🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:59:05 -0400, Aeoleus <osiris@net-link.net>
wrote:

>
>Don't you know?  The 16-25 demographic has a less percentage of auto
>accidents than one demographic - people 50 and over.  Don't discriminate
>by age, and don't act like you know what you're talking about when you
>don't.
>
This stat is, however, is quiet misleading. I believe you will find
the truth is the 16-25 year old group have a the most severe
accidents. 

1) You have lumped a  group of individuals from a select age group
(only 9 years) against a group of folks who could easily span 25-30
years as drivers. In other words there are a LOT more drivers in the
older group, hence there will be more accidents.

2) The older group has more driving privileges than do the younger
group, hence there will be more accidents. (There are about twenty
different reasons for this: income, vehicle ownership, more extended
work miles, significantly extended recreation miles, etc. etc. etc.)

In conclusion while there are probably more accidents in the 50+ group
than in the 16-25 group. I wouldn't expect any other result. I think a
comparison of accidents per mile driven between the two groups would
definitely favor the 50+ group. As would the number of traffic
fatalities per mile driven. 

While I personally hate most insurance companies, the fact remains
that they have too large a group of folks who track this stuff to be
wrong. In their case it's all about profit. They are not going to let
themselves get burned. They charge me $400 more a year because I added
a teenager, cause that's what the average cost spread across the
insured pool is. 

In other words the statistic is not relevant and not accurate, while
probably truthful.



Sincerely,
Bill Sheehan
remove the .nospam if you don't want it bounced back to you.