Understanding the differences among drivers in different gender and age categories is crucial to preventing serious injuries, said researchers in a new study showing stark statistical differences in traffic-accident injuries depending on the gender and age of drivers.
“It is reasonably well known that age and gender have an effect on the likelihood of an accident, but the influence that age and gender have on driver injuries once an accident has occurred is not well understood,” Mannering said.
The Purdue researchers found statistically significant differences in the severity of injuries suffered in accidents involving men and women drivers and drivers within three age groups: young drivers, 16-24; middle-aged drivers, 25-64; and older drivers, 65 and above.
The study opens up questions for a great deal more investigation. Why, for example, were fatalities more likely for middle-aged men who fall asleep at the wheel, exceeded the speed limit, got into an accident at an intersection or had an accident after midnight on Friday or Saturday — when the same factors had no significant effect on the injury levels of middle-aged female drivers?
more non suprising statistics
Old people should have to get their drivers licenses renewed starting at 60.
There are lies, damn lies, and incorrectly used statistics.
The article quotes some fuzzy numbers about a specific category being X % more like to to die in a certain type of auto collision. What is not mentioned is a breakdown by accident by miles driven which could make a big difference. Or how many of that certain type of collision had alcohol or drugs involved. How about weather, visibility, time of day, time behind the wheel, etc. Even how large is the sample size.
Until the statistics are more specific they tell us little. Unless you underwrite insurance
Tell that to the AARP…
Now that is one dangerous political lobby.
Lies, damn lies and statistics… No proof of cause-and-effect, no way to analyze large and independent samples (driving is affected by technological changes too fast to separate samples in time and geographically separte areas might be affected by their local issues to have it split that way). Junk science. But one can be sure that insurance companies will use this to jack up rates…
As for older drivers having more problems, that is common sense. Where I originally came from everyone over 65 yrs of age needs yearly “capacity to drive” test. Simple, administered by medical doctors and effective. Three parts:
1) Vision test. Making sure that aged drivers have the proper vision correction if at all possible.
2) Basic reflex test as relevant for driving. Red, green, yellow light flashing. Press left, right or both buttons (similarly for pedals).
Reasonable speed and accuracy required.
3) Basic concentration and dexterity. Test similar to the carneval game: move the ring about twisted wire without touching it in a reasonable time…
You pass – drive another year. Not – you get more involved medical exam which most likely excludes you from the drivers pool from that point on… But try reason vs. AARP… No chance overhere.
Ah, you whippersnappers. I’m not in the AARP, but I am (slightly) over 60. Yeah, I remember when I thought 60 was doddering, but it’s funny how your perspective changes. You know, of all the prejudices out there — racism, sexism and so forth — ageism is the least rational. You can rail against blacks, Jews, women, Asians, Hispanics or the target of your choice all you want because you won’t wake up tomorrow and be one of them. But guess what? When you wake up tomorrow you’re sure as hell going to be older! And, if you keep it up, someday you’ll be the person you’re carping about now. Fancy that!
Pfkad,
Guess what ‘ageism’ happens on the other end of the spectrum also. It’s still typical that you must be 25 to rent a car! Uhmm… I was in the corporate world at 22. Ever been 1000 miles away from home and try to get a hotel room at age 19? I had to visit a few hotels before I found one that would rent me a room. I understand their caution, but not ever kid will destroy their room. Just as every 60+ year old isn’t blind and have the reflexes of a drunk. Can’t we compromise a little? Like vision and reflex testing every 2 years over 65 or 70? Come on… you know there are alot of elderly people on the road that shouldn’t be there. My grandfather is boardline (83 years old). But atleast he realizes his problem areas, he doesn’t drive at night anymore.
MK
#7, Sporadic, well, sure, I agree for the most part. States are way too liberal with license renewals. There are a lot of people who shouldn’t be driving regardless of age. My point was that we shouldn’t be to quick to impose restrictions based on some arbitrary age, on either end of the spectrum, but particularly on the high end. I’d submit that 65 is not what it used to be and the real test of whether somebody should be driving would seem to be their driving record.
As an aside, I’ve often caught myself grumbling at some old fart’s driving and quickly realized that they were probably younger than me. Getting old sucks.
It looks to me like a professor told his grad student to take a large set of accident data, then analyze the hell out of it looking for any trends he could find. I’ve seen this technique used by other researchers, but I’m suspicious of the approach.
For instance, researchers used this method when analyzing the harmful effects of dioxin from a 1976 industrial accident in Seveso, Italy. The accident exposed thousands of residents to somewhere between 100 grams and 20 kilograms of dioxin. The exposure was so great that many developed chloracne — a very painful form of acne. The medical problems of this population has been studied for more than twenty years. Every possible trend was analyzed for a link with dioxin. The only anomaly that has been found was from a study conducted seven years after the accident: Women exposed to dioxin gave birth to 46 females, but only 28 males. This was considered significant. (For a comparison: In blackjack if you play smart, but don’t count the cards, the odds are roughly 53 to 47 in favor of the house. Yet I once lost 29 out of 30 hands in a show of such abysmal luck that I wondered if the house were cheating – not aloud; I may be a fool, but I’m not stupid.)
It seems intuitive to me that any large sampling of human activity or behavior is going to contain anomalies. If you take a random group of 1000 people from Phoenix, Arizona and examine them for a specific response, say, heart attacks, more than likely you will find their response to match statistical norms for the US population. But if you take that same group and start looking for anything that is outside the norm, chances are you’re going to find something.
I think that is what was done with the accident study. Slice and dice the data until you find an anomaly, then report it as significant. The collage of trends reported may be “significant,” but I don’t think they are important. But as Fusion stated in #3, we don’t even know the sample size, so who can say?