Off to Wal-Mart for new underware.
#21
04-27-2007, 03:52 PM
Seasoned HDF Member
RE: Off to Wal-Mart for new underware.
Hammer02,
Glad I could oblige in the annoying department. If you don't like my opinion and don't want to be annoyed, why don't you use your block button. That will keep you from having to waste you time reading my opinion or my posts about anything. You can also use it for anyone else you don't agree with or doesn't have your view.
In the mean time, why don't you try adding something about the topic, for, against or in between instead of just being annoyed.
Bill
Glad I could oblige in the annoying department. If you don't like my opinion and don't want to be annoyed, why don't you use your block button. That will keep you from having to waste you time reading my opinion or my posts about anything. You can also use it for anyone else you don't agree with or doesn't have your view.
In the mean time, why don't you try adding something about the topic, for, against or in between instead of just being annoyed.
Bill
#22
04-27-2007, 04:02 PM
Road Captain
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lowell, Ma.
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Off to Wal-Mart for new underware.
I gave that some thought before andI agreed with you, however what price do you put on lives, I mean 50,000 people die every year. If guns killed that many we would all be broke.
#23
04-27-2007, 04:08 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Glendale, AZ.
Posts: 3,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Off to Wal-Mart for new underware.
ORIGINAL: grunt
Sorry, but above a certain age (65?), people should be forced to prove their control over motor vehicles again. Too many of these 'geezer kills after losing control' stories are hitting the airwaves. And I've seen some that were worse than obliterated drunks behind the wheel.
Ole Bitty Betty needs her license yanked.
Sorry, but above a certain age (65?), people should be forced to prove their control over motor vehicles again. Too many of these 'geezer kills after losing control' stories are hitting the airwaves. And I've seen some that were worse than obliterated drunks behind the wheel.
Ole Bitty Betty needs her license yanked.
#24
04-27-2007, 04:12 PM
Seasoned HDF Member
RE: Off to Wal-Mart for new underware.
oldfartjc,
Watch out,you are going to annoy someone.
Bill
Watch out,you are going to annoy someone.
Bill
#25
04-27-2007, 04:15 PM
RE: Off to Wal-Mart for new underware.
ORIGINAL: billnourse
No one is denying that as people age they are less capable. I questioned you 65 year old limit, I questioned your crap about them being the most dangerous people on the road when insurance companies don't seem to recognize it. If they did, the rates would be different than they are. I also questioned you stupid statement that older drivers are allowed to kill and maim with no consequences.
If us old farts are the2nd most dangerous behind teenagers, then why are you not advocating that people no be allowed to drive until they are 25 of so. You are against old people driving but you condone the most dangerous group?
I just got off of the phone with my sister-in-law whoworks for State Farm Ins. Their rates are the lowestfor age 50 to 74. My ins actually went down when I turned50.From 75 to 79 they go up about 60 -70 dollars per 6 months, and another 70 dollarsfor 79 to 89. The ratesare still a lot less than fora teen. So much for your 65 yoa limit.
She also advised that older people have more accidents than younger drivers, buton the whole the older drivers have much less severeaccidents, thus costing the insurance companies less money in pay outs. Same principle applies to young men as opposed to young women. The women's rates are less because they have less costly crashes when the do crash than their male counterparts the same age.Her words "young women and old farts have fenderbenders, young men have fatalities."
So much for your thesis of the wholesalekilling and maiming by us old farts.
As far as looking the stats up myself, since you apparently have already throughly reseached this, why don't you just give me a quick link showing the dangerous statistics and save me the trouble? I'm old and in denial, how can I be expected to look something up?
No one is denying that as people age they are less capable. I questioned you 65 year old limit, I questioned your crap about them being the most dangerous people on the road when insurance companies don't seem to recognize it. If they did, the rates would be different than they are. I also questioned you stupid statement that older drivers are allowed to kill and maim with no consequences.
If us old farts are the2nd most dangerous behind teenagers, then why are you not advocating that people no be allowed to drive until they are 25 of so. You are against old people driving but you condone the most dangerous group?
I just got off of the phone with my sister-in-law whoworks for State Farm Ins. Their rates are the lowestfor age 50 to 74. My ins actually went down when I turned50.From 75 to 79 they go up about 60 -70 dollars per 6 months, and another 70 dollarsfor 79 to 89. The ratesare still a lot less than fora teen. So much for your 65 yoa limit.
She also advised that older people have more accidents than younger drivers, buton the whole the older drivers have much less severeaccidents, thus costing the insurance companies less money in pay outs. Same principle applies to young men as opposed to young women. The women's rates are less because they have less costly crashes when the do crash than their male counterparts the same age.Her words "young women and old farts have fenderbenders, young men have fatalities."
So much for your thesis of the wholesalekilling and maiming by us old farts.
As far as looking the stats up myself, since you apparently have already throughly reseached this, why don't you just give me a quick link showing the dangerous statistics and save me the trouble? I'm old and in denial, how can I be expected to look something up?
Relatively few deaths of elderly people--1 percent or fewer--involve motor vehicles. Cancer, heart disease, and stroke are the leading causes of death among people 65 years and older. Fewer elderly people are licensed to drive, compared with younger groups, and they drive fewer miles per licensed driver.
On the other hand, there's cause for concern when elderly people do drive because they have higher rates of fatal crashes per mile driven, per 100,000 people, and per licensed driver than any other group except young drivers. A problem is that elderly drivers don't deal as well as younger ones with complex traffic situations, and multiple-vehicle crashes at intersections increase markedly with age. Elderly drivers are more likely to get traffic citations for failing to yield, turning improperly, and running stop signs and red lights.
http://www.luhs.org/depts/injprev/Tr...lder%20DriversAnd did you miss the '?' (65?). Could be higher, could be lower. Wherever it is deemed a hazard let it. And then you flat out exaggerate (in case you skipped math2nd riskiest group is not the most dangerous). Maybe if you tried to not get so emotional and offended you'd be more lucid. IOW keep the drama queen crap to yourself.
And if you think the elderly are not given breaks on their accidents, just look at this:
LOS ANGELES An 89-year-old man whose car hurtled through a farmers market, killing 10 people, was let off on probation Monday by a judge who said he believed the defendant deserved to go prison but was too ill
http://cbs2chicago.com/homepage/tops...324103614.html
Sure, he can kill, but HELL NO would
#26
04-27-2007, 04:20 PM
RE: Off to Wal-Mart for new underware.
Bill, you see, when you get close to 65 or 70, you start to go RETEST - NO!!! cause it effects you personally.
The chart tells me that as people move away from the things they do as youth, peer pressure, and become more experienced drivers, they become better and safer drivers. But at 65 or 70, the deterioration in physical skills, reaction time, etc. overcomes the 50 odd years of driving experience and they start to get worse.
Frankly, I think we should probably attack both sides of the chart. If young kids don't stop killin folks (around here 3 high school kids racing after school killed themselves and the driver of a school van, and injured the young child riding in the van just recently) we should raise the age they can get licenses and retest older folks.
People over 65 are 12.4% of the driving population, but cause but are responsible for 15% of driver fatalities.
You're just showing that if it effects you driving personally, the facts stop mattering so much. People should be retested. There really shouldn't be an argument. You know why? You may think you're capable of driving, but getting re-tested would insure an independent party agrees. And if you're not capable you simply shouldn't be driving.
The chart tells me that as people move away from the things they do as youth, peer pressure, and become more experienced drivers, they become better and safer drivers. But at 65 or 70, the deterioration in physical skills, reaction time, etc. overcomes the 50 odd years of driving experience and they start to get worse.
Frankly, I think we should probably attack both sides of the chart. If young kids don't stop killin folks (around here 3 high school kids racing after school killed themselves and the driver of a school van, and injured the young child riding in the van just recently) we should raise the age they can get licenses and retest older folks.
People over 65 are 12.4% of the driving population, but cause but are responsible for 15% of driver fatalities.
You're just showing that if it effects you driving personally, the facts stop mattering so much. People should be retested. There really shouldn't be an argument. You know why? You may think you're capable of driving, but getting re-tested would insure an independent party agrees. And if you're not capable you simply shouldn't be driving.
#27
04-27-2007, 04:21 PM
RE: Off to Wal-Mart for new underware.
ORIGINAL: oldfartjc
People who were dumb *** drivers orjust plain dumb assesin their 30's, 40's and 50's aren't going to be any smarter at 65. A dumb *** is always a dumb *** no matter what the age. I hate to say but I know a lot of people who should have to prove their driving ability in their 40's or 50's or younger, and not just be forced to do it at age 65 or older, and 65 is hardly a 'geezer.
ORIGINAL: grunt
Sorry, but above a certain age (65?), people should be forced to prove their control over motor vehicles again. Too many of these 'geezer kills after losing control' stories are hitting the airwaves. And I've seen some that were worse than obliterated drunks behind the wheel.
Ole Bitty Betty needs her license yanked.
Sorry, but above a certain age (65?), people should be forced to prove their control over motor vehicles again. Too many of these 'geezer kills after losing control' stories are hitting the airwaves. And I've seen some that were worse than obliterated drunks behind the wheel.
Ole Bitty Betty needs her license yanked.
Hell, 40 ain't young, so no sense trying to make 65 the new middle age.
#28
04-27-2007, 04:58 PM
Seasoned HDF Member
RE: Off to Wal-Mart for new underware.
I am not opposed to re-testing to drive anymore than I am opposed to testing every year like I do to carry a concealed weapon. I also have to test at my job every year. So, I am not opposed to testing, I am opposed to having someone throw out an arbitary number, especially when the number given is an age group that has lower statistics that the 40-45 age group or the young age group either one.
At 65 begin the tests, but let's also test the 40-45 age group, and the under 25's.
Grunt,I have no idea what you are talking about when you made reference to 2nd most dangerous, unless you were talking about me saying that you were coming down on the 2nd most dangerous, us old farts, and seemingly giving a pass to the most dangerous, which are the kids. Haven't seen yu mention anywhere that they should be tested, taken of the road, or not allowed to drive until they hit 25, which is the safe age group.
As far as your post about the 89 year old getting off, pick up any newspaper in the country and you can see things just like you posted happening in all age groups, and not just involving driving.
I'm done. I can see this getting out of hand.
Bill
At 65 begin the tests, but let's also test the 40-45 age group, and the under 25's.
Grunt,I have no idea what you are talking about when you made reference to 2nd most dangerous, unless you were talking about me saying that you were coming down on the 2nd most dangerous, us old farts, and seemingly giving a pass to the most dangerous, which are the kids. Haven't seen yu mention anywhere that they should be tested, taken of the road, or not allowed to drive until they hit 25, which is the safe age group.
As far as your post about the 89 year old getting off, pick up any newspaper in the country and you can see things just like you posted happening in all age groups, and not just involving driving.
I'm done. I can see this getting out of hand.
Bill
#29
04-27-2007, 05:48 PM
RE: Off to Wal-Mart for new underware.
Hey Bill, not gettin out of hand at all. Where did you get the figures on 40-44? The way I see all the stats, the safest drivers are those aging from roughly 35 to 65?
#30
04-27-2007, 06:26 PM
Seasoned HDF Member
RE: Off to Wal-Mart for new underware.
To see what I am talking about go to the graph in the middle of the link posted by FXDXTSport.For fatalities per 100,000 drivers it shows the young group to be very high. It then tapers off starting about 25 yoa. If you draw a line across the top of the graph at the 60 to 64 age group you will see that they are slightly lower than the 40 to 44 age group, and the 65 to 69 age group is just about equal to the 40 to 44. This leads me to conclude, wrongly I'm sure, that the 40 to 44 year olds and the 25 and unders are just as much in need of proving their skills as the 65 year olds are.
My arguement is, if you want to test, then test, but test all higher risk groups, not just the old farts. Seems to be a big argument about that though. Is it because some of you would be effected personally if other higher risk groups were tested?
The article that was posted also stated that the conclusionsof the study were that older people died more often because they were frail, but that they were not more of a threat to others than anyone else.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that older drivers make relatively small contributions to crash-related morbidity and mortality; moreover, their contributions are generally a result of injuries to self rather than to others
If you are going to deny driving privledges to the most dangerous people, don't issue driver's licenses to anyone under 24 or 25, or over 75. That should just about cover it.
Bill
My arguement is, if you want to test, then test, but test all higher risk groups, not just the old farts. Seems to be a big argument about that though. Is it because some of you would be effected personally if other higher risk groups were tested?
The article that was posted also stated that the conclusionsof the study were that older people died more often because they were frail, but that they were not more of a threat to others than anyone else.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that older drivers make relatively small contributions to crash-related morbidity and mortality; moreover, their contributions are generally a result of injuries to self rather than to others
If you are going to deny driving privledges to the most dangerous people, don't issue driver's licenses to anyone under 24 or 25, or over 75. That should just about cover it.
Bill