Cheaper Car Insurance For Gamers

I know your first reaction is that this story is gonna be an ad, but SpuriousLogic's story is actually about insurers considering giving a discount to elderly gamers. The question is: does gaming improve mental agility and make you a safer driver? And if so, I'll have to add gaming to mowing the lawn for my weekly chores.

Comments

Spelling Nazi Attack!

[pm_rat_poison]

ad? As in advertisement? I'm pretty sure you mean add!
Spelling Nazi Strikes Again!!!

Re:Spelling Nazi Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

No he meant ADD/ADHD. You know, that faux disorder also known as "too much sugar and not enough discipline..."

Re:Spelling Nazi Attack!

[Kentaree]

No, pretty sure he meant ad as in advertisement...

Re:Spelling Nazi Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are as dumb as a nigger and as greedy as a kike.

Re:Spelling Nazi Attack!

[pm_rat_poison]

Spelling Nazis were successful! The affront to spelling canon has been rectified!

Re:Spelling Nazi Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

niggers own ur women and kikes ur wallet. what do you have left - harrowing, encroaching bitterness, the taste of nigger semen lingering on your tongue when you kiss your magnificent whore of a wife, a feeling of indelicate confusion when yor son comes out slightly darker than you thought he would (with a bigger penis) and the inevitable decline of your kind into decay and obsolescence. good night and good luck.

it's our time now. the white house is next. LOL

Re:Spelling Nazi Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think he meant anus. As in ASS.

It make sense to me

[yttrstein]

...as elderly gamers probably spend very little time in their cars.

Re:It make sense to me

[Bob-taro]

...as elderly gamers probably spend very little time in their cars.

Mod parent up. I was going to try to post something funny, but I don't think I can top that.

Re:It make sense to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, since grampy started playing GTA4 he's spent more time in [stolen] cars!

Re:It make sense to me

[mmalove]

Well, I'm already a gamer.

And this morning, I'm feeling kinda elderly. What the heck, sign me up!

Re:It make sense to me

[Anonymous Coward]

My grandma plays video games all the time. She has me beat in number of console games she owns.

Re:It make sense to me

[OldSoldier]

Maybe for elderly gamers, but when I read the title I was wondering if the story would go to young gamers and I believe for them there is no correlation between gaming skill and beginning driving ability.

Back when my 17 year old son was driving for the first time we were at a left turn stop light and it was green, but not a green turn arrow. He slowly started pulling out to make the turn. He had plenty of time to make it through the intersection before the car in the on-coming lane got to the intersection, but my son was moving uncharacteristically slowly through the intersection. I told him to go faster. I had to say this several times till the point where the on-coming car was well within my personal "danger zone". He finally started going, no incident at all and I asked him about it once we were in the clear. He said that he did not see that on coming car at all. He was paying "hyper" attention to his turn radius.

Anyway, the up shot is that I would have thunk that a kid who can kick my butt at FPSs would have the ability to scan a "real life" scene and similarly be aware of all the action out there.

Apparently not.

Re:It make sense to me

[Anonymous Coward]

GTA: Farmer's Market

Re:It make sense to me

[steelfood]

Different games require different mental "modes" to perform well in them. For example, both FPS's and driving games promote fast reflexes. But for FPS's, your view is forward, and hence intense concentration of "forward" gets promoted, a tunnel vision of sorts. For racing games, and especially something like Mario Kart, you need a greater awareness of the situation around you. The same concepts apply to turn-based and realtime strategy games.

So I'll bet if someone runs out onto the road in front of your son while he's driving, he'll respond very quickly. Now, whether that's hitting the brake hard or hitting the gas hard is a separate matter...

Re:It make sense to me

[OldSoldier]

You may be right about the "mental modes" idea, but I got the distinct impression from both asking him and recalling my own early driving experiences that the bigger factor was "real-life".

I think my son focused too much on the "immediate" danger, hitting the curb or hitting the car on the side street he was turning into (exacerbated by me being in the car with him), that he completely ignored "2nd tier" dangers: the oncoming car.

The "mode" I think helps with this sort of driving is the "wide awareness" mode. And I think that for kids there's a big chasm to be crossed between that in a video game and that in real-iife-with-significant-consequences (car accident).

For elderly drivers they should already know how to get into the "wide awareness in real life" mode, what they're lacking is practice and/or need more practice to keep it as sharp as they were in their youth. And "wide awareness in game life" helps with that.

In other words, it may be the case that once you got it games help you keep it, but games don't help you get it in the first place.

Re:It make sense to me

[ljgshkg]

When one first learn driving, he'd concentrate more on trying to master the basics skill of driving and "get the feel" of turning, speeding up, stopping, etc. That can easily result in a overly concentrated situation where he's not paying enough attention to the outside environment, especially when he's doing "special moves" like turning corner instead of on a straight road.
I don't know about you, but I can still remember I'm overly concentrated like your son when I first started to learn driving. And that does NOT mean his ability to scan a real life scene is actually not as good as you. You've been driving for years, the basic driving techniques have all become "natural movements" for you, allowing you (and me) to pay much attention outside. However, for a first learner, controlling a car is definitely not natural. It is very natural that he paid most of his concentration on something he's trying to learn and missed the "external" environment (which is very important, of course).

Re:It make sense to me

[An anonymous Frank]

The first time I made a turn in a car, I was moving the stirring wheel and watching the result, then moving the wheel(s) again, rinse-and-repeat; therefore taking forever and losing track of anything else going on.

I was told to stop staring at the car and look where I was going, thus breaking the near-hypnotic draw that the maneuver seemed to have on me.

So yes, it might have taken some effort to break him out of his trance, but then again, "go faster" might have sounded like it would merely increase risk (to him).

Anyhow, being in a completely new situation, be it in a game or at an intersection, is always going to require more CPU.

Re:It make sense to me

[flappinbooger]

The on-coming car was not shooting at him.

Re:It make sense to me

[Net_fiend]

I would not take one instance and make that the case for an entire set of people. However, if it were several cases of several different people of the same age group, then I might consider it.

In my opinion my hand/eye coordination along with depth perception is higher than the average Joe due to gaming from an early age. It is my understanding this is why most older people fail at driving later on. The other reason would be reflexes.

I know most people who would be opposed to this will end up being folks in their 30s/40s/50s as that age group seems to think they're god at driving or some nonsense. I'm not wonderful, but I can at least admit it (I'm 25). However, everyday I see idiots on the drive to work. I won't explain the details, but needless to say if most used common sense half the back up wouldn't happen in the first place.

Just remember the left lane is for passing (eg speeding) not going poky or the speed limit or even using your determined "safe" fast speed on your cruise control. That is why there is a middle and right lane, use'em. Hell, I even get out of the way if I'm in the left lane and not going fast enough for those behind me. Its a given and a courtesy to others on the road.

Re:It make sense to me

[Da Cheez]

Anyway, the up shot is that I would have thunk that a kid who can kick my butt at FPSs would have the ability to scan a "real life" scene and similarly be aware of all the action out there.

It may also not be so much an issue of situational awareness, but also the learning curve of a control method he's not as familiar with. If he was driving for the first time he probably wasn't use to using a wheel and foot pedals to control a vehicle. It's kind of like when learning a new game that uses a significantly different control scheme than what you're use to. You may miss some things that are happening onscreen because you're too busy figuring out how to lean and throw a grenade simultaneously.

Re:It make sense to me

[omfglearntoplay]

Part of the learning process is filtering out extra information to become really good at task X. Unfortunately, sometimes that means not seeing another car when you are learning to drive.

Re:It make sense to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmmm... anecdotal evidence, the BEST kind of evidence!

Re:It make sense to me

[Anonymous Coward]

It actually doesn't matter what the task is, we all need to learn it and dedicate some portion of our mental energy towards it. In a popular motorcycle racing book this is called spending your $10 worth.

When you're new to doing whatever you're doing, you'll spend a lot of your $10 on thinking about doing the actual task, and this will hamper other tasks.

As you get more used to the task, you will spend less and less of your $10 till it almost takes none.

Your son (my guess is) was VERY new to driving, and so he was focused on steering radiuses and actually manuvering, as opposed to other people and signs and similar.

As he gets more practice, this will take less and less and then he'll be doing it fine. Although some people have a better learning capacity than others, where they realize what they are doing is suboptimal and take action to correct it.

This is how we get bad drivers, but most drivers reach a pretty good level, and the only times they actually crash or similar, are forced errors, or scenarios which they have been through very often.

Re:It make sense to me

[lpq]

Low mileage is another factor in reducing rates.

Re:It make sense to me

[easyTree]

The "mode" I think helps with this sort of driving is the "wide awareness" mode. And I think that for kids there's a big chasm to be crossed between that in a video game and that in real-iife-with-significant-consequences (car accident).

Together with the GP's comment, this is an argument for multi-monitor games - so that the peripheral vision gets some exercise too.

Re:It make sense to me

[jamesh]

I'd been driving for about 5 years when the following happened. I attended a weekend 'lan party', arrived Friday night, helped set up until about midnight, slept until about 7am, then played games until 8am the following morning, then drove home (~180km trip).

I'm not sure how much of a factor each of no sleep, too much jolt cola, and playing counterstrike non-stop for 6 hours had, but I swear that every parked car by the side of the road was pulling out right in front of me. I drove home very carefully :)

Having a nap wasn't an option... I just can't do it. It doesn't matter if i'm out partying until 6am, once I wake up at some time between 7am and 9am, I just can't go back to sleep again.

Either way, insurance companies play the numbers game. If they can identify a certain group of people that, statistically (and they have heaps of data to draw conclusions from) are more likely to have an accident then they have no problems charging higher premiums. The rest of the world may have a problem if, say, the demographic was blonde woman with large breasts, but for the most part they can do whatever they want. It's interesting seeing them identifying a demographic to offer lower premiums to though...

Re:It make sense to me

[Anonymous Coward]

after a few years of pc driving games, taking off without stalling was the challenge of learning to drive. Hair pins at 50 miles an hour on a metal road were easy

not really

[ILuvRamen]

You can't just say "gaming." Playing GTA or a racing games might improve your driving and first person shooters might improve your reaction time but puzzle games or solitaire won't do anything for you.

Re:not really

[AdrocK]

Puzzle games won't help you with your mental agility? I would think they would at least a bit. Maybe they wouldn't do as much for reaction times as a racing game, but neither does a reading book, which has been proven to keep an aging mind sharp.

Re:not really

[somersault]

I've been playing WipEout HD a lot this week - I'm in the top 40 in the global rankings for some of the events, surely that entitles me to some kind of insurance discount!?

And as for GTA, I don't aim for the pedestrians like some people do, so that has to count for something :)

Avoiding accidents is rarely about reaction time. If you have to react to something in front of you, then you've already been making some bad decisions in the previous moments. Real life driving is not like a racing game (says the guy who was banned from driving for 3 months when he got caught at 114mph in March this year).

Re:not really

[Krinsath]

With apologies to Ron White:

"Real life driving is not like a racing game, and I'm quoting a judge on this one"

Re:not really

[tom17]

I'm driving along a 40 limit road, at a cautious 30 when someone cluelessly drives into my path from a blind junction where they have no right of way. *I REACT* to this by slowing down and avoiding said stupid driver, thus making a non-situation of it. As I reacted, according to you, I had done something wrong or I wouldn't have had to. What bad decisions had I made previously? Except driving on the public roads in the first place, that is.

Likewise, I react to someone cutting into my lane too close by backing off a bit. What did I do wrong in this instance?

Just hypothetical questions :)

Tom...

Re:not really

[BlackSnake112]

Considering the article talks about a game where fish hide stuff and you have to find the matching items, they are talking about memory and not reaction times.

So if get your older friends one of those mind/memory games for their next birthday.

Re:not really

[Not_Wiggins]

I'm driving along a 40 limit road, at a cautious 30 when someone cluelessly drives into my path from a blind junction where they have no right of way. *I REACT* to this by slowing down and avoiding said stupid driver, thus making a non-situation of it. As I reacted, according to you, I had done something wrong or I wouldn't have had to. What bad decisions had I made previously?

Well, for starters, unless there's reason to be driving under the speed limit (snow? rain?), I find it is generally dangerous in the U.S. to drive slower than the posted speed limit. Of course, this will vary by state (some states, few speed... others, you have to "keep up with traffic").

But generally, I've found that driving under the posted speed limit is more dangerous because people will come up on you from behind not expecting you to be a rolling roadblock.

Of course, as your reaction time slows (as one gets older) those drivers tend to slow down to allow themselves more time to react (as in the scenario you've described). But I think on the whole, driving this way creates more opportunities for accidents then it prevents. Right or wrong, driving more slowly is going to piss people off, and they'll tend to want to get around you. The more maneuvers going on around YOUR car (ie, people cutting you off because they are impatient with your speed), the more you'll likely get into accidents.

Ask yourself this: which happens more frequently? A driver pulls out into your lane and you t-bone him because you can't stop in time OR someone cuts you off because they're in a hurry (whether you're driving slowly or not).

I believe the latter happens more frequently and leads to more accidents... so any behavior that "encourages" it will naturally lead to more accidents.

Re:not really

[CasperIV]

Avoiding accidents is rarely about reaction time. If you have to react to something in front of you, then you've already been making some bad decisions in the previous moments. Real life driving is not like a racing game (says the guy who was banned from driving for 3 months when he got caught at 114mph in March this year).

That's not true at all. As someone who has commuted to work for years and participates in autoracing, I can tell you that reaction absolutely matters. Currently most of the traffic collisions we have on our roads are caused by people who are distracted and do not react in time to prevent themselves from fumbling into things. If people actually were paying attention and trained in the skill of driving, as opposed to just taught regulations, our road system would have far fewer problems.

People love to blame speed, visibility, surface conditions, etc, for their failures as a driver, but the physics behind your driving isn't what failed to keep the automobile under control. It was your lack of attention and ability.

PS: Stumbling along under the speed limit and obstructing traffic doesn't make you safer than the person passing everyone. It just makes it slightly easier for other drivers to dodge your mistakes. Likewise, driving fast doesn't make you more skilled.

Re:not really

[apathy maybe]

I really don't understand all this crap from US posters about how you should drive at the speed limit, or even faster(!).

Take your reason, someone might be driving the speed limit and not notice "a rolling roadblock". What are they? Blind? When driving, you should always be aware of what cars are near by. And if you are driving along, and you are approaching a car, it is pretty damn obvious that you are going faster then them...

You therefore, take your foot of the accelerator and access the situation, and then decide whether it is safe to pass, or whatever.

Where I'm from learners have to have a big L displayed, and must drive a maximum of 80 kilometres per hour (or the speed limit, whichever is lower). But of course, because they are learners, they often drive slower then the speed limit, even if they don't have to.
It would be very rare for people to get upset at these learners, whether they are on a highway or a city street.

OK, that's one reason why someone might be driving slower, what if they don't know the area? What if they are looking for a house number? What if there are children around? Maybe their breaks don't work so well and they are going to the mechanic? Maybe they just think, "well it's a nice day, no rush to go to work/home, I'll take my time"?

And if some idiot is driving along and cuts that slower driver off, who is at fault? The idiot driving fast and cutting off the slower driver.

Actually, while on the topic of cars, I've often see idiots talking about how they tailgate other drivers because the other drivers drive too slow. Yeah, and you know who is rightfully to blame in the event of a rear ending? The idiot doing the tailgating.

You should always leave enough space between yourself and the car in front to stop safely. If you can't, you aren't driving safely.

Basically, you should be driving safely, and if that means slowing down, then yeah, there isn't a problem with that. (The only case where you can complain legitimately about someone driving too slow is if they are more then about 20 km/h below the speed limit on a highway.)

Re:not really

[somersault]

I said it wasn't about reaction time (as in jet fighter pilot reactions type thing). You can be reactive sure, but it's better to be proactive and plan ahead. If your reactions or sight are so bad that you don't even notice when a driver is too close in front of you, you shouldn't be driving.

When I was doing my advanced driver training earlier this year*, we were taught to look at cars on junctions ahead of us, to make sure they were "safe and settled" and the like. You can make sure that a driver has seen you, and if not then slow down. Sure, you can just ignore him and then react if he pulls out, but superfast reaction times are very limited as a driving safety skill. You often react better to something if you are expecting it anyway.

* yep, kind of stupid that I just passed it in January then was caught speeding (for the first time ever, after years of speeding and no points) a couple of months later - especially annoying since I'd been driving a lot more sensibly in populated areas, but I made a choice to go quickly on the motorway to go help out a friend who needed a lift (awww, well now I've learned just to let people suffer for their own poor planning!).

Re:not really

[Khashishi]

"Right or wrong, driving more slowly is going to piss people off".
Ahh, this line betrays your true sentiment. If people can't avoid hitting you from behind when you are going 10 mph less than the speed limit, they don't belong on the road. It's not inherently dangerous to drive 30 in a 40 zone. The main danger is stupid folk getting pissed off and wanting to take it out on you.

Re:not really

[kyofunikushimi]

"...but puzzle games or solitaire won't do anything for you."

Puzzle games make you a better parallel parker?

Re:not really

[somersault]

That's not true at all.

Not at all?

Currently most of the traffic collisions we have on our roads are caused by people who are distracted and do not react in time

You should not let yourself become 'distracted' while driving - it is literally the most dangerous thing that most people do.

If people actually were paying attention

If you are paying attention you won't need to react quickly, which is my whole point. Go do some 'advanced' or 'defensive' driving courses or speak to some police drivers if you don't agree with me. I spent a week earlier this year with a guy who has been a police driving instructor for 36 years, and I learned a lot from the experience.

and trained in the skill of driving.. People love to blame speed, visibility, surface conditions, etc, for their failures as a driver, but the physics behind your driving isn't what failed to keep the automobile under control. It was your lack of attention and ability.

I can safely say that I am a skilled driver compared to most people on public roads. You are right that it is driver error causing problems in all these cases. Speed too great for the circumstances. If the surface or, visibility are bad, then it is the driver's responsibility to reduce their speed. A more skilled driver may be better able to control skids, but the whole point is that if you are driving according to the conditions, you will not skid in the first place (excepting perhaps micro-climates but that isn't a very common occurence, and if you hit a patch of ice at 70mph on a bend, no amount of driving skill will save you from crashing).

I was not advocating driving under the speed limit at all, apart from in appropriate situations, such as there being a row of parked cars by the side of the road and you already having noticed that there are kids playing, that kind of thing. When we were doing our advanced driving the instructor was telling the other student to drive faster a lot of the time ;) The first corner I came to on a country road he told me to slow down, but after that it was fine. I learned to drive out in the country and he commented that I had a smoother driving style than the other student, which was strange because it's usually girls who have a smoother driving technique. Our instructor was driving up at 110mph on a country road where safe (and mentioned that they had to drive at up to 150mph on motorways when safe when they are doing their instructor training, etc) just in case you think I think being a good driver is all about driving slowly. It's not. Building up driving skill is great and all - but the fact is you shouldn't ever need to correct a skid outside of a racetrack, if you are driving appropriately.

If you find you get distracted often then you should probably keep a running commentary of things like mirror observations, then roadsigns, traffic and corners ahead of you etc. Apparently police drivers still do that out looud in pursuit situations to help them stay more focused, and I just naturally do it after my week of driver training (we had to speak all our observations during the advanced driving test - I still go through everything in my head, though I perhaps forgot a couple of things during my 3 month ban).

Re:not really

[jefu]

Simple enough. There are those who want to drive fast, tailgate to get people away from them and so on. The reasons are not important, but typically they just figure that their time and choices are more important than anyone else's. And they'd like to be able to justify their decision to do so by making the fault lie squarely on the other guy. I have also noticed (as a passenger) that many aggressive drivers are frequently stressed and angry as they drive - so I wonder if this isn't some kind of positive feedback loop where the anger at others doing perfectly reasonable things gets turned back into self-justification so they have a right to get more angry and so on.

Me, I try to drive with traffic as much as possible, which in the US often means over the speed limit, but I try to be polite and not allow other drivers to get to me - even if they are aggressive tailgating bullies.

Re:not really

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

And as for GTA, I don't aim for the pedestrians like some people do, so that has to count for something :)

IF you want to beat that game, you'll spend time learning not to hit pedestrians. That's why I'd rather have a kid of mine play GTA instead of Crazy Taxi. You can't hit pedestrians in CT, but if you hit the in GTA, the cops chase you, thus delaying the ending of the game. Vice City was particularly bad about that with its "Let's race through the city with lots of drunk pedestrians!" mission.

Re:not really

[somersault]

When I said I learned to drive out in the country, I meant when I was first learning to drive, therefore I had a better driving style than someone who learned in a city - not that I only learned how to do high speed driving because of that course.. but I certainly felt more aware of my surroundings afterwards, and learned about looking for the 'limit point' on corners to tell how steep a curve is going to be.

It's amazing how you just don't notice roadsigns because you get so used to seeing them on a daily commute, and then you end up ignoring pretty much all the signs apart from speed limits and important junctions when travelling, etc. You can also keep an eye out for houses so you know there will be hidden entrances, etc (perhaps not such a problem in the US, but in Scotland there are little roads and houses all over the place).

Re:not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree in spades.

And if you are
A) In some kind of mad hurry to get somewhere RIGHT NOW
B) Unable to control your emotions because someone doesn't share your sense of urgency
C) Willing to risk lives by going around said 'obstacle' when it's not safe

then maybe you shouldn't be on the road...

Re:not really

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm driving along a 40 limit road, at a cautious 30 when someone cluelessly drives into my path from a blind junction where they have no right of way. *I REACT* to this by slowing down and avoiding said stupid driver, thus making a non-situation of it. As I reacted, according to you, I had done something wrong or I wouldn't have had to. What bad decisions had I made previously?

The mistake you made was driving too slow.

1 - You were leaving a large gap in front that he thought he could fit in to. Leaving a smaller gap between you and the cars in front would have discouraged him from trying to jump in like that.

2 - The other driver saw how slow you were moving and didn't want to be stuck behind anybody who drives like such a timid little bitch.

Re:not really

[mcgrew]

Well, for starters, unless there's reason to be driving under the speed limit (snow? rain?), I find it is generally dangerous in the U.S. to drive slower than the posted speed limit.

Have you had any wrecks or tickets in the last ten years? I haven't, yet I often travel the hundred miles south to St Louis at a leisurely 50MPH, fifteen MPH below the posted top limit and 10 MPH above the posted bottom limit. I do this because gasoline is sky-high; I get 5-7 MPG better at 50 than at the 68 I set my cruise to when gas is cheaper.

If you're doing 80 and I'm doing 50 and you hit me, you're going to hit me from behind. The law, the insurance industry and common sense all agree on one thing - you are at fault.

Of course, as your reaction time slows (as one gets older) those drivers tend to slow down to allow themselves more time to react

Careful drivers of all ages follow the "two second rule"; one car length for every ten MPH following distance. If you're driving a utulity vehicle you should allow even more room, because your stopping distance is longer. My sedan has four very big disk brakes, and I can stop in little more than HALF the distance of a Ford Explorer. I have so far avoided two accidents I would have surely gotten into in my last car (it was an '88 Chevy sedan) thanks to those brakes. If I'm on the highway at 65 mph (posted limit) and you're 3 car lengths behind me in your Explorer and a deer bounds in front of me, there's a very good chance I'll avoid collision with the deer. You, on the other hand, are going to give me whiplash when you rear ends me with your way too big, way too carelessly driven vehicle.

What's your driving record? Mine's clean [knocks on wood]

Re:not really

[evanbd]

Generally, the safest speed to be going is more closely related to what other drivers are doing and what they expect you to be doing than it is to the number on the sign. In most of the US, the norm is to go at or slightly over the speed limit. Whether this is silly or not (I think it is) is entirely beside the point -- if everyone expects you to be going 60 in a 55 zone, and they're all going 60, it's probably safest to be going at about 60. Obviously things like curves, weather, traffic, etc can be more important concerns when deciding what the safest speed to drive is.

Re:not really

[Not_Wiggins]

The main danger is stupid folk getting pissed off and wanting to take it out on you.

You're absolutely correct that that is one potential source of dangerous driving!

But, whether or not the person behind you is angry about your driving doesn't change the reality of people generally wanting to drive at least at the speed limit.

It doesn't matter if someone is angry when he's behind someone who is driving 10 mph under the speed limit if most people (angry or not) are going to try to go around that person. My main point was that "going around" someone is more dangerous than driving slowly so you can avoid accidents that require you to have more reaction time.

Even driving 10mph under the speed limit doesn't guarantee that you're going to avoid an accident... someone could just as easily cut you off then slam on the brakes no matter what speed you're cruising.

In fact, irrespective of speed, you'll get more mileage out of ensuring proper following distance than out of driving under the limit (pun intended ;) ).

Re:not really

[Miseph]

And actually wanting to get somewhere isn't a valid reason to drive? I thought the entire purpose of cars and roads were to get people quickly from point A to point B. I think if most people wanted to sit in the car and not get anywhere, they'd not bother even starting the engine.

If you want to drive below the speed limit then that's fine, but you're just being an inconsiderate ass if you let traffic pile up behind you. Pull over and let the people behind you go at the pace they wish to drive.

There are a lot of perfectly valid reasons to drive below the speed limit, and there are also perfectly valid reasons not to. But you're either lying or stupid if you think you're some kind of saint for driving slower than everyone else and being the "victim" of people who just want to get where they're going as soon as they can. Either pull over or move to Vermont (where at least you'll fit right in), but stop bitching about people who don't want to cater to your fear of actually going.

Re:not really

[somersault]

I don't remember that mission, though in San Andreas there was one where everyone was angry. I kept a save game slot just for that mission because it was fun to brawl :)

Perhaps that's why I avoid the pedestrians and other cars, but I think it's just more fun weaving around stuff, and I don't like beating up my nice shiny cars. Some people like to mangle pedestrians and just cause as much damage as possible even if that brings more cops round. Hell, even I very occasionally want to have a cop fight (though I think even then after getting over the novelty of it in the original GTA III, I only started fights in subsequent versions to steal tanks - I haven't even tried starting a big fight in GTA IV yet) - but yeah I get more of a kick out of driving as fast as possible (which means avoiding all obstacles), the missions, searching for items and evading the cops than I do from having all-out war.

Re:not really

[PitaBred]

So, going 5mph on a busy street is acceptable? If you don't know where you're going, pull over and look at a map. If you're going slow, stay out of other people's way. Just because you want (or need) to go slow does not entitle you to create a blockage for everyone else who needs to use the same roads you do.

Yes, you are allowed to drive slow. If you need to do so for safety, that's understandable. But you should also realize that you're being a complete asshole doing so, and should drive during times that aren't as heavy with traffic if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic. It's the whole tragedy of the commons idea... it only takes one asshole driving like an idiot to create a traffic jam for everyone else.

Re:not really

[jeschust]

When you're in college, you learn how to pinch pennies. I live about 90 miles from my university, the whole trip going along a northish-southish interstate. About 4 years ago, the state raised the posted speed limit to 70 mph. I used to drive about 75, 80 on this stretch, until it rained heavily one night and I did 60 the whole way. I went up from about 28 miles to the gallon to around 32. When I started going 10 miles under the limit in favorable conditions, I got about 36-37. There is absolutely nothing illegal about going 60 on a 70. I've been doing this in a Honda Del Sol, one of the most diminutive cars on the road. So far I haven't been rear ended. Most drivers, especially truckers, see my rate and react accordingly. As long as I stay in the right lane, I'm not holding anyone up or harming traffic flow. And frankly, if you get pissed off for having to react to my slow moving vehicle, I'll get a rise out of your irritation and keep on doing what I'm doing. Especially if you're driving a huge SUV or a BMW.

Re:not really

[Toad-san]

"I'm driving along a 40 limit road, at a cautious 30 when someone cluelessly drives into my path from a blind junction where they have no right of way. *I REACT* to this by slowing down and avoiding said stupid driver, thus making a non-situation of it."

Actually, when I was flying Warbirds (an online flight sim) (a lot!) ... I'd probably have done a fast high snap roll, dropped in on his six, and hammered his careless *ss with my 20mm ...

Oh wait ... damn, I'm not IN a FW190 am I? Bah bah bah ...

Toad
Virtual Fiter Pilut

Re:not really

[somersault]

I can tell that at least one moderator today is a complete dumbass of a driver..

Re:not really

[Drathos]

When I lived in the Florida panhandle, the speed limit on the main highway (I-10 - 2 lanes of traffic each way, very large median between*) was 70, with a posted minimum speed of 40. That's barely more than half the speed limit, and there's still a fairly significant number of people who go below it. Even with on-ramps sometimes being a mile long, with plenty of chance to accelerate up to the speed of traffic, people would STOP at the end of the on-ramp. Seeing behavior like this finally helped me understand how I was hearing about multiple car accidents blocking the highway on the radio every other week.

After moving to the DC area, I was shocked the first time I went on the Beltway (4+ lanes of traffic each way) where the speed limit is 55, yet the flow of traffic (outside of rush hour, when there is no flow) is closer to 70.

*I mention the median because sometimes I would hear about a single incident closing down the highway in both directions.

Re:not really

[geekoid]

If you had been driving 40 instead of 30 you wouldn't have been there for the close call.

Re:not really

[geekoid]

What happens is someone is driving slow in the passing lane, so people pass on the right;which is dangerous.

You could argue they shouldn't pass on the right, but that's not a practical expectation in th real world.

Really, someone shouldn't be holding up traffic becasue they just want to toodle there day away. However, There are perfectly good reasons to be driving slowly.

If someone is driving below the speed of traffic on a clear dry day with no one in front of them, they should move. In fact, there are laws saying so in many , if not all, states.

If you can not drive the speed limit under road conditions that would be reasonable to do so then you shouldn't be driving at all.

Re:not really

[Anonymous Coward]

"(The only case where you can complain legitimately about someone driving too slow is if they are more then about 20 km/h below the speed limit on a highway.)"

Exactly but I can't count how many cars I see every day on the freeway going at least fifteen MPH (bit over 20KPH if I got my math right) under the speed limit and the same issue with people on a 45MPH road traveling around 30MPH or sometimes less.

This is one of the reasons why those of us in the US complain about it is it is way too common. I probably pass at least one car every one to five miles traveling very slow.

This however is nothing compared to coming around a blind freeway corner to find an elderly driver driving half the speed limit...

(Then there are those traveling too slow "gabbing" on the cell phone as my capture brought up but that's a different story)

Re:not really

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand all this crap from US posters about how you should drive at the speed limit, or even faster(!).

While it's the slow driver's right to go as slow or fast as they damn well please, it's also the faster driver's right to drive the speed limit.

Who is the slower driver to think that he/she is more important and therefore can impede traffic at will? (On the contrary, who is the faster driver to think that he/she deserves to get from A to B faster than everyone else?)

In some cases this is solved by laws or regulations. For example, "slower traffic keep right." This is understood by many as just one of the "rules of the road," but when someone who is used to driving on roads where that regulation is obeyed, it's frustrating when they're driving along on their merry way (at the speed limit, even) and come up to Joe Q. Slowdriver who's dawdling around in the left lane on the highway looking at the pretty birds or, worse yet, distracted 'cause they're sending a text to their friend about the pretty bird they just saw.

This frustration is why us US posters say that you should drive the speed limit. Maybe it's unfounded, but there's something to be said for keeping your fellow drivers happy.

Re:not really

[merreborn]

I really don't understand all this crap from US posters about how you should drive at the speed limit, or even faster(!).

The common wisdom over here is that differences in speed are more dangerous than speed itself. So if most of us are doing the limit, and you're tooling along at 30 below, you're the biggest hazard on the road.

You can actually be ticketed for driving too slow in the US.

That's just how we do it here. Why? I'd guess it's related to our commuter culture. It's not that unusual for people to drive 20-50 miles every day, with a total commute time of 30 - 120 minutes. Our road infrastructure, and our driving style are based on that sort of frequent, long distance driving. Driving probably plays a different role in your country, and as such, has different rules.

Driving style is very much a cultural thing. Every major metropolitan area has its own, really. And you have to adapt to them as you encounter them. When you're in San Francisco, drive like a Californian. When you're in Patna, India, drive like you're in India. You have to play by the same rules everyone else on the road plays by. Attempting to apply one region's rules to another region is foolish, and dangerous.

Re:not really

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand all this crap from US posters about how you should drive at the speed limit, or even faster(!).

Having travelled and/or worked throughout much of Europe, I don't know WTF you are talking about. I've seen drivers pulled over and ticketed for being stupid enough to hold up traffic in the fast lane on a German Autobahn (a law that most of the states in the US have as well, though it is rarely enforced). I've ridden in taxis through Rome, Paris and Istanbul. I've ridden with coworkers in London heading to their local after a long day's work. For that matter I've seen sidewalks in London that have a "fast lane" painted on them so that people walking from the train station to their office can get through their day without a bunch of doddering tourists holding them up. The average driver on that side of the pond is simply moving much faster than the average driver in America.

The biggest reason you see Americans complain about people driving slower than the speed limit is that most American speed limits are simply too low. Especially in the eastern US where speed limits are more often based on non-safety criteria, whether revenue generation from speeding tickets or simply to make certain roads less appealling to through traffic. And when they based on safety criteria they are generally based on a lowest common denominator approach (what is safe for a half-blind, 90 year old who can't see over the dashboard of her large sedan) rather than a percentile approach (at what speed does traffic generally flow). The fact that police rarely ticket people unless they are going at least 10-15 mph over the posted limit is proof that the limits are not realistic.

Re:not really

[krnpimpsta]

Basically, you should be driving safely, and if that means slowing down, then yeah, there isn't a problem with that. (The only case where you can complain legitimately about someone driving too slow is if they are more then about 20 km/h below the speed limit on a highway.)

Or driving exactly at the speed limit in the middle of the road when every other car on the road is driving 20mph over, forcing everyone to swerve around. And alot of people end up passing on both sides - left and right, to get around the slow driver. Sure, the 100 people that pass the slow driver each may have made a risky move. But if you ask me, I put my blame on the one individual who is interrupting the flow of traffic for the 100 others and causing a hazard by not going with the flow. (I put my blame on him especially if he's doing it on purpose to try to force everyone else to align to his moral beliefs that you should never drive over the speed limit, but that's a rambling rant for another time.)

Re:not really

[NotBornYesterday]

Driving too fast or too slow falls somewhere between inconsiderate and antisocial, IMHO*. How you drive has an impact on others. I can easily avoid hitting you if you are a slow driver, but if your slow driving prevents me from picking up my kids on time, or getting to work on time, etc, you are an asshole.

If you can't safely drive the speed limit under good conditions, perhaps you shouldn't drive. If you won't drive the limit for whatever reason (gas economy, enjoying a leisurely drive, whatever), do so in a way that allows others to pass without undue delay. Stay to the right on a multi-lane road; if there is only one travel lane each way, pull over from time to time to let traffic pass.

Driving is a social thing. Regardless of your speed, you have to be aware of the rights and needs of others. Anything else is ignorance, arrogance, of a combination of both.

* Of course, there is always a boatload of caveats. Slow driving due to pedestrians, adverse conditions, etc, all makes perfect sense.

Re:not really

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand all this crap from US posters about how you should drive at the speed limit, or even faster(!).

(The only case where you can complain legitimately about someone driving too slow is if they are more then about 20 km/h below the speed limit on a highway.)

Safety wise the speed limit is there but you should be concerned more with the ambient speed of traffic. If traffic is doing 80MPH and you decide to get self righteous and merge in at the legal 45MPH highway minimum, you are the one causing the accidents whether the law says you are wrong or not. Likewise deciding to try to drive 55MPH because that is legal when traffic is doing 15MPH due to road conditions is equally dumb/dangerous.
Legally at fault and at fault are not related. Think of the slow drive who locks their breaks to "teach a tailgater a lesson!". They have just used lethal force against another person. If you do not think your vehicle is lethal force ask the 40K Americans who will die on the road this year.

And a final fun fact in the slow vs fast. The safest drivers drive in the 85 percentile of speed. That is right, they are speeders.

There are almost no accidents on American roads each year. There are however a whole lot of intentionals and stupids though.

Re:not really

[SL Baur]

Most drivers, especially truckers, see my rate and react accordingly.

The speed limit for big trucks is different than passenger vehicles. They always have a maximum speed limit of 55 whether or not it's posted. (Unless the laws have been changed or that was just a California-only law).

Re:not really

[sexconker]

I play Tetris while I drive.

Re:not really

[SL Baur]

You could argue they shouldn't pass on the right, but that's not a practical expectation in th real world.

In California, that's ticket bait and if a police officer sees you and has the opportunity, he will give you one. Of course all the freeways have copious numbers of Slower Traffic Keep Right signs.

Re:not really

[SL Baur]

The common wisdom over here is that differences in speed are more dangerous than speed itself.

Yup, but that's true anywhere.

Driving style is very much a cultural thing. ... And you have to adapt to them as you encounter them.

Adding another story to the list:

Speed limits on Philippine roads, even if they are posted, mean nothing because nearly no commercial vehicle, including all passenger buses, have working speedometers.

Commercial passenger traffic varies from the surplus bus recycled from Japan that goes at high speed, to the jeepney (recycled military vehicle from WWII) that goes at medium speeds, to the tricycle (three wheeled motorcycle with side car) that goes at very low speed.

I coped by taking out my GBA and shutting out the road. Large speed differences are dangerous, it's just that it's not illegal every where (until you have an accident).

Re:not really

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'll get home like 30 seconds after I would have!

MY PRECIOUS TIME HOW DARE YOU

Re:not really

[FrozenFOXX]

California-only (have a family with truckers in it) in your case. Depends entirely on the state and it gets rather complex sometimes. Indiana has a trucker-speed of about 50~55mph last time I checked whereas when they get to Virginia they can do the regular speed limit, minus hammer lane in many places. You also have different areas within states with different rules.

In short, the gp is correct. A trucker who's paying attention (and mercifully most do, at least to some degree) is probably going to have zero issue dealing with a slower vehicle in the far right lane, and that's hauling thousands of pounds in an enormous vehicle that's difficult to get to start and stop relative to a small passenger vehicle. If they can do it so can anyone else in a passenger vehicle with a license...and if they can't, they shouldn't be on the road.

Re:not really

[spire3661]

As long as Im not breaking the law, I will drive however I damn well please. IF I feel i need to go slower I will. If that means cars pile up behind, guess what , in my state we have laws stating you have to pull over and allow faster traffic to pass once the backup reaches a certain number of cars (3 or more I think). SO if I wanto t go slow I will, and when I am danger of breaking the law, I will comply. Just becasue you may have a BMW that can handle the road better then my Sentra doesnt mean you can dictate how I drive as long as im within the law.

Re:not really

[DaFallus]

I agree with most of what you have to say. The only thing I would add is that just because you have the legal right of way doesn't mean you can't also be an asshole. The main reason I see people tailgating others or on occasion find myself accidentally doing the same is because some jerk is driving 10 under the speed limit in the left lane. A lot of people seem to have this sense of moral superiority which goes something like "I'm in the left lane and going the speed limit so I don't care about anyone who wants to pass me because they are speeding anyway". The left lane is not for slower traffic. When someone is tailgating me I just change lanes and let them pass. I see a lot of people who think it is OK to just cruise in the left lane and block traffic. But I guess who can blame then when cops only give tickets for speeding and the process of obtaining a drivers license is such a joke.

Re:not really

[NotBornYesterday]

I'm not forcing anyone to drive a certain way; I simply see it as a reflection of their character. If whatever conditions dictate slower speed, that's fine. If you unreasonably and willfully obstruct other people's travel, you are being inconsiderate.

Let me ask you - if only two people were stuck behind you instead of three, would you pull over to let them pass? Technically, you are within the law, but let's say they've been back there for 15 minutes while you drive 10 under. Being within the law doesn't mean that you aren't being a jerk.

Just becasue you may have a BMW that can handle the road better then my Sentra doesnt mean you can dictate how I drive as long as im within the law.

Wouldn't dream of it. I don't have a BMW anyway. Disclaimer: I used to drive like a complete and total asshole. Speeding, weaving, tailgating, you name it. That changed when I had a family. Although I no longer speed, drive like a maniac, or let my emotions take control of my driving, it still irks me when I am slowed down without (as near as I can tell) good reason.

Re:not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively: if people can't avoid pissing off other drivers, than they don't belong on the road.

Re:not really

[Anonymous Coward]

"well it's a nice day, no rush to go to work/home, I'll take my time"

If you are in no rush and want to enjoy a nice day, why not just go to a park for a walk and not try spoil that day for those who are in a rush.

And if some idiot is driving along and cuts that slower driver off, who is at fault?

Both are at fault. One is for dangerous driving and the other one for creating a situation that increases potential of others driving dangerously.

Roads would be much safer if people would cooperate instead of exercising their rights.

Re:not really

[dbIII]

Wrong move. Should have shot him with a turtle.

Re:not really

[syousef]

Where I'm from learners have to have a big L displayed, and must drive a maximum of 80 kilometres per hour (or the speed limit, whichever is lower). But of course, because they are learners, they often drive slower then the speed limit, even if they don't have to.
It would be very rare for people to get upset at these learners, whether they are on a highway or a city street.

Are you from Aus by any chance? I'm from Sydney, NSW.

Where I'm at you get abused and honked at for not doing the speed limit even if you are an L plater and shouldn't be. In fact don't freaking change lanes doing even 5km/hr under the limit or you're bound to be fined for cutting off some lead foot doing 80 in a 60 zone.

It is actually quite dangerous to merge onto a highway posted for 110km/hr at just 80km/hr as is required for an L plater here, mostly because people are regularly doing 120 and faster. A 40 or 50 km/hr difference isn't good for merging traffic, especially when it's busy. Oh and it doesn't matter what the conditions on the road are like - 10km/hr over the limit is obligatory and sitting on a person's tail is obligatory.

I'm NOT saying this is right. A few years ago I was doing 40km/hr - the signs posted for roadwork on a highway normally set for 100km/hr. The signs were there so I was doing the right thing when 2 semi trailers came up behind doing over 100km/hr. If I hadn't reacted by pulling into the gutter, my wife and I wouldn't be around. I didn't get these arsehole truckers plates, they drove past so fast.

You know what though, we're STILL better than New Zealand. My wife and I drove about 6000km on our honeymoon there and the number of people speeding around bends was shocking. Go slow and you're being overtaken by these morons. Going fast wasn't an option as I wasn't use to roads like that and may have lost it. They actually had ads in NZ telling people to slow down going around bends. I think they need to teach more about inertia in highschool there.

Re:not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, everyone really missed the point on this one lol. I said 30 in a 40 so that people would not say "Well your error was driving at the limit of the allowable speed" if i said I was doing 40 in a 40.

The idea was that said driver pulling out was not visible to you (blind junction) and not aware of his surroundings and pulled straight out, blindly, into your path.

I guess I did not explain it well enough.

Personally, I would never do 30 in a 40 if conditions allowed me to go faster. I drive to the conditions and the surrounding drivers, as long as it is at or below the 'points' threshold when my wife is in the car, otherwise the nagging is too annoying. Even at the points threshold, I get an earful.

Re:not really

[tom17]

OK, now the same scenario, but at 40 in a 40, on an otherwise empty road, just to shut up all the people about the speed.

I forgot how detailed you had to be on /. when trying to give scenarios.

Tom...

Re:not really

[tom17]

Aye, along with all the people above who Missed The Point.

Re:not really

[spire3661]

Of course I would pull over even if it was jsut 2 cars, im a very considerate driver. However, I make no adjustments for jerks in the carpool lane who think that becasue its the leftmost lane that it should travel at 90 MPH. My right foot tends to automatically start lifting itself from teh accelerator when that happens. Quite an odd phenomenon i must say. :)

Re:not really

[dbIII]

Just thought I'd get a lame gaming joke in before all the idiots trying to justify speeding, not wearing seatbelts and tailgating in monster trucks with brakes worse than those in a mini.

People forget that children, animals, drunks and sometimes other drivers do the completely unexpected and end up in your path no matter what you are doing.

Re:not really

[NotBornYesterday]

I used to be that guy in the left lane. Honestly, I'm sorry. After slowing down my driving habits, I used to have a similar reaction to yours - lift my foot to slow aggressive drivers. I've found it not worth while. I'd rather let them pass, where I can keep an eye on them. I can much more easily avoid hitting them than they can avoid hitting me. Plus, if they are out ahead of me, sometimes I get to gloat as they get pulled over.

I'll admit it's an odd moment of schadenfreude when it happens, considering my own history.

Re:not really

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm driving along a 40 limit road, at a cautious 30

What did I do wrong in this instance?

Driving 30 in a 40. You answered your own question.

Yes!

[camperdave]

All my years of FreeCell and Minesweeper will not have been in vain.

Re:Yes!

[PlatyPaul]

I was thinking Carmageddon, personally....

Re:Yes!

[hurfy]

After hundreds of hours on Flatout/Flatout2 i am much better at taking out fences without losing my line. Surely that will lower the damage done IRL because i don't have to bounce off the other cars any more ;)

((How does Firefox flag Flatout but not Flatout2 as misspelled, and what the heck is the 1st correction?= Fla tout))

Probably NOT the same for younger drivers

[compumike]

So this appears to be for older drivers (50+) only. I suspect we shouldn't jump to the same conclusions about younger drivers, because I'm not totally confident that Grand Theft Auto, or the Battlefield series will really make better drivers. Perhaps more aggressive ones, for better or worse. :-P

--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

Re:Probably NOT the same for younger drivers

[mcgrew]

Two of my all time favorite games were Screamer (and its sequel) and Road Rash. I still play Road Rash once in a while, even though it came out over ten years ago. I can't get Screamer to play in Windows.

The last time I had my license renewed I wouldn't even have had to go to the DMV because of my lack of tickets or accidents. I went anyway, my eye doctor had turned me into a cyborg and I wanted to get the eyewear restrictions off the license. You will be assimilated!

I'm not sure if Road Rash made me into a better driver; you aren't penalized for running over pedestrians, but you are penalized for not beating up cops, and you're penalized for stopping for them.

Re:Probably NOT the same for younger drivers

[arth1]

Despite what people (and I'm using this word loosely) like Jack Thompson and Joseph Lieberman want you to think, there are no studies showing a causation between what type of game you're playing and a change in your behavior.

One of my favourite pastimes is racing games. And I haven't gotten a speeding ticket in ten years. I may be slightly more likely to follow the "ideal curve" within the lane instead of the track most drivers take, because I've been conditioned to unconsciously recognise where it is. But that only leads to slightly lower tire wear, my exiting curves slightly faster than other cars, and a lessened risk of spinning out of a curve -- it doesn't cause me to speed.

And after all my FPS playing, I wouldn't own a gun if you gave it to me. Guns are dangerous, and I can't just quaff a health potion after every ten times I've been shot. And if I met a Strogg, I would run away in my wet pants.

Re:Probably NOT the same for younger drivers

[s_p_oneil]

Damn. I was hoping that year of playing Carmageddon would pay off.

Wrong question

[Snowgen]

The question is, does gaming improve mental agility and make you a safer driver.

That's the wrong question. A more correct question would be "Is there a correlation between gaming and driving ability?"

It could very well be the there is no causal relationship between the two, but rather they share a common cause. Perhaps those without sufficient mental acuity/coordination to drive also lack the "mad skillz" needed for gaming, and thus they don't find games to be enjoyable and therefore don't play.

Re:Wrong question

[stranger_to_himself]

The question is, does gaming improve mental agility and make you a safer driver.

That's the wrong question. A more correct question would be "Is there a correlation between gaming and driving ability?"

It could very well be the there is no causal relationship between the two, but rather they share a common cause. Perhaps those without sufficient mental acuity/coordination to drive also lack the "mad skillz" needed for gaming, and thus they don't find games to be enjoyable and therefore don't play.

It may be the wrong question, but it's probably the one they're basing their ideas on. Or this is a games-company sponsored stunt to try to reinforce the popular but scientifically groundless notion that playing games in old age is somehow good for you.

I suppose though there could be a hundred other confounding factors like playing games being a marker of biological age, being around younger family, being the kind of person that is generall aware of the world around them, etc.

Re:Wrong question

[TheRaven64]

It may be the wrong question, but it's probably the one they're basing their ideas on.

I doubt it. Insurance companies don't care about causation, only correlation. They are in the business of gambling. They try to work out the probability of you having an accident is one in n, and then charge you a bit more than the cost of the payout divided by n. They don't care about individuals, because their business is splitting risk among large groups. If they can say that people in group A have a lower average chance of being involved in an accident, then they will give them lower premiums, even if there is no causal relationship between being in group A and having fewer accidents.

Re:Wrong question

[stranger_to_himself]

Yeah you're probably right. Though my money is still on it being a publicity stunt.

Re:Wrong question

[thedonger]

This is at least a novel approach by the insurance companies, but the Mayo Clinic recommends physical exercise to sharpen your mental agility (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/memory-improvement/HA00085).

Personally, I would have people over a certain age re-take their driving test every few years.

Re:Wrong question

[Hatta]

Well video games ability correlates with surgical ability, so I wouldn't be too surprised.

Re:Wrong question

[Pyrophor]

I sharpened my driving skills playing Grand Theft Auto - Vice City.

Re:Wrong question

[DerWulf]

I know what you mean but I'd say they are actually in the business of NOT gambling. You gamble because you hope to be the one out of millions who get a payout. You run an insurance exactly opposite: odds are that you'll have to pay less then you take in.

Insurance costs are, for the average consumer, a great way to figure out risks and mitigating factors. The research done to determine how much the insurance company will charge for a certain policy is the best kind because they have a huge sample size and their motivation is entirely driven by self interest which happens to overlap with your self interest. If insurance premiums say "play more games to be a better driver" it's a pretty sure bet that this is actually the case.

Re:Wrong question

[VeNoM0619]

Games in general do NOT help with driving. Some games may help with reaction, but only give you a twitch reflex in certain situations.

"Agility" skills are only improved by playing certain racing car games. That's right, driving simulation games help you with driving, no other type of game. Because I played quite a few racing games, I learned how to slow down well enough to take turns gracefully. Although it does not teach you how to speed up gracefully. From personal experience, they only help so little, but still help none the less...

Re:Wrong question

[geekoid]

No.

They use correlation when they don't ahve any studies or other indicators, ultimately they care about causation so they can do better underwriting.

When gambling, it helps a lot to know the likely outcome of any situation. I would argue it's not really gambling any more. OR it's very low risk gambling.

Insurance companies , like all large companies, are movie to finer scales of data, and if they can get down to a per person specificity, they would.

Your post was accurate 10 years ago, less so as time goes on.

Re:Wrong question

[geekoid]

not scientifically groundless.
While more studies need to be done, there ahve been results indicating that games do help the elderly.

http://www.mwsearch.com/Games4elderly.html

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/163960

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ506062&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ506062

http://www.nur.utexas.edu/fachome/gmcdougall/Documents/DallasMorningNews.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18275322?ordinalpos=30&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Re:Wrong question

[stranger_to_himself]

There's not a lot of substance behind these headlines. Only one reports any benefit of a gaming intervention, and that is only in the short term. The others are all about general physical and mental activity.

Re:Wrong question

[FrozenFOXX]

I know what you mean but I'd say they are actually in the business of NOT gambling. You gamble because you hope to be the one out of millions who get a payout. You run an insurance exactly opposite: odds are that you'll have to pay less then you take in.

Emphasis mine. Isn't it gambling when you say, "odds are?" Just because it's not detrimental to the player doesn't mean the player isn't gambling. They're just screwing with the system to make it favorable to them.

Re:Wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

I went driving once right after playing Mario Karts DS. I kept wanting to "drift" around the corners. Of course the physics in Mario Karts is as cartoonish as the characters.

Re:Wrong question

[wye43]

I believe the right question is: in the world we live today, when games are becoming so complicated and give a genuine feeling of constructive means of wasting your time, do we need more excuses to play?

Entertainment doesn't have to be constructive, it's just fun.

Insinsite clod!

[mcgrew]

TFA says "over 50". Who are you calling "elderly", you young whippersnapper? I may be a geezer, but my parents are elderly. I bet I could drink you under the table, Taco! You're only as old as you can convince yourself you're not.

So easy an old man can do it

[ilovesymbian]

15 minutes will save his life (and that of others as well). So easy an old man can do it. GEICO!

GTA?

[Chas]

I'm not sure I'd be giving insurance breaks to someone who excels in a game about carjacking and that gives bonus points for spectacular wrecks.

=)

Re:GTA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I'd be giving insurance breaks to someone who excels in a game about carjacking and that gives bonus points for spectacular wrecks.

=)

Seriously? Bonus points? In GTA? Are you with the media?

Maybe you were thinking of Burnout?

Re:GTA?

[supernova_hq]

Well if you spectacular wreck includes a lot of hook casualties, you can count the money they drop as bonus points.

Re:GTA?

[Yeef]

Actually, GTA does give you a 'Stunt Bonus' for doing crazy things in a car.

Dude no joke....

[Drakin020]

My brother was in an accident maybe 5 years ago or so. He was in his jeep on a 2 way road. A car was coming towards him and the driver was drunk. Right at the last moment the car swerved into my brothers lane. My brother was able to react and turn hard enough to allow the car to hit the back side of his jeep instead of the drivers side.

He said his reaction time from playing video games was what helped him, and he really does believe that. I don't blame him nor do I doubt him. I always thought I had a higher reaction time as a result of video games, and I'm sure a study on this has been done to prove it.

Re:Dude no joke....

[PlatyPaul]

I always thought I had a higher reaction time as a result of video games [...]

So what you're saying is: you suck at gaming?

Re:Dude no joke....

[Drakin020]

It's 8:00 on a Thursday, and I'm not done drinking my tea....You get the idea. :-P

Re:Dude no joke....

[IndustrialComplex]

It's 8:00 on a Thursday, and I'm not done drinking my tea....You get the idea. :-P

So gamers need caffeine in order to function properly. In that case, I think I'll need to raise the rates on all gamers that live more than 2 miles from a Starbucks.

Re:Dude no joke....

[stephanruby]

He said his reaction time from playing video games was what helped him, and he really does believe that.

So it wasn't the jolt of adrenaline, or the fact that he was becoming a more experienced driver, or the fact that he's of a particular astrological sign. It must be video games. That's the only explanation. If he believes that, then it it must be true.

Re:Dude no joke....

[mcgrew]

I always thought I had a higher reaction time as a result of video games [...]

So what you're saying is: you suck at gaming?

Maybe he smokes pot when he games?

Re:Dude no joke....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what he's saying is that video games make the pie higher.

Re:Dude no joke....

[geekoid]

"He said his reaction time from playing video games was what helped him, and he really does believe that. "

WHile I ahve no doubt he believes, anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias are what he is believing.
Not that he is wrong, only that the reason he believes is logically faulty.

There ahve been studies and the seem to indicate that they do;however they aren't conclusive and better studies need to be done.
There are some listed at pubmed.org.

Re:Dude no joke....

[default luser]

Makes sense. I blame my impeccable driving record (10 years no accidents) on my years playing first-person shooters. Twitch gaming prowess translates into a parinoid driving style, where I trust no one, and constantly keep watch on every car.

And believe me, I've had quite a few near-misses, mostly the fault of other drivers. Only my quick reactions helped avoid an accident.

I've also seen this "speed enhancement" in other people: I had a buddy who never played twitch games, and never drove above the speed limit. Then I hooked him on Quake II, and taught him to use the mouse. Once he got the hang of it, he told me after gaming sessions he found himself driving home on the highway at 10 over the limit, and everything around him STILL felt too slow. That was how much faster his mind was working.

I'm not sure this made him a safer driver, but you can definitely see the potential, as it improves your mental vigilance.

Re:Dude no joke....

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of no jokes... perhaps gamers should get better insurance on helicopter rides to.. (a certain McRae should've perhaps had better insurance, this in retrospective of course..).
But seriously, why not motorcycles, trucks, boats and most things needing a license and even normal bikes..

Afterall, gaming improves eye co-ordination and movement of hands/fingers...

Re:Dude no joke....

[hurfy]

I play an awful lot of Flatout lately where half the goal is to hit other drivers. Maybe that makes me a bit paranoid of other drivers in real life, but they are going to have work darn hard to hit me and so far noone has :)

Insurance discount

[JustKidding]

So, you'll get an insurance discount for playing games, like, Grand Theft Auto? That makes sense...

Re:Insurance discount

[johnkzin]

Yeah, because playing GTA would _never_ make you more likely to run over pedestrians on the sidewalk... nor jerk your car out into oncoming traffic at incredibly risky moments. Yeah, I say, put granny in front of GTA, and see how her driving skills change... then we'll see if it's worth giving her an insurance discount ;-)

Summary not wrong, but somewhat misleading

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I know it goes against the norm, but I actually read the article. It clearly states that the drivers in this program must play a very specific game designed to improve visual alertness. So if you thought that Allstate (the "insurers" in this article) was going to give discounts to WOW players, think again.

Re:Summary not wrong, but somewhat misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

They should give discounts for the greatest crash-avoidance game ever: Armagetron!

Re:Summary not wrong, but somewhat misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you thought that Allstate (the "insurers" in this article) was going to give discounts to WOW players, think again.

SHIT!

*Hangs up phone.*

Re:Summary not wrong, but somewhat misleading

[visualight]

It clearly states that the drivers in this program must play a very specific game designed to improve visual alertness.

I bet I know what game it is.

Re:Summary not wrong, but somewhat misleading

[stephanruby]

The games' developer, San Francisco-based Posit Science, will track the total number of hours these drivers play. Then the group's accident rates will be compared to a control group of people who do not play the games.

I wonder how the 'control group' gets selected. I would hate to be part of the control group of old geezers who first opt-in into this program, and then open eagerly their video game packet -- only to find it's 10 hours of Matlock tv -- that I'm required to watch instead.

Re:Summary not wrong, but somewhat misleading

[MozillaMike]

Maybe the elderly should also receive a discount for being proficient coloring book artists. Seeing as how some don't know how to stay inside the lines and not hit, oh I don't know, people in the bike lane. (Note: I'm not a bitter cyclist after getting hit by an elderly woman...)

Re:Summary not wrong, but somewhat misleading

[SL Baur]

So if you thought that Allstate (the "insurers" in this article) was going to give discounts to WOW players, think again.

Dang. Well, I tend to run off the side of the path on a ground mount anyway ...

On the other hand, given all the time I've spent on flying quests, can I count that towards a pilot's license?

Health Insurance should do this too

[Anonymous Coward]

Heavy pron users should get discounts on Viagra as well, because ...well you know.

More time playing games = less time driving

[bonkeydcow]

You probably don't have a life, so you can drive less? World or Warcraft should give you an 80% discount on your car insurance, heck it could cover the monthly fee. I see synergy.

Re:More time playing games = less time driving

[DgtalPimp]

"State Farm how can I help you"?
"I just finished leveling my Destro lock"
"That's great sir. That qualifies you for a 5% discount on your annual rate, if your 6/8 T6 or higher we can adjust it to 10%, but you have to show a decent DPS AND join the State Farm guild".
"Do I have to be in the guild for the 5% discount"?
"No sir that's our standard no life, 'No life, No drive' discount"
"Yeah your right, send the guild invite and mark me down for 10%".

Re:More time playing games = less time driving

[geekoid]

"heck it could cover the monthly fee"

While you were being funny, that is an intriguing idea.

Re:More time playing games = less time driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Only you can prevent word mangling.

The word "your" is entirely different than the phrase "you are" and its contraction "you're".

This English service announcement has been brought to you by the letter "e" and the number 7.

Re:More time playing games = less time driving

[Wowlapalooza]

A new level 70 is in T6? Hmmm...

In any case, despite the obvious humor here, there are plusses and minuses to giving car-insurance discounts to victims of LSLTAs (Life-Sucking Leisure-Time Activities). On the one hand, they probably aren't driving much (no social life). On the other hand, when they are driving, they're probably drowsy, falling asleep at the wheel (sleep deprivation is de rigueur). Overall, I think the plusses and minuses would even out.

Depends...

[kalirion]

Depends on both the game and the gamer

practice

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 25, and that's old in the gaming world (but only half to a third the age of the age group from TFA). I'll never forget the conference where Nintendo introduced Mario Cart Wii, and said, "This isn't your dad's mario cart from 15 years ago." Boy was that ever an eye opener for me!

Also, there are certain games/simulators which can be educational. For example, driving GTR Evolution using a good force-feedback steering wheel, along with your buddy Jack (Jim or Jose work too), can be quite educational -- especially with a few friends online doing the same thing. ^_^ Although we laughed hysterically, the game/simulator seriously reinforced the fact that we'd never be so dumb in real life. While trying to poke a little fun here, I guess I'm trying to say that there's a number of ways games could be used in increasing driving skills and awareness overall (like getting people to run a time in a simulator and then have them run another lap while trying to change songs on their iPod, talk on the phone, read the daily funnies, and put on makeup). It would be cool to see some incentive for simulated practice and skill sharpening.

Re:practice

[Spatial]

I'm 25, and that's old in the gaming world

I recently read that the average age of a gamer is 35 years old. You've got a ways to go yet!

Re:practice

[IndustrialComplex]

I recently read that the average age of a gamer is 35 years old. You've got a ways to go yet!

Since video games have only recently entered the mainstream, I would estimate that number will stabilize somewhere near the average age of the general populace as time goes by. It will be skewed slightly below the median due to the number of 'indoctrinated' gamers that simply play less or quit playing due to their need to work for a living as they get older. (Or will we see it balanced out by retiree age gamers who pick up playing again?)

And while we may think games have been around for our entire lives, video games haven't had a timeline that is greater than the total lifespan of a human yet. IE: lets say the first mainstream start of video games was in 1970-1980, we won't see the gamer population reach its equilibrium until at least 2090. In 2100 is when I would expect the median age of gamers to be just slightly lower than the median age of the population.

Re:practice

[geekoid]

25 isn't old. hell, there were PCs when you started gaming.
Now, there has been a lot of change in the technology since 1974, that doesn't make the gamer old, just experienced.

being 44 is what make me old, but I can't wait to kick young kids ass when SC2 comes out!

HomeLife

[SevenHands]

This, however does not apply to elderly gamers still living in their parent's basement!

Re:HomeLife

[mcgrew]

This, however does not apply to elderly gamers still living in their parent's basement

Most elderly gamers don't HAVE parents. Evil-X is five years younger than me and both her parents are dead, and I may be a geezer but I'm not elderly by any measure (I'll drink YOU under the table, kid!). Me, well, my parents are alive but I have my own basement.

It's a two story basement with the upper floor above ground.

Higher insurance rates for "Crazy Taxi?"

[Trip6]

Shouldn't they know WHICH game is being played?

Maybe not for Trackmania players

[glgraca]

Since I started playing Trackmania, I've started trying to improve my time from home to work...

Not for everyone.

[MaWeiTao]

While I agree that gaming may help reflexes I disagree that it has an inherent benefit on driving. Driving demands good decision-making and experience. What does it help to have quick reactions if you make poor decisions or over-react?

I've known guys who played games extensively and were crap drivers. All that gaming didn't keep them from getting into accidents anyway. I doubt statistics would support the notion that the rise of gaming has had an positive impact on reducing accidents.

Then there's the video online where some dumb kid and his friends play Initial D in the arcade and then decide to go out for a spin in their car. It doesn't take to long before this kid wrecks his car. Young people are already delusional enough about their driving abilities they don't need anyone making it worse.

Older drivers, on the other hand, will ideally have commonsense and experience on their side. So for them, gaming may have a positive impact because they'll actually be able to put improved reflexes to good use.

Re:Not for everyone.

[SQLGuru]

It isn't just games. I find that if I've spent some time at the go-cart track with my kid that I have to take a "cool down" break before driving home, otherwise, I'm more aggressive and driving too fast. When it comes to racing games and go-carts, I'm a mean, competetive person (and usually I win). On the real streets, I'm actually a generally safe driver. The hard part is making the transition between from mean to safe without that cool-down period.

Layne

Re:Not for everyone.

[D Ninja]

Older drivers, on the other hand, will ideally have commonsense and experience on their side. So for them, gaming may have a positive impact because they'll actually be able to put improved reflexes to good use.

Wrong. People typically overestimate their abilities and "judge" (can't think of a better word) other people's abilities. It's human nature.

As for elderly being safer...let's see.

1. An elderly lady, who had crappy night vision, thought she would be okay enough to drive. She struck my grandfather and tossed him 25 feet through the air and killed him.

2. I live very close to a retirement community. Older drivers are a PITA. They constantly run stop signs, and if you have the gall (HORROR!) of using your horn to let them know that they almost hit you (coming the other direction), they toss the middle finger in your direction. Old women tend to be worse than old men in my experience.

So, no. Younger drivers may not have the experience, which does count for a lot, but being older does not mean you have common sense. Not in the least bit.

(This is why I believe there should be driving tests for older people to ensure that they still should be on the road. Good luck in getting that law passed though with the plethora of older people in the government.)

Re:Not for everyone.

[Onaga]

But we all know that space fighter video game experience translates well into the real world

Re:Not for everyone.

[Attila Dimedici]

Check the stats for accidents, as a percentage of drivers on the road, the elderly have far fewer accidents than the young. It doesn't matter how you slice the numbers, those drivers younger than 20 are much more dangerous than those drivers older than (pick a number).
Before we start having driving tests for older people, we need to raise the minimum age at which one can get a driver's license in the first place.

Re:Not for everyone.

[DerWulf]

> What does it help to have quick reactions if you make poor decisions or over-react?

Well, given the same skill in decision making and reacting meassured quicker reactions will beat slower ones. But it's not only reflexes. Gaming has been shown to improve processing in the visual cortex which is also a very important skill while driving.

Re:Not for everyone.

[D Ninja]

Are you looking at all the stats when you're making that call?

First, what percentage of younger drivers are on the road vs. elderly drivers? Additionally, what type of driving do elderly drivers do vs. younger drivers. Are elderly drivers juts going back and forth to the grocery store? Of course they're going to have far fewer accidents. Additionally, I highly doubt elderly drivers are driving every single day whereas younger drivers have jobs, friends they frequently see, trips back and forth to school (college or otherwise).

With that said, I do agree that drivers younger than 20 are typically more dangerous than elderly drivers. What is the reason for that, though? Lack of experience. Maybe some lack of maturity as well, although that can be argued (I know younger people that are far more mature than many adults). However, the point that I am trying to make is that by raising the minimum age required to get a drivers license would not solve this problem. Instead of having 16 year old kids on the road without experience, we would have 20 year old kids on the road without experience. Not really any better.

(The real way to control young drivers is via the parents. Provide some control and restrictions on the driving, and I think a lot of the problems would disappear. Of course, heaven forbid that I suggest parents take some responsibility for their kids.)

Re:Not for everyone.

[Attila Dimedici]

I've seen the numbers. It doesn't matter if you adjust for number of miles driven, percentage of drivers, pick your "excuse", younger drivers have more and more dangerous accidents than older drivers. I am pretty sure I saw a study that indicated that being under 20 was a more significant factor in accident risk than lack of driving experience.

Re:Not for everyone.

[geekoid]

It has a positive effect on cognitive abilities; which is certianly a plus for driving.

"Then there's the video online where some dumb kid and his friends play Initial D in the arcade and then decide to go out for a spin in their car."

Just becasue it may train you to have better reflexes doesn't mean it makes you smarter.

Re:Not for everyone.

[steelfood]

You are absolutely right.

I'm of the opinion that a road test should be mandatory for renewing a driver's license. And using programs capable of simulating driving, it would be even cheaper and easier to administer than real road tests (which would still be required for actually getting the license in the first place).

Obviously, the simulator should simulate real world conditions (aggressive drivers, clueless drivers, rain and snow, etc.) and not ideal conditions. And if the driver cannot react to the real world conditions correctly with all that "experience," then that license gets taken away until the person can pass. It wouldn't be a bad idea to allow people to practice with the simulator at home either.

But I'm generally of the opinion that road tests and even written tests are too easy, and that there should be more stringent qualifications for driving than there already exists.

Re:Not for everyone.

[SL Baur]

Check the stats for accidents, as a percentage of drivers on the road, the elderly have far fewer accidents than the young.

Those numbers do not mean very much. Based on actuarial statistics, there are going to be a higher percentage of drivers 20-30 than drivers 70-80, unless there has been very steep drop in birth rate.

Simple example: out of 1000 total drivers, 400 20-30 and 50 70-80, if half of the older set had accidents versus 50 of the younger had accidents, the total percentage of accidents of the older drivers compared to the total number of drivers would be half as much even though 1/2 of the older drivers had accidents and 1/8 of younger drivers.

A better statistic would be looking at the total number of accidents versus the age of the driver at fault. What percentage of accidents were caused by drivers 70-80 versus 20-30 and adjusted for the relative numbers of each. Or some computation like I made above.

Re:Not for everyone.

[hurfy]

lol, i went from a 40mph indoor go-kart track to my Explorer with bad shocks and sloppy clutch. I decided to stop and get a burger on my way home instead of fight the urge :)

Video games do not transfer that same physical sensation. Going from my 180mph virtual racer to my Explorer doesn't bother me much at all.

Same morons that drive while on the phone

[schwit1]

These are the same aholes that think that texting or phoning while driving can be done safely.

Re:Same morons that drive while on the phone

[geekoid]

Phoning can be done safely. Depends on how you are doing it.

Re:Same morons that drive while on the phone

[spire3661]

No, you should be paying attn to the road. When you are on the phone, it changes your immediate attn focus.

So...

[ZarathustraDK]

Does Carmageddon count?

Carmageddon...

[Anonymous Coward]

and my rates went up!

QUICK! Someone Tell Jack Thompson!

[mandark1967]

He may wanna go out and get a copy of GTA for the insurance discount. I hear he's looking to save money after being disbarred.

There is a correlation...

[jdrugo]

There is a correlation between performance in visual tasks and the amount of time people have been playing action video games. The initial study has shown that action-video-game (AVG, e.g. Unreal Tournament, other ego-shooters) players perform significantly better in a range of visual attention tasks than non-AVG players. In later studies it has been shown that this increased performance is not observed for people who do play games that are not of the AVG-genre (e.g. The Sims), and also that 50h of game playing of AVG games is sufficient to observe a significant performance increase in visual tasks. Currently, the same lab is investigating whether this effect is also observed in the elderly, with positive initial results. For more information, just have a look at the lab's list of publications (disclaimer: I'm in the same department as that lab, though not member of that lab).

In relation to the article, they seem to recommend the people to play games of the non-AVG type. For this reason I have my doubts that these games will significantly improve performance in visual tasks. On the other hand, it might support other tasks that are required while driving, but that remains to be shown.

Re:There is a correlation...

[The Moof]

It's worth noting that it works both ways. There's a study that claims playing certain games causes an increase in risky/dangerous driving, which would make you an increased threat.

So while game may cause better hand-eye coordination and reaction times, they could also subconsciously make you more dangerous behind the wheel with your decision making and speed.

fine and dandy by me

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, if it keeps grandpa from having an accident, let the actuaries go at it and find out how much they should save.

"Did you make it level 48 yet of BloodWars III, Willibur? No... but I saved a ton on my car insurance."

OK, I've watch too many

[Amazing Quantum Man]

bad Japanese monster movies.

I read the headline as "Cheaper Car Insurance For Gamera ".

I guess Godzilla and Mothra have to pay more.

Re:OK, I've watch too many

[geekoid]

No no no.
Cheaper to get Gamera insurance then Godzilla or Mothera; which makes sense.

Still can't get Monster X insurance.

Just saved a bunch of money ....

[Windows_NT]

*ring ring* Hey Dan?
Its Joe. I got some good news and bad news.
The bad news is i just smoked a pedestrian with your car, cuz i had a GTA flashback.
But the good news is a just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.

Re:Just saved a bunch of money ....

[mcgrew]

My friend and roommate Charlie has a brother in prison for real life GTA. She (my friend Charlie) told me her brother was in prison because he loved cars so much he stole them.

Re:Just saved a bunch of money ....

[Windows_NT]

He must not have had the cheats to lower wanted level and get the rocket launcher

Not for everyone-curves.

[Ostracus]

"While I agree that gaming may help reflexes I disagree that it has an inherent benefit on driving. "

Especially when dealing with curves.

Now kids don't try this...

[TheLink]

I was thinking of this guy actually:

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/09/johnson-wins-edwards-hits-wall-purpose

Quote:
"I planned on hitting the wall, but I didn't plan on the wall slowing me down that much," Edwards said. "In video games, you can just run into the wall and run it wide open. That's what I did, but it didn't quite work out the same as the video game."

Re:Now kids don't try this...

[geekoid]

But it worked.
He got ahead and gained control. Of course after that the other drive passed him, but that was becasue of driving skills.

Wait....

[CrazyTalk]

So the are saying gamers don't drive as much, since they stay home playing games all the time, and therefore their insurance rates are cheaper?

Possible indicator of coordination...

[whizbang77045]

I'm 65, and have spinal arthritis. There are mornings when I get up, and everything is normal, and mornings when I'm not functional. The problem sometimes is making sure how functional I am before I try to do anything, especially operating machinery or driving. I've found that playing a computer game before I do much else is a really good indicator of how well I am functioning. I also get the impression that playing the game for a while seems to improve my functionality. I don't consider this hard proof of anything. I do think it may be an indicator that there is something to this idea. It may merit serious research.

GTA driving

[kikito]

Sidewalks *do* affect driving.

Games don't help, but they could

[Jimmy_B]

Video games on the market today certainly don't help with driving, but it's not hard to imagine a game that would. Suppose you had a driving simulator that was realistic, but malicious: every 10-15 minutes, it modifies the world or the behavior of the other drivers to put you in an emergency situation. Pedestrians walk in front your car, drivers cross into opposing traffic, brakes fail, and so on. Your score is how long you can survive. *That* would make people better drivers, but I've never heard of such a game on the market.

Re:Games don't help, but they could

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a very boring game. Racing like crazy at very high, that, is fun, my friend. I doubt that it improves any of the requested quality for driving safely on the real asphalt. Driving defensively, slow and respecting speed limits and stuffs, that's not a game at all.

Re:Games don't help, but they could

[edsousa]

Not so realistic, but my younger brother found a game called "3D-Driving-School". It looked to me fairly consistent.
By the way, europe driving rules only :P

Re:Games don't help, but they could

[jcnnghm]

I don't see why the current games don't help. IMHO, one of the most important things that you can learn from racing games is to be constantly aware of the positions of the vehicles around you, so you are able to react when they move.

I know when I drive, I am constantly aware of the type and visual appearance (maintenance state), lane position and relative speed, and driver alertness or potential impairment (e.g. swerving, tailgating, erratic braking). I attribute this, at least partially, to video games.

Re:Games don't help, but they could

[Spudds]

Hmm.
Maybe try thinking *outside* the box?

FPS = Reaction Time Training
RPG = Decision Making, Memorization, Multi-Tasking Training
RTS = Decision Making, Management Training

etc. etc.

To think that the only thing that would help with any particular scenario is something that closely simulates that particular scenario is really short sighted and close minded.

How about a game...

[Anonymous Coward]

That teaches people that the left lane is for passing.

It is more dangerous for people to be holding traffic back than to just let them pass you. Not to mention the road rage that usually ensues with people wanting to go faster than the person holding traffic back.

Depends on the type of game

[Yvan256]

Somehow I really doubt that playing Final Fantasy XI increases my thinking speed.

If you're driving, and the mailboxes ...

[Grog6]

look like health packs, you have been gaming too much.

Also, even tho the other drivers are like the guys in Test Drive, you can't bump them out of the way...

spricific-traiining is better than cross-training

[peter303]

Thats the general conclusion in sports and I think for cognitive skills too. If I want to improve my Chinese I read more Chinese etc. Learing more languages helps in over all language learning, but not substantially for a specific language.

What if...

[g0bshiTe]

Said elderly insurance patrons favorite game is Grand Theft Auto?

Understanding the insurance pricing mechanism

[wickerprints]

Pricing insurance does not, in itself, require a complete (or even partial) understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between a rating variable and exposure to loss. The insurer (i.e., actuary) need only demonstrate that [1] inclusion of the variable in the rating plan results in a model more predictive of loss than without it; [2] it is verifiable; and [3] the variable is not "unfairly discriminatory"--that is, its use in risk classification is allowed by regulators. In truth, many other issues do come into play but these are the primary factors that the actuary considers when researching a new rating variable.

To the extent that a correlation or causation is hypothesized or believed known, the actuary seeks to confirm it with historical data.

The personal insurance market is very competitive. Insurers will try to develop the most accurate rating plan possible because they want to avoid adverse selection. Thus pricing actuaries do keep on the lookout (especially in bad underwriting cycles such as the one we're in right now) for more sophisticated ways to classify risks in their book, and if it is determined that elderly drivers who play games are a better risk than elderly drivers who do not play games, then a discount is actuarially justified and its use may provide a competitive advantage.

Of course, that doesn't mean an insurer would actually use that variable, as one has to consider whether it can even be reliably known whether an individual is a gamer. What does that mean? You play more than N hours a day? You own a game console? How do you confirm this during the underwriting process? Does it drop off if the insured stops playing? Do they qualify if the grandson is the actual gamer in the household but the insured only plays very occasionally?

To give you an example of how important verifiability is, note that in personal auto, the generally accepted exposure base is car-years, although mileage would be more predictive (think of it: two cars bought on 1/1/2000, one driver drives 40,000 miles/year, the other drives only 1,000 miles/year--which one has more exposure to loss?). The problem with using mileage as the exposure base is that it varies from year to year for a given insured, and is hard to confirm. Your agents aren't going to ask every last one of their policyholders to check their odometer, and even if they did, what is the chance they'll be honest if they know their premiums are directly tied to the result?

That's why I don't put too much stock in this proposed classification--it doesn't seem that it would be sufficiently predictive of loss to justify using it, and moreover, it would be a pain to verify, for the reasons stated above.

Grand Theft Auto

[ProzacPatient]

Did they take into account Grand Theft Auto?
A lifetime of playing GTA should actually make your insurance go up in price, well, at least if you were to ask Jack Thompson anyway.

Re:Grand Theft Auto

[SL Baur]

A lifetime of playing GTA should actually make your insurance go up in price, well, at least if you were to ask Jack Thompson anyway.

Be careful about jokes like that. He needs a new career and could well end up selling car insurance.

They'll just find another way to screw you

[nexttech]

Don't worry, The insurance companies will just find another way to screw their customers.

I'm confused...

[andy19]

Let me get this straight...an insurance company is spending money on research to find out if this is true, so they can save people money?
What kind of insurance comapny is this?

Re:I'm confused...

[hurfy]

Ummm

If they find the gamers are 10% less likely to cause an accident they can cut their rates by 5%........

Any more questions?

That 'study' is laughable.

[geekoid]

Your linking to arstechnica for a study? Try something better next time.

That 'study' was done by BSM. What is BSM? why, it's a driving school that gets money from parents of new drivers.
Now they ahve a 'study' to scare parents into paying for their course becasue those pesky videos games have turned them into driving maniacs.

I suggest using pubmed.org.

Re:That 'study' is laughable.

[The Moof]

From your source: Virtual driving and risk taking

I'll wait...

[rk]

Until they offer a 10% discount if you can beat your agent at Starcraft. 20% if your agent is Korean.

Nice example on youtube

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the nice example on youtube puit up by the Open University for something like this

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wg96RSsrXk0&feature=related

What psychologists call inattentional blindness - focussing too hard on one thing and being blind to the obvious elsewhere. It's how magicians carry out their misdirection tricks.

Daily Experiences from Southwest Washington

[Cowmonaut]

The majority of my driving is done on I-5. The rest varies from city/town driving to back country roads to private driveways and neighborhoods.

About 2/3rds of the drivers I see on the road are from WA. 1/4 are from Oregon and the rest are a random state or Canadian.

On I-5, and I don't care if its at 4 AM or 2 PM. Except due to an emergency you are going to be driving 10-15 over the speed limit on I-5.

I almost always go over the speed limit. Usually just 5-10 miles per hour. I have people tailgate me because I'm not going fast enough here.

Mind you, going fast is not a problem. The highway was originally designed for 75-80 mph of speed. The limit was knocked down due to new legislation during the Clinton era. Depending on the population of towns on the off/on ramps the speed gets lowered down.

As it stands, most of the time the police do not pull you over for speeding if you are going 5-10 over. Any more than that and they will but they usually let you off very lightly for it unless you give them a hard time.

Country roads are similar. The only exception is in towns/cities. Everyone here seems to go the speed limit once in town. Through traffic in neighborhoods are usually jackasses or punk kids who go 5-10 over even despite children playing.

And I mean *everyone* does this. The VAST minority whenever I'm on the road is going the speed limit, let alone under it. And believe me, if you are going noticibly slower than EVERYONE around you you are the hazard.

In WA the police can pull you over for going over or under the speed limit by 10+ mph. They usually don't if you're 10 under but they can.

Also, the way speed limits are assigned in WA works like this unless something overrides it: What is the fastest speed a driver can go without having to be hypersensitive to his surroundings?

It is easy in nice weather to go over the speed limit and remain in control with no danger to others if you know what you are doing on most of the roads here. Not everyone is that good of a driver though and shouldn't.

Take Padden Parkway for example of this though. This is a vital road now, but it didn't exist a few years ago. It was made for 50-55 MPH. Some people go 40. The road's gradient is working against you at that speed but they do it anyways. Its designed so emergency vehicles can go 80 with ease.

So it depends where you live. I see 1-2 people speed in towns here. On the highway I see maybe 5 people in 30 minutes of highway travel going the speed limit.

Mod me down for not being tottaly scientific, but this is what I experience daily. Speed or move over. This isn't as bad as Montana, but most people have to drive 30-50 miles (usually more) to get to work.

Oh and Oregon sucks to drive in. Their highways are not in good shape and the 55 speed limit for the same road design takes some adjusting. Particularly with oregonians still going 70 when i go through.

What about gamers..

[Nukenbar]

that only play Carmageddon?

The real question is

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is, How do you demonstrate that you are a gamer to the insurance company?

Yes...

[FeebleOldMan]

"Is there a correlation between gaming and driving ability?"

Yes... As referenced here.

He's managed to do it without crashing and killing the entire busload of passengers so far, so pr0ps to his mad skillzZzzz, though I do hope he realizes that there's no respawning when (and not if) he does. (Would you offer him a cheaper rate for car insurance?)

(Disclaimer: I do not condone driving and driving. In fact, I think the said driver is irresponsible and insane.)

Gamers are not necessary better drivers.

[Neanderthal Ninny]

Most games are done on 2 dimensional world and the real driving is three dimensional world. Games may improve some mental function like reflexes but not necessarily cognitive skills required in driving. Driving take a fair amount cognitive skills since the environment is moving and changes. Also the vehicle is also a changing device since load, tire type & wear and other internal factors will change how does vehicle reacts to it environment. Games create a "set" world of limited environmental settings so these games will only help in some of these.

RL story.

[bronney]

I remember once my buddy slipped on the salt on the Don Valley Parkway during Winter. We felt the back swinging and there were cars coming at us at 100km/h+, somehow he manages to save it in a few moves with no training whatsoever.

For the next 30 seconds, nobody spoke in the car. Then he said, shiet, that was EXACTLY like sega rally.

If it wasn't for that, we'd probably pinball.

I showed this to my 16 y/o...

[Schmyz]

...she was all excited...then I threw out the elderly comment...her response. "So your insurance is going to drop huh Dad." I love my kids...