6 ms·

Well you already fell for it. How could you possibly know if you're better than average without keeping track and comparing with other drivers in a scientific m

Well you already fell for it. How could you possibly know if you're better than average without keeping track and comparing with other drivers in a scientific manner? For all you know, the bad drivers you see make up one tenth of one percent (made up figure), making the majority of below average drivers people who have never been pulled over or in an accident.

baddox 12y ago
> How could you possibly know if you're better than average without keeping track and comparing with other drivers in a scientific manner? Did you read the two definitions of "average" I posted above? Under the second definition, if we go by traffic accidents, I am clearly better than average, because I have been in zero traffic accidents (as a driver). Since you seem to be going by the first definition, I'm curious how you are distinguishing drivers that all have a perfect driving record.
- drewbug 12y ago
  How do you know that most drivers have been in at least one traffic accident?
  - jamestnz 12y ago
    It's not necessary that most other drivers have had an accident for most people to have had below the average number of accidents. Consider a population of 100 drivers, none of whom have ever had a traffic accident. The average number of accidents per driver is therefore zero. Suddenly, two of them collide. Now, 2/100 drivers have had an accident, and 98/100 drivers have still never had an accident. The average number of accidents per driver is now therefore 0.02. Since 98/100 drivers have had 0 accidents, but the average number of accidents per driver is 0.02, then 98% of drivers have had below the average number of accidents.
    - drewbug 12y ago
      Ah, I see now. That makes sense. Thank you.
  - RogerL 12y ago
    He knows that some have. Thus, the average # of accidents per person is greater than zero. His # is zero. Hence, he is better than average by that measure. I don't think that is a good measure or way of thinking about it, but it is mathematically correct.
    - baddox 12y ago
      What do you think a better measure would be?
  - baddox 12y ago
    In fact, I guessed that most drivers haven't been in one traffic accident.
taeric 12y ago
Isn't that the point? If you define "bad" as "has accidents or tickets" than many more than half of drivers could correctly say they are better than that.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  I would also define slow and erratic drivers or drivers that make a lot of mistakes as bad.
  - taeric 12y ago
    Right, but even then. You could back yourself into a situation where you say "makes fewer erratic/slow choices than the average driver." Which, again, could get you there.

baddox 12y ago

> How could you possibly know if you're better than average without keeping track and comparing with other drivers in a scientific manner? Did you read the two definitions of "average" I posted above? Under the second definition, if we go by traffic accidents, I am clearly better than average, because I have been in zero traffic accidents (as a driver). Since you seem to be going by the first definition, I'm curious how you are distinguishing drivers that all have a perfect driving record.

drewbug 12y ago
How do you know that most drivers have been in at least one traffic accident?
- jamestnz 12y ago
  It's not necessary that most other drivers have had an accident for most people to have had below the average number of accidents. Consider a population of 100 drivers, none of whom have ever had a traffic accident. The average number of accidents per driver is therefore zero. Suddenly, two of them collide. Now, 2/100 drivers have had an accident, and 98/100 drivers have still never had an accident. The average number of accidents per driver is now therefore 0.02. Since 98/100 drivers have had 0 accidents, but the average number of accidents per driver is 0.02, then 98% of drivers have had below the average number of accidents.
  - drewbug 12y ago
    Ah, I see now. That makes sense. Thank you.
- RogerL 12y ago
  He knows that some have. Thus, the average # of accidents per person is greater than zero. His # is zero. Hence, he is better than average by that measure. I don't think that is a good measure or way of thinking about it, but it is mathematically correct.
  - baddox 12y ago
    What do you think a better measure would be?
- baddox 12y ago
  In fact, I guessed that most drivers haven't been in one traffic accident.

taeric 12y ago

Isn't that the point? If you define "bad" as "has accidents or tickets" than many more than half of drivers could correctly say they are better than that.

bitJericho 12y ago
I would also define slow and erratic drivers or drivers that make a lot of mistakes as bad.
- taeric 12y ago
  Right, but even then. You could back yourself into a situation where you say "makes fewer erratic/slow choices than the average driver." Which, again, could get you there.