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

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Is it possible that companies could be varying rates by geography

Of course they do. That's quite possibly the largest component of the price you pay. My point was that both rate quotes were assuming the same location.

OK, but if CoA already has a lot of policies in that zip code they might charge a premium to take on more, while CoB might have very few and give a discount to get policies in that area.

Wouldn't something like that help explain the gap?

[Dinner]

I imagine that lots of poor or uneducated people live in the inner city so if we had a comparision of inner city vs suburban drivers we'd likely "prove poor people are worse drivers. Of course the obvious error is that they haven't accounted for the denser traffic in the urban cities compared to the less densely populated suburbs. More cars equals more chances for cars to bump into each other.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by notyoueither


OK, but if CoA already has a lot of policies in that zip code they might charge a premium to take on more, while CoB might have very few and give a discount to get policies in that area.

Wouldn't something like that help explain the gap?

I thought that at first, but then considered why would they care about coverage in a particular zip code. It makes sense if they are different cities but not so much if they are different discricts of a single city. Would they really segment their market share to that degree?

[Dr Strangelove]

This study has more holes in it than swiss cheese. The authors didn't actually gather data about the average miles travelled per age group they just 'estimated' it. That's not good enough. They didn't gather data about the income of the households of the teen drivers actually involved in accidents, they 'estimated' it. Furthermore, in this case of what relevance is the poverty rate to the issue? The study is absolute c**p. It says nothing.

[Sava]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


I wasn't attacking you specifically. But I just find it troubling how little people in general question any anti-teen reports or studies and how skeptical they are when any info shows something different.

If people are skeptical as a rule, then fine. If they are trusting as a rule, then fine. But the fact that they (in general, again not specifically attacking you) exhibit such blatant anti-youth bias when approaching such matters is quite problematic.

There's no anti-youth bias. At least not with me.

It's all in your mind.

You need to accept the REALITIES about young people.

I think you have good intentions... but IMO, this crusade of yours is very misguided. A lot of the problems you speak of have nothing to do with "youth rights". Every time we talk about an issue, you always find a youth rights angle, and every time, you get shot down in a blaze of something that doesn't resemble glory.

The problem I see with this whole "youth rights" thing is a perception problem. It's basically a giant "false cause" fallacy.

You don't seem to be happy with any responsible policies regarding young people. Any compromises.

Would you rather see civilization turn into one giant "Lord of the Flies" fantasy?

What's the deal man?

I don't get it. I'm not trying to rip on you or anything. I just want to understand.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dauphin


I thought that at first, but then considered why would they care about coverage in a particular zip code. It makes sense if they are different cities but not so much if they are different discricts of a single city. Would they really segment their market share to that degree?

Imagine having a lot of policies concentrated in certain Manhattan zip codes in 2001.

I've heard rumblings about big changes in the insurance industry after 9/11, and spreading risk by not having too much in any one area makes sense to me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Because it IS their time. Their time to grow up has long past by the time our modern rules say they are allowed to grow up.

Why do you want to keep them children long after their time?

Kids ARE kept kids too long. At least in the suburbs. I know too many parents who wont let their kids bicycle outside their own neighborhoods.

Im not so sure I want kids who've hardly bicycled, who havent ridden a bus by themselves, who basically have been coddled to the point they have no real judgement, getting behind a wheel at 16. But their parents think thats safer, cause they in fact ignore studies on highway safety, on the one hand, and ignore actual statistics (as opposed to scare stories) on crime on the other hand.

I got freedom via bicycle and transit as a 14 YO. I didnt learn to drive till I was over 18. I dont think the kids of today are being done a service by being treated as little children till they get behind the wheel of a car.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Imagine having a lot of policies concentrated in certain Manhattan zip codes in 2001.

I've heard rumblings about big changes in the insurance industry after 9/11, and spreading risk by not having too much in any one area makes sense to me.

Ok, maybe it does in the sense of maximum diversification, and protects against low likelihood but high impact cost events. That said, I still have doubts over the business need to diversify that way, especially considering the prevalence and ease of selling on insurance - which can acheive the same level of diversification.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oerdin
This is stupid. I bet if we did a study of height we could get spurius results showing short people crash more then tall people (or vis versa) or maybe we should break it down by hair color. Maybe we could chart the relationship between the phases of the moon and auto crashes.

Hats/headgear are the problem.

Weezies Theory of Drivers - Those wearing a head covering will be a problem. Doesn't matter if it is an 80 year old with a bolo or a teenager with a ball cap.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Kids ARE kept kids too long. At least in the suburbs. I know too many parents who wont let their kids bicycle outside their own neighborhoods.

Im not so sure I want kids who've hardly bicycled, who havent ridden a bus by themselves, who basically have been coddled to the point they have no real judgement, getting behind a wheel at 16. But their parents think thats safer, cause they in fact ignore studies on highway safety, on the one hand, and ignore actual statistics (as opposed to scare stories) on crime on the other hand.

I got freedom via bicycle and transit as a 14 YO. I didnt learn to drive till I was over 18. I dont think the kids of today are being done a service by being treated as little children till they get behind the wheel of a car.

Exactly.

What I keep speaking out against (and keep getting crap about from Sava and others) is all this coddling doesn't protect youth, it hurts them but stiffling their abilities and potential. It may keep them safer as kids through this forced incubation period but it in no way prepares them for when they must inevitably leave that period.

The current accepted parenting methods don't prepare youth for adult life, they prepare them to be 30 and still living at home with their parents. Sadly that increasingly seems to be the results of such policies.

Lets look again at this study. Another thing it looks at is the effectiveness of graduated drivers licenses. Their supporters tout the fact that these policies have reduced accident rates among teens, and according to this study, yes they do that. However they have also resulted in an increase in accident rates among those who are 18 and 19 showing that these policies haven't prepared youth for leaving this incubation period.

Whether this study is perfect or not, I dunno, but at least it is attempting to consider more data that most studies simply ignore. All I'm asking is that we give teens the benefit of the doubt when looking at studies and such that paint them as reckless criminals. We give everyone else in society the benefit of the doubt, why are we harder on youth? Why do we have this lust for punishing them?

People say "well that's the reality, youth are just dangerous and immature, that's what the statistics say that's what my experience say its a fact just accept it. They are criminals by their very nature."

Ok, I could quite easily present to you plenty of facts and figures that show African-Americans are more likely to commit crime, to drop out of school, to do drugs, to have out of wedlock kids, etc etc. Does that mean blacks are dangerous criminals by their very nature?

Why do you (not you LOTM, just a general "you" to others in this thread) have different responses to these questions? The evidence for both is the same. There is just as much evidence saying teens are criminals as blacks are criminals, yet why do people give blacks the benefit of the doubt and not teens? Why do people say "oh well, poverty is the real cause behind high crime rates for blacks, singling them out is wrong, there are deeper socio-economic issues, etc". Why don't people EVER say stuff like that for teens?

Except there are some people who don't give blacks the benefit of the doubt when looking at their higher crime rates, those people we call racists. So yes Sava, when you exhibit the exact same behavior as racists but apply it to youth, I'm going to call you an ageist.

[Arrian]

People say "well that's the reality, youth are just dangerous and immature, that's what the statistics say that's what my experience say its a fact just accept it...

Hmm, statistical evidence backed up by first-hand experience. Nope, nothing to see here!

You exaggerate a whole lot too, Ozzy. We aren't "punishing" youth by not allowing drivers' licenses until 16 and having restrictions in place. We're trying to protect them (and the rest of us).

Now, one can argue (as you do) that the graduated licenses aren't working. I'm not sure there is enough of a sample size yet to really determine whether or not it works, and the study you posted really is badly flawed. If I were a teenager still, I'd be annoyed at the graduated license thing, and unless the stats really do show an improvement, I will be all for going back to the old system (unrestricted license @ 16).

-Arrian

[OzzyKP]

So how do you respond to statistical evidence backed up by first-hand experience that african americans commit more crimes and are responsible for more social ills than white americans?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

"Ok, I could quite easily present to you plenty of facts and figures that show African-Americans are more likely to commit crime, to drop out of school, to do drugs, to have out of wedlock kids, etc etc. Does that mean blacks are dangerous criminals by their very nature?

Why do you (not you LOTM, just a general "you" to others in this thread) have different responses to these questions? The evidence for both is the same. There is just as much evidence saying teens are criminals as blacks are criminals, yet why do people give blacks the benefit of the doubt and not teens? Why do people say "oh well, poverty is the real cause behind high crime rates for blacks, singling them out is wrong, there are deeper socio-economic issues, etc". Why don't people EVER say stuff like that for teens?

First of all every single adult commenting on teens has been a teen at one time. Very few whites have been blacks. And most teens will one day become an adult. Where as few blacks will become white. And many adults have a teen live with and love. Somewhat fewer whites have a black they live with and love. Most teens have an adult they live with and love. Far fewer blacks have a white they live with and love.

And yes, 20 YOs are more mature as a general rule than 16 YO's (just as 30 YOs as a general rule are more mature than 20 YOs, and so forth till actual senility sets in) While that is not the situation among the races.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
So how do you respond to statistical evidence backed up by first-hand experience that african americans commit more crimes and are responsible for more social ills than white americans?

well since social ills can include global warming, inequality, and wars, im not sure about the latter part of your statement. As for the former, there are many studies looking at a number of causal factors. Whats your point?

[MRT144]

ozzykp operates in excepetions NOT RULES! YAAAAAAAARL!