41 ATV fatalties in WV to date 2007

[redlevel]

I'm going off memory here, so I'm not 100% accurate, but close enough to demonstrate a point.

One of the big insurance companies did a study on teenage drivers a few years ago. The study found that when a teenager was driving alone, he/she only had around a 10% chance of having an accident. When there were two teenagers in the vehicle, the odds more then doubled to something like 30%. When there were three teenagers, it was well over 50%, and four teenagers in a car together raised it to something like 70 or 80%.

It was pretty obvious that they get distracted and have dificulty focusing on what they are doing. I see this with our kids all the time. It's also why I feel they get into allot of the accidents that they have of ATV's. They forget what they are doing all the time. I've pesonally seen my kids do this on bicycles to the point they have run of the road, hit trees and rode into drainage ditches.

And yes, it's mutch more likely to happen when it's the two of them playing, compared to just one of them.

Eddie

I was going over some of these statistics with a class of High School Juniors just this week. A sixteen year old driver is three times more likely to be involved in an accident than is a seventeen year old, and five times more likely than an eighteen year old. It is supposed to have something to do with brain development; the part of the brain that controls cautious behavior hasn't developed in sixteen year olds. Apparently it completes that development usually sometime in the seventeenth year.

 

[dgl24087]

Don't forget the idiots that read a newspaper or book while driving etc...I have seen men shaving with an electric razor and women putting on make up while driving.

Funny you mention this, I was driving on I-81 in the Roanoke, VA area just last week, an individual in a Honda Odyssey minivan was doing 75 or better while reading a newspaper. Everytime he turned the page it was - run off the right shoulder, overcorrect and veer into the left lane.

 

[RayH]

I don't think folks drive faster because they have airbags in their cars or wear a seatbelt. I know I don't. They are there just in case.



And you really believe this Ray or just kidding?
That's like saying cops will start a gun fight just bacause they are wearing a vest.

I believe it to an extent.
Heres why, I know my first car was a $900 Chevy Vega. The deal was that my parents paid for half my first car ($450) so I could get a job, then I was on my own for insurance, repairs and any future cars. I knew that if I wrecked my car, I was SOL until I could afford to replace or fix it. That was a pretty big deterrent to goofing around in my car. I actually found myself doing dumber things in my moms car than I did mine because I knew if I tore mine up, I would be without wheels.
Todays young drivers, in many cases, are given a car thats nice enough to justify full coverage. Have you driven by a high school lately and looked whats in the parking lot? Its not uncommon to see $10000-$13000 cars. If these kids wreck that car, what happens, the insurance company buys them a better car to replace it. Not much incentive to NOT have an accident

I also happen to believe that people take more chances because of airbags and seatbelts. I would even say that I wouldnt find it surprising if cops tend to be more wreckless because of their vests.
I believe people assess the risk of just about everything they do and decide how much is acceptable. If they perceive less risk (ie: airbags, armor, insurance, ect), they will still push the bounds.

 

[dgl24087]

Don't overlook the fact that most kids' cars are financed, requiring full coverage insurance.

 

[dmccarty]

There is the theory, key word theory, called Risk Homeostasis.

Risk homeostasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikepedia mentions a study in Germany where half of the cabs had ABS brakes and the other half did not. The accident rate between the two groups remained the same. Why? Because the ABS group took more chances/risk betting that the better brakes would keep them out of trouble.

On a kayaking mailing list this idea pops up from time to time in regard to skills and safety equipment.

How many people go hiking in remote areas who are not in shape, can't read a map, and don't know how to use a compass. But they have a cell phone so they are "safe." If they get into trouble the helocopter will come and get them. Is this Risk Homeostasis and/or just being stupid.

Later,
Dan

 

[RobJ]

If these kids wreck that car, what happens, the insurance company buys them a better car to replace it. Not much incentive to NOT have an accident

I know my insurance doesn't work like this. Pretty sure auto doesn't have replacement cost. Buy a $10000 car, drive one year, total car, insurance might pay $7000 since it's value has dropped. Guess who makes up the diff on a "better" car. Kid, Mom, Dad. Plus insurance goes up to boot. In my house kids start riding the bus!! But many people with more money than brains.

 

[EddieWalker]

The accident rate between the two groups remained the same. Why? Because the ABS group took more chances/risk betting that the better brakes would keep them out of trouble.

This reminds me of a study that was just in the news about the low fat meals that resturants serve. It found that people at more food when they think they are eating less calories. In reality, they tend to eat more calories and actualy gain weight when eating diet foods. Just one more example of people who invent their own versions of reality.

Eddie

 

[RobJ]

This reminds me of a study that was just in the news about the low fat meals that resturants serve. It found that people at more food when they think they are eating less calories. In reality, they tend to eat more calories and actualy gain weight when eating diet foods. Just one more example of people who invent their own versions of reality.

Eddie

I'd be willing to bet that these are people who already eat to much and really can't stop themselves. In other words, already overweight people. My 15yo who weighs 92# and is about 5'7 ate 2 turkey burgers (I agree less fat they say), but with some fries and some brownies for dessert. No one fusses when skinny people eat to much. She also swims about 2 hours a day.

A lady at one of our companies got that lap-band treatment. It's working on her.

 

[RayH]

I know my insurance doesn't work like this. Pretty sure auto doesn't have replacement cost. Buy a $10000 car, drive one year, total car, insurance might pay $7000 since it's value has dropped. Guess who makes up the diff on a "better" car. Kid, Mom, Dad. Plus insurance goes up to boot. In my house kids start riding the bus!! But many people with more money than brains.

Agreed.
More accurately, I should've said - they tear up one car, the insurance company buys them another and mom and dad pay the higher insurance.

 

[RayH]

There is the theory, key word theory, called Risk Homeostasis.

Risk homeostasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikepedia mentions a study in Germany where half of the cabs had ABS brakes and the other half did not. The accident rate between the two groups remained the same. Why? Because the ABS group took more chances/risk betting that the better brakes would keep them out of trouble.

On a kayaking mailing list this idea pops up from time to time in regard to skills and safety equipment.

How many people go hiking in remote areas who are not in shape, can't read a map, and don't know how to use a compass. But they have a cell phone so they are "safe." If they get into trouble the helocopter will come and get them. Is this Risk Homeostasis and/or just being stupid.

Later,
Dan

I wasnt familiar with the German study but Im glad to see Im not the only one who subscribes to this theory.