|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hasty generalizations of the day
Elite or club cyclists are less likely to wave to other cyclists, especially
if those waving are Freds (i.e., any cyclist whose attire/bike is substandard to theirs); The majority of people talking on cell phones are females; Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road; The explosion of "greenways" and associated multi-use paths, in a multitude of metropolitan areas, will again bring rise to mandatory sidepath laws; and The Segway will be considered one of the biggests "flops" of the 21st century. Kerry "the hasty generalizer" Nikolaisen |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hasty generalizations of the day
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:07:53 +0000, Kerry Nikolaisen wrote:
Elite or club cyclists are less likely to wave to other cyclists, especially if those waving are Freds (i.e., any cyclist whose attire/bike is substandard to theirs); Clearly true. I first noticed this when I started riding a mountain bike from time to time. Roadies I encoutered stopped waving. Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road; That is a common belief, and since it flies in the face of what people would expect, it is accepted as true. But I really don't think so. They may be more careless, as a group, than others, but young men are more likely to be overtly hostile, which is more dangerous to riders. Even with carelessness, I think the very old are more careless, even when they are trying to pay attention, than your average teenage girl talking on the phone. The explosion of "greenways" and associated multi-use paths, in a multitude of metropolitan areas, will again bring rise to mandatory sidepath laws; and The Segway will be considered one of the biggests "flops" of the 21st century. These last two show you have a clear grasp of the obvious. -- David L. Johnson __o | We have a record of conquest, colonization and expansion _`\(,_ | unequalled by any people in the Nineteenth Century. We are not (_)/ (_) | to be curbed now. --Henry Cabot Lodge, 1895 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hasty generalizations of the day
David L. Johnson wrote:
Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road; That is a common belief, and since it flies in the face of what people would expect, it is accepted as true. But I really don't think so. They may be more careless, as a group, than others, but young men are more likely to be overtly hostile, which is more dangerous to riders. An NYC group, Right of Way found that in NYC pedestrian and cyclist fatalities that men were more often involeved than women For the 820 fatalities in which the identity of the driver was established, 747, or 91 percent, of the drivers were men; 73 (9 percent) were women. In contrast, women account for an estimated 25 percent of vehicle-miles driven on New York City streets, excluding 14 KILLED BY AUTOMOBILE highways, indicating that women are under-represented as killerdrivers by a factor of 2 to 3, while men are correspondingly overrepresented. Source: http://www.rightofway.org/research/kba.html -- Steven O'Neill www.bridgetolls.org |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hasty generalizations of the day
In article ,
"Kerry Nikolaisen" wrote: Elite or club cyclists are less likely to wave to other cyclists, especially if those waving are Freds (i.e., any cyclist whose attire/bike is substandard to theirs); They're not rude, they're anaerobic. The majority of people talking on cell phones are females; Dunno about that. See lots of bad behaviour from both sexes Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road; The explosion of "greenways" and associated multi-use paths, in a multitude of metropolitan areas, will again bring rise to mandatory sidepath laws; and Could be, but I hope not. Have I ever told y'all about the "bike routes" on my way to work? I ride a 12 km commute that mainly runs along an extremely busy 2-lane road, a major suburban route for car traffic at various points. (For those of you who know Vancouver: St. John's Street in Port Moody, up Clarke Road, along North Road, along Columbia to New West; despite the four name changes, that's one continuous street.) In Port Moody, the street that I live on is a designated "bike route", despite stop signs every two blocks aaand...a one-block hump in the road that consists of something around 100' of elevation gain and fall in that length (yeah, it's really steep). Note that one block away on St. John's, there is very little elevation change at this point. Fun section number two is the beautiful-but-useless bike path underneath the new Skytrain (elevated light rail) line. Skytrain is great. The path, on the other hand, terminates suddenly in a place where you have to ride across a private parking lot, then enter an insanely narrow designated truck route. In other words, it's not usable for commuters. Nice ride along the water on the bike path, though. I don't take any of these "bike routes". Instead, I risk the lesser hazards of crawling up Clark Road hill and riding with traffic on Columbia. The Columbia street section has become much easier now that I'm faster; doing 40-50 km/h along that section means I basically don't hold up traffic. I think some of the drivers are a little shocked when they see a cyclist going that quick. The Segway will be considered one of the biggests "flops" of the 21st century. Kerry "the hasty generalizer" Nikolaisen -- Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hasty generalizations of the day
"Kerry Nikolaisen" wrote in message
news:Zoffb.3069 You should have written "hasty and only partially true generalizations of the day." Elite or club cyclists are less likely to wave to other cyclists, especially if those waving are Freds (i.e., any cyclist whose attire/bike is substandard to theirs); Not here in Texas. Almost everybody waves. In small towns, everyone waves, even if they are both driving trucks. The majority of people talking on cell phones are females; Not from what I have seen. I see both male and female cell phone talkers all of the time. Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road; This one just isn't true. If they were, then their insurance rates would be the highest. Holding everything else equal (rate zone, number of tickets, number of accidents, type of vehicle, primary driver), unmarried males under the age of 21 are the highest risk group and pay the highest premiums. The explosion of "greenways" and associated multi-use paths, in a multitude of metropolitan areas, will again bring rise to mandatory sidepath laws; and Unfortunately, I believe this to be true.... The Segway will be considered one of the biggests "flops" of the 21st century. We can only hope! Hah! -Buck |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hasty generalizations of the day
In article , "Buck" s c h
w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m says... .... Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road; This one just isn't true. If they were, then their insurance rates would be the highest. Holding everything else equal (rate zone, number of tickets, number of accidents, type of vehicle, primary driver), unmarried males under the age of 21 are the highest risk group and pay the highest premiums. Being the highest risk from an insurance standpoint doesn't make them the most reckless. IMO, the major problem with teen boys is their aggressiveness, while the girls are more careless. Apparently aggressiveness causes more crashes than carelessness. -- Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying! REAL programmers write self-modifying code. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Hasty generalizations of the day
"David Kerber" wrote in message
... Being the highest risk from an insurance standpoint doesn't make them the most reckless. IMO, the major problem with teen boys is their aggressiveness, while the girls are more careless. Apparently aggressiveness causes more crashes than carelessness. You can play around with semantics all you want, but the facts are that unmarried males under the age of 21 have the greatest number of accidents. Here's the breakdown by age group and gender for unintentional injuries in the U.S. for the year 2000: For Males: Rank 1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ All Ages 1 Unintentional Suffocation 302 Unintentional Drowning 316 Unintentional MV Traffic 399 Unintentional MV Traffic 558 Unintentional MV Traffic 7,320 Unintentional MV Traffic 4,983 Unintentional MV Traffic 4,797 Unintentional MV Traffic 3,652 Unintentional MV Traffic 2,186 Unintentional Fall 4,722 Unintentional MV Traffic 28,352 Rank 1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ All Ages 1 Unintentional Suffocation 224 Unintentional MV Traffic 249 Unintentional MV Traffic 332 Unintentional MV Traffic 358 Unintentional MV Traffic 3,003 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,733 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,960 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,558 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,186 Unintentional Fall 5,551 Unintentional MV Traffic 13,642 Note that for almost every age group where motor vehicle accidents are the number one cause of injury, males have over twice as many accidents as females. Source: http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe Also note that one definition of reckless is "Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences." Source: www.dictionary.com If that doesn't describe young male driving habits (including the ones I had as a youngster), then I can't think of what does. Perhaps the girls fall under the "indifferent" part, but males are truely "disregardful." -Buck |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hasty generalizations of the day
"Buck" s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m wrote in
message news:wxjfb.49743 Sorry about the formatting problem.... Let me try to fix it. Here's the breakdown by age group and gender for unintentional injuries in the U.S. for the year 2000: For Males: Ages Number One Cause of Injury Number per 1,000 1 Unintentional Suffocation 302 1-4 Unintentional Drowning 316 5-9 Unintentional MV Traffic 399 10-14 Unintentional MV Traffic 558 15-24 Unintentional MV Traffic 7,320 25-34 Unintentional MV Traffic 4,983 35-44 Unintentional MV Traffic 4,797 45-54 Unintentional MV Traffic 3,652 55-64 Unintentional MV Traffic 2,186 65+ Unintentional Fall 4,722 All Unintentional MV Traffic 28,352 For Females: Ages Number One Cause of Injury Number per 1,000 1 Unintentional Suffocation 224 1-4 Unintentional MV Traffic 249 5-9 Unintentional MV Traffic 332 10-14 Unintentional MV Traffic 358 15-24 Unintentional MV Traffic 3,003 25-34 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,733 35-44 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,960 45-54 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,558 55-64 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,186 65+ Unintentional Fall 5,551 All Unintentional MV Traffic 13,642 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hasty generalizations of the day
In article , "Buck" s c h
w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m says... "David Kerber" wrote in message ... Being the highest risk from an insurance standpoint doesn't make them the most reckless. IMO, the major problem with teen boys is their aggressiveness, while the girls are more careless. Apparently aggressiveness causes more crashes than carelessness. You can play around with semantics all you want, but the facts are that unmarried males under the age of 21 have the greatest number of accidents. You're correct that I am splitting hairs here, though your stats have significantly deflated my confidence in my core thesis. I didn't realize there was that much of a difference in the *number* of injury-producing accidents between teenage boys and girls. I knew the number of deaths and cost of accidents was significantly higher for boys, but assumed (and you know what that does ;-P) that it was caused more by the severity of the accidents than the number. That said, I still think there's a difference in style between girls' poor driving and boys' poor driving. I think girls tend to simply not pay as much attention to their driving, getting into accidents because they were distracted by socializing with others in the car, looking around, etc. My wife simply doesn't look far enough down the road to be able to anticipate actions which might be required to avoid problems. IMO (based on being a teenage boy at one time), boys' driving problems tend to be caused more by an aggressive driving style, speeding, swerving around other cars and the like. These are gross generalizations of course, with lots of overlap between the groups, so there will be plenty of counter-examples on both sides. Here's the breakdown by age group and gender for unintentional injuries in the U.S. for the year 2000: For Males: Rank 1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ All Ages 1 Unintentional Suffocation 302 Unintentional Drowning 316 Unintentional MV Traffic 399 Unintentional MV Traffic 558 Unintentional MV Traffic 7,320 Unintentional MV Traffic 4,983 Unintentional MV Traffic 4,797 Unintentional MV Traffic 3,652 Unintentional MV Traffic 2,186 Unintentional Fall 4,722 Unintentional MV Traffic 28,352 Rank 1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ All Ages 1 Unintentional Suffocation 224 Unintentional MV Traffic 249 Unintentional MV Traffic 332 Unintentional MV Traffic 358 Unintentional MV Traffic 3,003 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,733 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,960 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,558 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,186 Unintentional Fall 5,551 Unintentional MV Traffic 13,642 Note that for almost every age group where motor vehicle accidents are the number one cause of injury, males have over twice as many accidents as females. Source: http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe Also note that one definition of reckless is "Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences." Source: www.dictionary.com If that doesn't describe young male driving habits (including the ones I had as a youngster), then I can't think of what does. Perhaps the girls fall under the "indifferent" part, but males are truely "disregardful." -- Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying! REAL programmers write self-modifying code. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hasty generalizations of the day
"David Kerber" wrote in message
... I still think there's a difference in style between girls' poor driving and boys' poor driving. I think girls tend to simply not pay as much attention to their driving, getting into accidents because they were distracted by socializing with others in the car, looking around, etc. My wife simply doesn't look far enough down the road to be able to anticipate actions which might be required to avoid problems. IMO (based on being a teenage boy at one time), boys' driving problems tend to be caused more by an aggressive driving style, speeding, swerving around other cars and the like. I'm in complete agreement with you on this part. Boys are probably more reckless and girls more inattentive, but I don't have any stats to prove anything, so it's just opinion based on observance. But both boys and girls are distracted by passengers at similar rates. Here's an interesting snippet for you courtesy of http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_fact...passengers.pdf "Four recent North American studies have quantified the crash risk associated with teenage drivers transporting teenage passengers (Aldridge et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2000; Doherty et al., 1998; Preusser et al., 1998). Collectively, findings from these studies indicate that the presence of passengers strongly increases crash risk for teenage drivers; the more passengers the greater the risk. For example, in one study the presence of one passenger almost doubled the fatal crash risk compared with driving alone. With two or more passengers, the fatal crash risk was five times as high as driving alone (Doherty et al., 1998). Results were similar for male and female teenage drivers. There is excess risk for young drivers with passengers both day and night. For older drivers, on the other hand, passengers either have no effect on crash risk or a beneficial effect, with drivers less likely to crash if there are passengers in the vehicle. Part of the increased injury risk with passengers present could be because higher vehicle occupancy by itself increases the opportunity for injury in a crash. However, there is increased risk for young drivers with passengers present in studies that are based on involvement in crashes (Doherty et al., 1998) or deaths to drivers per million trips (Chen et al., 2000), where the influence of high vehicle occupancy on the likelihood of injury is not a factor." Perhaps my kids shouldn't get their licenses until AFTER they make it through this critical period. Another study showed that teenage drivers had higher accident rates than adult drivers (30+) who had the same amount of experience. I'd worry about what confounding factors may be affecting their results. WHY didn't these drivers get their licenses until their thirties? What kinds of people are these? They are certainly outside the statistical norm. This may be skewing the results of the study, but it is interesting food for thought. I wonder if they spent those years as cyclists... -Buck |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|