cause 23% of accidents or accident
related injury's. So who do you think we should take off the road?
There has been a great deal of such studies by provinces in Canada and the USA,
so there's lots of data to prove this. Now does the posting of the above shit
by yourself about elderly drivers have a point?
Diane Gall
> So who do you think we should take off the road?
People who cannot drive well.
Di
That Canadian Kid
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:38:58 GMT, That Canadian Kid
> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
>
> -->http://www.drdriving.org/elderly/
> -->
> -->
http://www.crawfordandcompany.com/UserUploads/United.States/Crawford
> CareMan -->agement/CCMBrochures/OlderDriver.pdf
> -->
> -->http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=62181
> -->
> -->http://agingparents.com/driving/
> -->
> -->I could go on and on but I think this shows enough. But I am sure
> this will -->go nowhere....
>
> You do realize that even though the older drivers can drive us all
> nuts at times with their slow and sometimes aimless driving. But
> younger drivers representing only 10% of licence holders cause 77% of
> deaths and bodily injury. Middle age up to the elderly are in or cause
> 23% of accidents or accident related injury's. So who do you think we
> should take off the road?
And your links for this info are where?
Did you actually go to any of those sites and read anything? Have you
followed anything or any thread on this newsgroup? You honestly make
yourself look stupid with posts such as these. No where did I suggest
taking anyone of the road, but I did state on more than one occassion
that the older drivers are not good drivers in response to a post on how
good and cautious they are, hence the about links. Not sure you
understand yet.
And I also stated in order to be fair to everyone I think there should
be manditory road tests for everyone every 3 years and if you fail that
you don't necessarily loose your lic but given manditory driver
education.
So to answer your rather stupid question, bad drivers should be removed
from the road and if they are older drivers so be it, and the facts show
that for the most part it is older drivers.
> There has been a great deal of such studies by provinces in Canada and
> the USA, so there's lots of data to prove this. Now does the posting
> of the above shit by yourself about elderly drivers have a point?
I think I showed what my point is/was/will be. Your stupidity blazes
across usenet as it usually does.
That Canadian Kid
<snip>
> There has been a great deal of such studies by provinces in Canada and
> the USA, so there's lots of data to prove this. Now does the posting
> of the above shit by yourself about elderly drivers have a point?
By the way, I forgot to add that you haven't read any of those studies now
have....
myh...@mts.net
wrote:
-->On Nov 18, 2:51�pm, myh...@mts.net wrote:
-->
-->> So who do you think we should take off the road?
-->
-->People who cannot drive well.
-->
-->Di
It's the 16 to 25 yr. olds then as they cause most of the carnage.
myh...@mts.net
-->myh...@mts.net wrote in news:fsp8g59id9pgdb86r...@4ax.com:
-->
-->> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:38:58 GMT, That Canadian Kid
-->> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->http://www.drdriving.org/elderly/
-->> -->
-->> -->
-->http://www.crawfordandcompany.com/UserUploads/United.States/Crawford
-->> CareMan -->agement/CCMBrochures/OlderDriver.pdf
-->> -->
-->> -->http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=62181
-->> -->
-->> -->http://agingparents.com/driving/
-->> -->
-->> -->I could go on and on but I think this shows enough. But I am sure
-->> this will -->go nowhere....
-->>
-->> You do realize that even though the older drivers can drive us all
-->> nuts at times with their slow and sometimes aimless driving. But
-->> younger drivers representing only 10% of licence holders cause 77% of
-->> deaths and bodily injury. Middle age up to the elderly are in or cause
-->> 23% of accidents or accident related injury's. So who do you think we
-->> should take off the road?
-->
-->And your links for this info are where?
-->
-->Did you actually go to any of those sites and read anything? Have you
-->followed anything or any thread on this newsgroup? You honestly make
-->yourself look stupid with posts such as these. No where did I suggest
-->taking anyone of the road, but I did state on more than one occassion
-->that the older drivers are not good drivers in response to a post on how
-->good and cautious they are, hence the about links. Not sure you
-->understand yet.
-->
-->And I also stated in order to be fair to everyone I think there should
-->be manditory road tests for everyone every 3 years and if you fail that
-->you don't necessarily loose your lic but given manditory driver
-->education.
-->
-->So to answer your rather stupid question, bad drivers should be removed
-->from the road and if they are older drivers so be it, and the facts show
-->that for the most part it is older drivers.
-->
-->> There has been a great deal of such studies by provinces in Canada and
-->> the USA, so there's lots of data to prove this. Now does the posting
-->> of the above shit by yourself about elderly drivers have a point?
-->
-->I think I showed what my point is/was/will be. Your stupidity blazes
-->across usenet as it usually does.
Nice try at deflection, try using google to research the carnage kings (16 to
25 yr. olds). Why do you think a 50 yr. old and a 16 yr. old pay different
insurance rates?
...and yes, I agree to mandatory retests, road test every three years over 80
yrs. old.
As well anyone with 20, demerits or three accidents in a two year period that
was their fault to be automatically banned from driving for 5 yrs.
dick blisters
"That Canadian Kid" <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC7A7EDC302...@69.16.185.252...
or hemorhoids.
Diane Gall
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:04:33 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall <diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> -->On Nov 18, 2:51 pm, myh...@mts.net wrote:
> -->
> -->> So who do you think we should take off the road?
> -->
> -->People who cannot drive well.
> It's the 16 to 25 yr. olds then as they cause most of the carnage.
You mean that everyone above the age of 25 drives well?
Surely even you understand statistical reasoning well enough to
understand that using your own stats than a quarter of all accidents
are caused by people over the age of 25.
I'd prefer to worry about individuals who can drive poorly than
painting with a broad brush and thus looking like a fool.
Di
myh...@mts.net
wrote:
-->On Nov 18, 6:12�pm, myh...@mts.net wrote:
-->> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:04:33 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall
<diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
-->> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->On Nov 18, 2:51�pm, myh...@mts.net wrote:
-->> -->
-->> -->> So who do you think we should take off the road?
-->> -->
-->> -->People who cannot drive well.
-->
-->> It's the 16 to 25 yr. olds then as they cause most of the carnage.
-->
-->You mean that everyone above the age of 25 drives well?
No Diane, you know very well what I meant so stop fishing.
-->
-->Surely even you understand statistical reasoning well enough to
-->understand that using your own stats than a quarter of all accidents
-->are caused by people over the age of 25.
16 to 25 yr olds are only 10% of drivers but cause 77% of the carnage on the
street.
-->
-->I'd prefer to worry about individuals who can drive poorly than
-->painting with a broad brush and thus looking like a fool.
-->
-->Di
That would be the 16 to 25 yr olds. The Kid did indeed paint with a wide brush
as older drivers are not the largest problem group.
myh...@mts.net
<diane....@gmail.com>
-->wrote:
-->
-->-->I'd prefer to worry about individuals who can drive poorly than
Well according to the stats from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
The percentage of crashes involving elderly drivers is decreasing, according to
a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a Virginia-based
nonprofit group that studies automobile crashes.
Between 1997 and 2006, the group found that crash deaths among drivers age 70
or older fell 21 percent, even as the population of people 70 or older grew 10
percent. There were more than 20 million licensed drivers 70 or older in 2006,
compared with less than 18 million in 1997.
During the same period, the group found fatal crashes among all drivers
declined 4 percent; among drivers age 35 to 54, the decline was 2 percent.
�No matter how you slice the numbers, the older driver crash problem is
improving,�� said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety. �There isn�t much evidence that elderly drivers are a big
menace to other people on the road.��
�In fatal crashes of drivers 75 and older, the drivers and their elderly
passengers were much more likely to be killed than were the occupants of other
vehicles,�� he added. �Looking at per-licensed-driver rates, drivers in the 30-
to 59-year-old category are much more likely to kill other motorists,
pedestrians, and bicyclists than elderly drivers.��
The US Government Accountability Office reached similar conclusions. In a
report released two years ago, GAO investigators found that �the rate of older
driver involvement in fatal crashes . . . measured on the basis of licensed
drivers, has decreased and, overall, older drivers have a lower rate of fatal
crashes than drivers in younger age groups.��
The GAO noted that the crash rate for elderly drivers is lower than the rates
for younger drivers, in part because they log fewer miles per year than younger
drivers. They also noted that many elderly drivers hold licenses even though
they no longer drive and often avoid getting behind the wheel at night and
during rush hour, when crashes tend to occur.
They also found that intersections pose more of a problem for the elderly. In
2004, drivers age 65 or older accounted for 37 percent of fatal crashes at
intersections, compared with 18 percent for drivers age 26 to 64.
And on the basis of miles driven, which the state doesn�t track, the GAO found
that drivers age 75 or older are more likely than all other drivers to be
involved in a fatal crash. The GAO report did not track nonfatal crashes.
�In a lot of ways, the data depends on how you look at them,�� said Beth Dugan,
an associate professor of gerontology at the University of Massachusetts at
Boston who serves as spokeswoman for Safe Roads Now, which has urged state
lawmakers to overhaul driving laws for the elderly. �This is not a crisis as
the recent events have made them seem, but we need to reform the system.��
Unlike more than half the states in the country, Massachusetts has no special
licensing requirements for elderly drivers.
State officials and others have urged lawmakers to consider several options
that could reduce the risks of elderly drivers causing damage because of
failing eyesight or slowed reflexes. Among those options are requiring
in-person, more frequent license renewals for the elderly, vision tests, and
driving tests.
They might also follow the lead of other states. Oregon, for example, requires
physicians and other medical providers to report drivers with impairments that
affect a person�s ability to drive safely. Maryland has a medical advisory
board that screens thousands of elderly residents to determine their fitness to
drive. And Iowa issues some older drivers restricted licenses that limit their
driving to daylight hours, specific neighborhoods, or low-speed roads.
AAA Southern New England has urged lawmakers to support a bill that would
provide immunity to doctors who report to the state patients who are medically
impaired and incapable of driving safely. The reports would trigger screening.
Another bill would require drivers age 85 or older to undergo vision and road
tests every five years.
�This is certainly a real, true, deep concern for us,�� said Mary Maguire, a
spokeswoman for AAA Southern New England. �We think that accurate and useful
assessment tools are needed to try to determine whether there�s a level of
impairment, at any age.��
Diane Gall
< snip >
The vast majority of murders of women are men. Therefore, all men
should be monitored and be restricted.
You need to think a bit before cutting and pasting.
Di
That Canadian Kid
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:17:56 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall
> <diane....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -->On Nov 18, 6:12�pm, myh...@mts.net wrote:
> -->> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:04:33 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall
> <diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
> -->> wrote:
> -->>
> -->> -->On Nov 18, 2:51�pm, myh...@mts.net wrote:
> -->> -->
> -->> -->> So who do you think we should take off the road?
> -->> -->
> -->> -->People who cannot drive well.
> -->
> -->> It's the 16 to 25 yr. olds then as they cause most of the
> carnage. -->
> -->You mean that everyone above the age of 25 drives well?
>
> No Diane, you know very well what I meant so stop fishing.
Actually looking at all your posts I find it difficult that anyone knows
what you mean...
> -->
> -->Surely even you understand statistical reasoning well enough to
> -->understand that using your own stats than a quarter of all
> accidents -->are caused by people over the age of 25.
>
> 16 to 25 yr olds are only 10% of drivers but cause 77% of the carnage
> on the street.
>
> -->
> -->I'd prefer to worry about individuals who can drive poorly than
> -->painting with a broad brush and thus looking like a fool.
> -->
> -->Di
>
> That would be the 16 to 25 yr olds. The Kid did indeed paint with a
> wide brush as older drivers are not the largest problem group.
So would you agree that parents with kids between the ages of 16 and 25
driving the parents vehicle then the parent should pay higher rates.
That Canadian Kid
WOW, now where did you see deflection. Do you always see things that
aren't there? I am not talking about carnage, deaths but simply about
accidents and causation.
Just because a group is not in the accident doesn't mean they don't
cause accidents. So called cautious older drivers and left hand turns
are a prime example as stated in one of the links I posted.
That Canadian Kid
> -->On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:17:56 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall
> <diane....@gmail.com>
> -->wrote:
> -->
> -->-->I'd prefer to worry about individuals who can drive poorly than
> -->-->painting with a broad brush and thus looking like a fool.
>
>
> Well according to the stats from the Insurance Institute for Highway
> Safety.
>
> The percentage of crashes involving elderly drivers is decreasing,
> according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a
> Virginia-based nonprofit group that studies automobile crashes.
>
> Between 1997 and 2006, the group found that crash deaths among drivers
> age 70 or older fell 21 percent, even as the population of people 70
> or older grew 10 percent. There were more than 20 million licensed
> drivers 70 or older in 2006, compared with less than 18 million in
> 1997.
And the amount of lic drivers over 70 that are still driving on a
regular bases fell by 43 percent.
That Canadian Kid
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:30:35 GMT, That Canadian Kid
Do you always see things that aren't there? In fact I never disputed the
fact that young drivers have problems, in fact I was, did, and am
suggesting that is why graduated lic has become a reality but you must
have missed that, I am sure you wouldn't have ignored those statements
on purpose.
> ...and yes, I agree to mandatory retests, road test every three years
> over 80 yrs. old.
No there you go discriminating against the elderly. I stated older
drivers not elderly drivers, there is a large difference. I also stated
manditory driver road tests every 3 years for everyone that holds a
valid driver lic. The fact being that people who are not in accidents
can cause a lot of accidents with their bad driving habits and lack of
knowledge of the rules of the road.
> As well anyone with 20, demerits or three accidents in a two year
> period that was their fault to be automatically banned from driving
> for 5 yrs.
Really, as for 20 dermit points I believe they have some rather harsh
penalities at the moment for those people. But there are alot of
professional drivers on the road that fit your catagory and some of
those drivers are targeted by the police and are given tickets for minor
infractions that they would otherwise let go. Such as taxi drivers,
couriers and the like.
Bad drivers should be taken off the road as simple as that, and if you
think I painted older people with a wide brush you must either not drive
much or you drive with your eyes closed and because you are getting up
there in years and are afraid I am referring to you.
That Canadian Kid
news:he2914$pab$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Good comment, I am impressed with your ability to show your intelligence
and ability to be a dick head with blisters, enjoy yourse son.
WTF
wrote:
-->< snip >
-->You need to think a bit before cutting and pasting.
If they were 16 yrs. old perhaps
WTF
-->myh...@mts.net wrote in news:b6b9g55kt3lbot1mg...@4ax.com:
-->
-->> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:17:56 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall
-->> <diane....@gmail.com> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->On Nov 18, 6:12�pm, myh...@mts.net wrote:
-->> -->> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:04:33 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall
-->> <diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
-->> -->> wrote:
-->> -->>
-->> -->> -->On Nov 18, 2:51�pm, myh...@mts.net wrote:
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->> So who do you think we should take off the road?
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->People who cannot drive well.
-->> -->
-->> -->> It's the 16 to 25 yr. olds then as they cause most of the
-->> carnage. -->
-->> -->You mean that everyone above the age of 25 drives well?
-->>
-->> No Diane, you know very well what I meant so stop fishing.
-->
-->Actually looking at all your posts I find it difficult that anyone knows
-->what you mean...
-->
-->> -->
-->> -->Surely even you understand statistical reasoning well enough to
-->> -->understand that using your own stats than a quarter of all
-->> accidents -->are caused by people over the age of 25.
-->>
-->> 16 to 25 yr olds are only 10% of drivers but cause 77% of the carnage
-->> on the street.
-->>
-->> -->
-->> -->I'd prefer to worry about individuals who can drive poorly than
-->> -->painting with a broad brush and thus looking like a fool.
-->> -->
-->> -->Di
-->>
-->> That would be the 16 to 25 yr olds. The Kid did indeed paint with a
-->> wide brush as older drivers are not the largest problem group.
-->
-->So would you agree that parents with kids between the ages of 16 and 25
-->driving the parents vehicle then the parent should pay higher rates.
They do. The parents pay higher rates if the 16 yr. old is driving the family
vehicle. The autopac dealer always asks the question if anyone under 21 is
going to drive the car, if yes the rate increases due to the risk of accident.
dick blisters
alt.comp.freeware.
Old drivers can be a pain in the ass for sure.
Stu
-->myh...@mts.net wrote in news:vs69g5577seavr3o8...@4ax.com:
-->
-->> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:30:35 GMT, That Canadian Kid
-->> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->myh...@mts.net wrote in
-->> news:fsp8g59id9pgdb86r...@4ax.com: -->
-->> -->> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:38:58 GMT, That Canadian Kid
-->> -->> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
-->> -->>
-->> -->> -->http://www.drdriving.org/elderly/
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> CareMan -->agement/CCMBrochures/OlderDriver.pdf
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=62181
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->http://agingparents.com/driving/
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->I could go on and on but I think this shows enough. But I am
-->> sure -->> this will -->go nowhere....
-->> -->>
-->> -->> You do realize that even though the older drivers can drive us
-->> all -->> nuts at times with their slow and sometimes aimless driving.
-->> But -->> younger drivers representing only 10% of licence holders
-->> cause 77% of -->> deaths and bodily injury. Middle age up to the
-->> elderly are in or cause -->> 23% of accidents or accident related
-->> injury's. So who do you think we -->> should take off the road?
-->> -->
-->> -->And your links for this info are where?
-->> -->
-->> -->Did you actually go to any of those sites and read anything? Have
-->> you -->followed anything or any thread on this newsgroup? You honestly
-->> make -->yourself look stupid with posts such as these. No where did I
-->> suggest -->taking anyone of the road, but I did state on more than one
-->> occassion -->that the older drivers are not good drivers in response
-->> to a post on how -->good and cautious they are, hence the about links.
-->> Not sure you -->understand yet.
-->> -->
-->> -->And I also stated in order to be fair to everyone I think there
-->> should -->be manditory road tests for everyone every 3 years and if
-->> you fail that -->you don't necessarily loose your lic but given
-->> manditory driver -->education.
-->> -->
-->> -->So to answer your rather stupid question, bad drivers should be
-->> removed -->from the road and if they are older drivers so be it, and
-->> the facts show -->that for the most part it is older drivers.
-->> -->
-->> -->> There has been a great deal of such studies by provinces in
-->> Canada and -->> the USA, so there's lots of data to prove this. Now
-->> does the posting -->> of the above shit by yourself about elderly
-->> drivers have a point? -->
-->> -->I think I showed what my point is/was/will be. Your stupidity
-->> blazes -->across usenet as it usually does.
-->>
-->> Nice try at deflection, try using google to research the carnage
-->> kings (16 to 25 yr. olds). Why do you think a 50 yr. old and a 16 yr.
-->> old pay different insurance rates?
-->
-->Do you always see things that aren't there? In fact I never disputed the
-->fact that young drivers have problems, in fact I was, did, and am
-->suggesting that is why graduated lic has become a reality but you must
-->have missed that, I am sure you wouldn't have ignored those statements
-->on purpose.
Where did you mention graduated lic other than here and now? You didn't.
-->> ...and yes, I agree to mandatory retests, road test every three years
-->> over 80 yrs. old.
-->
-->No there you go discriminating against the elderly. I stated older
-->drivers not elderly drivers, there is a large difference. I also stated
-->manditory driver road tests every 3 years for everyone that holds a
-->valid driver lic. The fact being that people who are not in accidents
-->can cause a lot of accidents with their bad driving habits and lack of
-->knowledge of the rules of the road.
-->
-->> As well anyone with 20, demerits or three accidents in a two year
-->> period that was their fault to be automatically banned from driving
-->> for 5 yrs.
-->
-->Really, as for 20 dermit points I believe they have some rather harsh
-->penalities at the moment for those people. But there are alot of
-->professional drivers on the road that fit your catagory and some of
-->those drivers are targeted by the police and are given tickets for minor
-->infractions that they would otherwise let go. Such as taxi drivers,
-->couriers and the like.
-->
-->Bad drivers should be taken off the road as simple as that, and if you
-->think I painted older people with a wide brush you must either not drive
-->much or you drive with your eyes closed and because you are getting up
-->there in years and are afraid I am referring to you.
myh...@mts.net
-->Bad drivers should be taken off the road as simple as that, and if you
-->think I painted older people with a wide brush you must either not drive
-->much or you drive with your eyes closed and because you are getting up
-->there in years and are afraid I am referring to you.
Not really, I drove professionally for 23 yrs. I have 5 merits, and haven't
been in an accident for 21 yrs (it was not my fault) it was a woman playing
with her kid in the car seat beside her and not watching.
Diane Gall
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:50:18 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall <diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> -->< snip >
> -->You need to think a bit before cutting and pasting.
>
> If they were 16 yrs. old perhaps
No, anyone of any age really should think a bit before any task.
Di
DevilsPGD
Do they? Or is it new drivers, who happen to tend to be 16-25?
In other words, if it's something inherent to 16-25 year olds then there
might be a solution.
If it's just a case of new drivers tending to be worse drivers, we
either give up driving as a society, focus on training, or accept the
current situation and move on.
DevilsPGD
was claimed to have wrote:
>...and yes, I agree to mandatory retests, road test every three years over 80
>yrs. old.
I'd lean more toward every three years over 65, every year over 75, and
possibly every 6 months over 80/85.
No scientific or statistical basis for this, but rather, this is based
on watching elders of friends and my own family, and based on living in
a town with a higher than average percentage of retirees -- Three years
is just too long for a marginal driver to go without retesting.
Stu
-->In message <8m69g597cr186n4ol...@4ax.com> myh...@mts.net
-->was claimed to have wrote:
-->
-->>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:04:33 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall
<diane....@gmail.com>
-->>wrote:
-->>
-->>-->On Nov 18, 2:51�pm, myh...@mts.net wrote:
-->>-->
-->>-->> So who do you think we should take off the road?
-->>-->
-->>-->People who cannot drive well.
-->>-->
-->>-->Di
-->>
-->>It's the 16 to 25 yr. olds then as they cause most of the carnage.
-->
-->Do they? Or is it new drivers, who happen to tend to be 16-25?
-->
-->In other words, if it's something inherent to 16-25 year olds then there
-->might be a solution.
-->
-->If it's just a case of new drivers tending to be worse drivers, we
-->either give up driving as a society, focus on training, or accept the
-->current situation and move on.
The age bracket 16-25yrs.
DevilsPGD
Has anyone actually studied that? I spent some time looking and I
couldn't find any studies that indicated whether or not I'd be a safer
driver if I were to get my license today (late 20s) vs a teenager.
Now admittedly I can see some additional risk factors since teenagers
are immortal, and probably are less likely to have well maintained cars,
but I'd still like to see some actual numbers from a study that
differentiates raw age vs driving experience.
That Canadian Kid
news:o2fag598443gfu1pl...@4ax.com:
Nope, look it up, its called no fault insurance for a reason.
That Canadian Kid
news:agfag59h9l41nt7pq...@4ax.com:
Before I comment on how stupid you are and how you have no idea how to
read usenet and multiple threads I'll post the date and the id number
for you to read and apologize.
Mon 16 117955
Now before opening your mouth and inserting your foot and looking like
the ass you truely are, when commenting on something you should really
learn to follow the entire subject.
Class ajourned.
<snip>
Iowna Uass
"That Canadian Kid" <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC795012FD5...@69.16.185.252...
> http://www.drdriving.org/elderly/
>
> http://www.crawfordandcompany.com/UserUploads/United.States/CrawfordCareMan
> agement/CCMBrochures/OlderDriver.pdf
>
> http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=62181
>
> http://agingparents.com/driving/
>
> I could go on and on but I think this shows enough. But I am sure this
> will
> go nowhere....
>
I can't totally agree with that, I see lots of idiots of all ages and
genders attempting to navigate our roads.
Talking/texting on cells, driving like there's an inch of ice under their
wheels, or the opposite, tailgating because I'm only driving 10 km over the
limit.
That Canadian Kid
news:33ecg51vv90ugcbb7...@4ax.com:
You are very right, it is the inexperienced drivers that are the causation
of most accidents. Whether that be because you are a new driver, or a
driver that does not put on many km, the inexperience or forgotten
experience are some of the major problems.
When you look at stats and check out the 16 - 25 year olds that have had
driver ed in school they support the fact that more experience and
education = better drivers and fewer accidents.
It is unfortunate that many in here have no idea about causation,
effectiveness and statistical information and how it is used.
> Now admittedly I can see some additional risk factors since teenagers
> are immortal, and probably are less likely to have well maintained
> cars, but I'd still like to see some actual numbers from a study that
> differentiates raw age vs driving experience.
Well lets take a look at these statements. If you are a parent would you
not make sure your childs care is maintained to the highest degree that is
required to make it safe on the road, not only for your childs protection
but for everyone else. To me this just makes sense.
That Canadian Kid
No but I bet you have caused far more than you even know, cutting people
off with your bus, etc
myh...@mts.net
-->
-->"That Canadian Kid" <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote in message
-->news:Xns9CC795012FD5...@69.16.185.252...
-->> http://www.drdriving.org/elderly/
-->>
-->>
http://www.crawfordandcompany.com/UserUploads/United.States/CrawfordCareMan
-->> agement/CCMBrochures/OlderDriver.pdf
-->>
-->> http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=62181
-->>
-->> http://agingparents.com/driving/
-->>
-->> I could go on and on but I think this shows enough. But I am sure this
-->> will
-->> go nowhere....
-->>
-->
-->I can't totally agree with that, I see lots of idiots of all ages and
-->genders attempting to navigate our roads.
-->Talking/texting on cells, driving like there's an inch of ice under their
-->wheels, or the opposite, tailgating because I'm only driving 10 km over the
-->limit.
-->
8/16/2009 The Provincial Government plans to launch a campaign this fall to
educate Manitoba Drivers about the new cellphone law.
A law banning the use of cellphones while driving is now in effect, but
Transportation Minister Ron Lemieux told CJOB police won't start enforcing it
until July 1, 2010
The new law also includes a ban on text-messaging while driving.
But Lemieux adds police will give tickets to people who are driving erratically
while using their cell-phone.
The new campaign will feature radio, t.v. and newspaper ads this fall and
winter.
July 1, 2010 , I can see thousands of tickets given out in the first 72 hours
after all the public would of known about the law for a year by then. They
should of adjusted their driving habits to exclude the using of hand held cell
phones and the extremely dangerous practice of text messaging while driving.
I understand that the law concerning the smoking in ones vehicle while minors
are present is as well coming in to effect at the same time.
myh...@mts.net
-->myh...@mts.net wrote in news:hjfag51pfkif46q11...@4ax.com:
-->
-->> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:20:43 GMT, That Canadian Kid
-->> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->Bad drivers should be taken off the road as simple as that, and if
-->> you -->think I painted older people with a wide brush you must either
-->> not drive -->much or you drive with your eyes closed and because you
-->> are getting up -->there in years and are afraid I am referring to you.
-->>
-->> Not really, I drove professionally for 23 yrs. I have 5 merits, and
-->> haven't been in an accident for 21 yrs (it was not my fault) it was a
-->> woman playing with her kid in the car seat beside her and not
-->> watching.
-->>
-->
-->No but I bet you have caused far more than you even know, cutting people
-->off with your bus, etc
Actually, you are misinformed as usual. I did not, nor ever have driven a bus,
that's Opus's profession if I'm not mistaken.
That Canadian Kid
WTF
-->myh...@mts.net wrote in news:afedg59d7kdc7q4r5...@4ax.com:
-->
-->> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:54:15 GMT, That Canadian Kid
-->> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->myh...@mts.net wrote in
-->> news:hjfag51pfkif46q11...@4ax.com: -->
-->> -->> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:20:43 GMT, That Canadian Kid
-->> -->> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
-->> -->>
-->> -->> -->Bad drivers should be taken off the road as simple as that,
-->> and if -->> you -->think I painted older people with a wide brush you
-->> must either -->> not drive -->much or you drive with your eyes closed
-->> and because you -->> are getting up -->there in years and are afraid I
-->> am referring to you. -->>
-->> -->> Not really, I drove professionally for 23 yrs. I have 5 merits,
-->> and -->> haven't been in an accident for 21 yrs (it was not my fault)
-->> it was a -->> woman playing with her kid in the car seat beside her
-->> and not -->> watching.
-->> -->>
-->> -->
-->> -->No but I bet you have caused far more than you even know, cutting
-->> people -->off with your bus, etc
-->>
-->>
-->> Actually, you are misinformed as usual. I did not, nor ever have
-->> driven a bus, that's Opus's profession if I'm not mistaken.
-->
-->He is a mechanic, you are still an idiot
Someone that posts here is a bus driver.
.... and for the most part you're still misinformed.
That Canadian Kid
news:b3fdg5h6miq80r9d4...@4ax.com:
Who meeeeeeeee, I am never misinformed sorry to burst your bubble