They did NOT correlate youngest drivers and smaller crumple zones.
The emphasis was on mass, albeit smaller. All your following posts are YOUR issues, not mine or within the scope of that local rag article !!!
"...2009 through 2011 vehicles and found that Yaris occupants filed personal injury claims 28.5 times for every 1,000 of the vehicles the industry insured"...
..."The institute said its research demonstrated that the vehicles with the highest INJURY (all caps, my sic) claims tend to be small cars"...
There is a notable and disturbing observation, a sort of cooking the books in plain sight, but that is another point.
While Yaris topped the list, they went on to cite Suzuki SX4, Chevrolet Aveo, Mit Galant, Kia Rio, Nissan Versa/Sentra, Hyundai Accent and Dodge Avenger. (no pun intended)
Most injury claims, but what I'm saying is those claims are made by young and inexperienced drivers, who would probably have crashed no matter what car they were driving.
Do you honestly think a 16 year old would be safer in, say, a Boss 302?
What I'm saying is the demographic of the owners is a big factor that is not accounted for when you just look at claims totals.
The data would be meaningful if it was categorized by age group.
So, for instance, if they showed claim rates for drivers 16-19, 20-25, 26-30, etc., then you could compare.
And I'm sure the 3 spoiled high school kids who own a Boss 302 have crashed, but the 4 Yaris claims (out of 1000s) outnumber them by 33%.
I think you are injecting levels of complication better addressed with information in the NHSTA and IIHS web sites and in effect are. Most of what you assert is personal opinion, even as you try to cast doubt on lack of correlation. So for example my kids started off ( 15.5 to getting DL) in Toyota Landcruisers, ZERO injury claims.
Could be rich Prius types. I remember when the kamm-tailed Prius was new, it attracted some affluent customers who wanted to flaunt their eco-weeniness. Also, S-hybrid barely sells/sold, so a few crashes could skew numbers.
Wrangler might be cheap to fix, maybe not so cheap to fix the damage it causes.
You can't conclude a subcompact is less safe than a sports car without accounting for the age of the driver.
I think you can. The one thing missing from the data presented in the article, from what I saw, was that it indicated the injury claims per number of vehicles insured, but didn't indicate the number of injury claims per number of claims. That would be a very telling number, because it would take the demographics out of the equation.
In other words, we don't really care how frequently a vehicle crashes per # of vehicles insured. We care about the likelihood of injury when the vehicle crashes. With that data presented, I strongly suspect the outcome would be exactly as ruking1 stated: The likelihood of injury when a small vehicle crashes is greater than the likelihood of injury in a larger vehicle, on average.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I can only agree that age and experience is the biggest factor in the likelihood of a crash occurring. All other factors aside, when it comes to the likelihood of injury when a crash does occur, size matters.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I don't even disagree with that assessment. We can't ignore the laws of physics - mass does matter, *if* you do crash.
Could even be partially true. If you're heading for a collision in, say, a Suburban, and don't have much time to brake or turn, you probably will crash. LOL
My issue with focusing on mass or size is that is that it's like saying crashes are unavoidable, when in fact the best safety you can have is avoiding accidents in the first place.
Case in point - the Miata I drive daily has very low personal injury claims. Perhaps the driver is just more involved than the person driving your average appliance, or it's more capable of accident avoidance.
That graph proves my point that enforcement is unfair, and biased towards punishing young people. I always had an idea that cops picked on young folk, but that just about seals the deal from theory to fact. The last time I was pulled over I was given a ticket, the last time my father was pulled over, he got a warning, and on and on.
I think I'm going to drive with a white/gray haired wig on my head from now on (along with the old geezer bandit mask on my face). At a minimum, it'll help me put any camera citations in the "round file" by disguising myself as the driver. When I'm pulled over, I'll have some explaining to do if he realizes my driver's license photo doesn't match me.
The accident curve is a "U" whereas the moving violations decrease consistently in a curve down. No correlation thanks to incompetent LEO's.
That graph right there proves our LEO's are lazy and incompetent, and doing a horrific job with traffic citations. Afterall, isn't one of the purposes of fines and tickets to be a deterrent?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The last time I was pulled over I was given a ticket, the last time my father was pulled over, he got a warning, and on and on.
Well, that is proof positive of your assertion that law enforcement is biased towards punishing young people. Yep, a sample size of 1 with two points for comparison is very convincing.
Not.
Could there be other factors at work here? Just maybe? Maybe different circumstances for each incident, besides the age of the drivers?
Could there be other factors at work here? Just maybe? Maybe different circumstances for each incident, besides the age of the drivers?
Sample size of 1? Did you see the same graph I did in post #20,000?
The graph points make too perfect of a smooth curve to represent a very small sample size. I don't know the exact source or sample size, but it must be large to make a graph that has points so perfectly curved out in a trend like that from age 16 to 80.
The moving violation curve is almost as different as possible and as could possibly be compared to the accident curve. This shows no correlation between citations and accidents.
Blasphemy!!!! You mean the insurance companies have been lying to us all along???!!! How dare they!!! :P :sick:
I just got a newsletter from Liberty Mutual that had a bunch of insurance related articles in it useful to know and keep around the house and car. One article stood out from the rest, however, as it seemed out of place. It was an article whining about cities like LA that recently removed red light cameras "saying cameras increase safety," and trying to convince people that red light cameras are a good thing that increase safety and reduce accidents (with data from the IIHS; oh yeah, that's independent and unbiased..... NOT!) You realize the one of those I's in IIHS stands for Insurance?
This article made me want to cancel my insurance with LIberty Mutual and go with a company that doesn't publish non-sense, garbage, and junk science to its customers/owners (mutual company afterall).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Well, and that's part of the problem with the statistic that was referenced. There are too many contributing variables there to be able to draw a reasonable conclusion. That leads to discussions like the one you and ruking1 had, wherein neither were necessarily wrong, but were coming from different assumptions to draw the conclusions.
The context for the statistic looked to be from a safety (of the vehicle) perspective to me, which is why I thought the metric I presented was a better premise from which to draw such a conclusion. I would also like to see a statistic that showed a crash rate and a "total loss" rate (whether injuries were involved or not), as that could lend a better idea of the driver input into the equation.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
There are too many contributing variables there to be able to draw a reasonable conclusion.
Exactly. There are for example many moving violations that don't result in an accident. Like speeding. Here's a poser: who would be more likely to speed, a young person or an old geezer? My money is on the young person.
Which is why I think it's misleading to publish both graphs together. It makes it appear as if there's a direct correlation between number of accidents and number of moving violations.
Since it's ok to prove a point with one example, here's mine. Last winter I was rear-ended by an "old geezer". It was a low-speed collision and no one was hurt, and we are both from the same church (in fact we both just came out of church!) so we just pulled into the nearest parking lot and exchanged information, and I worked things out with his insurance company. No moving violation as the police were never involved. But it was an accident. I have a feeling the "old geezers" are involved in a lot of low-speed accidents, many of which don't result in moving violations. Plus fewer tickets for speeding, which is a big proportion of moving violations.
Like speeding. Here's a poser: who would be more likely to speed, a young person or an old geezer? My money is on the young person.
Perhaps, but you've argued in the past that speeding is unsafe and therefore likely to cause accidents. The graph is forcing you to retreat as no correlation is shown.
To be honest, most cops don't have the heart to ticket someone that's already been in an accident. Most decent humans feel that the totalled (or heavily damaged) car is punishment enough, and don't need to add insult to injury). Even egotistical cops have a heart sometimes.
I'm just saying that the graph shows that with the way moving violations are issued (paying no attention to safety hazards; soley to revenue generation), it makes sense because the two curves are almost opposites to each other.
A competent LEO enforcement effort would result in ticketing unsafe drivers, and therefore there would be a correlation between getting tickets and causing accidents, but that is a utopia where Fintail and I are the only patrolmen on the road.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
..."That leads to discussions like the one you and ruking1 had, wherein neither were necessarily wrong, but were coming from different assumptions to draw the conclusions. "...
Actually, I just posted pertinent snippets of the article. The conclusions were by the conductors of the STUDY. I claim no ownership ! Indeed I have lighter (2514#'s) to heavier (4974#'s) vehicles. (Yaris weighing according to Edmunds.com 2315#'s)
However studies like these or more to the issue lessons learned can be important. There are practical applications. So after reading the article would I select a Yaris or any of those other vehicles mentioned? Ah, ... no !
It can help one select a car if the history of loss can help save one money (injury and death in the Yaris'es case) . In my case, insurance monies. I was choosing between two cars in 2001: BMW M3 and Corvette Z06. The insurance was 660/238 per 6 mo. When you do the projected math, the SAVINGS over 10 years are easily a minimum of 8,440 (13,200-4,760)
So before that, long ago I learned to call the insurance company to get the cost of insurance (for the category of car being considered). It of course can be a small to bigger factor in the final selection process.
Perhaps, but you've argued in the past that speeding is unsafe and therefore likely to cause accidents.
I have never said "speeding is unsafe" as a categorical statement. That's ridiculous. When I am going 67 mph in a 65 zone on a freeway, keeping up with traffic in the right lane, is that unsafe? Not under normal conditions, no. But it's speeding.
So there isn't a direct correlation between the number of moving violations by age group, and accidents by age group. We don't know the breakdown of the moving violations, or accidents.
Maybe the curves are as they are because young people tend to drive in a way that triggers moving violations, more so than older people. For example, how many moving violations have you had in your life, and how old are you? I've had two, both before I was 45. None since then. Interestingly, I've also minded my speed better in recent years. There's a correlation for you.
Or here's another correlation for you: the odds of getting a ticket for a moving violation are directly proportional to how often one makes (guess what?) a moving violation.
Yes, I can be responsible to account for the irresponsibility of others. I guess we all need to leave at midnight and plan to be on the road til 11pm, eh?
Leave at midnight and be on the road till 11PM? Kind of a time travel backwards, which scientists say is impossible.
Got behind a LLC today on the interstate. For about 5 miles. This guy, driving a Honda Pilot drove even with a semi which was in the middle and the right lane had a lot of semis. Finally, the guy in the Pilot moved ahead in the left, which allowed a number of us to pass in the middle ahead of the semi. Was not in any hurry. Allowed plenty of time for my trip/commute. Had a lot of time. LLC just a blocker. Oblivious to what was going on. Stayed cool. No big deal.
Hmm...lots of crashes and few citations. Looks like a law enforcement breakdown too.
Law enforcement laziness. By far the most commonly written moving violation is speeding. I'd guess that's because it's easily proven via radar (thank you, insurance industry), and they'd hate to have officers tied up in court having to prove that people committed unsafe acts in order to get convictions.
In general, older drivers don't speed. Just goes to show you that slower does not necessarily mean safer.
To be honest, most cops don't have the heart to ticket someone that's already been in an accident.
Not in Alaska! Except in a rare situation, if two (or more) vehicles collide, one of the drivers will receive a citation worth two or more points against the ol' license.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I do that too; everyone should, as it is a significant factor in the TCO of the car. Actually, it was almost a deal-breaker for my recent Fiesta purchase. My current company, Allstate, wanted $180/month to cover it! No way! I wrote the whole thing off for a week or so, then followed up with some other companies, all of which were consistently at the $100 mark for the same (or better) coverage than Allstate, even with this car being the only one on the (theoretical) policy.
Everything else worked out, so I ended up taking out a separate policy on the Fiesta.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Since it's ok to prove a point with one example, here's mine. Last winter I was rear-ended by an "old geezer". It was a low-speed collision and no one was hurt, and we are both from the same church
Geezers generally mostly drive at speed limit or a little under. On one of my commutes I drive past an interchange near a senior community. I see these people getting on and off near this interchange and usually don't see anything stupid about them. From what I can tell, these geezers do not recklessly tailgate and intimidate other drivers. They are respectful and not out to prove anything. Just responsible citizens and drivers. Unlike younger and "angry" and "intimidating" non-geezers who in big suvs and pickups drive recklessly.
I got behind a slowpoke today. CRV going 25 in a 40, then comes to a stop about 30 feet behind a green light, then creeps forward as the light turns red, and takes a free right turn 700 year old woman driver who probably shouldn't be driving.
LLCing is illegal in first world civilized areas, where is the oversensitive middle American castigation?
I'd bet that's right. I also suspect it is all about efficient revenue generation. Speeding tickets carry heavier penalties than simple stupid driving infractions that might not carry much of a penalty, if anything. And look how many times the insurance cabal has funded radar guns. Both sides win.
Do they keep up with traffic, look before they pull out, etc?
Yes and yes. The intimidating drivers I see on the Interstates here in Illinois are definitely not geezers or "seasoned" citizens. They are in a younger bracket and are angry apparently. Many are intimidating. Especially the dopes that have big suvs or pickups. SUVs, vans and pickups should be at same speed limits as big trucks and semis. They have rotten handling and braking and are a menace when speeding and/or intimidating other car drivers by tail gating. Stupid people driving ill-performing vehicles.
Nobody ever said oldsters were the aggressive ones, but one cannot deny they can cause their own set of headaches on the road.
The same lifted truck/SUV roid rage [non-permissible content removed] crowd exists here too, especially as population densities fall. I'd like to see a special license endorsement for vehicles or chassis of a certain height or weight.
The same lifted truck/SUV roid rage [non-permissible content removed] crowd exists here too, especially as population densities fall. I'd like to see a special license endorsement for vehicles or chassis of a certain height or weight.
Would agree. Government regulations are needed here. Such as all cars, suvs, pickups, vans must have their bumpers at a certain height. So, the people that have the jacked up pickups would need to add a bumper extender on the front and back of their vehicles. Kind of like the appendages seen on the backsides of trailers of semi trucks.
In CA you'll get a point or two for the accident even with no ticket written. In Alaska, is the first point for the ticket and the 2nd for the citation, or can the citation in and of itself be 2 points?
I think cops in CA tend to give more leeway as long as you didn't kill or injure anyone, and particularly if you only damaged your own vehicle (I remember a few friends in HS who managed to crash into bushes/guardrails, curbs, rocks/debri but not another person or vehicle).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'd guess that's because it's easily proven via radar (thank you, insurance industry), and they'd hate to have officers tied up in court having to prove that people committed unsafe acts in order to get convictions.
I hear this argument a lot about speeding tickets being unbeatable because of radar and hence no one fights them. I don't buy the premise. No one fights traffic tickets period. I believe every county in the country has a 95% plus conviction rate because less than 5% even attempt to fight their ticket. I don't think it's "radar" that is scaring people from fighting the ticket, but the corrupt rigged traffic court system itself. The amount of time you have to waste to win in court even when your innocent is astounding.
Plus, if the officer shows, your bound to be found guilty regardless of the facts of the case. Therefore, officer opinion is as good as gold (and results in near 100% conviction rates) in traffic court, regardless of the vehicle code being contested, all the officer has to do is show and it's in the bag! This fact is probably why a lot don't bother fighting them, as they think the officer will show in their case, and don't want to risk finding out.
All of the cases I won 100% except for one were done by dismissal for lack of prosecution (officer didn't show). The one where I was found not guilty was by mail, from a judge retiring that year so as to not face retribution from the Police Union for rendering a fair verdict.
On my various trips to the courthouse I sometimes stayed if I was one of the first cases called just to watch a few cases, so I've seen maybe 40 or 50 traffic cases and never has someone been found not guilty completely when the officer has shown. 100% conviction rates..... the officer's have nothing to fear in court. Perhaps if you hire a lawyer for quadruple digits on a 3 digit fine???
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Perhaps that is the greatest injustice. Another would be the ones who are the victims get "sucked in" to paying more in insurance by virtue of the fact of being the victim.
On my various trips to the courthouse I sometimes stayed if I was one of the first cases called just to watch a few cases, so I've seen maybe 40 or 50 traffic cases and never has someone been found not guilty completely when the officer has shown.
You've obviously never been to my jurisdiction... :P
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Whenever I get tailgated, it is when I am stuck in bumper to bumper moving traffic, and the guy/small man syndrome sufferer (usually truck or SUV) behind me seems to expect me to go faster than the 10 cars in front of me all going the same speed.
Honked at a Solara that was going 20 in a 30 and wandering all around her lane, today. Woman was very small, so I couldn't see much, but I suspect texting or attending to something placed very low.
Comments
Ex-Prius drivers who got rich?
Hard to believe the Jeep Wrangler has the lowest crash costs. Not sure I'd want my teenager in one of those.
It's tough to isolate the reasons for it. Correlation does not mean causation.
Of course Yaris would be cheap to fix and has no power so it's nowhere near making that list.
The emphasis was on mass, albeit smaller. All your following posts are YOUR issues, not mine or within the scope of that local rag article !!!
"...2009 through 2011 vehicles and found that Yaris occupants filed personal injury claims 28.5 times for every 1,000 of the vehicles the industry insured"...
..."The institute said its research demonstrated that the vehicles with the highest INJURY (all caps, my sic) claims tend to be small cars"...
There is a notable and disturbing observation, a sort of cooking the books in plain sight, but that is another point.
While Yaris topped the list, they went on to cite Suzuki SX4, Chevrolet Aveo, Mit Galant, Kia Rio, Nissan Versa/Sentra, Hyundai Accent and Dodge Avenger. (no pun intended)
Do you honestly think a 16 year old would be safer in, say, a Boss 302?
What I'm saying is the demographic of the owners is a big factor that is not accounted for when you just look at claims totals.
The data would be meaningful if it was categorized by age group.
So, for instance, if they showed claim rates for drivers 16-19, 20-25, 26-30, etc., then you could compare.
And I'm sure the 3 spoiled high school kids who own a Boss 302 have crashed, but the 4 Yaris claims (out of 1000s) outnumber them by 33%.
You just can't.
URL if you can't see the embedded image:
http://www.raisethehammer.org/static/images/chart_deaths_per_billion_km_travelle- d_by_age.jpg
http://www.qualityplanning.com/qpc_resources_public/news/030929-Older%20drivers_- files/image003.gif
NHTSA
Two other sources.
The reverse bell curve may be even more pronounced than it seems.
Basically stay away from teen and geezer drivers.
Wrangler might be cheap to fix, maybe not so cheap to fix the damage it causes.
I think you can. The one thing missing from the data presented in the article, from what I saw, was that it indicated the injury claims per number of vehicles insured, but didn't indicate the number of injury claims per number of claims. That would be a very telling number, because it would take the demographics out of the equation.
In other words, we don't really care how frequently a vehicle crashes per # of vehicles insured. We care about the likelihood of injury when the vehicle crashes. With that data presented, I strongly suspect the outcome would be exactly as ruking1 stated: The likelihood of injury when a small vehicle crashes is greater than the likelihood of injury in a larger vehicle, on average.
The likelihood of injury when a
smallsporty vehicle crashes is greater than the likelihood of injury in alargernon-sporty vehicle, on average.For sure a larger, heavier vehicle will offer more passive safety, but smaller and nimbler ones offer better accident avoidance.
Still, the biggest factor of all is the age and experience of the driver.
Could even be partially true. If you're heading for a collision in, say, a Suburban, and don't have much time to brake or turn, you probably will crash. LOL
My issue with focusing on mass or size is that is that it's like saying crashes are unavoidable, when in fact the best safety you can have is avoiding accidents in the first place.
Case in point - the Miata I drive daily has very low personal injury claims. Perhaps the driver is just more involved than the person driving your average appliance, or it's more capable of accident avoidance.
Probably both.
I think I'm going to drive with a white/gray haired wig on my head from now on (along with the old geezer bandit mask on my face). At a minimum, it'll help me put any camera citations in the "round file" by disguising myself as the driver. When I'm pulled over, I'll have some explaining to do if he realizes my driver's license photo doesn't match me.
The accident curve is a "U" whereas the moving violations decrease consistently in a curve down. No correlation thanks to incompetent LEO's.
That graph right there proves our LEO's are lazy and incompetent, and doing a horrific job with traffic citations. Afterall, isn't one of the purposes of fines and tickets to be a deterrent?
Well, that is proof positive of your assertion that law enforcement is biased towards punishing young people. Yep, a sample size of 1 with two points for comparison is very convincing.
Not.
Could there be other factors at work here? Just maybe? Maybe different circumstances for each incident, besides the age of the drivers?
Sample size of 1? Did you see the same graph I did in post #20,000?
The graph points make too perfect of a smooth curve to represent a very small sample size. I don't know the exact source or sample size, but it must be large to make a graph that has points so perfectly curved out in a trend like that from age 16 to 80.
The moving violation curve is almost as different as possible and as could possibly be compared to the accident curve. This shows no correlation between citations and accidents.
Blasphemy!!!! You mean the insurance companies have been lying to us all along???!!! How dare they!!! :P
I just got a newsletter from Liberty Mutual that had a bunch of insurance related articles in it useful to know and keep around the house and car. One article stood out from the rest, however, as it seemed out of place. It was an article whining about cities like LA that recently removed red light cameras "saying cameras increase safety," and trying to convince people that red light cameras are a good thing that increase safety and reduce accidents (with data from the IIHS; oh yeah, that's independent and unbiased..... NOT!) You realize the one of those I's in IIHS stands for Insurance?
This article made me want to cancel my insurance with LIberty Mutual and go with a company that doesn't publish non-sense, garbage, and junk science to its customers/owners (mutual company afterall).
The context for the statistic looked to be from a safety (of the vehicle) perspective to me, which is why I thought the metric I presented was a better premise from which to draw such a conclusion. I would also like to see a statistic that showed a crash rate and a "total loss" rate (whether injuries were involved or not), as that could lend a better idea of the driver input into the equation.
Exactly. There are for example many moving violations that don't result in an accident. Like speeding. Here's a poser: who would be more likely to speed, a young person or an old geezer? My money is on the young person.
Which is why I think it's misleading to publish both graphs together. It makes it appear as if there's a direct correlation between number of accidents and number of moving violations.
Since it's ok to prove a point with one example, here's mine. Last winter I was rear-ended by an "old geezer". It was a low-speed collision and no one was hurt, and we are both from the same church (in fact we both just came out of church!) so we just pulled into the nearest parking lot and exchanged information, and I worked things out with his insurance company. No moving violation as the police were never involved. But it was an accident. I have a feeling the "old geezers" are involved in a lot of low-speed accidents, many of which don't result in moving violations. Plus fewer tickets for speeding, which is a big proportion of moving violations.
Perhaps, but you've argued in the past that speeding is unsafe and therefore likely to cause accidents. The graph is forcing you to retreat as no correlation is shown.
To be honest, most cops don't have the heart to ticket someone that's already been in an accident. Most decent humans feel that the totalled (or heavily damaged) car is punishment enough, and don't need to add insult to injury). Even egotistical cops have a heart sometimes.
I'm just saying that the graph shows that with the way moving violations are issued (paying no attention to safety hazards; soley to revenue generation), it makes sense because the two curves are almost opposites to each other.
A competent LEO enforcement effort would result in ticketing unsafe drivers, and therefore there would be a correlation between getting tickets and causing accidents, but that is a utopia where Fintail and I are the only patrolmen on the road.
Actually, I just posted pertinent snippets of the article. The conclusions were by the conductors of the STUDY. I claim no ownership ! Indeed I have lighter (2514#'s) to heavier (4974#'s) vehicles. (Yaris weighing according to Edmunds.com 2315#'s)
However studies like these or more to the issue lessons learned can be important. There are practical applications. So after reading the article would I select a Yaris or any of those other vehicles mentioned? Ah, ... no !
It can help one select a car if the history of loss can help save one money (injury and death in the Yaris'es case) . In my case, insurance monies. I was choosing between two cars in 2001: BMW M3 and Corvette Z06. The insurance was 660/238 per 6 mo. When you do the projected math, the SAVINGS over 10 years are easily a minimum of 8,440 (13,200-4,760)
So before that, long ago I learned to call the insurance company to get the cost of insurance (for the category of car being considered). It of course can be a small to bigger factor in the final selection process.
I have never said "speeding is unsafe" as a categorical statement. That's ridiculous. When I am going 67 mph in a 65 zone on a freeway, keeping up with traffic in the right lane, is that unsafe? Not under normal conditions, no. But it's speeding.
So there isn't a direct correlation between the number of moving violations by age group, and accidents by age group. We don't know the breakdown of the moving violations, or accidents.
Maybe the curves are as they are because young people tend to drive in a way that triggers moving violations, more so than older people. For example, how many moving violations have you had in your life, and how old are you? I've had two, both before I was 45. None since then. Interestingly, I've also minded my speed better in recent years. There's a correlation for you.
Or here's another correlation for you: the odds of getting a ticket for a moving violation are directly proportional to how often one makes (guess what?) a moving violation.
1. you do one in front of a LEO
2. you do the EXACT SAME, when there is no LEO.
I think the conclusions here are obvious, logical and inescapable.
Leave at midnight and be on the road till 11PM? Kind of a time travel backwards, which scientists say is impossible.
Got behind a LLC today on the interstate. For about 5 miles. This guy, driving a Honda Pilot drove even with a semi which was in the middle and the right lane had a lot of semis. Finally, the guy in the Pilot moved ahead in the left, which allowed a number of us to pass in the middle ahead of the semi. Was not in any hurry. Allowed plenty of time for my trip/commute. Had a lot of time. LLC just a blocker. Oblivious to what was going on. Stayed cool. No big deal.
Law enforcement laziness. By far the most commonly written moving violation is speeding. I'd guess that's because it's easily proven via radar (thank you, insurance industry), and they'd hate to have officers tied up in court having to prove that people committed unsafe acts in order to get convictions.
In general, older drivers don't speed. Just goes to show you that slower does not necessarily mean safer.
Not in Alaska! Except in a rare situation, if two (or more) vehicles collide, one of the drivers will receive a citation worth two or more points against the ol' license.
Everything else worked out, so I ended up taking out a separate policy on the Fiesta.
Geezers generally mostly drive at speed limit or a little under. On one of my commutes I drive past an interchange near a senior community. I see these people getting on and off near this interchange and usually don't see anything stupid about them. From what I can tell, these geezers do not recklessly tailgate and intimidate other drivers. They are respectful and not out to prove anything. Just responsible citizens and drivers. Unlike younger and "angry" and "intimidating" non-geezers who in big suvs and pickups drive recklessly.
I got behind a slowpoke today. CRV going 25 in a 40, then comes to a stop about 30 feet behind a green light, then creeps forward as the light turns red, and takes a free right turn 700 year old woman driver who probably shouldn't be driving.
LLCing is illegal in first world civilized areas, where is the oversensitive middle American castigation?
Speed kills, to the incompetent.
Yes and yes. The intimidating drivers I see on the Interstates here in Illinois are definitely not geezers or "seasoned" citizens. They are in a younger bracket and are angry apparently. Many are intimidating. Especially the dopes that have big suvs or pickups. SUVs, vans and pickups should be at same speed limits as big trucks and semis. They have rotten handling and braking and are a menace when speeding and/or intimidating other car drivers by tail gating. Stupid people driving ill-performing vehicles.
Mainly stupid people and stupid drivers get speeding tickets.
The same lifted truck/SUV roid rage [non-permissible content removed] crowd exists here too, especially as population densities fall. I'd like to see a special license endorsement for vehicles or chassis of a certain height or weight.
Would agree. Government regulations are needed here. Such as all cars, suvs, pickups, vans must have their bumpers at a certain height. So, the people that have the jacked up pickups would need to add a bumper extender on the front and back of their vehicles. Kind of like the appendages seen on the backsides of trailers of semi trucks.
I think cops in CA tend to give more leeway as long as you didn't kill or injure anyone, and particularly if you only damaged your own vehicle (I remember a few friends in HS who managed to crash into bushes/guardrails, curbs, rocks/debri but not another person or vehicle).
I hear this argument a lot about speeding tickets being unbeatable because of radar and hence no one fights them. I don't buy the premise. No one fights traffic tickets period. I believe every county in the country has a 95% plus conviction rate because less than 5% even attempt to fight their ticket. I don't think it's "radar" that is scaring people from fighting the ticket, but the corrupt rigged traffic court system itself. The amount of time you have to waste to win in court even when your innocent is astounding.
Plus, if the officer shows, your bound to be found guilty regardless of the facts of the case. Therefore, officer opinion is as good as gold (and results in near 100% conviction rates) in traffic court, regardless of the vehicle code being contested, all the officer has to do is show and it's in the bag! This fact is probably why a lot don't bother fighting them, as they think the officer will show in their case, and don't want to risk finding out.
All of the cases I won 100% except for one were done by dismissal for lack of prosecution (officer didn't show). The one where I was found not guilty was by mail, from a judge retiring that year so as to not face retribution from the Police Union for rendering a fair verdict.
On my various trips to the courthouse I sometimes stayed if I was one of the first cases called just to watch a few cases, so I've seen maybe 40 or 50 traffic cases and never has someone been found not guilty completely when the officer has shown. 100% conviction rates..... the officer's have nothing to fear in court. Perhaps if you hire a lawyer for quadruple digits on a 3 digit fine???
If your having issues with tailgaters, your probably one or more of the following:
1) An avid LLCer
2) An avid MLCer
3) Slow as Molasses
4) Slow to react to get out of the way (which includes oblivious)
I don't agree with that
The graph we just saw shows that people causing accidents are not getting tickets, and vice versa.
I consider accident causers to be stupid people with stupid driving habits/skills.
You've obviously never been to my jurisdiction... :P
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Ventura and El Cajon (San Diego) courts are known to be particularly corrupt.
Honked at a Solara that was going 20 in a 30 and wandering all around her lane, today. Woman was very small, so I couldn't see much, but I suspect texting or attending to something placed very low.