Driver discrimination

[Dys]

So, having just been channel surfing and seen a story on 'A Current Affair' (by no means a reliable source, think an Australian version of Fox news) claiming young drivers are dangerous I've found myself confused. Generally young drivers are consdered to be those under the age of 25 by most insurance companies, I've had some interest (or rather rage) about the scape goating of P platers and I can safely say that, in Victoria (Australia) P platers are no more likely to be involved in an accident than a middle aged (mid thirties) driver (Equal 3rd most likely agegroup based on findings by a Monash university study published a little under a year ago). My understanding is that drivers between 21 and 25 are the most likely to be involved in an accident (I've not got a straight up statistic to back that, but it's the general trend according to every insurance company I've dealt with).

Now, I remember some months ago the premier of the state quoted a statistic saying that elderly (over 65) drivers account for 8% of license holders and 7% of accidents (astronomical considering how little they drive on average). This 'A Current Affair' show just claimed that 'young drivers' (presumably the same 'young drivers' insurance companies treat as everyone below the age of 25) are responsible for 24% of fatal accidents and account for 35% of license holders (knowing as well that young people drive, on average, more than any other demographic). Now, the thing about this that particularly bothers me is that it was that these numbers were used to argue that young drivers are less safe, when clearly the statistics say otherwise.

So, my Questions, fellow Escapians, is do these trends of blatant scapegoating exist in your country/province?
A little over a year ago my state decided to enforce laws further restricting the rights of P platers (they may no longer drive with more than one person aged between 16 and 21 in their car) and in other states they have even decided to enforce a maximum speed limit of 80km/h (in 110km/h zones, especially late at night, this is more dangerous than driving 30km/h over the speed limit), is this unusual?

Am I the only one who is infuriated by the use of statistics to deliberately and knowingly mislead people?
Knowing it disadvantages a demographic that is already far worse off than the past few generations were at this point in their lives (most university students cannot afford to be independant, and very few apprentices can. Even when sharing houses in the outer suburbs most students are left shortchanged).

 

[hypothetical fact]

A current affair appeals to old people, as do extra and today tonight. Of course they're not going to mention the number of incidents caused by people trying to overtake extremely slow, old people.

Also all of channel 9 has gone to the retirees.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Whatever happened to the good old days where women was considered to be the worst at everything? (like driving, sports etc.) : P




Note: IM JOKING!

 

[Nickolai77]

Well, in the UK i would certainly say that young drivers are more likely to crash than any other age group. Largely down to lack of experience which is nothing to do with them being young, but also immature people who do street racing are young, as they have not grown up yet.

I cant quote any statistics, but i know plenty of anecdotal evidence. There was a memorial in my school commemorating the deaths of 4 sixth form students who died in a car crash a few years ago. Someone in my psychology class had their car flipped over by another driver, luckly she wasn't hurt, and i put it down to her lack of experience as well as the other driver. A familiar acquaintance of mine was involved in a head on collision with another car whilst overtaking on a country road- that was from being immature, he broke both legs and a collar bone. I know someone who was involved in a collision with another student from my 6th form. I put this down to lack of experience, based on what i know about that persons maturity. My freinds brother was involved in a crash when someone went into him as he was pulling out of a junction. CCTV footage had to be used to show that it was not his fault, and i put this down to lack of experience on his half, and the fault of the other driver.

Regarding drivers of any other age group, my mother had a crash whilst i was in the car when i was 3 years old, and i heard of one case of someone coming of the motorway and shooting down a grassy bank, resulting in a permanent back injury.

 

[Dys]

Well, in the UK i would certainly say that young drivers are more likely to crash than any other age group. Largely down to lack of experience which is nothing to do with them being young, but also immature people who do street racing are young, as they have not grown up yet.

I cant quote any statistics, but i know plenty of anecdotal evidence. There was a memorial in my school commemorating the deaths of 4 sixth form students who died in a car crash a few years ago. Someone in my psychology class had their car flipped over by another driver, luckly she wasn't hurt, and i put it down to her lack of experience as well as the other driver. A familiar acquaintance of mine was involved in a head on collision with another car whilst overtaking on a country road- that was from being immature, he broke both legs and a collar bone. I know someone who was involved in a collision with another student from my 6th form. I put this down to lack of experience, based on what i know about that persons maturity. My freinds brother was involved in a crash when someone went into him as he was pulling out of a junction. CCTV footage had to be used to show that it was not his fault, and i put this down to lack of experience on his half, and the fault of the other driver.

Regarding drivers of any other age group, my mother had a crash whilst i was in the car when i was 3 years old, and i heard of one case of someone coming of the motorway and shooting down a grassy bank, resulting in a permanent back injury.

We have rather tough 'anti hoon' laws in effect here (going over 150, doing burn outs, or street racing will result in instant confiscation of your car for 48 hours and a court case that you will most likely leave without your license), so we get so many people doing stupid things (of all age groups, I study mechanical engineering, which is full of rev heads most of whom are under 25, and of the 100+ people in the course who I regularly talk to, maybe 5 admimt to drag racing etc, I'd expect older rev heads to be similarly cautious). I would agree that a large number of young drivers accidents are caused by general immaturity or lack of experience, but then again I see so many experienced drivers doing abysmally stupid things everyday (it's not uncommon to see people cut across two lanes, without indicating, to make a left hand turn in heavy traffic). I suppose, given how poorly so many people drive it's amazing the road toll isn't higher.

It's interesting that street racing is an issue in the UK, are there tough laws (equivilent to our anti-hooning laws) in effect?

 

[Noamuth]

I really get annoyed with ACA.. But damn. The P-plate drivers around here give the rest of us younger drivers a bad name.

ACA have a point, for once, but yet again, they blow it out of proportion.

So, yes. Shows like this tend to like to grab numbers and stats and then SAY LOOK AT THEM NOW WE CAN SAY WHATEVER WE LIKE, and ruin any (if any) credibility they have.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

I speed all the time.. you know why? TO GET PAST THOSE OLD BASTARDS THAT DRIVE AT 40 IN A 80 ZONE!!!!! /rage

 

[scrambledeggs]

I think it's perfectly fair. Young drivers are irresponsible, crazy dickheads. Enforcements like these save lives. It doesn't matter if the elderly can't drive either, it's about safety.

(I'm on my Learners, by the way, in queensland).

 

[The_Healer]

Well I personally am pissed off at the system we have in NSW (not sure about other states), which includes 2 different levels of P plates and a total time of 3 years to get full licensing - something that takes a fraction of the time in many other countries and does not seem to cause more negative statistics for young people. To even gain your P license you have to do 120 hours on L plates, which is a damn long time. After doing such a long time, I believe that more trust should be granted to P plate drivers (higher speed limits and more points on licenses) who don't do the right thing. If they want to impose greater fines on those P platers who speed and incur other offenses then I have no quarrel with them, however I do not believe that individuals should be punished due to flawed statistics. I also begrudgingly agree with the ban on turbo and super charged engines as they are likely attract the reckless driving denomination of P-Plate drivers anyway.
The insurance costs also reflect the level of general mistrust that programs like "A Current Affair" have imposed on the P-Plate driving community - the costs are plainly ridiculous and make it near impossible for a young person to independently insure their vehicle (without the input of parents).

Overall, I do not believe that those who do the right thing should be punished for the wrong actions of a minority. However I do not see the rules changing any time soon. (It will piss off the old people - who sit at home and write letters all day)

 

[A random person]

While all insurance companies are biased against young drivers, Allstate has pretty much every ad they print about how teen drivers will kill you/themselves. My main problems are the sensationalism they treat it with and that they think most teens text while driving.

 

[Nickolai77]

It's interesting that street racing is an issue in the UK, are there tough laws (equivilent to our anti-hooning laws) in effect?

I would'nt really say it's a major problem, people in the UK do street race, but it is not a common thing. I was using street racing as an example of immature behaviour, sorry for any misunderstanding.

Young people do speed/drive aggressively, like over taking unnecessarily or going too fast down a country road, speeding down a stretch of road where it 30MPH etc.. it's not formalised street racing, just adrenaline junkies being foolish. It was the sort of thing that the acquaintance of mine was doing when he crashed his car.

I like the sound of your countries laws with regards to street racing, seems quite sensible. I do get annoyed by immature young drivers because they crash more often, and drive up insurance for young people who are otherwise sensible drivers. Accidents due to lack of experience are hard to avoid, so i'm not annoyed at drivers who commit those accidents- but accidents caused by stupidly are avoidable, not only do people die, but it means more extra cost for young and safe drivers.

 

[Dys]

It's interesting that street racing is an issue in the UK, are there tough laws (equivilent to our anti-hooning laws) in effect?

I would'nt really say it's a major problem, people in the UK do street race, but it is not a common thing. I was using street racing as an example of immature behaviour, sorry for any misunderstanding.

Young people do speed/drive aggressively, like over taking unnecessarily or going too fast down a country road, speeding down a stretch of road where it 30MPH etc.. it's not formalised street racing, just adrenaline junkies being foolish. It was the sort of thing that the acquaintance of mine was doing when he crashed his car.

I like the sound of your countries laws with regards to street racing, seems quite sensible. I do get annoyed by immature young drivers because they crash more often, and drive up insurance for young people who are otherwise sensible drivers. Accidents due to lack of experience are hard to avoid, so i'm not annoyed at drivers who commit those accidents- but accidents caused by stupidly are avoidable, not only do people die, but it means more extra cost for young and safe drivers.

I see, based on other peoples experiences that mine of rarely seeing young people (knowingly) drive irresponsibly is perhaps somewhat unique, but I still contend that a lot of older (especially middle aged women in oversized SUVs) do a lot stupider things a lot more frequently. Although I say that back by the firm beleif that it is equally dangerous to drive 20km/h or 30km/h below the speed limit than it is to drive over, and thus driving at 60km/h in a 100km/h zone is more dangerous than driving 105km/h to overtake (obviously the law disagrees).

As far as accidents attributed to immaturity go, I agree that they are unavoidable and more frequent with young drivers, but I would also say (again, from my experience from what I've directly seen and heard) that it the numbers of 'innocent' accidents are near negligable when compared to the number caused by morons trying to outdo each other in their one way race to the grave (drink driving, driving while on drugs, serious speeding [as in 20km/h over or more], cutting across lanes without indicating or slamming on the brakes on the freeway to get a better look at an unrelated car crash). I would also say that the (often unfair) restrictions placed on young drivers do nothing to combat this (especially the ones involving lower speed limits, which imo are dangerous as well as those that limit the number of passengers), surely better education would be the answer, but that costs money and apparently driving is not something people do need to be qualified for :\

I think it's perfectly fair. Young drivers are irresponsible, crazy dickheads. Enforcements like these save lives. It doesn't matter if the elderly can't drive either, it's about safety.

(I'm on my Learners, by the way, in queensland).

You think it's perfectly fair that an 18 year old driver (who has gotten their license at the earliest possible age) is unable to be the designated driver when some friends go out to a nightclub (this is directly related to late night violence in the city, which is a major issue in my hometown of Melbourne)? You think it's fair that young people are placed at risk (by being forced to drive 80km/h in a 110km/h zone) because the government wants to appear to be combating the road toll? You also think it's fair that for the first 3 years of driving alone, you have less than half the demerit points of non-propationary drivers, bearing in mind that offences like speeding typically lose 1 demerit point while easier, more innocent mistakes are worth more than half of that (uncluding the hoon-prone 21-25 year old age group and the notoriously dangerous seniors age group)? These laws do not save lives, they are more likely to cost them, but I suppose it's ok because the state governments seem to be taking action against the road toll (even if it's the opposite of what we need).

My understanding is that in QLD the age one can get their license is 16, which makes it a completely different issue as 16 year olds are generally not taxpayers, they generally do not work (or rely on carpooling in any necissary way). It is not unusual for them to be treated like second class citizens and it screams discrimination far less than limiting the rights of adults by discriminatory measures. I honestly can't get my head around how you, even as a 16 year old, could possibly think these laws are fair. If it was about safety, the elderly (who account for 8% of licensed drivers and 7% of motor car accidents, and you on average drive far less than half of the average 18 year old P-plater) would have at least the same restrictions placed on them as the P platers who account for 24% of accidents and 35% of drivers (while being one of the demographics that spends the most time on the road). Please, without rampantly generalizing against the statistics, explain to me how this is fair, because it is completely beyond the scope of my understanding :S

 

[scrambledeggs]

-snip-

Granted, allowing 18 year olds to drive home from a club would increase the number of designated drivers and reduce drunken walkers and violence, but would simultaneously, no doubt, increase the number of intoxicated drivers who fell to peer pressure and had a beer, then decided to drive home rather than leave their car in the city and catch a cab. It's a delicate balance between a large number of factors. I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I'm just putting the other side of the argument out there.

In Queensland there is no limit on the speed, and I agree that it is a fucking ridiculous law that should be abolished.

I think it fair that demerit points should be limited. My brother has been fined twice, once for talking on his phone while driving and once for driving across double white lines (he is on his Ps), and he hasn't lost his license. However, I think that if you choose to drink and drive, considering the risk you partake to not only yourself but any other road users or pedestrians, you deserve to lose your license, regardless of whether you're a P plater or you have your full license.

You can get your learners at sixteen, your P plates at seventeen, your red P plates at 19, and your full license at 20. It's a 4 year process and, honestly, I think anyone that complains about the length is a bit of a noob. Clearly - the longer you restrict the number of people in the car after a certain time in which people are liable to be drunk and extremely distracting to an amateur driver, the safer and more experienced people will be. Oh and 95% of my friends my age work.

Hope I bettered your understanding

 

[Logic 0]

It's because the insurance companies think that young people are rich.

 

[JemJar]

It's late so you'll have to forgive me for not fully reading everything, I've bookmarked the thread to come back to.

But some thoughts:

1) I am currently learning to drive. When I pass my test my car insurance will go up as apparently I am more likely to have an accident than whilst learning.

2) Insurance (in the UK) for 17-25 year olds (certainly for males) is usually above the value of the car, with the logical conclusion that a driver in this demographic is expected to be at fault for an accident which damages someone else's property and writes-off his/her own car.

3) Perception of young driver accidents probably exceeds the truth, as is the case with public perceptions of most negative behaviour/event. Not helped by the severity of accidents involving young drivers, often leaving them and their passengers fatally injured.

4) I can't help wondering how much influence the car itself has, younger drivers tend to be "poorer" drivers driving cheaper/older cars which tend to be less effective under breaking, less responsive to steering input to swerve out of the way and less safe if/when an impact occurs.

 

[Berethond]

It's terrible.
I hate it.
It makes me want to go pull a Rorschach on them.

 

[scrambledeggs]

-snip-

1) This is true. The lowest percentage of accidents actually occur whilst learners have a parent in the car, then, when learners get to drive alone, the accidents skyrocket to the most common, then slowly descend back to old age where there is an ever so slight spike. (If that's confusing i'll show you a picture)

2) This can be solved by putting the car in a guardian's name. Cheap insurance! Even joint names means it costs less.

3/4) What you say isn't true. Young people really do cause the most accidents. It probably has a lot to do with their shit cars and such - but it also has to do with their lack of ability to recognise and deal with hazards. The only way to get better at that is with time behind the wheel. And lol, fatal injuries more often than minor ones cements opposition against the OP - old drivers might cause more accidents, but they drive at 5km/h so it doesn't matter, thats why there isn't restrictions on them.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

it's not discrimination, it's the truth. young drivers here in Canada are rather dangerous and get in accidents all the time. the insurance companies don't give them high rates cause it's fun, there's a lot of good evidence supporting their claims

it's mostly due to the fact that they don't know how to drive properly and if they get in bad situations they panic and make it worse.

 

[JemJar]

-snip-

1) This is true. The lowest percentage of accidents actually occur whilst learners have a parent in the car, then, when learners get to drive alone, the accidents skyrocket to the most common, then slowly descend back to old age where there is an ever so slight spike. (If that's confusing i'll show you a picture)

2) This can be solved by putting the car in a guardian's name. Cheap insurance! Even joint names means it costs less.

3/4) What you say isn't true. Young people really do cause the most accidents. It probably has a lot to do with their shit cars and such - but it also has to do with their lack of ability to recognise and deal with hazards. The only way to get better at that is with time behind the wheel. And lol, fatal injuries more often than minor ones cements opposition against the OP - old drivers might cause more accidents, but they drive at 5km/h so it doesn't matter, thats why there isn't restrictions on them.

Sorry, I've been a bit confusing there haven't I.

1) I'm not surprised by this personally. I just thought it was note-worthy.

2) I've got my father in as a second driver, making him main made no difference at all (I suspect insurers are wising up to the trick of claiming someone else is main driver when it simply isn't true).

3/4) I'm not denying that young drivers are very likely to crash. But I do suspect that public perception is that they are more likely to do so than is statistically true.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

Whatever happened to the good old days where women was considered to be the worst at everything? (like driving, sports etc.) : P




Note: IM JOKING!

Whats to joke about?