# Re: Bad driving [Was: Re: Cupholders & Americans] [long]

```> (nn percent of crashes involved the driver at fault being in age group
> xx-yy)
> Age	Percent
> 16-24	25%
> 25-34	24%
> 35-44	21%
> 45-54	14%

> Wait, what's that?  There's not much of a difference until you hit
> 45...the oh-so-mature 25-34 segment just barely edges out the
> serial-killer-on-wheels teenagers.  That's 1%...and we're only 4% over
> the 35-44 wise-and-tired group.

You are being just as guilty of trying to use statistics to prove
your point.  Those numbers are meaningless without the number of
miles driven by the age group in question.  Ie, if the 16-24 age group
is driving half as many miles as the others, think again about
your conclusion.  You don't have enough data here...

Furthermore, if you are trying to relate this to insurance rates,
then you have to look at the severity of the crash and the insurance
payout.  Find total insurance payout due to driver at fault by age group
and if that shows the same trend as above, you would have a point.

> But wait, let's look at some more measures of "maturity."  How 'bout
> alcohol involvement [2]?

> (Of all crashes in age group, what percent of them involved alcohol).

> Age	Alcohol inv.
> 16-24	27.2%
> 25-34	31.1%
> 35-44	27.3%
> 45-54	18.9%

> "All of those drunk teenagers, with no respect for the law, endangering
> the lives of others."  Oh, wait.....

Look at that 16-24 another way.  Only 21-24 are actually allowed to
drink... how do you think that 27% would split between 16-20 and 21-24?
50% for each?  Mostly 21-24?  It wouldn't look too good in the latter
case would it... 27% for a 4 year range vs 31 for a 10 range.

"lies, damn lies, and statistics..."  Be careful with pulling out
numbers like this.  They can and do get twisted to show the
opposite of what you intended...

Orin.

```