New Study Shows Poverty, Not Age, the Key Factor in Teen Crashes

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, they're too busy taking farming subsidies in the West and UI cheques in the East...

Or applying for work at Bombardier in Quebec.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Employment rates of large urban areas tend to be higher than in rural areas...

Employment rates aren't the issue. Being able to get to work, and the cost of getting to work is.

[KrazyHorse]

Remember that discussion where I said that given all the handouts to sports teams they should all be publically owned?

You responded that Bombardier should be publically owned by my logic.

I just said "uh....yeah"

[notyoueither]

I don't recall discussing sports teams. Was it a long time ago?

[KrazyHorse]

A while. A year?

[KrazyHorse]

It stuck out in my mind because you were trying to reductio ad absurdum a socialist with a proposed nationalisation of a company...

[notyoueither]

That would be dumb.

[notyoueither]

Unless I were intending the likelihood of it...

[KrazyHorse]

I think it probably hit you 30 seconds after you said it...

[notyoueither]

I'll buy that for a dollar.

[Arrian]

If you apply one criterion to 17 year olds and a less restrictive one (unrestricted one) to 18+ then by definition that is a DIFFERENT CRITERION. You are treating people different, giving preferential treatment to adults.

It's all based on stats, and it's most certainly not all aimed at teens. The elderly pay more too. They're adults, surely. Hell, my company (at least up until recently) had rate drops at age 25 and again at 29. Then there is the marriage thing - married people get lower rates. Women get better rates. So if you're a male aged 16-25, you are in fact going to pay a lot for your auto insurance. New drivers, regardless of age, also pay more (i.e. a 30-year old new driver will pay substantially more than a 30-year old who has been driving since they were 16).

Is it unfair to base premium (in part) on age? On gender? On an individual level, yeah, it is. However, in the context of THIS debate, remember that it's unfair to lots of people who aren't teenagers - which kinda shoots holes in the whole "teens are oppressed" bull****. Insurance is all about spreading the risk for very large numbers of people. Individual driving ability is a very difficult thing to gauge, except of course for people who have had multiple accidents, etc. I do, however, certainly grant that it's inconsistent to allow rating based on gender but not on race. But race, as we all know, is a very touchy subject.

-Arrian

[OzzyKP]

Ok Arrian, thats all well and good, insurance isn't my main beef however. Why don't these other policies affect men, or the elderly, or unmarried people, etc:

Originally posted by OzzyKP

Why don't they have all those restrictions I listed for teens? You didn't answer my question last time.

Some barriers/restrictions that teen drivers face simply because they are teens:

- Can't drive at all (New Jersey and.. NY? require people to be 18 to get their license. There is a modest push now in other states to follow suit.
- Can't drive with any passengers in the car (or a limited number)
- Can't drive during certain hours.
- Can't use cell phones while driving
- Parents put tracking devices in their cars to monitor where they go and punish them from that.
- Parents put tracking devices in their cars to monitor how fast they go, and punish them from that.
- Teens suffer from profiling (like blacks do) where cops pull them over for no reason besides the fact they look young
- Just the general lack of respect and the bigotry exhibited toward teens that can be seen in this forum and elsewhere.

Teens have 40% more fatal crashes than the safest category of adults.

Men have 77% more fatal crashes than women.

The poor have several hundred percent more fatal crashes than the rich.

Why is it that all the above restrictions are placed on teens and not placed on men or the poor?

This isn't a rhetorical question. Why do teens have all these extra restrictions but other, riskier groups don't?

People keep dodging this question. If there are many risky groups out there, why does all these restrictions affect teens exclusively?

[Japher]

because teens aren't held as accountable for their actions as adults

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
If you apply one criterion to 17 year olds and a less restrictive one (unrestricted one) to 18+ then by definition that is a DIFFERENT CRITERION. You are treating people different, giving preferential treatment to adults.

The criterion is "17 or less" and the action is "charge more." If the criterion fails, the action won't be taken.

There is no different criterion.

[lord of the mark]

"Can't drive with any passengers in the car (or a limited number)
- Can't drive during certain hours.
- Can't use cell phones while driving
- Parents put tracking devices in their cars to monitor where they go and punish them from that.
- Parents put tracking devices in their cars to monitor how fast they go, and punish them from that."


First two are Grad Lic Programs. IIUC they apply to ALL new licences holders. It just happens that most new license holders are teens, as you point out. IF, as you point out, theres new drivers are dangerous regardless of age, restrictions on hours and passengers may make sense for all new drivers, until they become experienced, regardless of age.

Limits on cell phone use are becoming widespread for all, even experienced drivers (but, like the above, they COULD be applied to all NEW drivers, regardless of age)

Parental actions are not imposed by law. If I buy a car, and lend it to another adult, I could do it on condition of putting on a tracking device.