Interesting, Stephen. Let's see--the initial question is which group (seniors or others) have the highest accident rates. The answer is that seniors are safer drivers. Let's try an analogy to that one:
Serial killers are: a. Less likely to be considered murderers than other killers. b. Have a 10% higher murder rate than non-serial killers. c. Have a 25% higher murder rate than non-serial killers. d. Have a 50% higher murder rate than non-serial killers. e) Are exceeded in murder rate only by absolute dictators. If the analogy is correct, "a" is the right answer. And that happens to be true. Serial killers ARE less likely to be considered murderers. They are less seldom arrested or convicted because they have no known motive or relationship to the victim and often have higher than normal intelligence and educations. And if one is not even arrested for a crime, one is certainly not considered to have committed it! Does that mean that a serial killer is less likely to kill people than a non-serial killer? Of course not, that's absurd! Now let's look at your data. Are seniors likely to: "a. Drive as safely or more safely than any other age group?" Sure. Any study will demonstrate that seniors drive more slowly, come to complete stops at lights (sometimes green, usually red), use turn signals, and drive at substantially lower speeds. But does that mean that they are _responsible_ for less accidents or merely that they are not _involved_ in as many accidents? Driving well below the speed limit (very common among seniors) will reduce the likelihood that an individual will be involved in a serious accident. Try it yourself. Get on the freeway and drive at 40 MPH (64 KPH). You won't be as likely to hit anyone. You will also be passed by every driver who comes up behind you. No problem, there are multiple lanes for that to occur. Now do the same thing on a winding rural road. The same result will occur--only those passing you will not have a dedicated lane to do so, they will be on the opposite side of the road and will be far more likely to be involved in an accident. Was that your fault? Of course not, YOU were driving safely, right? Coming to a complete stop at a green light will prevent you from ever being hit from the side by someone running a red light. That's a good thing and increases your likelihood of not being involved in an accident. Try it. Seniors often can see better--not worse--than others on the road at night. Why? Because they far less often dim their headlights when a car is approaching, and thus have more visible light to use in viewing the road. That one is a good thing too, right? Seniors, except in their own areas (where they know the roads well from experience), seldom drive on secondary roads if a major highway is available. That means they are more likely to drive on roads that are safer--even if their own habits tend to reduce the safety for others. Seniors tend to drive less miles, drive less often under poor traffic conditions (if you are retired you don't have to drive to a job site in bad weather), drive larger vehicles with more resistance to damage in an accident (try hitting a Cadillac with a GEO and see which one has the most damage), and ignore the responses of other drivers who may urge them to speed up or pull over, etc. (all less safe activities than simply driving at a constant pace). Seniors also tend to under-report their accidents to avoid both insurance increases and required re-testing of their driving skills or vision--which many fear they would not pass. Much of the data for your "test" is based on newspaper reports, not research. If we are to accept that data as a legitimate source of scientific determination that a fact is true, we must do so in cases other than senior driving alone. Therefore: * Elvis is alive. He has been seen in more public places in recent years (according to the largest circulation news weekly in the United States--the Weekly World News) than has Celine Dion. * There are yeti and space aliens living in the Himalayas--both under the control of ascended spirit masters. * If the liberal politicians in the United States succeed in implementing universal health care for all citizens, the level of medical care received by individuals will drop below that of third world nations, as is the case in Canada today. * College professors live in an "ivory tower" world where abstract concepts replace facts and any conception of the real concerns of individuals living a day to day life is completely absent. * There have been over 100,000 alien abductions in the US alone in the last 20 years; the USAF is still hiding the existence of the bodies of crashed space aliens; the US has a 'doomsday' bomb planted somewhere in Wyoming that, if exploded, will cause a shock wave that will crack the planet in half and is the real reason the USSR never attacked the US; AIDS will kill more Americans in 2010 than all other diseases combined (but will be cured in 2009); an artificial brain will be available by 2025 and will allow an individual to have his or her memories and personality transferred to it instantly, providing the basis for an android body that can replace the human body and last 200 years without damage (but by then life extension will allow humans to live to be 500 anyway). * Marijuana is a gateway drug; if you smoke it you WILL use heroin (which will addict you instantly); people who use PCP can feel no pain, they have even run long distances with a compound fracture of the leg (let's see you STAND with one, let a lone run--think "knee meets hip"); pot smokers have to steal and deal hard drugs to support their "marijuana addiction." ALL of these are statements that appear in the press (some in mainstream sources at least as "reliable" as those cited in the UK), thus if the "study" you cite is valid and should be accepted by us, so should these statements. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . Are you sure it's your STUDENTS who should get an "F" if they chose to question your test? Rick -- Rick Adams. Capella University Grand Canyon University Jackson Community College [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love you leave behind when you're gone." -Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible" -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 10:33 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Crash test I asked: Drivers of age 65 or older: a) drive as safely or more safely than any other age group b) have a 10% higher accident rate than any other age group c) have a 25% higher accident rate than any other age group d) have a 50% higher accident rate than any other age group e) are exceeded in accident rate only by the youngest (under age 21) drivers You sent me 18 replies. Unfortunately, only a mere 4 or 22% of the responses had the correct answer, which was (a). I therefore regret to inform most of you that you are crash test dummies, which, as Dave Barry is fond of saying, would be a great name for a rock band. For those with the correct answer, you should be proud! I must also protest the unfortunate tone of some of your remarks. I've been told that the answer "would depend" (Chris Green), that the test was "no fair" (Lenore Frigo), that I was "mean" (Tim Shearon), that there was "a catch" (David Campbell), that I needed to "define [my] terms" and had "something up my sleeve" (David Epstein), and that "it might be a trick question" (Miguel Roig). Honestly, do your students give you such grief? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked. And I must remind you that there are no trick questions, only trick answers. Further to the data, a disturbing 33% of you were unclear on the requirements of answering a multiple-choice question and provided either no response or more than one. Do I have to remind you that this is a forced-choice procedure, and if you don't choose one and only one response, you get zero? And Annette, didn't I say "no googling?" How are you going to get anywhere in education if you won't follow simple instructions? Fortunately, your googling led you into error, which serves you right. The results summary: Based on all responses (n = 18) a) = 22% b) = 0% c) = 0% d) = 6% e) = 39% other = 33% Omitting "other' responses (n = 12), which richly deserve their zero: a) = 33% b) = 0% c) = 0% d) = 8% e) = 58% My justification. We've all seen the news reports of elderly people plowing into pedestrians (there was a bad case in Los Angeles last year, and another in Montreal), and these are inevitably followed by calls for getting old folks off the road. So I was surprised to discover t'aint necessarily so. My source is the authoritative British Medical Journal ("Are the media running elderly drivers off the road?", 2005, 330: 368 (February 12). Unfortunately, I see that I've just been caught by the new and regrettable policy of BMJ to restrict access after one week, so I can't sent you there as I was intending to. I guess I'll just have to copy it out for you by hand. Bother! And please remember that I know nothing about this matter beyond what it says in the article. Don't shoot the messenger. Stephen ----------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
