Senior Drivers Less Likely Than Youngest Drivers To Cause Accidents, Study Finds

[uclacyc]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0719115903.htm

More fuel for the previous debate in the "Who is the youngest elise/exige owner/owners" thread.

Of course, there may be some exceptions like Bavarian Motorist.

Related articles/topics:
http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/show...490#post720490

[Moto44]

"Not only do seniors drive much less than younger drivers, but they drive at safer times during the day and avoid poorer road conditions."

Before this conclusion can be made, we would need to know the accidents per miles driven figures.

[uclacyc]

I think that the RAND study only looked at the number of fatalities in three age groups, and not the mileage. I think that it would be prohibitively expensive to get the numbers on that, because you will need a large sample size.

"Safer" here is defined as being a driver when an accident occurs, not so much as how many accidents per mile.

That said, my Dad is the safest drivers in the world because he hasn't driven in the past five years, and will never drive again, though he has a license. That doesn't skew the numbers if you're just looking at % of drivers involved in accidents, though.

[TJ213]

well, that kind of makes sense, because by that age all the bad drivers have been killed, seriously, there is somewhat of a darwin type factor involved in this

plus they said seniors are much more likely to die in a crash, which makes them less likely to crash multiple times

it might seem kind of harsh, but thats just my interpretation of some of the unmentioned factors that affect those numbers

[ZAMMY1]

well, i've been doing my best to help.
i seem to average around 35,000 miles per year.
i've been trying not to die in the accidents.
turning 75 this year...

so far, so good.

[smoseley]

I would argue that from my observation, although seniors are less likely to CAUSE accidents, they're also (even more) less likely to PREVENT accidents, which is their real threat.

Let me explain my logic a little:

• A teenager who causes 6 potential wrecks per year, but avoids 12 potential wrecks per year has a net effect of +6 towards vehicle safety.
  
  
• A senior who causes 2 potential wrecks per year, but avoids 0 has a net effect of -2 towards vehicle safety.

The problem in "driver safety" ratings is that accident prevention goes unnoticed, because there's no real way of recording it. So a passive driver with no accident avoidance ability is considered safer.

In my time, I've caused probably 20 potential wrecks, 5-6 of which became actual wrecks (about 25% conversion rate), but I've avoided 200-300 potential wrecks. In fact, I've only ever had one single wreck that was someone else's fault (0.5% conversion rate). That's exceptional.

The reason for this is that I'm a very aware driver with remarkably quick reflexes who drives nimble cars. But I drive too fast and occasionally get in over my head.

Still, I'm "safer" than a senior citizen. Don't count likelihood of causing an accident, count likelihood of being in an accident, and you'll get a clearer picture of how safe a driver is.

[Mr. Know]

I'd believe that study if I did not personally know some older folks who use the horn method for changing lanes...

[LSUFAN]

They obviously didn't consider the aged FL drivers...they are crazy...and getting crazier with each passing day.

[Blonde1]

Originally Posted by LSUFAN

They obviously didn't consider the aged FL drivers...they are crazy...and getting crazier with each passing day.

And there's also more of them here with every passing day...and most of them might choose "less congested" times to drive, but there are still an awful lot of seniors out during morning rush hour in the winter!!

I would imagine that driving is like piloting, where the statistically most likely times for someone to have an accident are early on and then again after accumulating quite a bit of experience. From my memory of human factors, with pilots complacency becomes an issue after a certain point in time.

Of course, saying that older drivers are safer than the youngest drivers really isn't setting the bar very high, is it?

[TJ213]

A lot of drivers in this area hate PA drivers because of all the slow senior drivers.

I don't know what they are thinking, 30 in a 55 is not safe, and neither is darting out 50 feet in front of me, and then doing 20 is when I'm doing 60, good thing my car has excelent brakes.

So far the closest I've had is a senior in a Hyundai pull out from a stop sign into my path, and then seeing me, and STOPPING, sideways, in my lane, WTF? If I didn't have my 17 yr old reflexes and car with great handling that would have ended very badly.


Although it was the perfect spot to have an accident, on one side of the street was the state police, and on the other side was the brand new hospital.

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by TJ213

So far the closest I've had is a senior in a Hyundai pull out from a stop sign into my path, and then seeing me, and STOPPING, sideways, in my lane, WTF? If I didn't have my 17 yr old reflexes and car with great handling that would have ended very badly.

Part of the reason that seniors are "better drivers" is that they tend to have more experience. As an example, in this case, an older driver just might have noticed the Hyundai, expected the driver to do something stupid and been better prepared to stop earlier.

You 17 year old reflexes are great, but they don't alway make up for the 50 year old's "been there, done that (way too many times), expecting that, not a big deal"...

Obviously not always the case on either side of the age brackets, but often the case. There is a reason that insurance is more expensive for younger drivers. There is a reason that the statistics tend to indicate that younger drivers tend to get in more wrecks.

[milehitom]

Seniors may have fewer accidents on the road, but probably more "accidents" in their cars...

Tom

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by transio

Let me explain my logic a little:

• A teenager who causes 6 potential wrecks per year, but avoids 12 potential wrecks per year has a net effect of +6 towards vehicle safety.
  
  
• A senior who causes 2 potential wrecks per year, but avoids 0 has a net effect of -2 towards vehicle safety.

Very well put.

[Mr. Know]

Originally Posted by milehitom

Seniors may have fewer accidents on the road, but probably more "accidents" in their cars...

Tom

Tasteless...but appropriate!

Seriously though, I know an 87 year old who just recently gave up his keys. He's never been in a serious accident. Riding with him, on the other hand, was the scariest thing I've ever done in my life. He's one of the folks I know who use the horn method to change lanes (creep over until you change lanes...if someone honks then get back in your own lane). People driving around him have to practice defensive driving just to avoid accidents with him. So seniors may not be involved in more accidents than teens, but I'm sure they cause quite a few...

[dasmoofler]

My friend lost a son when an 80 something guy pulled out in front of him on a highway in northern WI. Left a widow and fatherless baby.
My now deceased friend Frank, bless his heart, once was spotted driving down a 2 lane highway with a 55 MPH limit at 30 MPH. That's dangerous.
My mother is 82, owns a car, but won't drive it. She knows she's too old. She keeps it so younger friends can drive her.
My $.02

[TJ213]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Part of the reason that seniors are "better drivers" is that they tend to have more experience. As an example, in this case, an older driver just might have noticed the Hyundai, expected the driver to do something stupid and been better prepared to stop earlier.

You 17 year old reflexes are great, but they don't alway make up for the 50 year old's "been there, done that (way too many times), expecting that, not a big deal"...

Obviously not always the case on either side of the age brackets, but often the case. There is a reason that insurance is more expensive for younger drivers. There is a reason that the statistics tend to indicate that younger drivers tend to get in more wrecks.

wait, I think my origional description was not adequate.

Here's the intersection

| |
| |
| |_______
..x-----#__
|y|
| |
| |

the Hyundai had a stop sign, and came fron #, stopped partially at the sign, went, saw me, and stopped at x, I am y, moving upwards at 40mph.

the older driver in the Hyundai and me were the only ones on the road (thankfully, if anyone had been coming I would have had to decide what I was going to hit)

Personally I don't consider 50 year olds seniors, my dad is in his low 50s, and is a great driver, he could outdrive me in any traffic situation. (He can also outbike me, since he pedals his way through 35 miles of hilly back roads a day.)

The ones I consider senior drivers are the 70 year olds sitting on top of their steering wheels (probably another reason why so many of them are killed in accidents, I wish somebody would put a sensor in cars to prevent this) who dart out 10 feet in front of me, and then cruise 10-15 below the speed limit.

I know not all senior drivers are like that, but that is the stereotype, just like the stereotype for drivers like me (Civic Si, wing, sport exhaust, which both come stock) is negative.

[uclacyc]

Why isn't there a law that drivers >65 have to be tested every year? Anyone remember the 80-year-old guy that killed 20 people in a Santa Monica farmer's market, and injured 50 others, about two or three years ago?

I would think that it would cost the insurance companies more money to settle the claims than to insure people that shouldn't be driving. Or even better, why don't they have higher rates for older drivers like they do for younger drivers.

[TJ213]

Originally Posted by uclacyc

Why isn't there a law that drivers >65 have to be tested every year? Anyone remember the 80-year-old guy that killed 20 people in a Santa Monica farmer's market, and injured 50 others, about two or three years ago?

I would think that it would cost the insurance companies more money to settle the claims than to insure people that shouldn't be driving.

Maybe it has something to do with age based discrimination. I don't know how those laws would apply in this case.

[pla_time]

Originally Posted by Blonde1

I would imagine that driving is like piloting, where the statistically most likely times for someone to have an accident are early on and then again after accumulating quite a bit of experience. From my memory of human factors, with pilots complacency becomes an issue after a certain point in time.

Of course, saying that older drivers are safer than the youngest drivers really isn't setting the bar very high, is it?

I believe it isn't quite like that. For general aviation pilots, there is an issue of overconfidence that comes relatively early on (just enough experience to feel confident to fly in bad weather, for example; but not enough experience to realize that the weather will be more challenging than one's skills). Ceteris paribus (everything else being equal), additional experience almost always leads to better performance. The 'older driver' issue, along with the 'older flyer' is about two different things. The first is visual acuity (and contrast sensitivity), which happens as you reach middle-age. The second issue is about the loss of several cognitive functions with age (most notably in the over-70 group). These functions include working (or short-term memory) and cognitive/perceptual speed. Increased experience and skill compensate for these losses, but only up to a point. Although Michael DeBakey was still doing surgery until age 90, and reportely driving his Porsche at 96, I'm not sure I'd want him doing either at this point, now that he is close to 100. **Note that there are large individual differences in performance, at all age ranges -- including old people**

[yeahiknowiam]

All it takes is set of Centerline-overstocks on a P.O.S. civic hatchback to make a 17 year old kid think he's Mario Andretti.