BF2S Forums Old people shouldn't be allowed to drive...

Well if the old lady killed your friend, isn't that man slaughter? So, jail time? Or is the nursing home she is from considered punishment enough?

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

It isn't their reaction times that are of concern

lol

Your lack of a real response to the post would suggest you can't post one.

And your lack to address any point I or others make as well as spin everything I say shows neither can you.

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lol

Your lack of a real response to the post would suggest you can't post one.

And your lack to address any point I or others make as well as spin everything I say shows neither can you.

I think I did address yout point quite well. In fact I think I blew it out of the water.

Your point was "old people" should be "re-tested" every 2years or so to make sure their skilled had not deteriorated. for good of public safety

My point is. If you are so concerned for the public safety you should be focusing on the ONE group that has been designated as the WORST drivers for car crashes. The TEENAGE group. You refuse to acknowledge that this is a far worse group for safety issues. I suggested that this group should be RE-tested to make sure their skills appreciate as they get older, yet you want none of this. Must be because you yuorself are in this troublesome group of kids who don't need to be driving.
There is no spin to this discussion between you and I , this is exactly how it is laid out.

Last edited by lowing (2009-04-29 17:20:45)

lowing wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

lowing wrote:

and totally ignore the age group that I just showed is the REAL cause of highway fatalities? What about them? How about no licenses until 25?

Delaying the age for a license won't really help, as it is mostly due to inexperience that young drivers cause accidents. When I first got behind the wheel of a car, I was a large hazard on the road and cause some traffic problems. I'm much better now and though I still am not a great driver, I can maneuver safely if I stay within the speed limit.

Young drivers' threat mostly comes out of their lack of experience, and stopping them from driving for longer just means that it will take more time for them to be good drivers.

It does not take  great amount of "skill" to obey a speed limit, or to slow down during a turn, orread atraffic sign.

NOT drinking and driving, NOT texting, NOT speeding to look cool, NOT getting hign while you drive, NOT show boating for the ladies, however, DOES take some skill and maturity.

Well we have no way of knowing which <25's are going to do this. And it's not like no one >25 will do these things either.

So by your logic the best way to stop this madness will be to ban driving.

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

And your lack to address any point I or others make as well as spin everything I say shows neither can you.

I think I did address yout point quite well. In fact I think I blew it out of the water.

Your point was "old people" should be "re-tested" every 2years or so to make sure their skilled had not deteriorated. for good of public safety

My point is. If you are so concerned for the public safety you should be focusing on the ONE group that has been designated as the WORST drivers for car crashes. The TEENAGE group. You refuse to acknowledge that this is a far worse group for safety issues. I suggested that this group should be RE-tested to make sure their skills appreciate as they get older, yet you want none of this. Must be because you yuorself are in this troublesome group of kids who don't need to be driving.

Oh yeah, I'm totally troublesome. Rofl. I'm probably one of the safer drivers out there right now. Never had an accident or even came close to one. I'm glad you can determine all this through text on the internet. But nice dodge...once again. Why did you never address my analogy, either? Didn't work for you? Let me restate it for the...simple minded, shall we say?

Two people. 20 year old, 40 year old. 20 year old has had his pilot's license for 3 years and does daily 100 NM flights. 40 year old has done little training, got his student pilot's license with a 70 (minimum to pass), didn't do that well on his final flight test but still passed and got his license.

And you're honestly going to tell me that even though that 20 year old has way more experience, the 40 year old is a better pilot? Afraid to answer? Did it "blow you out of the water"?

You fail to acknowledge something, the 20 year old has proven himself mature, an exception rather than a rule, STATISTICALLY speaking as was PROVEN. You are not addressing the one proven FACT, teenage DRIVERS ( not pilots) STATISTICALLY SPEAKING ( regardless of your personal behavior) SUCK. Teen age drivers are the REAL problem on the roads not "old people".

Also I am a pilot, and my instructer was younger than I, your analogy does not fit.

Here is another fact. Most teenage drivers think they are great drivers. It is the main reason they are peeled off of trees.

Last edited by lowing (2009-04-29 17:36:05)

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Oh yeah, I'm totally troublesome. Rofl. I'm probably one of the safer drivers out there right now. Never had an accident or even came close to one. I'm glad you can determine all this through text on the internet. But nice dodge...once again. Why did you never address my analogy, either? Didn't work for you? Let me restate it for the...simple minded, shall we say?

Two people. 20 year old, 40 year old. 20 year old has had his pilot's license for 3 years and does daily 100 NM flights. 40 year old has done little training, got his student pilot's license with a 70 (minimum to pass), didn't do that well on his final flight test but still passed and got his license.

And you're honestly going to tell me that even though that 20 year old has way more experience, the 40 year old is a better pilot? Afraid to answer? Did it "blow you out of the water"?

You fail to acknowledge something, the 20 year old has proven himself mature, an exception rather than a rule, STATISTICALLY speaking as was PROVEN. You are not addressing the one proven FACT, teenage DRIVERS ( not pilots) STATISTICALLY SPEAKING ( regardless of your personal behavior) SUCK. Teen age drivers are the REAL problem on the roads not "old people".

Also I am a pilot, and my instructer was younger than I, your analogy does not fit.

Here is another fact. Most teenage drivers think they are great drivers. It is the main reason they are peeled off of trees.

You don't need to be mature to pass your checkride. Just like you don't need to be mature to pass your roadtest. To say that all teenage drivers are not though is nothing short of idiotic. But then again, generalizing is your thing now isn't it?

I can't deny that some teen drivers can be pretty bad. But so can a lot of old people. And medically, their reaction times and senses decrease with age. There is nothing medically wrong with younger people (unless specific to them) that would cause them to be worse drivers. The reason they crash, the majority of the time, is because they are inexperienced behind the wheel. Can it be due to distractions and immaturity? Sure, I'm sure some of the crashes are. But those aren't exclusive to teens. There's just as many 30 year old women who get into an accident because of the reasons you had listed previously.

And my analogy worked perfectly. That 20 year old would be a better pilot because he had the experience. The 40 year old would be worse, if not just a shitty pilot in general because he had very little. Don't just write it off because it doesn't fit your opinion.

Then how is it, you will condemn all old people to your tests and not call it generalizing, when I show the teenage driving group statistically is the one with the problem Odds in my favor, yet you say I am generalizing.

Bottom line is , you want to test the group of people who are not statisatically speaking the problem. While ignoring and taking no action against hte geoup of people who are the problem. Can't really deny that.

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

You fail to acknowledge something, the 20 year old has proven himself mature, an exception rather than a rule, STATISTICALLY speaking as was PROVEN. You are not addressing the one proven FACT, teenage DRIVERS ( not pilots) STATISTICALLY SPEAKING ( regardless of your personal behavior) SUCK. Teen age drivers are the REAL problem on the roads not "old people".

Also I am a pilot, and my instructer was younger than I, your analogy does not fit.

Here is another fact. Most teenage drivers think they are great drivers. It is the main reason they are peeled off of trees.

You don't need to be mature to pass your checkride. Just like you don't need to be mature to pass your roadtest. To say that all teenage drivers are not though is nothing short of idiotic. But then again, generalizing is your thing now isn't it?

I can't deny that some teen drivers can be pretty bad. But so can a lot of old people. And medically, their reaction times and senses decrease with age. There is nothing medically wrong with younger people (unless specific to them) that would cause them to be worse drivers. The reason they crash, the majority of the time, is because they are inexperienced behind the wheel. Can it be due to distractions and immaturity? Sure, I'm sure some of the crashes are. But those aren't exclusive to teens. There's just as many 30 year old women who get into an accident because of the reasons you had listed previously.

And my analogy worked perfectly. That 20 year old would be a better pilot because he had the experience. The 40 year old would be worse, if not just a shitty pilot in general because he had very little. Don't just write it off because it doesn't fit your opinion.

Then how is it, you will condemn all old people to your tests and not call it generalizing, when I show the teenage driving group statistically is the one with the problem Odds in my favor, yet you say I am generalizing.

Bottom line is , you want to test the group of people who are not statisatically speaking the problem. While ignoring and taking no action against hte geoup of people who are the problem. Can't really deny that.

I love the generalisations and lack of evidence here, lowing. Check this out:

http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/content/07 … uries_.htm

Interesting: says here that the 75+ age group has the highest rate of crashes

Moreover:


So, I think we've concluded that your case, far from blowing anything out of the water, is in fact bLOWING.

TSI wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

You don't need to be mature to pass your checkride. Just like you don't need to be mature to pass your roadtest. To say that all teenage drivers are not though is nothing short of idiotic. But then again, generalizing is your thing now isn't it?

I can't deny that some teen drivers can be pretty bad. But so can a lot of old people. And medically, their reaction times and senses decrease with age. There is nothing medically wrong with younger people (unless specific to them) that would cause them to be worse drivers. The reason they crash, the majority of the time, is because they are inexperienced behind the wheel. Can it be due to distractions and immaturity? Sure, I'm sure some of the crashes are. But those aren't exclusive to teens. There's just as many 30 year old women who get into an accident because of the reasons you had listed previously.

And my analogy worked perfectly. That 20 year old would be a better pilot because he had the experience. The 40 year old would be worse, if not just a shitty pilot in general because he had very little. Don't just write it off because it doesn't fit your opinion.

Then how is it, you will condemn all old people to your tests and not call it generalizing, when I show the teenage driving group statistically is the one with the problem Odds in my favor, yet you say I am generalizing.

Bottom line is , you want to test the group of people who are not statisatically speaking the problem. While ignoring and taking no action against hte geoup of people who are the problem. Can't really deny that.

I love the generalisations and lack of evidence here, lowing. Check this out:

http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/content/07 … uries_.htm

Interesting: says here that the 75+ age group has the highest rate of crashes

Moreover:
http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/content/07 … age012.gif

So, I think we've concluded that your case, far from blowing anything out of the water, is in fact bLOWING.

Before you break your arm patting yourself on your back please take note, that you are linking to stats in Europe. I don't live in Europe. Driving here is different than it is in Europe and so are the stats.

lowing wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

lowing wrote:

and totally ignore the age group that I just showed is the REAL cause of highway fatalities? What about them? How about no licenses until 25?

Delaying the age for a license won't really help, as it is mostly due to inexperience that young drivers cause accidents. When I first got behind the wheel of a car, I was a large hazard on the road and cause some traffic problems. I'm much better now and though I still am not a great driver, I can maneuver safely if I stay within the speed limit.

Young drivers' threat mostly comes out of their lack of experience, and stopping them from driving for longer just means that it will take more time for them to be good drivers.

It does not take  great amount of "skill" to obey a speed limit, or to slow down during a turn, orread atraffic sign.

NOT drinking and driving, NOT texting, NOT speeding to look cool, NOT getting hign while you drive, NOT show boating for the ladies, however, DOES take some skill and maturity.

Ok, so that's your opinion as to why they're a problem. Now, kindly explain what extra lessons is going to do to fix this. Unless douchebaggery removal lessons exist it's going to do fuck all. Alternatively, you could concede that perhaps lack of experience could play a role as to why teens are involved in more accidents, which extra lessons WOULD help solve the problem. BTW, I don't think getting retested helps, but what WOULD help would be driving tests that are harder, more thorough and require more hours of lessons in order to take the test.

On the other hand, eyesight, hearing, attention span and reaction times are all things that play a very important role in driving, which is obviously why drinking and driving is dangerous. Now these are all things that start to degrade as you get older. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonably to make sure that older drivers do still possess these things, either through bi-annual checkups at a doctor, or by retaking a driving exam.

I'm really sorry if you're 75 and are taking this stuff personally, but the fact of the matter is that half blind, deaf, senile pensioners driving around is a hazard.

ghettoperson wrote:

lowing wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Delaying the age for a license won't really help, as it is mostly due to inexperience that young drivers cause accidents. When I first got behind the wheel of a car, I was a large hazard on the road and cause some traffic problems. I'm much better now and though I still am not a great driver, I can maneuver safely if I stay within the speed limit.

Young drivers' threat mostly comes out of their lack of experience, and stopping them from driving for longer just means that it will take more time for them to be good drivers.

It does not take  great amount of "skill" to obey a speed limit, or to slow down during a turn, orread atraffic sign.

NOT drinking and driving, NOT texting, NOT speeding to look cool, NOT getting hign while you drive, NOT show boating for the ladies, however, DOES take some skill and maturity.

Ok, so that's your opinion as to why they're a problem. Now, kindly explain what extra lessons is going to do to fix this. Unless douchebaggery removal lessons exist it's going to do fuck all. Alternatively, you could concede that perhaps lack of experience could play a role as to why teens are involved in more accidents, which extra lessons WOULD help solve the problem. BTW, I don't think getting retested helps, but what WOULD help would be driving tests that are harder, more thorough and require more hours of lessons in order to take the test.

On the other hand, eyesight, hearing, attention span and reaction times are all things that play a very important role in driving, which is obviously why drinking and driving is dangerous. Now these are all things that start to degrade as you get older. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonably to make sure that older drivers do still possess these things, either through bi-annual checkups at a doctor, or by retaking a driving exam.

I'm really sorry if you're 75 and are taking this stuff personally, but the fact of the matter is that half blind, deaf, senile pensioners driving around is a hazard.

a very good question Ghettoperson, deserving of a very good answer and here it is:

IF you want to keep the age the same for getting a license and not bump it up a few years, I feel a MANDITORY trip to the morgue for all new drivers should be taken to see first hand:

1. Their peers/victims of their peers, laying on slab.

2. Proof that they are not immortal.

3. The effects of car crashes on the human body.

4. The cause and effect of their actions behind the wheel.

You are correct, old people can be a problem on the road, my only question is why are you so anxious to "do something about them" without acknowledging or willing to do something about the MAIN cause of road fatalities? Teenagers

lowing wrote:

TSI wrote:

lowing wrote:

Then how is it, you will condemn all old people to your tests and not call it generalizing, when I show the teenage driving group statistically is the one with the problem Odds in my favor, yet you say I am generalizing.

Bottom line is , you want to test the group of people who are not statisatically speaking the problem. While ignoring and taking no action against hte geoup of people who are the problem. Can't really deny that.

I love the generalisations and lack of evidence here, lowing. Check this out:

http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/content/07 … uries_.htm

Interesting: says here that the 75+ age group has the highest rate of crashes

Moreover:
http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/content/07 … age012.gif

So, I think we've concluded that your case, far from blowing anything out of the water, is in fact bLOWING.

Before you break your arm patting yourself on your back please take note, that you are linking to stats in Europe. I don't live in Europe. Driving here is different than it is in Europe and so are the stats.

You gonna insinuate that it's easier? Go on, I dare you. I also dare you to pull out ONE stat. Just one.

mcminty wrote:

Mate, I'm sorry to hear about your co-worker. My condolences

- - - - -

lowing wrote:

bottom line is teen age drivers suck. If any age group is more likely to die or kill you it is that one. If any age group needs to be taken off of the roads it is that one for their sake, the sake of their passengers, and the sake of anyone that crosses their path.

ghettoperson wrote:

My friends drive a lot better than most drivers on the road, because they haven't had years to decide not to bother indicating when it's needed and not checking mirrors all the time. I agree, you do get boy racer types that drive recklessly and speed, but that isn't what the majority of young drivers are like. TBH, I'd say with the exception of old people, it's pretty hard to stereotype one age/gender as being bad drivers. Some people are just cunts and need to be taken off the roads.

Lowing, suck my dick. Your stereotype and assumptions, whose age group encompasses me, is grossly incorrect.

Ghettoperson got it correct. I see so many older drivers not indicating, not checking their mirrors, and speeding because they have demerit points on their license to burn. If I get caught doing any of that stuff as a provisional license driver, my license gets raped. So I drive correctly.

Based on your comments, I'd say he has a point.