 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Let's keep this in mind and see what happens if we *force* a linear
> scale. E.g. assume that there are only a finite number of cars and that
> the government has decided that only the best drivers get a licence.
Alright, this will be interesting.
> First we have to create a committee that can judge drivers capacity.
Okay
> For this a natural first group is that group that knows about cars e.g.
> because they own a couple and repair them themselves. This is based on
> the logical assumption that people who know how cars work also know how
> to drive them well. Presumably they will come up with a test like how
> fast drivers can negotiate an obstacle course without damage, to test
> the ability of the drivers. That would indeed create an objective linear
> scale.
Only, that's not a logical assumption. The people I know who own a
couple cars and repair them drive like maniacs and admit it.
> So we have as our main ingredients a complex multidimensional concept, a
> need to make it objective and one dimensional, and a group of
> knowledgeable men and what comes out is a very reasonable measure that
> somehow and unplanned is not going to be gender-insensitive. And as long
> as new members of this committee are recruited from the 'best' drivers,
> it will stay that way.
There is the undefined jump from 'statistically safe driving habits'
that, if everyone followed, would reduce total accidents to the 'locally
safe driving habits' that may cause more accidents, on the whole, but
are safer in certain circumstances where other drivers are making random
decisions. 'Best' drivers, those who can put a car through it's paces on
a closed course, are not by default the 'best' driver on a crowded
street. Besides, these already is a committee that decides best driving
practices and tests people on it. Around my part's the the Department of
Motor Vehicles, and a few other federal agencies.
How does your test by committee become gender biased? Simply because
there are more male race-car drivers, or what ever other pool you pick
the judges from? I do not see the connection there.
> This is of course an imaginary scenario and the fact that so many women
> are going to fail the test is a dead give away that something is wrong.
The women fail the test because you imply a gender bias is somehow
unplanned, but still present in the test. Why would a government
committee, that picks the best drivers to devise the test, settle for a
unplanned for bias? And what is the bias, anyways?
Now, if you said the government picked a group consisting of civil
engineers, a few material science folks, some chauvinistic gear heads
who race in demolition derbies on the weekend, and a mathematician, then
I would believe the proposal you set out.
> You might even argue that no government is going to do something so
> simplistic for such a complex problem. On the other hand many people
> apparently fail to see the fact that driving ability is a
> multidimensional problem to begin with. If you don't, it may seem
> logical that it is a fair and adequate test. There is an even better
> argument that this kind of fallacy is common: it works this way in science
Some governments already do have a single dimension score for driving;
around here you have to pass a test with a certain score. Too low of a
score, and no license.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 8/12/2010 7:59 AM, Warp wrote:
>
>> I liked one thing the commentator said in the show, which was
>> something
>> about the outright contradictory attitude many drivers have towards their
>> own car: When the car is parked, it's the most valuable and fragile thing
>> in the entire world to them. Even a minor scratch is comparable to the
>> end
>> of the world. However, when they are driving the car, their attitude
>> seems
>> completely the opposite, as their driving is completely reckless, as
>> if they
>> couldn't care less how many scratches, bumps or even major damage
>> their car
>> could get from it.
>>
>
> Wow... I can totally see that attitude in some people. I get annoyed by
> the constant nicks the front-end of my car gets from gravel coming off
> the road, which reminds me of another annoyance:
>
> Gravel haulers. This is a tractor-trailer hauling a huge load of gravel.
> They've passed a law recently requiring them to place a tarp over the
> load. It helps, but I see so many that are in such a sad state of repair
> that have huge holes in the tarp. Flinging rocks toward windshields as
> they make their way down the road, usually driving way too fast.
My annoyance:
Snow and ice on trucks. I know the top of those transfer trucks are hard
to reach, but that three inch slab of rock hard ice, that built up while
you were stuck in at a rest stop cause the roads were closed, is going
to fly off at some point. Surprises me that more people aren't killed by
that stuff.
The people who leave the sheet of ice on their cars just have no excuse.
If I ever get hit by that on my bike, and survive, I will track them down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I saw a study where they put cameras into 300 cars for a year to see what
> the driver was doing when they got in an accident. Even knowing they were
> being monitored, 100 people that year got in an accident. That tells me
> an average driver (assuming they picked randomly, which might not be the
> case now that I think of it) gets in an accident every 3 years. This
> boggles my mind. I don't even ding a door in the parking lot every 3
> years.
That's because you're not 18 :-) In the UK I think the average was once
every 7 years, but I assume for young males that's about once a year and
about once every 15-20 years for older people.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My annoyance:
> Snow and ice on trucks. I know the top of those transfer trucks are hard
> to reach, but that three inch slab of rock hard ice, that built up while
> you were stuck in at a rest stop cause the roads were closed, is going
> to fly off at some point. Surprises me that more people aren't killed by
> that stuff.
I once saw the whole top sheet of ice slide off onto the footpath as a truck
went around a sharp corner, luckily there was nobody there.
I also had a big lump of ice (about 30x20 cm) come off the van that had just
overtaken me and smash right into my windscreen, it was coming straight for
my face but luckily the glass held up, it was the loudest bang I'd ever
heard in the car!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 13.08.2010 00:25, schrieb Darren New:
>> First we have to create a committee that can judge drivers capacity.
>
> On the other hand, I think it's safe to say that there *are* objective
> criteria for bad drivers: If you frequently get in an accident, you're a
> worse driver than those who never do.
Ah, so frequent drivers (traveling salesmen, taxi drivers etc) are
inherently bad drivers?
Of course you could put the number of accidents into relation with the
mileage traveled. But again: Are city commuters and taxi drivers
inherently worse drivers than those who only use their car once in a
blue moon for a long-distance journey on the highway?
You see, it's not so easy finding a flawless objective criterion, is it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/12/2010 1:57 PM, andrel wrote:
> There are probably as many driver styles as there are drivers. There is
> for instance the aggressive style, though they would probably describe
...
Interesting point. I'm probably more of the cooperative driver, though
depending on the circumstances I'm probably edge in a small amount of
aggressiveness when called for. E.g. crowded road, no one will leave a
good enough gap. You have to do something because you're running out of
road (trying to merge onto the freeway)
Interestingly, I used to race in autocross back when I had a car that
was appropriate for it. It gave me a good outlet for carving corners and
doing some fast driving at the limit, something not appropriate for the
street.
There is something to that, though. I see many drivers as not
necessarily being bad drivers (unless they are driving 50mph on a 70mph
road yapping on their cellphone) but being just plain rude drivers. I'm
always very irritated when I see people wait until the absolute last
possible second before moving over when there have been signs indicating
the lane is under construction and everyone must move over up to a mile
before the construction starts. Although, a couple of states I have
driven in have enacted a law stating that they must move over 1/4 - 1/2
mile before reaching the construction zone. Waiting to the last second
before moving to a different lane will cause delays because someone will
have to stop for you.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/13/2010 4:52 AM, clipka wrote:
> Ah, so frequent drivers (traveling salesmen, taxi drivers etc) are
> inherently bad drivers?
I would say if the accidents are consistently and clearly their fault,
then: Yes.
> Of course you could put the number of accidents into relation with the
> mileage traveled. But again: Are city commuters and taxi drivers
> inherently worse drivers than those who only use their car once in a
> blue moon for a long-distance journey on the highway?
Again, if they're easily proven to be at fault....
> You see, it's not so easy finding a flawless objective criterion, is it?
Not easy in the least.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/12/2010 6:10 PM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> My annoyance:
> Snow and ice on trucks. I know the top of those transfer trucks are hard
> to reach, but that three inch slab of rock hard ice, that built up while
> you were stuck in at a rest stop cause the roads were closed, is going
> to fly off at some point. Surprises me that more people aren't killed by
> that stuff.
Oh, yeah... that doesn't happen very often around here. Not a whole lot
of snow/ice.
> The people who leave the sheet of ice on their cars just have no excuse.
> If I ever get hit by that on my bike, and survive, I will track them down.
Yep. Though *if* there is a layer of soft snow, I usually won't bother
with it, but I generally try to brush off anything that isn't adhered to
the car.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/08/2010 12:10 AM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The people who leave the sheet of ice on their cars just have no excuse.
> If I ever get hit by that on my bike, and survive, I will track them down.
Reminds me of an incident that happened to me once years ago, with my
first bike. It was an old, very under powered 90 cc Honda. I got caught
behind a lorry either going to or coming back from an abattoir. It was
full of dead and rank cattle and I could not overtake it because of
narrow roads and oncoming traffic. I still remember the smell 40 years
on and the heads poking over the sides. Yeuch!
That was a bike that taught me a lot the most important was get a bigger
bike. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I saw a study where they put cameras into 300 cars for a year to see
>> what the driver was doing when they got in an accident. Even knowing
>> they were being monitored, 100 people that year got in an accident.
>> That tells me an average driver (assuming they picked randomly, which
>> might not be the case now that I think of it) gets in an accident
>> every 3 years. This boggles my mind. I don't even ding a door in the
>> parking lot every 3 years.
>
> That's because you're not 18 :-)
Neither were the people in these experiments. Granted, they may have been
driving in New York City or something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
