4 ms·
I'm not sure about your takeaway from that link. In the Summary: "For example, the results of this study suggest that if a randomly-selected driver in his or t
by digikata 12y ago
I'm not sure about your takeaway from that link. In the Summary:
"For example, the results of this study suggest that if a randomly-selected driver in his or thirties and a randomly-selected driver aged 85 or older were to drive equal numbers of miles, the older driver would be over 1500% more likely than the younger driver to be responsible for and die as a result of a crash, and about 220% more likely than the younger driver to kill an occupant of another vehicle or a non-motorist.
However, drivers in their thirties drive approximately 217% more miles on average than drivers aged 85 and older do. Without statistical adjustment for what occurs naturally, a randomly-selected driver aged 85 or older is about 720% more likely than a randomly selected driver aged 30 to 39 to die in a crash, but only about 0.8% more likely to kill an occupant of another vehicle or a non-motorist, over the course of a year."
I haven't gone back to review what the author means exactly by "statistical adjustment for what occurs naturally"
- Retric 12y agoThese statistics get very tricky as older people are more likely to die in an identical crash causing identical trauma. Older drivers drive at different times of day, have different passenger profiles, and drive different cars. However, in the end 85+ year old drivers are simply less safe than 16 year old drivers. The issue is quantifying how much less safe they are.
- digikata 12y agoI guess I am confused then about the statement that "[Seniors 85+ are] only about 0.8% more likely to kill an occupant of another vehicle or a non-motorist, over the course of a year." Through some sort of statistical interpretation.