Slashdot Mirror


Bad Driving May Have Genetic Basis

Serenissima writes "Bad drivers may in part have their genes to blame, suggests a new study by UC Irvine neuroscientists. People with a particular gene variant performed more than 20 percent worse on a driving test than people without it — and a follow-up test a few days later yielded similar results. About 30 percent of Americans have the variant. 'These people make more errors from the get-go, and they forget more of what they learned after time away,' said Dr. Steven Cramer, neurology associate professor and senior author of the study published recently in the journal Cerebral Cortex."

449 comments

  1. My daughter is a lousy driver by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Funny

    She gets it from her mother.

    1. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She gets it from her mother.

      But I bet you taught her to drive.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      She gets it from her mother.

      But I bet you taught her to drive.

      You can't teach stupid.

    3. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's what I've been saying for years. Why do we let these people procreate?

    4. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by Avalain · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have you really been saying "My daughter is a lousy driver. Why do we let these people procreate"?

    5. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lighten up, Francis. It was a joke. She's actually a very good driver.
      (her mother, OTOH)

    6. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a Wurst 'N' Timer and why is it set for a Year?

    7. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by PPH · · Score: 1

      The alternative, letting guys stop by and pick her up, will increase the probability of procreation.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that got to do with anything? When do children listen to parents more than cursorily? What explains that every bad driver who caused a serious accident was able to pass the written and driving exams?

    9. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      I have the same problem. My wife has a serious problem with judging time and distance. She knows this and overcompensates by being way too careful. The end result is no accidents. But she does frequently piss of people behind her. My daughter (now 17, just had her first accident on friday) has the same time and distance judgment problem. Only she's an indestructible teenager who's personal life is so important, she needs red and blue lights on her car. After nearly two years of me trying to teach my daughter how to drive, i still don't like to be in the car with her. Her friends, sisters, and younger brother all refuse to ride with her. It's that scary. And she still isn't ready for the snow we'll get next month. :-/

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    10. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Do what my parents did, then... the first time I had an accident, even though the cause was attributed to the weather, I was judged at fault and charged with careless driving (the cop said he had no choice, as I had admitted to hitting the other driver, but strongly recommended I fight it in court... I did and plea bargained to Pass On Right, Not In Safety). My parents told me that I'd have to get my own car insurance from then on. I paid $3000/year until I was 22, and haven't had a single accident or ticket since that one, when I was 17.

      It's not a female thing. Some of us are bad drivers. Some are good drivers. The same could be said for people of the XY variant... There's a few guys whose driving terrified me so much I'll *never* get in a car with them again. It's an individual thing, and IMO, it has more to do with the amount of responsibility you accept when you get behind the wheel of the car. Teach your daughter the consequences for her actions, and she'll not grow up to be one of those idiots who puts on makeup while driving on the freeway.

      (when I think about it, I did get away with murder... my parents didn't make me pay for the repairs on the car, so their insurance took a hit... when my older brother got a speeding ticket --admittedly, it was for going 160km/h in a 60 zone--, they cut him off their insurance and made him pay the fine)

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    11. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long till they want to base my insurance rates off of this?

    12. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You've never sat in on a Women's Studies course have you . . .

    13. Re:My daughter is a lousy driver by VolciMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have the same problem. My wife has a serious problem with judging time and distance. She knows this and overcompensates by being way too careful. The end result is no accidents. But she does frequently piss of people behind her. My daughter (now 17, just had her first accident on friday) has the same time and distance judgment problem. Only she's an indestructible teenager who's personal life is so important, she needs red and blue lights on her car. After nearly two years of me trying to teach my daughter how to drive, i still don't like to be in the car with her. Her friends, sisters, and younger brother all refuse to ride with her. It's that scary. And she still isn't ready for the snow we'll get next month. :-/

      Then why do you let her drive? I mean, really? You're her FATHER , and you won't tell her "no, you can't drive"? I think you're failing as a parent if you can't restrain her bad behavior.

      If she is going to insist, and you're going to let her, make her pay for all her own expenses - insurance, maintenance, gas, etc.

  2. Chromosomes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "People with a particular gene variant performed more than 20 percent worse on a driving test" You mean the double-X chromosome?

    1. Re:Chromosomes? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny
      ""People with a particular gene variant performed more than 20 percent worse on a driving test" You mean the double-X chromosome?"

      Yep, and it is exacerbated by the adjacent gene that makes them yammer incessantly on a cell phone while driving the kids around in a huge SUV.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Chromosomes? by b96miata · · Score: 1, Funny

      The fact that this isn't (Score: 5, Funny) is proof that not only are there women on /., they have mod points.

    3. Re:Chromosomes? by HamburglerJones · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our driving-challenged overlords.

    4. Re:Chromosomes? by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Driving in the left-hand lane on the expressway, below the speed limit....

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    5. Re:Chromosomes? by shakah · · Score: 1

      And missing their exit and backing up on the shoulder...

    6. Re:Chromosomes? by HidingMyName · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "People with a particular gene variant performed more than 20 percent worse on a driving test" You mean the double-X chromosome?

      Although I'm a man, I'd have to admit I've seen some pretty bad driving from people with a Y chromosome too. In fact, very smart people can be very bad drivers (e.g. von Neumann's corner was named after a notoriously bad driver, John von Neumann who you might have heard about).

    7. Re:Chromosomes? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Apparently there's also a gene carried on the Y chromosome of which one common variant makes its carriers unable to notice bad driving in 50% of the population.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    8. Re:Chromosomes? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Like the lady that could not understand why I was flipping her off for riding literally 1 foot from my rear fender on the highway.

      she was visibly upset that I flipped her the bird. Yes she was close enough I could easily see her face in the rear view mirror. I love motorcycles, the other drivers cant miss it when you flip them off.

      I now understand friend that ride with a pocket full of pennies to simply drop on the pavement and cause paint chips all over the idiots cars. They also tend to back off very rapidly when you do that.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:Chromosomes? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, it's Score 4: Funny, so apparently ... there's one.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    10. Re:Chromosomes? by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1

      I've been saying for years that I need such a contraption on my car!! You bikers have all the fun! :(

    11. Re:Chromosomes? by rgviza · · Score: 1

      nah they just do a 90 degree turn out of the fast lane to make the exit (I actually saw a woman do this in a 65MPH part of I-95, cutting across 3 lanes)

      Or they just come to a dead stop and wait til they can get over (saw one do this too)

      (FACEPALM)

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    12. Re:Chromosomes? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean the double-X chromosome?

      A lot of comments (and tags) to that effect on this story.

      Remember that story about sexism in the F/OSS world a few weeks back? Remember how many people denied that such a thing could exist? Here's your proof.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    13. Re:Chromosomes? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I used to carry a bag of hard sweets for that. I figure even if they rat on you the birds and hanimacules will eat all the evidence.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Chromosomes? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      A buddy of mine with a sun roof used to do the penny thing with tailgaters.

      Me? I just drive a big old rusty '70 Impala that looks like I have nothing to lose. Folks tend to not get too close to it.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    15. Re:Chromosomes? by selven · · Score: 1

      It's Score 5: Funny now. Of course, if you actually try to do a survey here based on Slashdot everyone will scream about insufficient sample size.

    16. Re:Chromosomes? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Informative

      So what? How many men do you see driving minivans or SUVs and constantly turned around screaming at kids in the back instead of paying attention to the road ahead? This isn't sexism, it's a simple fact. I'm sure if you did a survey you'd also find that women talk on the phone in their car a lot more than men too. And how many men apply make-up in their cars while driving? Zero?

      There's nothing sexist about noting that people of different sexes act differently. How many women drive crotch rockets at insane speeds? Just like the make-up thing is mostly confined to women (and maybe a few gay men), the crotch rocket thing is mostly confined to young men (they don't live to become old). And not many women are interested in writing open-source software in their spare time for free.

    17. Re:Chromosomes? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 2, Insightful
      OK, so I need to remind everyone that males have more accidents than females? Greater injury rates? More traffic violation fines? Higher drink driving rates? (Even after controlling for greater time on the roads).

      No, I probably don't because the fact that men are (on average) worse drivers than females on pretty much every measure is well known. Judging by the sexism of a lot of these posts (above and below), this really pisses some people off.

    18. Re:Chromosomes? by PachmanP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, so I need to remind everyone that males have more accidents than females? Greater injury rates? More traffic violation fines? Higher drink driving rates? (Even after controlling for greater time on the roads).

      No, I probably don't because the fact that men are (on average) worse drivers than females on pretty much every measure is well known. Judging by the sexism of a lot of these posts (above and below), this really pisses some people off.

      Men drive dangerously. Probably Y/testosterone. Women just can't drive.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    19. Re:Chromosomes? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      And how many men apply make-up in their cars while driving? Zero?

      You don't drive through West Hollywood very often...

    20. Re:Chromosomes? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      How many men do you see driving minivans or SUVs and constantly turned around screaming at kids in the back instead of paying attention to the road ahead?

      No more or less often than I see women doing so.

      This isn't sexism, it's a simple fact.

      Then please either provide a citation for this "simple fact", or admit that you pulled it out the air.

      I'm sure if you did a survey you'd also find that women talk on the phone in their car a lot more than men too.

      Again: cite, or STFU.

      And how many men apply make-up in their cars while driving? Zero?

      And how many women shave while driving? Zero?

      There's nothing sexist about noting that people of different sexes act differently.

      Except that you haven't noted anything, you have not provided one single fact. You've just expressed your assumptions and prejudices.

      How many women drive crotch rockets at insane speeds?

      Don't have crotch rocket numbers, but between 1990 and 2003 the percentage of motorcycle owners who were female went from 4% to 10%. If it were an inherent gender attribute that "guys ride motorcycles, women don't", we would not see a change like that.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    21. Re:Chromosomes? by ajlisows · · Score: 2

      I see plenty of dudes texting while driving and what not. My last near death experience came on a slippery day when everyone in front of me was putting on their breaks. I looked in my rear view mirror and the guy behind me was looking down and had both of his hands up in the air and was clapping and bouncing up and down as if excited about music/possibly a sporting event. I had to jam onto the shoulder while he barreled into the guy that was in front of me.

    22. Re:Chromosomes? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No more or less often than I see women doing so.

      Bullshit. If you want to believe men drive around in minivans with kids as much as women, then you're delusional.

      How many women drive crotch rockets at insane speeds?

      Don't have crotch rocket numbers, but between 1990 and 2003 the percentage of motorcycle owners who were female went from 4% to 10%. If it were an inherent gender attribute that "guys ride motorcycles, women don't", we would not see a change like that.

      It's an obvious fact that a very small minority of women drive crotch rockets, by your own statistic.

    23. Re:Chromosomes? by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      Wow I saw the same thing, this truck (big white GMC don't remember the model) jumped across 3 lanes while slamming on the brakes with no signal, I almost rear ended the truck. The weirdest thing was they weren't even going for an exit, they were going towards a toll booth (we were in an EZ Express lane and the toll booth was to the right) that was for commercial trucks with trailers. At least if they used a signal and slowed down in an empty lane instead of swerving and almost causing an accident (which I would be at fault for since I would have hit them in the rear end) I wouldn't have been as annoyed with the stupidity.

    24. Re:Chromosomes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, no. The argument was that F/OSS is about "show me the code", and the gender of the person is irrelevant.

      This, however, is a slashdot discussion. It's not about "show me the code" - generally it's not even about code at all. It's a completely different thing.

      You might as well has used China as a proof of human rights violations in Canada.

    25. Re:Chromosomes? by Idaho · · Score: 1

      Remember that story about sexism in the F/OSS world a few weeks back? [slashdot.org] Remember how many people denied that such a thing could exist? Here's your proof.

      1) Slashdot != the FOSS community
      2) Is it still sexism if it's true? I recently read a report (in the Netherlands) based on compiled statistics from insurance companies: male drivers who own a car (and hence, have to have obligatory insurance against personal liability for accidents involving that car) are involved in accidents on average once per 17 years, whereas for female drivers the average is 14 years.

      If anyone would know it's the insurance companies, I'm sure.

      --
      Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
    26. Re:Chromosomes? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      which I would be at fault for since I would have hit them in the rear end

      This is a common myth. Just because you rear end someone doesn't mean that you are automatically at fault. In the situation you described above, the other driver would have clearly been at fault.

    27. Re:Chromosomes? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      It's not the size of your sample, it's how you use it.

    28. Re:Chromosomes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like accusing the F/OSS world of having unfair biases towards blonds (e.g. the blond joke). Poor female drivers is just another stereotype and you need to prove to us that it is higher in F/OSS than in the world at large.

    29. Re:Chromosomes? by JThundley · · Score: 1

      This isn't F/OSS. This is a message board on the internet. Browse at 0 and you'll see that this thing called the internet has stuff worse than sexism.

    30. Re:Chromosomes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the double-X chromosome?

      A lot of comments (and tags) to that effect on this story.

      Remember that story about sexism in the F/OSS world a few weeks back? Remember how many people denied that such a thing could exist? Here's your proof.

      Truth > Sexism.

    31. Re:Chromosomes? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      If you want to believe men drive around in minivans with kids as much as women, then you're delusional.

      That was not the question. The question was "How many men do you see driving minivans or SUVs and constantly turned around screaming at kids...?" I don't see a lot of either, thank goodness.

      Mom may be dragging the kids to the grocery store more often, but Dad's usually the one driving on those long trips across country where the little brats are constantly whining "Are there yet?" and poking each other.

      It's an obvious fact that a very small minority of women drive crotch rockets, by your own statistic.

      By that statistic it's an obvious fact that a large part of the difference in motorcycle ownership is due to non-genetic factors -- i.e. social factors that treat women differently then men, i.e. sexism.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    32. Re:Chromosomes? by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

      I think parent nailed the issue. Men drive like asshole (like cutting across two lanes without signalling or shoulder checking), women drive like idiots (stopping in the middle of the highway, driving the wrong way on a one way street etc.). Both are dangerous, both need to be corrected, but it is simply a difference between men and women. I personally think this is simply a fact that men have better visuospatial sense then women (on average), and are generally hopped up on testosterone.

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
  3. New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but how do you explain all the bad drivers in New Jersey?

    1. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      inbreeding, duh!

    2. Re:New Jersey Drivers by furby076 · · Score: 1

      Inbreeding.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    3. Re:New Jersey Drivers by jdgeorge · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hmm? According to 2005 data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), New Jersey is actually one of the safest states to drive in. New Jersey is number 10 on this list, behind Utah, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky,Idaho, Nebraska,West Virginia, Indiana, and Maine.

      Also interesting, but not directly related to New Jersey drivers, is an Allstate study of driver safety by city.

    4. Re:New Jersey Drivers by KiltedKnight · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but how do you explain all the bad drivers in New Jersey?

      Easy... New York City and Philadelphia.

      --
      OCO is Loco
    5. Re:New Jersey Drivers by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What's amazing is that two of those states are Kentucky and Indiana, where on some of the backroads, it is not uncommon to see people driving down the middle of the road until they see another car coming towards them. For that to be one of the safest places in the country to drive almost certainly has more to do with population (or lack thereof) than good driving habits. :-)

      And no, that's not just a joke. My aunt and uncle live in Indiana and used to live in Kentucky. People really do drive down the middle of the road. My great grandfather (also in Kentucky at the time) reportedly said, "It's smoother in the center" or something to that effect....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is common practice on gravel roads EVERYWHERE. It is smoother in the middle.

    7. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I drive in the middle lanes of 3+ lane highways for the same reason I would drive in the middle of an empty 2-lane road. You have far more road surface to either side you. This, in theory, provides you with more avenues of escape.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    8. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are multiple reasons to do this.

      Heavy rain pools at the edge of the road first. You can avoid most large puddles (which can cause a loss of control) this way. I was actually taught to do this by an instructor.

      Also, it can be difficult to see pedestrians at night, so driving in the middle requires less of a reaction should you encounter one (remember there are often no shoulders on these back roads for them to safely walk on). It's much easier to see an approaching car's headlights and move over accordingly than it is to see a person walking down the road.

      It does tend to be a little smoother as well. Not to mention the roads typically slope away from the center, so you'll find it easier to drive if you move towards the center.

    9. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Does it give any extra reaction time or space for avoiding animals trying to dart across the road? I'm not sure it would matter all that much, but sometimes a fraction of a second can make a difference.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    10. Re:New Jersey Drivers by shakah · · Score: 2

      And unfortunately your kids will probably drive just like you, adding to the hammerhead population that refuses to drive in the right lane.

    11. Re:New Jersey Drivers by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      After I read your list of safe states I thought there might be a correlation between snowfall and driving safety- I didn't see MN, WI, ND, SD, MT, AK, or CO (heavy snowfall/ice states) in your list. So I looked around and found this:

      http://maps.howstuffworks.com/united-states-annual-snowfall-map.htm

      It looks like there is more to this than just snow, since several of the safest states have pretty decent snowfall. I did notice a stricking lack of 'warm' states on the safe list; with the exception of GA, none of the states that are mostly or wholly in the tan "less than 8 inches" band across the southern US made it onto the list.

      This map of population density:
      http://www.census.gov/popest/gallery/maps/popdens-2008.html

      shows that most of the safer states have fairly low population densities (NJ being the exception). More specific maps showing population centers would be helpful. However, many of the 'less safe' states also have very low population densities as well.

      Perhaps there's an actuary here on /. who could tie all this together?

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    12. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it would, unless they're coming from the left side of the road of course :)

      It does give you the ability to swerve either direction though, not that it's a good idea to swerve for an animal, but sometimes it's just a natural reaction.

    13. Re:New Jersey Drivers by mayko · · Score: 1

      And unfortunately your kids will probably drive just like you, adding to the hammerhead population that refuses to drive in the right lane.

      You obviously don't live in an area that has A.) Gravel roads B.) High deer populations C.) Idiot pedestrians who walk/run at 11pm with dark clothing on. I can see an oncoming car from a mile away, but a deer darting out from overgrowth that sometimes is only a few feet from the edge of the road... not so much

    14. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually quite true on old country roads. I've had to do the same thing. The edge of the pavement degrades faster than the center, so its smoother driving in the middle. Since the roads aren't exactly high traffic, it works out so long as you aren't stupid about it.

    15. Re:New Jersey Drivers by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      In Australia there are lots of roads out in the middle of nowhere that has a one car wide bit of bitumen, and gravel on either side, and you drive down the middle until you see a car coming then you slow down and pull onto the gravel. Assuming they're not doing this in the middle of a city or around blind corners, it's a perfectly acceptable way to drive.

    16. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who drives on a lot of backroads in Pennsylvania, I can attest to the benefit of driving down the middle of the road. The edges can be in particularly poor condition and have lots of debris (branches on the road or just hanging into the lane) as well as sudden appearances of creatures large and small. If you can see far enough down the road to notice oncoming cars in enough time to move over, then might as well avoid all the crap at the edges of these narrow roads. Of course with all the ups, downs, and winding turns such conditions are by no means guaranteed.

    17. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 1

      It's not the driving in the middle of the road so much as it's the lack of turn signals, inability to read signs (especially the pictures that indicate that their lane is ending), and the fact that you can get plates for any vehicle no matter its road-worthiness in these states (If a cop catches you, he might mention that it's unsafe to drive without any fenders, but he might just ask if you're his cousin). And yeah, I live in one of those states. Believe it or not, it really is safer to drive in the middle out here. It gives you more escape routes to get away from the farm equipment when it turns suddenly into your lane from the field you're driving along. Also the Amish just HAD to make their slow-moving buggies black. That and the frakking deer. God, I hate this place.

    18. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's amazing is that two of those states are Kentucky and Indiana, where on some of the backroads, it is not uncommon to see people driving down the middle of the road until they see another car coming towards them.

      I went on holiday to Sicily last year and they drive like that. One minor difference - when another car is coming, they just stay there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:New Jersey Drivers by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      I grew up and live in NJ, albeit a really nice part. The only general complaint I have about NJ drivers is that they consider the turn signal a sign of weakness - as a rule, if it goes on at all it's in the middle of a turn. I'm an excellent driver (I drive a 7-ton ambulance safely with no trouble), and I can count on one hand the times where I haven't signaled, in the two years I've been driving.

      In any case, there are bad drivers anywhere. There's a lot of people in NJ; you'll tend to see more of them per mile...

      What's with all the NJ hate? Parts of it are grimy and will get you shot (Irvington) but that's true anywhere... Maybe it's the governance? We haven't had a non-corrupt governor in like 10 years... yet things work out.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    20. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      not that it's a good idea to swerve for an animal

      Depends on the size of the animal. A deer, horse or cow has long enough legs that the front of the car will go under it and it comes down to a contest between the windscreen and the animal's torso in which you may well end up as collateral damage.

      This guy was pretty lucky in that the pillar seems to have taken the brunt of the blow.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    21. Re:New Jersey Drivers by IorDMUX · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Correction, New Jersey is one of the 10 safest states to drive in when only alcohol-related crashes are considered. It may be a wonderful safe place to drive otherwise, or it may not, but the study doesn't look at that.

      From the linked article:

      The Coalition to End Needless Death on Our Roadways (END), a physician-led safety advocacy group, looks specifically at those fatal car crashes in which alcohol was involved. On Nov. 30, it put out its annual study on the states where alcohol most frequently played a part in fatal auto accidents. [...] Here's a look at the 10 safest states in reference to alcohol-related car crashes

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    22. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      For WV's sake, I can probably guess it's due to having a different mark of what a bad driver is. You learn very quickly how fast you can round a sharp turn on an untreated ice covered road with a cliff on one side and mountainside on the other, or else you don't drive very long. =)

    23. Re:New Jersey Drivers by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please, that's the least of your problems. Last time I visited everyone was on the wrong fucking side of the road!

    24. Re:New Jersey Drivers by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Let me know how you make out when you're getting passed on the right and on the left and the guy in front of you blows a tire.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    25. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's mostly the case once you're off the major roads in a lot of southern Europe. You pretty well have to do that on many of the departmentales in southern France.

    26. Re:New Jersey Drivers by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Germany has lots of wildlife yet it's ILLEGAL to drive anywhere but the far right lane, except when passing. It's not like you hear about a rash of German accidents that were caused because the car had no reaction room to the right hand side. The benefits of improved traffic flow far outweigh the minor chance that you might strike a deer on the shoulder of the road.

    27. Re:New Jersey Drivers by mycroft822 · · Score: 1

      The page you linked to is a little misleading with its title. The "safety" measure they are using to rank each state is percentage of fatal crashes in which at least one driver tested positive for alcohol.

    28. Re:New Jersey Drivers by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Depends on which roads and location.

      Some places in the US there isn't a "Minor chance" but a very large chance.

      Traffic flow in some areas is NOT improved but only using the number 1 lane as a passing lane.

      Most freeways during the day that go through major cities, for example.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    29. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Ah things flying thru windsreens.

      Many years ago I remeber a salesman who returned to the office white as a ghost. He had been driving on the highway when an Oxy gas botlle fell off a truck, tumbled onto his bonnet, then broke the windshield, bent the steering wheel 90 degrees and then continued to tumble over the roof and away, leaving him unharmed!

      DAMN lucky escape!

    30. Re:New Jersey Drivers by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Yes, traffic flow IS improved by prohibiting use of the left lane for anything but passing. I'm not a traffic engineer, but this is pretty much a universally accepted truth. Germany makes it a pretty severe penalty to drive in the left lane or to pass on the right, and coincidentally they have the safest highways in the world.

    31. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Maybe Germany has fences at the side of the geautobahnenschnellwegs?

      The UK does, but then I once saw a horse loose on the M1.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    32. Re:New Jersey Drivers by nschubach · · Score: 1

      On a two lane road, is half a lane really an avenue of escape? On the highways they usually build these additional side parts shoulders... to be used in emergency situations... hint, hint.

      I was driving back from my parent's this weekend late at night and I had some deer run out in front of me. It doesn't matter what side of the road you are on, or the middle, you are not going to dodge deer. They are highly unpredictable. If I would have swerved to go behind the deer, I'd be eating deer right now because it turned around and went back half way. I was better off in my lane and stopping in my lane like I did.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    33. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your kids will probably drive just like you, adding to the hammerhead population that likes to drive fast and tailgate slower drivers.

    34. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Black Amish deer SUCK!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    35. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckier still would have been to be in front of the badly loaded truck, or in the next lane, or driving down then the road three dasys later. Or driving down an entirely different road.

    36. Re:New Jersey Drivers by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Not really that crazy, when you think about it.... If you're driving down the middle of a windy unpaved country road, then you have more space to react if you hit a pothole and veer off to the side. You've also got space to react on both sides in case some wayward wildlife steps out in front of you. In my driving experience, I've had to avoid small animals like cats/dogs/racoons, medium-sized animals like deer, and large animals like moose and one bear. (the joys of living in Ontario....)

      Now, I'm not saying that the tristate area is exactly Moose Country, but there are certainly deer in KY, and there could be some logic to driving down the middle of the road. People do it up here, too.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    37. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about Kentucky or Indiana, but this is also very common practice in Idaho. It's accepted and expected behavior, because it's what makes sense.
      Many of these roads are not two lane roads. They were originally dirt roads that were simply tarred over, and are basically 1 lane roads with rather wide shoulders. You drive in the middle because that's what's safe and not as badly crumbling. When another car is approaching, you pull as far over as you possibly can, and slow down to around 25mph to carefully work around each other. Half of the time, the two cars simply will not fit side-by-side. You each have two wheels off of the pavement. Not to mention the fact that I can drive for over 20 miles on these roads and, on an extremely high traffic day, see, um, two cars. Why, exactly, would I hang on for dear life at the crumbling edge of a one lane road that was DESIGNED to have people drive down the middle?

    38. Re:New Jersey Drivers by mcsqueak · · Score: 1

      but there are certainly deer in KY

      Ah, animal bi-products! THAT explains why it glides so smooth!

    39. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a very good reason, but the reason for riding the center (of a 3-lane-per-direction road) is to clear the right lane (for entering/exiting traffic) and all left lanes (for people passing you).

      As for the GP's road complaint, it's safe enough in the Indiana flatlands, since you can always see someone coming, but most of us don't do it, at least up north. (Never drove much in southern Indiana, maybe they do it...) OTOH, my mum learned to drive that way in the Pennsylvania hill country, and still does it excessively whenever she visits her folks back there. Scares me to death on those winding hilly roads.

      But the reason it started, and the reason you still have to do it on some back roads, is with roads whose properly paved surface, while adequate for horses, is not wide enough for two cars to pass comfortably. In this case, since you have to alter course, probably slow down, and put two wheels in the ditch anyway when you see someone coming, there's really no point to driving half off-center. Since most such roads have been repaved to two generous lanes, and usually flatter as well, it's generally pointless except in heavy rain (the rain runs to the sides of a properly cambered road, and if there's poor drainage, the sides can become submerged when a storm blows in off Lake Michigan-Huron.) or the odd dirt road.

      The other cool thing that makes Indiana roads safer, and makes people drive down the center of the road sometimes, is a decent respect for bicycles. Because of the local Amish population, motorists are well aware of cyclists, and customarily shift over 1/3 - 1/2 lane width to pass a cyclist riding the white line. If there's oncoming traffic, they customarily shift over in advance to make sure the vehicle passing the bicycle has room to shift over -- that's right, most Hoosiers (around here, at least) voluntarily relinquish part of their lane to make everyone's ride go a little smoother. OTOH, they do get a little pissed off when a "foreign" cyclist takes to heart the "take the lane" line that's good advice elsewhere -- they just can't figure out why he's out in the middle of the road, because nobody here does that, so they assume he's trying to disrupt the social order of the roads.

    40. Re:New Jersey Drivers by shermo · · Score: 1

      Clearly you should drive on the left side of the road since then you will be further away from deer coming from the right.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    41. Re:New Jersey Drivers by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Driving is a strange thing. I'm Australian, the vast majority of drivers indicate their intentions well in advance, also using the horn is rare. All in all it's a pretty decent experience, though many Australians would probably disagree, so to that I say take a trip overseas.

      I now live in the Philippines. (For work, not the hot chicky babes) My daily ride in Manila is a Honda CBR400RR - I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually USED my turn indicators, I'm on my third set of air horns.

      You have to be far more alert in the Philippines, but really I'm not sure which country is the more dangerous place to be on the road, both have their good and bad aspects.

    42. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you drive on the right side when fucking and on the left side when not fucking?

    43. Re:New Jersey Drivers by ztransform · · Score: 1

      I'm Australian, the vast majority of drivers indicate their intentions well in advance

      Could someone please make these British drivers indicate? Sometimes? Any time? No? sigh

    44. Re:New Jersey Drivers by dkf · · Score: 1

      Germany has lots of wildlife yet it's ILLEGAL to drive anywhere but the far right lane, except when passing.

      Germany doesn't have a lot of moose roaming around. Sweden OTOH does. There, if you're out in the backwoods you'll often drive well away from the edge of the road if you can (which depends on whether the road is paved or not and how many potholes there are in it; these are independent factors). This can get quite exciting if you suddenly come on a timber truck going the other direction over a blind hill...

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    45. Re:New Jersey Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving in the right lane is all well and good when the traffic is sparse. But if you're on a 65mph road in most places in the US there are 2 kinds of traffic.. those going 60 and those going 70. The left lane is the fast lane. If you think it's a good idea to pass only in the left then when traffic is up that means you are constantly weaving in and out of the right lane. You're now a danger to everyone in both lanes. Start heavily ticketing people for driving under the posted speed limit and then maybe you can have your idealism work the way you want it.

  4. Re: Bad Driving by domulys · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is the "particular gene" a second X chromosome?

    I kid, I kid!

  5. First... define worse... by jhfry · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.

    So, perhaps this gene is more of a "disrespect for authority" gene?

    --
    Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    1. Re:First... define worse... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      This isn't about interacting with traffic and obeying laws, it's about maintaining control of the vehicle.

      The driving test was taken by 29 people - 22 without the gene variant and seven with it. They were asked to drive 15 laps on a simulator that required them to learn the nuances of a track programmed to have difficult curves and turns. Researchers recorded how well they stayed on the course over time. Four days later, the test was repeated.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:First... define worse... by blueg3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wow, defining the problem! I wonder if the researchers thought of such a novel concept?

      If only there was some sort of written description of the research, longer than a summary, that might shed light on if they independently came to the same conclusion that problem-definition might be worthwhile and, if so, what they defined as "better" and "worse"...

    3. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read TFA, you would see that vehicle control is exactly what was tested, not the ability to follow rules or road signs.

    4. Re:First... define worse... by furby076 · · Score: 1

      In the eyes of the law, and some others - getting a speeding ticket = being a bad driver. Though I challenge that since Nascar drivers are some of the best in the world - and drive the fastest too. Making a u-turn does not make you a bad driver. Making a u-turn into oncoming traffic and getting into a wreck makes you a bad driver. Insurance companies jsut want extra money.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    5. Re:First... define worse... by jhfry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are testing the memory of the track. Take one of the failures out and put him in a real car with genuine feedback, real handling, g-forces, etc... then see how he performs. Or simply change the track every time its driven.

      A good driver by their standards will know the turn is coming and compensate before they see it.

      A good driver by my standards will know how to control their vehicle when presented with an unexpected turn or a kid on a bike shooting out between parked cars.

      Essentially they created a test to see the effect of this gene on practiced behaviors... but it didn't test driving at all. Few accidents are the result of a driver forgetting how to drive, they are the result of a driver not knowing how to really drive in the first place (ie how to respond to the unexpected, or letting themselves be distracted and/or complacent).

      They already knew this gene effected memory, all this test did is test memory by having them repeat the same course over and over again. Change the course regularly and the results may change, those with great memories may not be able to adapt to changes/suprises.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    6. Re:First... define worse... by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control."

      Do you realize that traffic rules were designed _specifically_ to minimize the impact of drivers' mistakes? And that if your 'best drivers' actually obeyed the laws, they'd have most probably avoided accidents. Even the ones caused by other drivers.

    7. Re:First... define worse... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.

      If you cannot maintain your speed at the posted limit, and have no respect for when a U-Turn is allowed or appropriate, than you are not maintaining "superior control" of your vehicle. You're just trying to justify your asshattery. (Yes, we all got that you're talking about youself.)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    8. Re:First... define worse... by jhfry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No... they tested memory. They even brought the group back for a second session to see who remembered the track and who didn't.

      A great driver is one who responds appropriately to the unexpected and maintains focus on driving amidst distraction.

      Think about it this way, play your favorite racing game on a new track... if you stay on the track the first time through it, it's not because your bad at the game its because the game makes it impossible to be successful unless you either a. drive crazy slow or b. have memorized the track. Now if you have memorized the track, there is nothing unexpected to respond to so you go much faster. I hate racing games for this very reason, I can never remember the track.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    9. Re:First... define worse... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So, perhaps this gene is more of a "delusion of competence" gene?

      FTFY

    10. Re:First... define worse... by jhfry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate to respond to this kind of stuff but I will.

      To make an analogy, imagine that traffic laws are like government mandated school curriculum, they are designed to be of the most benefit to the majority, they are by no means designed to define driving ability.

      There are people who shouldn't drive at all, and there are those who are capable of driving in much more extreme situations.

      Well I agree that disregarding traffic laws is not a 'good' thing, a persons ability to conform to them will never dictate to me their ability to drive.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    11. Re:First... define worse... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair to racing games, they are simulating racing, and for this it is realistic. Race car drivers spend countless hours studying every single inch of the track before they go out and race on it -- it really is the only way to drive at such a high rate of speed through any kind of track. As for your critique of this study -- you are spot-on. This tests absolutely nothing as far as real-world driving skills go. This is a test of memory as well as a test of the participants' video game skill (driving a simulator, even a good one, is much more like playing a video game than actually driving.)

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    12. Re:First... define worse... by jhfry · · Score: 1

      Oh... and actually I wasn't talking about myself... though I have my fair share of traffic violations. I don't think any person can adequately judge their own driving.

      I know someone is a good driver when I let go of the "oh shit" handle and stop pushing the imaginary break. I know they are a great driver when I can relax enough to sleep or read while they are driving.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    13. Re:First... define worse... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      That sound more like making excuses for your bad driving. Part of you're driving ability isn't just your own control of the car. But how to interact with other drivers. Speeding doing illegal turns etc... Puts the other driver in a state that they don't know what your are doing. So they don't know thus more chance you will get in an accident. For example tailgaters, when you are tailgating someone you don't know what they are going to do. Will they shift lanes without looking hitting the other car (as they appear that they are going to get rear-ended) Will they hit the brakes who knows...
      Saying I haven't gotten in an accident yet is not proof of your driving skills. It is just that other people have been good enough to keep distance away from you.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    14. Re:First... define worse... by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      You could make a grid for this. For purposes of driving, I'll assume clumsy and incompetent are interchangeable.

      Clumsy and they know it | Clumsy and they don't know it
      Competent and they know it | Competent and they don't know it

    15. Re:First... define worse... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      Make an illegal turn on a blind corner and you might find yourself in a lot more accidents caused by 'another driver's lack of control'.

      I'm not disagreeing with your notion that there are better drivers than others. And that these drivers are safer at high speeds than low speeds but something like making a uturn where it is illegal is annoying because as a conscientious driver I like to maximize my energy checking spots where people should be coming from not some cowboy who just made an illegal u-turn when I was looking the other way.

    16. Re:First... define worse... by Marcika · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.

      If you cannot maintain your speed at the posted limit, and have no respect for when a U-Turn is allowed or appropriate, than you are not maintaining "superior control" of your vehicle. You're just trying to justify your asshattery. (Yes, we all got that you're talking about youself.)

      No, you're confounding skills with ethics here. A hacker can both be skilled and be a blackhat; by the same token, a driver can be skilled and be an asshat. (Of course there is not necessarily always a positive correlation - cf. script-kiddies)

    17. Re:First... define worse... by chebucto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've always thought defensive driving (the ability to anticipate potentially dangerous situations and react in such a way as to mitigate or eliminate the danger) was the hallmark of good driving. The ability to react to surprise is also a trait of good drivers, I grant, but, as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

      --
      The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    18. Re:First... define worse... by Gulthek · · Score: 0, Troll

      Traffic laws are there for a reason: to save lives. Break them regularly and you are a bad driver. Period. Full stop. End of line.

      Yes, you may be maintaining control of your vehicle. That would be great if you were the only moving object on the road.

    19. Re:First... define worse... by jhfry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure... but memorizing your route home from work does nothing to make you a good driver.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    20. Re:First... define worse... by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A good driver avoids most accidents even if they are caused by another driver's lack of control. I can't tell you how many times I've anticipated a dumbass move by some driver, pedestrian, or cyclist and preempted a collision.

      You talk about "superior control" over the vehicle as if that's the hard part. That hard part is all the other people on the road. A good driver doesn't collide with things, period.

    21. Re:First... define worse... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.

      So, perhaps this gene is more of a "disrespect for authority" gene?

      Well, I'm not certain that this study is actually testing driving ability... Seems more to be about their memory than their ability to drive...

      But, regardless of how well you handle a vehicle, if you can't follow the speed limits and whatnot - you are a bad driver.

      The speed limits, turn restrictions, signage, whatever is all there for a reason. It's to create a safe and predictable driving environment for everyone. Generally speaking, you aren't the only person on the road. A speed limit of 30 mph isn't there to make it take longer for you to get to work - it's there to ensure that everyone is traveling at roughly 30 mph. Which makes it possible, for example, to enter and exit the flow of traffic from parking lots relatively easily.

      Sure, you may be able to handle your vehicle well... But if you're speeding up the road at 60 mph, in a 30 mph zone, somebody else may very well try to pull out in front of you and cause an accident.

      Surprises cause accidents. Traffic laws and signage are there to reduce surprises. If you cannot follow the laws and signage, you are creating surprises. You may be able to deal with the surprises, or you may not - but that isn't the big problem. The big problem is how all the other drivers are going to deal with your surprises.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    22. Re:First... define worse... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Driving simulators test real driving about as well as Call of Duty tests real marksmanship. It seem that a number of posters don't like your earlier comment about "bad" drivers often being better than "good" ones, but I think there's something to it. Many of the "good" drivers I know (my wife, for one), don't have the skills to react to dangerous situations, or the instincts to recover from a bad situation properly. Some of these only develop through practice, which is usually through "bad" driving.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    23. Re:First... define worse... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To make an analogy, imagine that traffic laws are like government mandated school curriculum, they are designed to be of the most benefit to the majority, they are by no means designed to define driving ability.

      Bad analogy.

      Traffic laws are like the code of conduct within a classroom. They prohibit someone from sitting in the back of the classroom and screaming at the top of their lungs while pelting the other students with rotten vegetables. The screaming/pelting kid may very well learn great like that, but they're a terrible distraction to everyone else and degrade the learning experience for the rest of the classroom.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    24. Re:First... define worse... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      There are many exceptions, though. For example, on most freeways speed limits are set based on safety of the rightmost lane. That's the only place they really matter, and only because of exiting and entering traffic. By the fourth lane over, there's no real harm in going faster as long as you aren't going more than about 10-15 MPH faster than the lane to your right (because doing so would mean they might not see you in time to avoid cutting you off while passing another vehicle). Yet they still enforce the same speed limit in every lane. Not to mention that they slow the speed limit down absurdly early in some cases because of rush hour making a mess of things instead of being smart and having time-of-day speed limits for those stretches.

      There's no reason in the world for 237 in Sunnyvale to be marked 55 outside of rush hour except as a speed trap. Well, maybe for a hundred feet in the westbound direction where 101 northbound enters, but even then, only because they are too cheap to make that entrance actually safe. There's similarly no reason for highway 17 in Scotts Valley to be marked 65 instead of 70 like it would be in any other state in the U.S. There's no reason for El Camino to go from 40 to 35, back to 40, then back to 35 again as you cross jurisdictional boundaries (or not). And so on.

      No, some traffic rules are designed to minimize the impact of drivers' mistakes. Others are pretty clearly designed to raise revenue, to force traffic to go slower because neighbors complain about the noise, to make it easier on the people planning the traffic lights, because the city is too cheap to put in a traffic light where one is needed, etc. Like not allowing a left turn on green in most of California merely because there are two turn lanes even if the number of cars coming from the other direction measures in the single digits per day, or not allowing a right turn on red when there's clearly no visual barrier preventing you from seeing vehicles early enough to be safe, or putting "right turn only" signs at nearly every exit to a parking lot, forcing you to go three blocks out of your way every time you try to go from Lowe's to Fry's, putting "emergency vehicle only" left turns into the parking lot instead of putting in a traffic light like they should have, etc.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    25. Re:First... define worse... by JimboFBX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Your one of those people who shakes their fist angrily at every driver who passes them because you're going 54 in a 55 mph zone and the flow of traffic is 62, aren't you?

    26. Re:First... define worse... by Xtravar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, his post was kind of asshatty. But here's another way to think about it. There are two modes of driving. In one mode, you are alert, aware of your surroundings, you know what lane changes and turns you can make without causing an accident. In the other mode, your brain is on autopilot and you should follow the rules to a T. People who haven't had enough experience driving don't really fit into these categories yet.

      The laws are there to stop people from driving recklessly on autopilot, and indeed, that is when most accidents and tickets of experienced drivers happen. People who are distracted with daydreaming, eating, talking on the phone, passengers, etc should be in mode 2 and following the rules.

      If you're in mode 1 and following all of the traffic laws, then you're probably bored out of your head. That's just how humans work. As long as driving is *the activity*, people are going to get bored, impatient, and ultimately break laws to make things quicker and more interesting. As long as the driver is being responsible, then it's generally okay, and I can prove that by the fact there aren't more accidents and traffic cops.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    27. Re:First... define worse... by jhfry · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Traffic rules are designed to balance speed and safety for the majority of drivers... if they were designed "to minimize the impact of drivers' mistakes" you wouldn't be driving.

      I can show you many cases, where a person is not capable of driving safely even within the confines of the law. While I can show you an equal number of cases where the laws actually restrict a driver from achieving their optimal balance between speed and safety.

      I could also argue that some drivers become more complacent when they fail to drive in their optimal speed/risk range, which might actually make them less safe... but that is purely speculative.

      Avoiding accidents is far more about being defensive, aware, practiced, and very comfortable with the capabilities of your vehicle. The first thing I do every winter is take my wife and I out to an icy parking lot to practice stopping, swerving, and spin out recovery because I know that these skills are FAR more valuable than obeying traffic laws.

      Finally, your argument that accidents would be avoided if those drivers had obeyed the traffic laws is moot. I wasn't suggesting that they were disobeying when the accidents occurred... I just didn't want to say that they NEVER got into an accident as that would have been a lie. Its just as likely that the accident would have been much worse if they had been conforming.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    28. Re:First... define worse... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      If you cannot maintain your speed at the posted limit [...] you are not maintaining "superior control" of your vehicle. You're just trying to justify your asshattery. (Yes, we all got that you're talking about youself.)

      The posted limit is just a money-making threshold, it has nothing to do with control of the vehicle.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    29. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, are you really using people who only turn left as the basis for your counterargument? Have you seen how often they lose control?

    30. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.

      So, perhaps this gene is more of a "disrespect for authority" gene?

      A big part of being a "good driver" is defensive driving - always assume the other driver is an idjit. People who "can't" obey speed limits, etc are - by definition - bad drivers.

    31. Re:First... define worse... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Uhh no.

      A driving simulator uses a real wheel and real pedals with a full field of view of the road... Comparing that to Call of Duty is silly.

    32. Re:First... define worse... by jhfry · · Score: 1

      That was the BEST argument against what I said yet. The laws create predictability and reduce surprises, and I agree 100%.

      I certainly wasn't suggesting that anarchy on the roads was a good thing. But I have yet to meet a driver who didn't disobey a traffic law occasionally. And my point was not to suggest that breaking laws makes for a good driver, I was simply suggesting that using a persons morals, ethics, and conformity to the laws is no way to judge their ability to drive safely.

      The way I see it, I would much rather have my definition of a "good" driver driving me around at 10mph over the speed limit than some first time driver that can obey the laws. Sure the ideal would be my "good" driver obeying the laws.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    33. Re:First... define worse... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know someone like that too, he has over 30 points on his license and had it revoked recently.

      Just an FYI, it's called an accident for a reason, it happens to everyone including some of the best race car drivers in the world.

    34. Re:First... define worse... by smidget2k4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think that what we really need here is a car analogy so the /. crowd and understand.

      So it is like when a very poor driver is driving down the road...

    35. Re:First... define worse... by tool462 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And based on my own experience as a driver and a witness of others' driving, the level of comfort memorization encourages may be one of the more dangerous parts of driving.

      You get into a habit of thinking things like:
      There are never any cars around this corner
      I never see kids on this street
      Everybody drives 40mph on this street (posted speed of 25mph)

      All my closest calls as a driver have happened when you get in autopilot mode when driving in familiar streets.
      Contrast this to driving in a storm, in heavy traffic, in an unfamiliar area. Statistically I'm probably much more likely to get in an accident in the latter case, but I'm definitely paying much more attention and am being a much better driver.

    36. Re:First... define worse... by jizziknight · · Score: 1

      I agree with this, but would also add to it that a good driver doesn't cause others to collide with things either. For instance, I may be able to handle my car perfectly well at 80mph on the highway, but if I can't do it without adversely affecting the other drivers on the road, then I am not a "good" driver. However, if I can zoom down the highway at 80mph, not cause people to panic, swerve out of my way, not hit anything, and still be courteous to others who wish to drive the speed limit, then one might consider me to be a "good" driver.

      --
      Everything I say is a lie. Except that... and that... and that, and that, and that, and that... and that.
    37. Re:First... define worse... by ahodgson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Uh, no. Many of the rules, like speed limits, are there to limit the damage that bad drivers can do when they screw up. Some bad drivers break the rules. Some good drivers break the rules. Bad drivers get in accidents no matter if they obey the rules or not. They just kill fewer people if they happen to be driving slow at the time.

    38. Re:First... define worse... by jhfry · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up... this is exactly why this study doesn't prove how this gene can separate good drivers from bad ones! All it does is favor those who drive by their memory rather than those who drive based upon what they see NOW. Toss in something unexpected and report the results.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    39. Re:First... define worse... by eh2o · · Score: 1

      The difficulty with a speeding vehicle is usually for the *other* drivers on the road, who have a more difficult time predicting the trajectory of the speeding vehicle, less time to react to its presence, etc.

      Its not a disrespect for authority, its a disrespect for people in general.

    40. Re:First... define worse... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      I always thought the general logic must be "sign it at 55mph and people will go 10mph faster, i.e. 65mph. If you went and signed it at 65mph everyone would go 75." 10mph faster than the signed speed limit (sometimes 15) seems to be the target most people actually go for, so if you were actually interested in highway safety that's what you'd need to do.

      Myself, I don't care as much about a few miles over the speed limit as those lane-jockeys who keep weaving in and out of traffic on a crowded freeway at the first sign they might be able to go a little faster. I bet they think they're "good" drivers too, because they go "fast" (and it's not really much faster, but it feels like you're doing something).

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    41. Re:First... define worse... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then why did the same results happen on the first trial, when neither group had seen the track before?

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    42. Re:First... define worse... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      A speed limit of 30 mph isn't there to make it take longer for you to get to work - it's there to ensure that everyone is traveling at roughly 30 mph.

      I generally agree, but realistically, a speed limit of 30mph is there to make sure that everyone is travelling roughly 35-40mph. If they wanted you traveling at about 30mph they'd sign it for 25mph.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    43. Re:First... define worse... by steelfood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Few accidents are the result of a driver forgetting how to drive, they are the result of a driver not knowing how to really drive in the first place

      This is a false dichotomy. Accidents don't happen in a vacuum. They're usually comprised of several factors. Aggressive driving is one factor, but by itself, it's not sufficient to cause an accident. An unexpected event like a pedestrian runnig out is a second factor, but also not necessarily enough to cause an accident, even when said pedestrian runs out into an aggressive driver. And a driver who forgets how to drive, even momentarily, won't necessarily cause an accident, even with any one of the above factors in play.

      Put all three together however, and that changes things significantly.

      Safety requires all three aspects. Anybody thinking that their aggressive driving won't cause an accident because they know what they're doing is delusional. Anybody thinking that they can drive however they like so long as they're within the limits of the law is delusional. Anybody thinking that driving is time for pleasure, relaxation, or unwinding, is delusional.

      Driving is about cooperation. Cooperation with the conditions of the road, with the other drivers on the road, and with the other elements that can enter the road. Since drivers have no control over what enters the road (pedestrians, a dog, etc.), a good driver needs both things you've described, an ability to make predicitons, and an ability to react to the unpredictable. The former is tied to experience and training, which is why new drivers are far more dangerous, because they're lacking in both (you can't honestly call the driving test real training).

      The article implies that a certain subset of people are lacking in the ability to retain this. It means that their driving ability is automatically decreased. Even if they can react unnaturally quickly, even if they're typically "safe" drivers that drive within the limits of the law, they're still more prone to accidents by nature of their deficit. Even if they drive slower and less aggressive, if their training doesn't kick in at a moment of need, they're still more likely to get into an accident.

      In the end though, it's about chance. When something major happens, your ability to avoid it is really about whether you're feeling lucky or not.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    44. Re:First... define worse... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Insurance companies jsut want extra money.

      While that is quite likely the case, the insurance companies put a lot of effort and expense into the risk models, and it's unlikely that those models are far wrong. People with lots of tickets are statistically more likely to get into accidents. If they weren't, some insurance company would figure it out, and price their insurance lower to get more money, because, as you note, they want more money.

      The same logic holds for under 25 males, people with bad credit, etc. These are used to price your insurance, BECAUSE THEY WORK from a statistical standpoint. Insurance is all about stats. The logic also likely holds for some sets of ethnic/demographic groups, but there are a lot of legal restrictions on what you can use in the models. Hence, zip code gets used, which is a pretty good proxy for ethnicity and economic status.

      As a side note on that last point, I worked for a few years developing collections recovery models. We did some work with census data and zip codes. We found that zip code captured most of the predictive signal that was available from ethnicity and economic status, of which there is plenty.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    45. Re:First... define worse... by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the ability to anticipate an impending act of asshattery -- it is particularly well developed in those of us who spend most of our road time on a motorcycle.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    46. Re:First... define worse... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Do you realize that traffic rules were designed _specifically_ to minimize the impact of drivers' mistakes?

      Not that I disagree with the fact that the parent poster might be deluding himself, I really don't know if he's a good driver or not, but...

      German town bans road signs to cut accidents

      This is not to say that the German town is a perfect counter-example to what you're saying, it's not, for instance even if they took out all the signs and many of the rules -- they still kept a town-wide speed-limit of 30 mph. But perhaps something can be learned from this experiment, and perhaps we should try to run such experiments ourselves in the US, first in smaller towns just like they did, and then in slightly larger and larger towns to see if the concept still works.

    47. Re:First... define worse... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Well, yes and no. I like your sibling's response better though. It's not about laws, it's about the predictability of your behavior. And the laws usually support this. But occasionally, you have speed traps that go from 65 to 25 on a bend, and you suddenly have to short stop to stay within the speed limit. That's unpredictable behavior mandated by the law.

      So it's not about the laws, it's about your individual behavior with respect to others. It's not far off from what you're saying though. It just means that if everybody on the road is doing 80 on a 65, you better not be doing 60 on the left lane and thinking there's something wrong with everybody else.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    48. Re:First... define worse... by bmwEnthusiast · · Score: 1

      Please tell me how I could have avoided being rear ended while waiting to make a left hand turn with traffic turning in front of me and coming at me in the lanes i'm trying to cross. Your theory of rules helping me the common driver avoid accidents by obeying laws is full of flaws.

    49. Re:First... define worse... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Just try that up here in winter time, see how far ya get.

      --
      C|N>K
    50. Re:First... define worse... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just an FYI, it's called an accident for a reason,

      My daughter recently completed a driver's ed class, which I thought was very well done. One of the things she was taught is that in driving, there is no such thing as an accident. You are referring to a collision. Good drivers are those that do not participate in, cause, or contribute to collisions. The mindset that they are trying to impart is that for the most part, collisions are caused by someone. They are not random events or acts of god.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    51. Re:First... define worse... by mayko · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you really using people who only turn left as the basis for your counterargument? Have you seen how often they lose control?

      I don't necessarily agree with the gp's use of nascar as an example. But I also get tired of people who simplify this racing as easy. Keep in mind they are driving ~3500lb cars at the absolute brink. Any racecar driver is pushing that car to the limit, the amount of skill and confidence needed to push a heavy car like that is beyond the average person.

      If you ever get a chance to see any professional race driver take laps in a street car, or anything with 4 wheels it is incredible what they can do.

    52. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I read is "blah, blah, blah, I'm still going to drive like a dangerous jackass and blame it on everyone else".

      Good job.

    53. Re:First... define worse... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Well, a good driver by my standards will know the turn is coming and compensate for it, so that when something unexpected happens he's still well within his own limits and the limits of his car to react to the situation.

    54. Re:First... define worse... by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While that is quite likely the case, the insurance companies put a lot of effort and expense into the risk models, and it's unlikely that those models are far wrong. People with lots of tickets are statistically more likely to get into accidents. If they weren't, some insurance company would figure it out, and price their insurance lower to get more money, because, as you note, they want more money.

      The insurance companies have models, but they're useful for assessing risk of a claim and not so much for driving ability. Any factor which is correlated with driving _more_ but is uncorrelated with driving ability will show up with increased risk of a claim. Similarly, any factor which is correlated with being around other bad drivers but is itself uncorrelated with driving skill will show up as having increased risk.

      In addition, I think the insurance companies do some deliberate cheating; for instance they add high-risk premiums according to a number of factors, without considering whether those factors are independent or not. For instance, young drivers have high claims. Drivers of small, sporty cars have high claims. So a young driver of a small sporty car gets dinged twice... even if the only reason small, sporty cars have high claims is that young drivers prefer them.

    55. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would love it if this were true. Unfortunately, the idea that "laws are there for a reason" is a big fat lie.

      Have you ever heard of a "speed trap"? Did you know that highways are designed to be driven at up to 80, 90, even 100 mph? Did you know that the only reason many of them are 55 or 65 are because highway speedlimits were reduced in the 80s to force people to conserve more gasoline during the gas crisis?

      Did you know that some states have different laws than others? Apparently making a right hand turn on red is safe in some states and not in others. It must be the weather I guess... clearly they aren't there to bolster some county tax budget...

      Did you know that some laws are just there so that police can have a reason to search your car if they suspect you of something else entirely?

      Did you know that often urban planners make mistakes? That places get rezoned improperly or for political reasons and that the speedlimit can change because of that rezoning?

      I'm not advocating driving like a maniac, but don't try and tell me that every law in place is there "for the good of the people". It's bullshit and you know it.

    56. Re:First... define worse... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers.

      That's funny. They sound just like the drivers I know who always get into accidents.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    57. Re:First... define worse... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I've seen too many bad drivers to want to ride a motorcycle on a daily basis.

      Yes, in many cases you can figure out what they are about to do. But the "mind reading" doesn't work so well when the idiot himself doesn't know what he wants to do till the last moment ("Oh, wait is that the exit? SWERVE! No it isn't, SWERVE-BACK!").

      I've seen that somewhat graphic video that is supposedly for discouraging drivers from speeding and make them drive more carefully, but all I get from watching the video is pedestrians and motorcyclists better be more careful and aware that there are crappy drivers out there who have a significant chance of killing or maiming you, especially if you aren't prepared for them.

      --
    58. Re:First... define worse... by amplt1337 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to mention that these "best drivers" may well be causing accidents by breaking the rules, encouraging unpredictability and spreading the results of their mistakes to others?

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    59. Re:First... define worse... by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that very often speed limits are completely idiotic and don't have any connection to the real world, because whoever sets them for a given road can have several reasons not to maintain this relationship. This could be a municipality trying to cash in on speeding tickets, which has been shown to be pretty effective in many cases. Somebody could be playing the "think of the children" and safety cards by blindly lowering the speed limits everywhere - this sounds good to your average person, statistics be damned. Then there's the environmental angle, which is apparently how the retarded 55mph limits were set on US highways. This actually covers both cases, though there are other examples of course. And last but not least, the people responsible could be incompetent or just not care.

      Following the limits can be stupid and dangerous if everybody else is breaking them as well for the above reasons. By driving below the average traffic speed, you're creating more of a hazard than if you just stay with the flow and keep the speed difference low. Also keep in mind that in all but a few exceptional cases, the speed limits don't reflect the actual conditions on the road. It's the middle of the night, there's a huge blizzard and you can't see shit, but the sign will still say 130km/h, just like it does when it's dry and sunny. Therefore, this leads me to conclude that statements such as "if you can't follow the speed limits and whatnot - you are a bad driver" are simply incorrect.

      Same goes for the signs. There are at least real-world case studies that showed that removing all, or most, signs actually increased safety for all involved, here are the two I've been previously aware of: one in the Netherlands and one from Germany, which is actually a more recent follow up to the part that mentions that the Germans are also planning this change. In both cases, there has been no increase in accident rate, but actually a significant decrease.

      I'm not going to argue completely against predictability on the roads, however blindly following whatever's written on those small metal disks isn't necessarily the best thing for the safety of those involved, as I have hopefully demonstrated clearly enough.

    60. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree. You should be prepared for the unexpected.

      Those who are good drivers don't end up dead when they encounter a rock slide. They manage to avoid the run away semi on the mountain pass. They know how to shut off their car when the engine "runs away" because of its stuck floormats.

      Good drivers don't own automatics.

      Good drivers also have lots of experience, which insurance companies penalize you on. The more you're on the road the more of a risk you are, when it's been shown time and again, the low milers are more often in accidents than the high milers (because they know how to get the hell out of the way of the sunday moron on the mobile).

    61. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tendency of making baseless assumptions, maybe? It definitely can be observed from other tasks and fields like programming, management and medicine.

    62. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something I've noticed is that artificially low speed limits on highways encourage bad driving. Common knowledge is that driving in the right lane reduces your risk of being pulled over because cops sit in the center median radaring so are less likely to notice you speeding before you see them and slow down in the right lane. The safest method would be for the left lane to always be the fast lane and fast drivers to stay in that lane.

      I almost got rear ended the other day because a driver in front of me slammed on their brakes after seeing a cop.

      When driving fast, instead of focusing on the road and looking for any signs of danger ahead as would be safest, I instead focus on the left median looking for signs of cops.

      The list goes on and on.

    63. Re:First... define worse... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I always thought the general logic must be "sign it at 55mph and people will go 10mph faster, i.e. 65mph. If you went and signed it at 65mph everyone would go 75." 10mph faster than the signed speed limit (sometimes 15) seems to be the target most people actually go for, so if you were actually interested in highway safety that's what you'd need to do.

      Nope. Studies have found that posted limits have very little effect on average driving speeds. People tend to drive at speeds up to what they feel are safe and no more. The only reason you get the "10mph faster" effect is because the limit is set lower than what most people feel is safe and it is rare for law enforcement to ticket anyone going less than 10mph over the limit - so that's factored into the 'danger' of speeding. If the posted limits were really set according to the DoT standard of 85th percentile, then then there would be a lot fewer people doing the 10mph over the limit thing.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    64. Re:First... define worse... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Just try that up here in winter time, see how far ya get.

      How about I'll drive much slower than the posted limit when conditions dictate it, how's that? How about using your head to figure out the correct speed at which to drive rather than some bureaucrat's, or worse, some politician's idea of the correct speed? Can you do that?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    65. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting post and I agree. After getting my third speeding ticket in a year, I decided I really need to 100% follow the speed limits. Well taking the 2 hour drive back to school, which I usually enjoy, I found myself thinking wow this is boring and trying to find something better to do with my time. I ended up surfing the internet on my iphone the whole way home to ease my boredom. That was legal, yet speeding isn't.

    66. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we get an equally confusing 'car' analogy.

      I'll start you off. Traffic laws are like driving a car, ...

    67. Re:First... define worse... by drtsystems · · Score: 1

      Very true. Ever notice there are some drivers who get in accidents all the time? And some who never do? Irrelevant of whose fault it is. A friend of mine has been in maybe 10 accidents in the last 3 years. He always brags "people are retarded none of them were my fault". Well maybe not technically, but having experienced driving with this friend, I can tell you that i guarantee every single one of those accidents could have easily been avoided.

    68. Re:First... define worse... by drtsystems · · Score: 1

      Yea, the difference between driving 20mph over the speed limit when no one is around and driving 20 mph over the speed limit when it requires weaving between 3 lanes on the highway. The funny part is, the first option, while clearly safer, is what people get pulled over for. (Cops love to sit on open stretches of freeway in perfect driving conditions because they know it is safe to speed, thus drivers will speed.)

      Rarely will a cop set up a speed trap in the rain. Why? Because most drivers know it is adverse conditions and slow down to compensate. Your best bet for catching drivers speeding is when it is clearly safe to go 20 or even 30mph over the post limit.

    69. Re:First... define worse... by dbet · · Score: 1

      Two types of good driver:

      1) Courteous, attentive, and safe 2) Skillful

      Some people can drive 75 in the snow and make a 90 degree turn. But they take chances, and sometimes it causes a mess. Others can't even see at night and their only response to something unpredictable is to slam the brakes hard. Yet they go the speed limit, signal, look both ways, and obey traffic signs.

      It's good to be at least a little of both.

    70. Re:First... define worse... by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      Well it isn't mind reading. You don't know what the ass hat is going to do, exactly. You just know that they are going to do something idiotic, and you stay well enough away from them that it doesn't matter what it is. It's when I find myself surrounded on all sides by people giving off the ass hat vibe that I start to worry.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    71. Re:First... define worse... by hardburn · · Score: 1

      It depends on the situation, but a lot of the laws out there do demonstrably make you less safe. Careful note: this does not include seat belt laws or helmet laws on motorcycles. Opponents of these often cite examples of these safety measures causing more harm, but statistically speaking, they vastly improve safety. Anecdotes are not data.

      What is data is that child seats are crap. While seat belts clearly won't work for very young children, child seats make no difference for kids much over 2 years old. NHTSA's data was to compare child seats against using nothing at all . They are also only tested in head-on collisions, and fail hard in side collisions. They're also very hard to setup correctly, and any safety benefits they might have disappear when they're not.

      The data also supports that going over the speed limit isn't as dangerous as many make it out to be. You should drive at whatever speed everyone else is driving, no matter what the speed limit is.

      Most states have laws specifying that speed limits should be put at the 85% speed (the speed that 85% of the people are driving), but I think we can all list counterexamples of that in our respective areas, especially in small towns that like their speeding ticket revenue. Further, there are many circumstances where even very fast speed is safe. On an empty 3-lane highway with a car in good condition (especially tires), there's not much that can go wrong even at 150mph. Of course, doing the same at rush hour is very dangerous.

      If you're driving through snow, you drive wherever the snow has been worn down by other drivers the most. If that happens to be straddling two lanes (assuming you can even see the line, which you probably can't), then so be it. Your tires will have their greatest traction there, so that's where you should be.

      The most dangerous driver is the one that feels safe. Cell phones aren't so much a problem in themselves as the fact that the driver felt comfortable enough to use a cell phone. Safe drivers are paranoid. Sure, that guy might have his turn signal on, but is he really going to turn?

      A common statement made by female SUV buyers is that it makes them feel safer. That's exactly what we don't want.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    72. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the other driver's lack of control is related to the fact that these idiots are speeding and making illegal turns. These types of drivers might cause others to be distracted - if I'm driving 65MPH on the freeway and some idiot flies by me at 90MPH, I don't care how much in control of the car he is, it is a danger to all the other drivers on the road. You are an idiot (or a moron, or both) for thinking these are good drivers.

    73. Re:First... define worse... by Ceiynt · · Score: 1

      Very good point on the accident from the driver's ed. It doesn't just apply to traffic though. There are no "accidents." Affects have causes. Fall down the stairs? Not an accident; you were moving too fast, not holding on, had the wrong socks on, don't have the balance or physical strength to navigate them anymore, whatever. Get hit in the face playing basketball and break your nose? Not an accident; a choice was made to be in the play area and that has inherent dangers. You slid off the road while stopped at a red light cause of ice? Not an accident; unfortunate series of events, but no accident.
      Life is hard and full of actions/reactions, not all of which are favorable.

    74. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.

      If you cannot maintain your speed at the posted limit, and have no respect for when a U-Turn is allowed or appropriate, than you are not maintaining "superior control" of your vehicle. You're just trying to justify your asshattery. (Yes, we all got that you're talking about youself.)

      No, you're confounding skills with ethics here. A hacker can both be skilled and be a blackhat; by the same token, a driver can be skilled and be an asshat. (Of course there is not necessarily always a positive correlation - cf. script-kiddies)

      I think it is you that is confusing skills with ethics. We're talking about bad drivers, not unskilled drivers. Bad, as in badly-behaved, and a menace to traffic, not bad as in unable to back up in a straight line or parallel park within 1' of the curb. Of course, as another poster pointed out, the topic is talking about neither, but is actually talking about the effects of a gene on driving memory.

    75. Re:First... define worse... by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of those fantastic drivers was doing 60mph in a school zone and splattered a 6 year old all over the pavement, His family was on tv talking about how he did not have any tickets.

      Honestly if you speed in residential zones you are a complete fucking idiot and people need to smack you because of it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    76. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speed limits, are there to limit the damage that bad drivers can do when they screw up

      No, speed limits are there to fill government coffers.

      If the goal was to limit damage, the best solution would be to ban bad drivers. This would, however, reduce the amount of money that governments get through licensing, and (once the average skill level increases, speed limits can be raised or eliminated) reduced fines for traffic violations.

      Consider this: Germany has the lowest collision rate of any place in the world (both on a per-capita, and per-mile basis). It also has no highway speed limits, and is one of the hardest places to get a drivers license. (Getting a license there is also very expensive, but those fees go to private individuals, rather than the government.) Think this is a co-incidence?

      Make driving skills test (not just a road test) mandatory. Make it harder to get a drivers license by making people prove they are skilled drivers, rather than just knowing the rules. That would reduce the amount of damage done. But it would also reduce the amount of money the government makes, so it'll never happen.

    77. Re:First... define worse... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      a persons ability to conform to them will never dictate to me their ability to drive.

      I understand where you're coming from, because I used to think that way, too. But the reality is that traffic laws, regardless of their merit, are a variable that is part of driving. Same as rain, fog, curves, and traffic. If you ignore them, it is same as if you ignore the rain or an upcoming curve, and indicates that you don't actually have your car fully in control. That doesn't mean that you can't handle the car better or more precisely than someone who always follows the laws, it just means that it is as much of a variable as the others, and that not addressing does affect how in control you are.

      Also, my comment about it you at the end in hindsight was snarky and unnecessary. Sorry for that.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    78. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10mph over on a 30 minute commute does NOT equal 5 minutes unless you drive on empty roads without stoplights.

      10mph over on a 30 minute commute in reality is less than 1 minute gained. in fact depending on traffic and light timing it can be from 4 minutes gained to 2 minutes lost.

      It's because most people that speed cant understand the advanced mathematics or even think of what happens on their commute to understand it. Speeding simply increases your risk, increases your expenses and gains you little to nothing. (Open highway and a 4 hour ride? OK, now we can gain time, but add in an extra gas stop because your fuel economy dropped, plus the possibility of adding a 30 minute delay by sitting when an officer on the side of the road.)

      Speeding (10-15mph over or more) rarely gets you there on time or early, Those that say otherwise just dont understand the math.

    79. Re:First... define worse... by malp · · Score: 1

      Traffic laws are there for a reason: to save lives.

      Except for the National Maximum Speed Law in the United States, which prohibited speed limits higher than 55 mph to save gas.

      Or the infamous small town speed traps, which are there to raise revenue.

      Yeah, except for those and many others, traffic laws are there to save lives.

    80. Re:First... define worse... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      It's an exaggeration perhaps, but not silly. First off, they don't describe the driving simulator used, but let's assume that it is like you say. A wheel, pedals, and display don't give the full set of sensory feedback that drivers rely on for split-second decision making. For me, that takes away a lot of what I would need to optimally negotiate a track like they describe ... "required them to learn the nuances of a track programmed to have difficult curves and turns".

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    81. Re:First... define worse... by Upaut · · Score: 1

      Some say all his posts on slashdot are marked +5 insightful, before he submits, and that his teeth are so white snow around him melts.

      All I know is he is called The Stig....

      --
      3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
    82. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are obeying the speed limits, and all the other rules created by political expediency and committee, you are an obedient driver not necessarily a good one. If you are driving the speed limit of 50km/h when the traffic is flowing at 90km/h you will probably cause an accident, and it WILL be your fault. "But I was following orders", sorry "rules", doesn't cut it. If you can't make an assessment of how fast you should be going without looking at a road sign you shouldn't have a licence.
      I'm not advocating ignoring rules or speed limits entirely but rigid adherence to the rules is bloody stupid.
      Empty freeway, nice weather, modern, fast, stable car and 150km/h is quite safe.
      Snowing, lots of traffic, at night, and the posted 90km/h is too fast.
      I would love to say I've been crash free for twenty two years, but a woman blowing through a stop sign at 70km/h put
      paid to that last week, and I couldn't quite dodge her despite me actually doing 10km/h under the speed limit at the time.

      Remember rules are there to help us all get along, not so we can have more rules, or more revenues from tickets.

      Cheers

      S

    83. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Responding to an unexpected reaction from your vehicle (i.e. slidding, skidding, fishtailing) is one indicator of a good/bad driver, but so is not putting your vehicle in that position to start (and so is understanding the rules of the road, which is the #1 problem with bad drivers). Cars are pretty idiot-proof (seriously, if an 80 year old can still drive most of the time without causing an accident, then cars are pretty idiot proof). All the "idiots" on the road are the people who don't know the rules or just disregard them totally.

    84. Re:First... define worse... by BooRolla · · Score: 1
      I think it's important to remember that collectively we do want some people breaking the rules.

      Here's an example of people not breaking the rules and the problems it causes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-Ox0ZmVIU

    85. Re:First... define worse... by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      A good driver isn't someone who obeys the law as if it were the gospel. Same for the opposite.

      What is a good driver? well to me its like this:

      -Pays attention to the road. If you keep alert you can avoid allot of accidents and other problems. Case in point: Friend of mine was at an intersection with a blinking red light for him (same as stop sign) and blinking yellow for the main road. The road he was entering was a 2 lane divided road with a truck just sitting at the light preventing him from seeing traffic. He waits until the trucker beeps his horn and waives him on. So he just goes and guess what a guy comes flying down the main road and plows into him, thankfully hitting the front of the car and not the side. Who's fault? Well I would say mostly his but the other driver was partially at fault as well. My stupid friend should have proceeded with caution, he couldent see on coming traffic. And the other driver should have saw a stopped truck and slowed down. How did he know someone wasnt going to pop out from in front of the truck? You have to be ready for all sorts of stuff

      -Doesent drive like he/she is a pretend race car driver. Living in New York City I see this all too often. Young kids with riced out Honda's or souped up domestics driving like Mario Andretti on the highways or local streets. I have seen guys cut between two cars with inches to spare, extremely dangerous. They weave around traffic as if someone is holding a checked flag at their exit or destination. No they arent good drivers, they just think they are. You also frequently see those same cars with body damage from previous accidents they most likely caused.

      -Tailgating moron. Another race car like driver who is pissed off you are doing 70 in the hammer lane on a highway with a 50/55MPH speed limit. They ride your tail at a distance of as little as 5 or 6 feet and wait for any opportunity to zoom around you only to get ahead another 50-100 feet to tail the next person. Again are they looking for a checkered flag? Plenty of accidents on the highways and parkways caused by these morons.

      -The soothsayer driver. These people sit at a red light and accelerate just a few seconds before the light goes green sometimes clearing the intersection before the light goes green. These guys seem to think they can predict the fact that no one is going to blow their light. Well I once witnessed first hand the lack of foresight the soothsayer driver has. Both cars were demolished and one driver was unconscious. I didn't stick around long enough buy the fire fighters went to work on extracting the unconscious driver. He was alive but pretty banged up and he did live from what I hear.

      -Similar to the soothsayer is the stop sign late stopper. These are the people who stop for a stop sign after they passed it and are now sticking out into the intersection forcing traffic to swerve around them. Some stop literally in the middle of the damn intersection. As a kid riding the bus, the bus almost hit one such driver. What happened to stopping at the stop sign?

      This is just a partial list but to me these are the worst offenders on the road.

    86. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cannot maintain your speed at the posted limit, and have no respect for when a U-Turn is allowed or appropriate, than you are not maintaining "superior control" of your vehicle. You're just trying to justify your asshattery. (Yes, we all got that you're talking about youself.)

      Pardon me for interrupting your self-righteous little rant there, but it is not that simple. There is a difference between mindlessly obeying every little traffic law just because it's the law, and using common sense and good judgment to determine what is appropriate for a given situation. You can't tell me that stopping at a red light at 3 in the morning with no cars as far as the eye can see and going through it makes you a bad driver.

      If everyone in the world always maintained a completely legal speed, then sure, going five or even 10 miles over the speed limit might be dangerous. I hate to break this to you, but basically everyone drives five or ten over. So by your standards 95% of the people on the road are bad drivers.

        And if you say that you always go 25 in a 25, then, sir, you are either a liar, or you need to speed the hell up, I have places to go for crying out loud.

    87. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Anyone who dismisses NASCAR over other forms of auto racing simply doesn't understand the physics of auto racing. There is absolutely no difference in turning left four times or turning right four times (or any combination in between) Car control is paramount in all forms of racing, and the circuit doesn't dictate how "good" a particular driver is.

    88. Re:First... define worse... by BooRolla · · Score: 1
    89. Re:First... define worse... by EStrat · · Score: 1

      "...if you can't follow the speed limits and whatnot - you are a bad driver."
      Ridiculous, and your post isn't even internally consistent.

      If 95% of the people on a highway with a posted speed limit of 55 mph actually drive between 65 and 75 mph, who is the bad driver, the one doing 55 or the one doing 65, 70 or 75? By your reasoning above, the asshats crawling along at 55 are driving well and everyone else is a bad driver.

      But then you talk about having a predictable environment, which does point to the 55 mph drivers as the bad drivers. And that I'll agree with.

      An earlier post said a good driver doesn't collide with anything; I'll agree with that, too, if I can raise an exception. The damn deer in New Jersey are hard not to hit, whatever you're doing on the road.

    90. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Most traffic rules are designed to generate revenue. Most speed limits in the US are artificially low on purpose. I've lived in Germany, England and America and the German and English roads, albeit smaller, windier and having more elevation, usually have higher speed limits than US roads. Why do the US roads have an arbitrary speed limit of 35, when the same road in Germany would be 100km/h or 50mph in England? Better yet, why is the US obsessed with speed limits, when Germany and England tend to enforce/emphasize them only when there is a real danger?

    91. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Actually that isn't exactly right. Car and Driver cited a study that shows most people will only drive their vehicle at the maximum rate they feel safe. So, if the speed limit is 100mph on a narrow road, most people won't drive 100mph, but if the speed limit is 55 on a wide 3 lane desert highway, most people will have no problem driving 80mph. I wish I could find the study, but I'm lazy.

      And "lane jockeys" wouldn't exist if all the sheeple would just get over to the right like they are supposed to. I'll have a beer with a lane jockey any day, but you left-lane bandits can just suck it.

    92. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Damn, mod me -1, redundant.

    93. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Your point is valid except when it comes to speed limit signs. Bad drivers are people who don't know the rules, like "driving in left lane unlawful except when passing", or "at unmarked intersections, you must yield to the vehicle on your RIGHT", or "when lights are blinking yellow, YOU DON'T HAVE TO FRIGGIN' STOP", or "Yield means yield the right of way to traffic...it doesn't mean STOP if there is no traffic coming". Shall I go on?

    94. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You make an excellent point, except in Germany, knowing the rules is 95% of being a good driver. Most of my German friends aren't as good of drivers from a physical control/skill point as I am, but they do all know all the rules of the road. Here in the US, not only are our vehicles big, dumb and unsafe, but our drivers don't have to know ANYTHING about the rules of the road to get a license.

    95. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Seriously? If I get stuck in the traffic going 10mph under the speed limit on my 30 minute commute to work, it takes me an hour to get to work. If I get ahead of all the idiots (i.e., I'm the first car in line at the light) then drive 10 mph faster than the idiots behind me, my commute is now 20 minutes instead of 1 hour. I'm not sure what "advanced math" you are talking about that I'm not getting, but masses of people who don't go when the light turns green or who tap their brakes excessively are what add time to my commute, not me driving 10mph over the speed limit.

    96. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet there is a pretty strong positive correlation between bad driving behavior and driving skill, however.

    97. Re:First... define worse... by eth1 · · Score: 1

      You might be right, but memorization could also have the opposite effect. The more experiences you can recall, the faster and more accurately you can identify potentially dangerous situations and begin mitigation before they become a problem.

      "This corner looks a lot like that dangerous blind corner at X. I'd better be careful"
      "90% of the time I've seen a driver do X, they followed it up by doing Y. The driver next to me just did X, and if he does Y, I'll be in a bad/dangerous situation."

      Plus, your example of remembering "There are never any cars around this corner" could just as easily be "There are often slippery leaves in the road at this corner"

    98. Re:First... define worse... by demonbug · · Score: 1

      I don't know - at least 30% of the daily ass-hattery I see comes from motorcycle riders... like the dumbass I saw this morning doing a wheelie down an on-ramp, or the numerous riders every day that seem to think that if traffic slows down more then 10 mph below their desired speed then they should go riding between the lanes of traffic.

      Not to say I disagree with you - I'm sure riding a motorcycle makes you very aware of the idiocy of the drivers around you. But idiots do seem to be rather over-represented among motorcycle riders.

    99. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone on my morning commute drive 25 in the 40 then?

    100. Re:First... define worse... by registrar · · Score: 1

      You're confusing "competent" with "good". A competent driver has excellent control of his or her vehicle. A good driver is competent, and also has respect for authority, does not set a bad example for inferior or young drivers, compensates for other drivers' lack of control, has patience, and doesn't need to count drinks.

      I really don't care how well you handle your car: if you're so arrogant that you think that's the most relevant factor, you're not fit to drive on public roads.

    101. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Apparently making a right hand turn on red is safe in some states and not in others.

      The most succinct rebuttal of the "laws are there for a reason" argument I've ever seen. Yes, laws are there for a reason, but the reason is completely arbitrary, as evidenced by the 80mph speed limits on San Antonio, Texas highways versus the 55mph speed limits on Portland, Oregon highways...or by the legality of a right on red varying wildly across jurisdictions...or the fact a road can go from 45 to 35 within 50 feet, although nothing on the street has changed (no turn lanes, no school, no parking lot entrances, no obstructed sight lines...nothin')

    102. Re:First... define worse... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Hard to say, but it is pretty obvious you suffer from the 'Bias' gene.

      Those are not good or safe drivers.

      "maintain superior control of"
      This statement makes no damn sense at all. what they hell is superior control? Either you ahve control or you don't. Not to mention control means you can avoid other people when they make mistakes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    103. Re:First... define worse... by registrar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. There are plenty of poor drivers who obey the laws and are generally cautious. I'm one of them. I drive reasonably safely, though, because I know my limitations --- I don't have accidents, and I've had one near miss in years. And that makes me a better driver than my highly competent friends who have accidents because ...

      it doesn't matter what excuse they give: they have accidents and I don't, so whatever the reason, my premiums are lower and my family is safer.

    104. Re:First... define worse... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Laughable.
      First they were testing to see a specific response with controlled variables. that's the test. This makes the point you were groping for while pounding your knuckles on your keyboard while trying to make a cognitive thought irrelevant.

      Second, Most people most of the time drive with a routine, so they are on the same road doing the same thing every day. i.e. it's a practiced behavior.

      truth be known, being able to respond to unexpected situations is also a practiced behavior.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    105. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Um, I was driving straight ahead, going 35 in a 35 and a bad driver coming from the other direction turned (her left) directly in front of me causing me to collide with her rear passenger door. I had maybe 15 feet to stop my car traveling at 35 mph. I'm a bad driver because I "participated" in a collision? I had no reason to suspect her to make an illegal turn and I indeed was even watching her when she did it, so I was about as alert as one could be in the situation.

    106. Re:First... define worse... by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      I offer no claims to the contrary, as asshattery knows no bounds. Ass hats on two wheels though usually eliminate themselves more readily.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    107. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      If you are in the right lane, where you are required to be by law, then a car going 90 mph in the left lane posses no danger to you.

    108. Re:First... define worse... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Accidents don't happen in a vacuum.

      Um well, no. we woudlnt be able to breathe!

      (-: /gets coat.

    109. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your numbers are just a little bit contradictory, but let me see if I can reverse engineer your speed limit and the distance you have to drive to work.

      1) Let the posted speed limit be x.
      2) If you drive x mph you get to work in 30 minutes.
      3) If you drive 10 mph less than x, it takes you an hour to get to work.
      4) Here is the contradiction. I assume "the idiots behind [you]," are driving 10 miles under the speed limit so if you are driving 10 mph faster than the idiots you would be driving at the speed limit and would arrive at work in 30 minutes. You claim, however, that you arrive at work in 20 minutes instead of 30 so you must be driving faster than the speed limit. I assume you mean 20 mph faster than the idiots behind you.
      5) I assume that the speed limit to your work is constant the whole way there to simplify things a little bit.

      So, using the above information we can deduce that you have a 10 mile drive to work on a road with a posted speed limit of 20 mph. I now have more sympathy for you. I can imagine getting stuck behind people going 10 mph on a road with a speed limit of 20 mph would be really frustrating.

    110. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a computing analogy: you might be a brilliant programmer who can write perfect complex code in one quarter of the time as an average programmer, but if your solution is undocumented and obfuscated, it won't be maintainable by anybody else. So if it's a one off prototype under time constraints (the equivalent of race car driving) great! But if it's on a large project where other people are going to be maintaining that code, your ass should be grass if you don't clean up your act after the first code review.

    111. Re:First... define worse... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      That's not necessarily true... If a tree happens to fall down on top of your car, then that is a random event!

      Regardless, yes the majority of the times someone is at fault. The only serious accident I have been in involved an 85 year old lady T-boning my car at an intersection because she ran a red light. It was her fault, but it was still an accident.

      http://www.answers.com/accident

      By the definition of an accident, I don't believe most people drive with the intent of hitting someone else and potentially ruining the rest of their life.

    112. Re:First... define worse... by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      That may be true...for now. It will cease being true in when their reflexes and visual acuity are no longer up to their "NASCAR" driving habits. Then they'll just be the asshats that everyone is desperately trying to avoid so they don't die in a fiery crash.

    113. Re:First... define worse... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Studies have shown that the "feel" of being in a car is minor compared to visual input.

      I read it in a racing book a while back.

    114. Re:First... define worse... by Paradoks · · Score: 1

      I watch NASCAR, too, and it's not safe to drive like that.

    115. Re:First... define worse... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      minor compared to visual

      Visual elements dominate, but that does not mean that feel is inconsequential. Feel tells me how close my wheels are to skidding. Sight does not.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    116. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, when the "good" driver gets in an accident, the speed limit doesn't help?

        - *Everyone* gets in accidents.

        - ergo, the speed limits should help everyone, yes?

    117. Re:First... define worse... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's naive. If an insurance company overprices risk, they'll lose the business. If they underprice the risk, they'll go broke. You're assuming that the folks building the risk models are stupid. That's not a high percentage assumption.

      If what you assert is true, auto insurance companies should be making huge amounts of money. Here is the financials from Progressive insurance, a prominent player. They netted about 7%.

      Hate them if you want. It's a competitive industry, and the numbers show that they're pricing the insurance at pretty close what it costs them to provide it.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    118. Re:First... define worse... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Link didn't take, see this.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    119. Re:First... define worse... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I don't know - at least 30% of the daily ass-hattery I see comes from motorcycle riders... like the dumbass I saw this morning doing a wheelie down an on-ramp, or the numerous riders every day that seem to think that if traffic slows down more then 10 mph below their desired speed then they should go riding between the lanes of traffic.

      Riding between lanes ("lane splitting") is actually the norm in most parts of the world, and legal in California. From my experience, it's not a particularly dangerous thing, as long as drivers are expecting it. I've only ever seen it done in very heavy traffic at slow speeds. If you've seen people doing it at highway speeds, well, that's just craziness.

    120. Re:First... define worse... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      "...if you can't follow the speed limits and whatnot - you are a bad driver."
      Ridiculous, and your post isn't even internally consistent.

      Did you actually read my post?

      Seriously, did people get stupid, or are you just being an ass?

      My original post (with emphasis added, for the comprehension impaired):

      But, regardless of how well you handle a vehicle, if you can't follow the speed limits and whatnot - you are a bad driver.

      The speed limits, turn restrictions, signage, whatever is all there for a reason. It's to create a safe and predictable driving environment for everyone. Generally speaking, you aren't the only person on the road. A speed limit of 30 mph isn't there to make it take longer for you to get to work - it's there to ensure that everyone is traveling at roughly 30 mph. Which makes it possible, for example, to enter and exit the flow of traffic from parking lots relatively easily.

      Sure, you may be able to handle your vehicle well... But if you're speeding up the road at 60 mph, in a 30 mph zone, somebody else may very well try to pull out in front of you and cause an accident.

      Surprises cause accidents. Traffic laws and signage are there to reduce surprises. If you cannot follow the laws and signage, you are creating surprises. You may be able to deal with the surprises, or you may not - but that isn't the big problem. The big problem is how all the other drivers are going to deal with your surprises.

      Where did I state that you were supposed to blindly follow the speed limit regardless of what was going on around you? Where did I suggest that you should be doing 55 mph while everyone around you travels at 65+ mph?

      Since I apparently have to spell it out very carefully, line-by-line...

      Individual judgment is an important part of driving. Regardless of what the posted speed limit may be, you need to travel at a safe speed. In inclement weather, for example, it is generally a good idea to slow down. Even if the posted speed limit is 55 mph, you probably shouldn't be traveling that fast on glare ice.

      A safe speed may also exceed the posted speed limit as a vehicle moving significantly slower than the flow of traffic is as effective an obstacle as one completely stopped in the middle of the road. This is sometimes reflected in road signage that indicates a minimum speed, as well as a maximum. Even without such signage, it is generally advisable to travel at roughly the same speed as those around you.

      However, none of that means that blatantly ignoring the rules of the road, turn restrictions, lane restrictions, speed limits, right-of-way, and speed limits is a good idea. Generally speaking, someone who does all that (blatantly ignoring the rules of the road, turn restrictions, lane restrictions, speed limits, right-of-way, and speed limits) is a bad driver.

      Or are you honestly suggesting that driving the wrong way up a one-way street is a good idea as long as you don't collide with anything?

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    121. Re:First... define worse... by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      You're in repeater mode, you're ingesting and pushing out data unfiltered and unreflected.

    122. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well I agree that disregarding traffic laws is not a 'good' thing, a persons ability to conform to them will never dictate to me their ability to drive."

      Of course. But if you regularly defy the normal (i.e. mandated) behavior on the road, then it will be that much harder for fellow drivers to anticipate what you might be doing, and it will make it that much more likely that you or they will make a mistake. The shared rules aren't there for the sake of conformance, they are there so that you have *some* sense of expected behavior of other drivers on the road.

      In truth, I don't trust anyone on the road to do what I expect them to do, and that's probably one of the main reasons I've never had a car accident. But it does permit better traffic flow when people do what they should be doing (e.g., such as yielding right-of-way). If people regularly ran through red lights imagine what the effect would be. People would adjust to it, of course (I've been in countries where it is the norm!), and some would still be good or bad drivers in those circumstances, but there are practical reasons why it is a good idea to follow local traffic rules/conventions even if you are a superior driver with superhuman reaction times, as probably most people think they are.

    123. Re:First... define worse... by lgw · · Score: 1

      You're not really driving until you're steering your car with the throttle. That's not a visual skill.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    124. Re:First... define worse... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Yes, it actually is.

      Besides, a good force feedback wheel will communicate to you very well how the tires are behaving.

    125. Re:First... define worse... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Car insurance prices are too often set by law, not the market. Insurance companies often price according to what is likely to be accepted by legislators across many states, not according to statistical analysis of accident rates.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    126. Re:First... define worse... by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      mm... I would point out that most Euro race tracks have other hazards to worry about, though. Hills, sharp turns, left/right turns in a mix, and longer tracks than you find in NASCAR.

      I'm not saying that NASCAR drivers aren't good drivers. They are. But I am saying that European Touring Car racing tends to be a better test of an individual driver's skill than a trip around most NASCAR tracks.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    127. Re:First... define worse... by lgw · · Score: 1

      One of the car magazines did a ride-along with airborn traffic enforcement. They selected people for tickets based on driving habits much more than speed - two cars together going 80, they'd give a ticket only to the tailgater. So at least there exist cases where the cops are trying to ticket bad driving.

      For the most par, of course, you're right: cops are often compensated based on tickets given, not on their ability to get people to drive well (even in Texas where it's specifically illegal to compensate cops thusly, it's quite common).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    128. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.

      I think these so called drivers deemed as "bad" drivers due to their lack of good driving sense. No amount of driving skills or control will help when the driver decides it's ok to drive drunk, or while yapping away on the phone, or texting away, or just plain doing anything other than focusing on driving. Ask any traffic accident investigator and they'll tell you the majority of accidents happen when drivers a being inattentive of their driving. It should be called the "dumb ass" gene!

    129. Re:First... define worse... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They used a driving simulator? Then the results are totally bogus. I haven't seen a driving simulator yet that correctly simulates the g-forces in a turn, and without that feedback, there's no way to properly simulate driving in a turn. Without being able to feel and hear the tires in a turn, there's no way to know what the vehicle's limits are.

    130. Re:First... define worse... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Yeah well, neither does forgetting it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    131. Re:First... define worse... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Some of them are there to make money. This is why, when red-light camera are installed, cities frequently shorten the yellow-light time, so that more people run the red light, getting a ticket.

      If you believe that traffic laws are solely for safety, you're a naive, government-trusting idiot.

    132. Re:First... define worse... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Driving at the edge is about weight transfer. You feel that - you feel how the car is balanced on the 4 wheels, and how far through the suspension travel you are, and how the tail's going to swing out as weight shifts between fore and aft. Maybe some of that is through the steering wheel, sure, but the rocking of the car on it's suspension, and the g-forces are very important.

      Ayrton Senna was a human accelerometer. He'd maintain the magnitude of acceleration very precisely as the direction smoothly swung from braking, around the car through the curve, and to acceleration out of the curve. Any performance driver tries to do the same thing, just less sucessfully. How could maintaining the magnitude of acceleration while the direction varies be a visual skill? I can't even think of any visual input you'd get, beyond the very small amount as the car shifts on it's suspension.

      Audio cues are also very important, the precise sound your tires make tells you how close to the edge you are even with a quite firm suspension. Or at least so said Ayrton - I'm just not that good, and have to rely on a soft suspension and the amount of tilt.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    133. Re:First... define worse... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Kinetic energy is also a factor; at 80 mph, your car has about 30% more energy than at 70 (energy you need to get rid of during a braking maneuver). At 90, it is 65% more energy than at 70. At 100, it is 104% more energy.

      Of course, a car going 70 also has 96% more energy than a car going 50 mph, but designing a braking system that works well at 60 or 70 takes care of those lower speeds without making longer trips excessively long (over 300 miles, 90 mph only saves about 1 hour, which is nice, but the 4.3 hours at 70 isn't that bad).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    134. Re:First... define worse... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Do you think attempting to turn left out of the through lane would be safer?

      That some accidents are avoided doesn't mean they all will be (and really, getting rear ended is sort of a terrible thing to call an accident, someone stupided right into the back of your car).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    135. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they are as gifted as Schumacher which I doubt, failing to recognize that other drivers on the roads are not all F1 pilots and might be unable to react appropriately when another makes an unexpected and illegal move makes them dangerous drivers.

    136. Re:First... define worse... by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      The speed limits, turn restrictions, signage, whatever is all there for a reason. It's to create a safe and predictable driving environment for everyone.

      If only that were true. Unfortunately speed limits are set both for safety and for profit. My anecdotal example is the frontage roads for highways in and around Austin, Texas. There are many frontage roads that were and are 55 MPH, where the freeway is 65 MPH. However, everywhere the limited access road is a tollway, they have reduced the frontage road speed to 45 MPH.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    137. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they drove 15 laps the first time -- after the first lap, they'd already seen the track.

    138. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There might be a lone pedestrian crossing at that moment since they have the green light. They're much less visible than cars especially at night. And obviously you didn't even add "and with no pedestrians in sight" which just show how unable of anticipating danger you are. Around here in Bordeaux(France), pedestrians died during the night because cars did not stop at red lights on the circumvalating boulevards. So yes, that makes you an extremely dangerous driver.

    139. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " if you can't follow the speed limits and whatnot - you are a bad driver."

      That's your opinion, which you seem to believe is a fact.

      It's not.

      There is far more to being a good driver than always obeying the speed limit.
      For example : if the road is a sheet of black ice, it would be unwise to drive at the posted
      speed limit. On the other hand, driving faster than the speed limit on a deserted road
      in the middle of the American west might actually be safer, because it might help the
      driver avoid falling asleep from sheer boredom.

      But actually thinking about specific cases instead of adhering to a blanket set of rules
      requires thinking. And it seems that is beyond your abilities, if your post is an example
      of your typical thought process. What I'm trying to say is : you're a simple-minded
      pedantic idiot whose tiny little brain wants one set of rules for all conditions.

      You're a fucking idiot, in other words.

    140. Re:First... define worse... by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1
      I've looked at the article and the driving simulation test was designed to evaluate "implicit motor learning" (so it wasn't a memory test per se). "Subjects were seated in front of a computer screen with a steering wheel (Logitech MOMO) attached to the desk. All subjects were instructed to place 2 hands on the wheel at "10 and 2" and keep them there for the duration of the task. Subjects were told to use the steering wheel to guide a vehicle on the screen through a curving track on the floor. The track had a black line down its center, and subjects were told to use the steering wheel to stay centered over the black line, with a computer recording deviation from the black line as extent of error."

      The vehicle was programmed to not change direction instantaneously, providing a level of demand that supported a need for motor learning. Subjects therefore had to begin turning the steering wheel before the track changed in order to minimize tracking errors. At the completion of each circuit, subjects were given a 10-s rest before the next circuit began. On the first day, subjects completed the same circuit 15 times, each taking approximately 60 s. Subjects returned approximately 4 days later, when the driving circuit was repeated. The mean tracking error, defined as the mean of the absolute value between the black line and the actual steered path, was calculated for each trial and expressed as root mean squared (RMS), with a cap at 2.0. McHughen, Rodriguez, Kleim et al (2009) BDNF Val66Met Polymorphism Influences Motor System Function in the Human Brain. Cerebral Cortex. Advance Access, Sept 2009

    141. Re:First... define worse... by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      But it's true that time spent driving inflates your risk. Hence some (but I stress only some) of the variance in the "men have more accidents" statistic is that the average man spends much more time on the roads than the average woman. So a lower risk to an insurance company doesn't totally refect "a better driver".

    142. Re:First... define worse... by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll play:

      "90% of the time I've seen a wigger with a 12-inch exhaust, he's cut me off, cut across the 3-lane highway, and rammed his gas-powered mobile subwoofer into the exit lane at 140kph."

      "90% of the time I've seen a white guy in a luxury SUV, he's cut me off, cut across the 3-lane highway, and rammed his gas-powered mobile ego into the exit lane at 140kph."

      "90% of the time I've seen an asian woman in an Acura, she's stopped in the middle of a busy intersection at the green, waiting for it to turn red and everyone to honk before turning left anyway"

      "90% of the time I've seen a dirty cop shooting radar, everyone jammed the brakes, slowed to half the speed limit, and stared at the fucker while rear-ending the car in front of them."

      100% of the time I've recognized these common stereotypes, I've taken preventive measures to steer clear of them, and saved myself much injury, expense and frustration. Assume everyone is criminally stupid and you will never be disappointed.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    143. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only people who suck at math. (Not the 1872134+123409709=? kind, more like the River Tam doing headshots with her eyes closed kind.)

      Seriously, it seems to me there are two kinds of people on the roads: those who have an intuitive grasp of the geometry, calculus, and physics involved in driving, and those who have no business being on the road (fortunately, a minority). I see this time and again, as a cyclist, a pedestrian, a passenger, and as a driver. People reacting to things that have no way of affecting them, slowing down when it's too late to stop for a car pulling out three lanes to the left, but they have plenty of time to speed up and get past (for any reasonable assumption of the cars acceleration), and the like.

      I've rarely seen places in the US where roads are posted at limits high enough to impair my intuitive analysis (at least since I took to cycling as a primary means of transport for a year -- remarkable what that experience does to sharpen your driving and navigational skills!), and it's not clear that reducing the speed limits would help the incompetents. OTOH, I'm sure that the sharp dichotomy I see is simply an effect that I can only observe them when they do cause problems, and in reality, every driver probably has a range of speeds over which they phase from math to non-math, and I can't take my own capabilities of math as either reliable (self-observation sucks!) or representative.

    144. Re:First... define worse... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      They already knew this gene effected memory...

      Well ... maybe they forgot!

      Maybe THEY could have this gene too?

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    145. Re:First... define worse... by drtsystems · · Score: 1

      I'm sure in places where its illegal to compensate based on tickets given its similar to the electronics store I worked at... there was no commission. But each employee's sales were tracked and if you weren't selling much you would get a talking to. Aka start making more sales or your fired.

    146. Re:First... define worse... by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      But it's true that time spent driving inflates your risk. Hence some (but I stress only some) of the variance in the "men have more accidents" statistic is that the average man spends much more time on the roads than the average woman. So a lower risk to an insurance company doesn't totally refect "a better driver".

      This is a fantastic point. Until I moved to Singapore for work, I drove a huge amount annually - >25k miles on my vehicle alone, and that was with spending over half the year traveling for work where I flew and had a *rental* car.

      My fiancee has put 30k miles on her car in >2 years of owning it, and much of that came from commuting home from school once a month while in college. She just doesn't drive as much as I do. But she's an equal-ability driver.

    147. Re:First... define worse... by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      I always thought the general logic must be "sign it at 55mph and people will go 10mph faster, i.e. 65mph. If you went and signed it at 65mph everyone would go 75." 10mph faster than the signed speed limit (sometimes 15) seems to be the target most people actually go for, so if you were actually interested in highway safety that's what you'd need to do.

      Nope. Studies have found that posted limits have very little effect on average driving speeds. People tend to drive at speeds up to what they feel are safe and no more. The only reason you get the "10mph faster" effect is because the limit is set lower than what most people feel is safe and it is rare for law enforcement to ticket anyone going less than 10mph over the limit - so that's factored into the 'danger' of speeding. If the posted limits were really set according to the DoT standard of 85th percentile, then then there would be a lot fewer people doing the 10mph over the limit thing.

      I agree - I was comfortable driving my old MX3 substantially faster than I was allowed to drive it. My Escape I don't like taking past about 80 or 85. Not because I can't control it at 110, but with its increased wind resistance, and more top-heaviness than my old sprtscoupe, I don't deem it safe to do so.

    148. Re:First... define worse... by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      The first thing I do every winter is take my wife and I out to an icy parking lot to practice stopping, swerving, and spin out recovery because I know that these skills are FAR more valuable than obeying traffic laws.

      another sane human!

      I've done this every winter since I started driving: my parents refused to allow me to get a license before I could drive in snow/wet/ice conditions, because they happen a lot in upstate NY.

      And, may I add, spinning-out is fun when you plan on it :)

      But knowing how your car feels when it's about to spin/fishtail/lose control is a phenomenal comfort when it happens for real the next day at a poorly-cleaned intersection.

    149. Re:First... define worse... by vxvxvxvx · · Score: 1

      Yup, and the safe speed differs by vehicle. If I'm driving my sportier car (wouldn't really call it a sports car) I'm much more comfortable with higher speeds and sharper turns than I am when driving my 7000 pound truck. A "one size fits all" speed limit isn't really the most efficient system.

    150. Re:First... define worse... by ajlisows · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you are spot on and I have long thought that myself. As I was taking the same route to work as I always did, one day I woke up out of a day dream and couldn't immediately figure out where I was. I was about 7 miles farther in the drive than I expected to be. That was a frightening thought because I realized how little attention I must have been paying to the road and the cars around me.

      Since that time, I've changed how I get to work. There are four different routes I can take, all of which are within 2-3 Miles or 5 minutes worth of driving of each other. When I start to feel complacent about one route, I go with another one for awhile. I find it keeps me on my toes.

    151. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there are the rules and laws that are exploited for local government gain.

      you know, like reducing the speed limit of a 4-lane highway in one area from 60 mph to 30 mph, at the very bottom of a hill, with bushes where the cops always hide.

      They call these orchards.

    152. Re:First... define worse... by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      You get into a habit of thinking things like: There are never any cars around this corner I never see kids on this street Everybody drives 40mph on this street (posted speed of 25mph)

      Or you remember things like:
      This section of road is usually icy this time of year.
      It's impossible to see if anyone's coming over this hill in the opposite direction.
      The exits coming up soon and it's a very sharp turn (became very useful to memorize when coming off the Verrazano Bridge onto the 14th St. exit from the belt parkway.)
      There is normally a strong crosswind when I go over this bridge
      Even though there isn't a sign until I come to the exit (usually in Jersey) I know the exit is coming up soon so I should get ready to get off rather than jamming on my brakes at the last minute and swerving across 2 lanes of highway traffic.

      Familiarizing yourself with a route and being able to memorize it is a good thing, it allows you to focus on the road rather than focusing on not getting lost.

    153. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the fact that most bad drivers *think* they are good drivers, it should be obvious why we *all* need to obey the rules no matter how stupid we think they are.

    154. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      That would be me, then.

    155. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      I find that I often space out while driving, not being able to remember actually driving. I take the correct turns, etc.

      The one thing that always surprises me is that I space in _fast_ when anything is out of the norm. Braking light five cars ahead of me? Sure thing.

      Of course, I can not reliably determine if I do _not_ space in when X happens as, obviously, I would simply be spaced out. But I drive _a lot_ and did not have an accident, yet.

    156. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > Any factor which is correlated with driving _more_ but is uncorrelated with driving ability will show up with increased risk of a claim.

      Not true. In Germany, you get cheaper insurance if you drive at least 20,000 km per year.

    157. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > Do you realize that traffic rules were designed _specifically_ to minimize the impact of drivers' mistakes? And that if your 'best drivers' actually obeyed the laws, they'd have most probably avoided accidents. Even the ones caused by other drivers.

      Do you realize that if you never test the limits, you are less likely to be able to control a situation which approaches your limits?
      Oh, and in the one accident I was involved in, I was standing and already in reverse to make room for the other car that came from the left? I did not get out of its path in time, but I know two people (including myself) who would be fast enough to react like that. We both speed.
      Correlation does not imply causation etc, but it definitely does not disprove anything.

    158. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > for when a U-Turn is allowed or appropriate

      A U-turn may be forbidden 24/7, but at 0300 there is no one who cares. Allowed != appropriate.

      > you are not maintaining "superior control" of your vehicle

      Uh, OK? The one is a legal aspect, the other a technical one. I can drive at 150 km/h through a street that is winding and limited to 30 km/h. Superior control of the car (as others can not do it at that speed), but forbidden.

      Question: With asshattery, were you also talking about yourself? ;)

    159. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention the flamethrower, the stink bombs and the nukes. Also, the kid is a terrorist and has AIDS. Worst of all, it is unpatriotic.

      Long story short: Your analogy is better. Your extremely overdoing said analogy is not.

    160. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Superior control is still a large part of this. If you are good at anticipation but suck at driving, you still crash into things. Same as if things were reversed.

      You need superior control, situational awareness, good reflexes, the ability to stay awake & alert and probably a dozen other things. But still, superior control is a part of the correct mix.

    161. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      PS: A good driver can still collide with things. I stopped at an intersection, had the way of right and someone slid into me from the left, downhill, on ice. I was already in reverse but as he slid into my lane, I had no chance. Does that make me a bad driver?

    162. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      That is probably because it takes more to be a good driver than to know how to increase speed.

    163. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You will probably have more than one top in your curve. My personal optimum tends to be farther on the "arrives in a reasonable time" and "does not slow down others" side.

      Remember: The safest driver is the person who _never_ drives. But we can probably agree that this is not the local optimum most people would choose.

    164. Re:First... define worse... by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      The one thing that always surprises me is that I space in _fast_ when anything is out of the norm. Braking light five cars ahead of me? Sure thing.

      I've had different experiences. I take Route 23 through Valley Forge Park to work every morning before the sun is up and there's a LOT of deer. Yesterday morning I encountered a deer on the road while I was 'spacing out' listening to Jethro Tull. You'd expect me to have hit that deer, but luckily there was nobody in the oncoming traffic lane and I was able to swerve just in time (Who knew a Ford Ranger could handle like that?) to avoid hitting it, and just kept on driving my merry way.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    165. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Thing is: Would you have been reacting any faster if you hadn't spaced out?

    166. Re:First... define worse... by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      Thing is: Would you have been reacting any faster if you hadn't spaced out?

      Probably not. If you know Valley Forge Park at all, on 23 going westbound you drive past a cathedral on your right, then a parking lot on your left where most visitors park. After that you go up a hill and around a sharp blind corner and then go back down the hill. Once I came around the corner I spotted them.

      If I had been driving on a straightaway I would have seen them from much further away and slowed down.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    167. Re:First... define worse... by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone on my morning commute drive 25 in the 40 then?

      Traffic congestion?

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    168. Re:First... define worse... by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      That's why there are so many US drivers in formula 1 then. Oops, not even 1. How about the world rally championship ? Nope, not 1. In fact can you name one US driver in any car racing sport that doesn't involve driving around in circles ?

      As for your last comment, the circuit absolutely defines how good the driver is. If you crash all the time you aren't much good. All nascar is, is a straight forward power and speed dash. The only reason there are any corners at all is so that people can watch it in a confined space. The tracks are banked FFS, so the corners aren't even proper corners.

    169. Re:First... define worse... by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Are you completely stupid ? Do you drive your truck on different roads than those you drive your car on ? One size fits all is the only way different vehicles and drivers can co-exist. Jesus. Why is everybody a fucking expert when it comes to driving ? From what I see everyday on the roads, very few drivers have even the slightest clue about what they're doing.

    170. Re:First... define worse... by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      You are full of shit. Every post you make confirms it further. You will die on the road, I just hope that you don't take out anybody else at the same time.

    171. Re:First... define worse... by vxvxvxvx · · Score: 1

      No, same roads. The vehicles just act differently. Steering, acceleration, those are nice and tight on the car. I zip-zoom-fly. But the 7,000 pound truck (which is just an extended cab long-bed F250 drives differently. If I take the same turn that I did in my car in my truck I'd flip the truck.I have to slow down more to turns. It takes me longer to brake, longer to accelerate. The vehicle does matter, as driving style is somewhat changed. You're more conservative in a truck because you can't see around as well and can't speed up to get out of someone's way like a car. If a sharp curve is coming up, you probably slow down to even what the signs say you should be at rather than ignoring them like I do when driving my car. It's just very different. My car handles faster speeds. It handles them with more control. And with less mass it's safer. Vehicles do differ - which is why some people buy sports cars and some people buy SUV's. If you want fast and performance suspensions you want the sports car and you can do things others can't. If you get the SUV you can carry an entire soccer team while pulling a boat, but you won't have the speed or driving characteristics of the sports car. It'll turn slower, you'll have higher chances of being a rollover. You just can't pick two different cars that different and pretend they're the same and that one-size-regulation makes it so. Some of those big SUV's towing trailers wouldn't dare go the speed limit out of safety, but they could (and be a danger).

      The best person to decide how safe something is, is the driver. They learn the vehicle, they learn how it works, whether it drifts to the right or left, whether the mirrors work worth a damn, how long to stop, how fast to accel, and use that information to do what they feel is safe driving. It's not just a matter of "60MPH"

    172. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like this guy are some of the most miserable people in society. Not obeying the traffic laws is their way of having one little rebellion where they feel in control of their lives. Unfortunately, it's usually at the expense of others.

    173. Re:First... define worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Surprises cause accidents."

      No, they don't. A Harley drop shifting and barking in front you doesn't cause you to drive off the road. A tuner or SUV blasting their bass so you can't hear inside the cabin doesn't cause accidents. A long haul truck or dump truck with an unmuffled jake brake will shock the hell out of you when it blasts in the next lane, it doesn't cause you to drive off the road.

      I fluctuate my driving speed to at, below, and well above the speed limit. Below the speed limit, people tend to tailgate. You get passed. Rear ended. At, you get tailgated sometimes, but people pull out in front of you wildly. Without question, above the speed limit causes less issues than at or below.

      "The speed limits, turn restrictions, signage, whatever is all there for a reason"

      Something so simple is true, however, it neglects the situations where accidents occur often such as parking lots, and not so often, such as pulling out of driveways. Parking lots of plenty of lines and signage, all disobeyed. Uncontrolled intersections have none, and rarely are accident locations.

      "A speed limit of 30 mph isn't there to make it take longer for you to get to work - it's there to ensure that everyone is traveling at roughly 30 mph."

      Uhh, no. First, speed limits are predominately set after determining road and location safety. Second, it's not required to drive at the speed limit. You can drive below it. There have been plenty of times I've drivin on the highway with no posted minimum speed limit except as determined by state law and have vehicles driving in the right lane in a train at 45mph in a 65 zone. It's legal. And it's a damn scary situation to come upon when a bunch of cars travelling 65 come up and suddenly forms a wolf pack and then condenses into the left lane to avoid them.

      "But if you're speeding up the road at 60 mph, in a 30 mph zone, somebody else may very well try to pull out in front of you and cause an accident."

      BS. That person is going to pull out either way. I live in suburbia, I know. It doesn't matter if you are driving fast or slow. If you're driving 30, they'll pull out because you are taking to long. If you are driving 60, they'll pull out after seeing you, waiting, and pulling out at the last second deliberately because they think like you and it's their right to "stop" speeders, similar to people who drive the speed limit in the left lane of a 2 lane highway deliberately to "slow" down the speeders.

      Pulling a donut in front of your house means you can. If no one is around, who gives a shit. Driving the speed limit and pulling out in front of someone 10mph over the speed limit just because you want to make a point is dangerous. Come where I live, and you'll send plenty of old folks driving around well under the speed limit recklessly--double yellow riding as if they are jousting, weaving, etc. All legal according to the law, all horrific and unpredictable if they are going to stop or slow, compared to someone who maintains their speed 15 mph over the speed limit.

      I'll take a safe driving except predictable speeder than an unpredictable 10mph under the posted speed limit elderly person any day. Your religious "safety first" crap shows your limitation in intelligence in understanding the complexity of driving and human behavior.

    174. Re:First... define worse... by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

      I know exactly what you mean - I space out quite a lot when I'm driving as well, and it used to worry me a bit... Until something happened where I needed to react while I was spaced out (someone braking hard in front of me, or something) and I responded correctly, and realised I'd already responded properly as I spaced back in again (which as you said, happens damn quickly!)

      This is, of course, different from dozing at the wheel, which is entirely different and very much more dangerous!

    175. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > This is, of course, different from dozing at the wheel, which is entirely different and very much more dangerous!

      Yah. It's more like you don't really think about how to ride a bike while cycling. It's just so familiar, you don't have to think about the basic stuff.

    176. Re:First... define worse... by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

      Kinetic energy is a good point - maybe speed limits should actually be KE limits, so given 1/2 mv, my 1 tonne MX-5 should be allowed to go 1.7 times as fast as a 3 tonne soft roader... This has been done to a very small extent in a lot of countries - in the UK, cars can do 70mph on the motorway, trucks are only allowed to do 60. Or maybe it should be based on stopping distances... Again, the MX-5 with wide tyres, low weight and so forth should be allowed to go much faster!

    177. Re:First... define worse... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      And what causes traffic congestion? In my particular case, it is because the main artery is one lane. There maybe 25 cars in line at most of the time. And what causes the line of 25 cars to go 25 in the 40? ONE car somewhere in the line going 25, making all the cars behind him/her also have to go 25. This has NOTHING to do with congestion, except for the fact that "maybe" the chance of 1 idiot impeding the flow of traffic increases with the more cars there are on the road and this constitutes "congestion".

    178. Re:First... define worse... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Believe what you want. The math, publically available financial reports, Wall Street Journal, and public record indicate otherwise. If what you say is true, then the 10K for Progressive that I previously linked to should have a statement to that effect in the notes. I was unable to find it, though I didn't read it in detail.

      All states have Commissions or Boards which review insurance and utility rates. When rates are under state regulation (not all rates are), the associated commissions are presented cases for rate adjustments, and rule on those presentations. The commissions make the decisions, not legislators. At least in Washington state, the laws state that the rates must be supported by costs, experience, and valid statistical analysis. A reasonable presentation of a rationale for rates is generally accepted. In the case of utility rates, my direct experience is that the commission is fairly naive. I was a product manager for a utility software project which was accepted into the rate base, and the board was pretty non-confrontational about whether our costs were reasonable.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    179. Re:First... define worse... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Have you paid for your own insurance recently? Do you remember the part where the company asks you for your expected annual mileage, and the type of use (commuting, business, recreational, school)? It's on your statement. If you drive a lot, sure, it factors into your rate, but I'd be surprised if it isn't a more subtle calculation than you think. Truck drivers are among the safest drivers out there, and average a lot more miles than you do, and are overwhelmingly male. My personal insurance went down when I got a commercial driver's license way back when (when I was in my 20's).

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    180. Re:First... define worse... by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Undoubtedly. Only accident I've had in 30 years of driving that was my fault was driving home from work early in the afternoon before the usual time and traffic was backed up where there was usually no one around and I rear-ended people.

      Well except for when I flipped a car as a kid racing someone.

    181. Re:First... define worse... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I wasn't there to see it. I'm not saying all collisions are inexcusable, but when driving in icy conditions I typically stop a good ten feet back from the intersection to minimize the risk of exactly what happened to you.

      I'm talking about the ideal "good driver." None of us meet that ideal, including me. I just don't like the excuse "but it was the other guy's fault." Most things are avoidable (and in the extreme, avoidable by choosing not to drive on a particular roadway).

    182. Re:First... define worse... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Well, I think there are a lot of good drivers, but no perfect ones.

      Also, you can not stop back at this particular intersection as you can't see into it, otherwise. The fact that the other one was speeding in a curve, downhill, on ice, did not help, either :)

    183. Re:First... define worse... by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      If you cannot maintain your speed at the posted limit, and have no respect for when a U-Turn is allowed or appropriate, than you are not maintaining "superior control" of your vehicle. You're just trying to justify your asshattery. (Yes, we all got that you're talking about youself.)

      Keeping your car at the posted speed limit has nothing to do with control or being an asshat. Don't tell me you never driven on a section of road where the speed limit is complete bullshit, and no other drivers pay attention to it. I remember a section a road where the posted limited was 40, but the traffic rarely went under 55. Driving the posted speed limit would have just created a dangerous situation for both me and the other drivers. Speed isn't necessarily the determining factor of how dangerous you're driving. It's your RELATIVE speed to the objects around you.

      However, in some situations people making illegal turns piss me off to no end. If their illegal turn is causing people to wait unnecessarily, they totally deserve the "asshat" label.

    184. Re:First... define worse... by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      And still some people learn in simulators and then go and win races in real life.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
  6. As an Asian male by L33TRice · · Score: 1

    I can safely say I can drive perfectly fine- after I pass 60mph.

  7. Gattaca 2 by fortapocalypse · · Score: 1

    Ethan Hawke really wants to be a "driver"...

  8. Another way for insurance companies to screw us by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't surprise me if this does turn out to be true and not just a statistical anomaly then insurance companies will probably ask for a genetic test if they can get away with it and raise the premium if you have this genetic marker.

  9. I could see this as true by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I could see this as true, but not for the obvious reasons. Likely, people with this "particular gene" come from the same indirect family tree. This family can have learned behavior they pass on to their offspring of "not paying attention".

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:I could see this as true by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      That theory's really going to throw a wrench into their studies of brain-derived neurotrophic factor.

    2. Re:I could see this as true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Playing hard to get?

    3. Re:I could see this as true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people with the gene variant may be distantly related, but the comments about learned behavior do not apply to genetics in any way. Memories are not passed on through DNA.

      BTW, how can a family tree be indirect? Just say inbred.

  10. Why is this surprising? by Stradivarius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We know that other tasks involving acquired skills are influenced by natural ability. Intelligence is partly inherited, athletic ability is partly inherited, etc. It should come as no surprise that a task requiring some cognitive skill (paying attention to the right things) and physical skill (good steering, etc) is also influenced by genetics.

    Starting off with a poor hand genetically just means you have to work harder. Some athletes have to work harder than others to get peak performance. Some students have to work harder than others to ace their exams. And some drivers need to work harder than others to drive well.

    1. Re:Why is this surprising? by natehoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps not surprising, but the news is not that they've discovered the fact that traits are inherited through genetic markers. Good ol' Chuck Darwin had that one figured a while back.

      The news is that they've possibly identified one of the specific markers, and found a potential correlation between that and a specific subset of skills.

      In addition to the "blue eyes" and "red hair" gene, we may have found the "hold my beer and watch this" gene.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Why is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know that other tasks involving acquired skills are influenced by natural ability. Intelligence is partly inherited, athletic ability is partly inherited, etc. It should come as no surprise that a task requiring some cognitive skill (paying attention to the right things) and physical skill (good steering, etc) is also influenced by genetics.

      Starting off with a poor hand genetically just means you have to work harder. Some athletes have to work harder than others to get peak performance. Some students have to work harder than others to ace their exams. And some drivers need to work harder than others to drive well.

      My mother and sister both of whom are accident-prone clumsy, physically un-coordinated with zero athletic ability are (no surprise) terrible drivers! In fact they do not have their licenses and are ages 41 and 70. Instead their lives are built around living in big cities so they don't have to deal with navigating a vehicle.

      I think a lack of spatial sense with little attention to peripheral surroundings (ie: as are needed in sports practice) has a lot to do with it so you are spot-on with that!

    3. Re:Why is this surprising? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      If you can't see the color red because of a genetic switch, should you just try harder?

      How about the inability to process lactose?

      Trying harder only works if you have other mechanisms that can take up the slack.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    4. Re:Why is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck they may have discovered the ADHD gene

    5. Re:Why is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Charles Darwin's thing was random variation + natural selection = upward evolution. But he was a pangenesist.

    6. Re:Why is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starting off with a poor hand genetically just means you have to work harder. Some athletes have to work harder than others to get peak performance. Some students have to work harder than others to ace their exams. And some drivers need to work harder than others to drive well.

      Sure, but it also does mean that you won't be able to accomplish as much. Someone who is not genetically gifted WILL NEVER be able to be a professional athlete in most sports, regardless of how much they "work harder". Along the same lines, some drivers will be terrible, regardless of how hard they work.

  11. OK, but by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 1

    Much like any activity, this "deficiency" can be curbed through training/practice.

    Until we're able to manipulate genes in humans, as opposed to just lab rats, all this "XYZ has been linked to gene ABC" is pretty irrelevant.

    1. Re:OK, but by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Really? You can alter how your brain and body react to various proteins just by practice?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:OK, but by natehoy · · Score: 1

      If scientists can demonstrate how this happens, there may be changes to the way training is done to better curb this deficiency.

      For example, if the deficiency is in attentiveness, then people with that genetic marker may need some extra training in defensive driving and awareness. Training that, while useful for all drivers, is especially useful for the genetically predisposed group.

      This is the first step - science has identified a possible problem. Now science should probably check to make sure it's not an anomaly (for example, people with this gene may happen to be in families where poor driving habits are routinely demonstrated to the kids by their parents, but the gene itself is correlation without causation - the gene is present but the observation of poor driving is the cause).

      Then again, there really could be a "hey, hold my beer and watch this!" gene.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    3. Re:OK, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you RTFA, you'll notice that they were given several practice laps in which to practice. Those with the alternate form of the gene didn't learn as much from their practicing as those who have the regular version. Also, when the test was repeated 4 days later, those with the alternate form of the gene didn't improve their performance nearly as well as those with the normal form.
       
        In other words, no; it cannot be curbed through training/practice. At least it won't as long as people with the alternate form are trained the same was as those with the normal form. I will concede that *additional* (good luck getting that to fly in our PC world) training may remedy the difference.

    4. Re:OK, but by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      If we can train people use fewer buzzwords despite their MBA, we can teach them to drive better despite their genes.

    5. Re:OK, but by debrain · · Score: 1

      Until we're able to manipulate genes in humans, as opposed to just lab rats, all this "XYZ has been linked to gene ABC" is pretty irrelevant.

      Not if you're an insurer.

    6. Re:OK, but by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Nice postulate, have you demonstrated the first clause yet?

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    7. Re:OK, but by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It's not easy, but I've succeeded in a few cases.

  12. If you mean ... by m0s3m8n · · Score: 4, Funny

    If "genetic defect" means having a cell phone grown onto your ear at birth, then yes, I absolutely agree.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
    1. Re:If you mean ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually amusing; consider someone who just started driving, say 16 years old. They were born in 1995---who in 1995 had a cellphone?

      Time sure flies, no?

  13. Simpson Gene by lordlod · · Score: 1

    Who would have thought that the Simpson Gene would be so wide spread.

    1. Re:Simpson Gene by natehoy · · Score: 1

      [CRASH]
      Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.."
      [CRASH]
      Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.."
      [CRASH]
      Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.."
      [CRASH]
      Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.."

      Marge: "Homie, why not try the brakes this time?"

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  14. Indications other than driving by citking · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Obviously driving a car, truck, golf cart, etc. requires fine and gross motor skills. So if this gene is present does it affect only driving skills or other areas where fine and gross motor skills come into play? I'd like to see, for instance, if the 30% or so of people with this gene can't play video games on modern systems because they forget what the buttons do or just can't get the jumps, dives, runs, etc. down. It might also be interesting to see if neurosurgeons, sculptors, or sports players have this gene or not.

    --
    "This food is problematic."
  15. Driving While Asian by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, I went there.

    1. Re:Driving While Asian by dubbayu_d_40 · · Score: 1

      You have to give credit where it's due, driving slower than idle takes practice. Yeah, I live there.

    2. Re:Driving While Asian by dorianh49 · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine in Hawaii told me once, 'sure, the natives are horrible drivers. But, just a few generations ago, they were eating each other, so there's been a lot of progress.'

      --
      Gravity is a contributing factor in nearly 73 percent of all accidents involving falling objects. -Dave Barry
  16. Bad at Life? by splinterBR · · Score: 1

    So, is it wrong to assume that this variant also makes a person inept at a variety of tasks? Working, shopping, cleaning, cooking--pretty much anything that presents more than a minuscule challenge to the brain?

    --
    Rooting for the yankees is like rooting for herpes.
    1. Re:Bad at Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly! Also - did the designers of the "driving test" check themselves for the gene? - Anonymous Coward

  17. Sample size issue? by Serician · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did any one catch the sample size?

    "The driving test was taken by 29 people - 22 without the gene variant and seven with it."

    Ummm... Sounds like interesting research, but until your sample size increases a bit, you don't got nothing.

    1. Re:Sample size issue? by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 0

      rather biased test if you think about it.....22 without the gene and 7 with it? that's a bad control from the get go. should have been halved so that the results wouldn't be so skewered as I believe they are. I'm not sure what this says about me....depends if I drive in Oregon or Washington.

      --
      Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
    2. Re:Sample size issue? by Bald-Headed+Geek · · Score: 0, Troll

      Did any one catch the sample size? "The driving test was taken by 29 people - 22 without the gene variant and seven with it." Ummm... Sounds like interesting research, but until your sample size increases a bit, you don't got nothing.

      Yeah and the seven were Asian.

    3. Re:Sample size issue? by esme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suppose you've looked over their statistics, then? Or maybe you're just completely ignorant of behavioral sciences where a significantly larger sample size usually indicates poor design, lack of understanding of statistics, or a fishing expedition?

      Many kinds of experiments require large sample sizes, either because of small effects or large amounts of variance in the population being studied. But not everything needs a large sample. And using a large sample where a small one will do is just wasteful.

    4. Re:Sample size issue? by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Actually N=30 is a pretty reasonable size for many studies, and its fairly typical for lots of behavioral research where you just need to show that some effect exists and are not interested in precisely measuring its magnitude. The test for statistical significance is modified appropriately for the sample size, so you can't just dismiss results arbitrarily on the basis of N alone.

      Also statistical power is a non-linear scale, so if you do a cost-benefit analysis one usually finds that the cost of testing subjects quickly outweighs the benefit of a smaller standard deviation.

    5. Re:Sample size issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... Sounds like interesting research, but until your sample size increases a bit, you don't got nothing.

      Depends on how strong the correlation was. If the seven worst drivers were the seven with the variant gene, there's a one in 29C7 = 1.5 million chance of that happening randomly. That's a conclusive result by anyone's standards.

      Of course, I don't actually know if that was exactly the case, or how many other genes they tested - but the point is, it's possible that they have a conclusive result; they probably wouldn't have announced it if they didn't; and people like you shouldn't criticise results like this unless you learn a bit more about statistics.

    6. Re:Sample size issue? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I can't believe shit like this gets modded up as insightful. Take a statistics class!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Sample size issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what I love about slashdot? The Cargo Cult approach to science. Without looking at the actual data, you have no basis for saying that the sample size is too small. But of course, if people here actually understood the subject, as opposed to superstitiously lobbing about phrases like "sample size" and "correlation is not causation", they would know that.

    8. Re:Sample size issue? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I love when people (usually right-wing talk show nut jobs) dismiss a study because they (don't agree with it) think the sample size was inadequate. Any time somebody throws out that mantra without demonstrating their own sound understanding of research design, I just assume, I dunno, the scientist working for a University probably knows more than random guy on slashdot.

    9. Re:Sample size issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The short answer is that if there is a clear difference, you do not need a very big sample size to get statistical significance.

    10. Re:Sample size issue? by Hacker_PingWu · · Score: 0

      It's not just the sample size. He isn't, and *can't* explain how or why the gene causes bad driving. He has absolutely no means for *demonstrating* why the gene causes bad driving, even if his sample size were significant. It's simply his belief. He believes the gene makes people drive poorly. But you know what? I also believe that Raptor Jesus went extinct for our sins, and will rise out of the Rapture to bring a new age on Earth. The two are roughly equivalent in the eyes of science. At best he is describing what he believes is happening... which is what Psychology does. Describing something does not make Science. I don't see a hypothesis or a meaningful test in all of this. Just some eugenics driven kook.

    11. Re:Sample size issue? by Hacker_PingWu · · Score: 0

      Well first, you're confusing total sample size with experimental sample size. What's being discussed here is the total sample size, and 29 individuals most certainly is **NOT** enough to draw meaningful conclusions. We're not even sure he is testing a hypothesis. He could easily have picked people he knew to be predisposed to bad driving, poor choices, or overall poor sensory awareness for his 7 subjects 'with the gene'. There could be a manifold of other reasons genetic and otherwise responsible for the poor performance of these subjects. The gene could have nothing to do with bad driving. He could have administered the test in such a way that 7 subjects with said gene would perform poorly in comparison to the others. We don't know anything about how he selected his subjects, how they were tested, how said tests could possibly account for other factors that could be the cause of the results, and because we know nothing aside from it being some guy saying stuff, I can't make many more constructive criticisms. We don't have any idea why this gene could possibly be responsible, and in what ways, specifically for bad driving - and most likely, neither does he. What makes him believe the gene is responsible? How does he know? What evidence does he have that *proves* this? A geneticist, molecular biologist, and/or a physiologist would be extremely hard pressed to isolate such a causal relationship and a neuroscientist is none of those. I would be extremely, extremely impressed if he could *demonstrate* the gene causes bad driving. He would definitely make publication in scientific journals if he could. But, it's unlike he can or ever will. Which is why we're hearing about this first on a small webpage clipping from the department at the university he works at, and not a peer reviewed journal, or even a trash magazine like Psychology Today.

    12. Re:Sample size issue? by Hacker_PingWu · · Score: 0

      So. This guy sets up an experiment we have close to no details about, and his data show that the 7 people that scored lower than the rest of the group has this magic gene he's going on about? Does that demonstrate a causal relationship between the gene and bad driving? If you said yes, you are dead, dead, dead wrong. Sample size is extremely important, and experimentation with different number of subjects is definitely needed. But what is more needed than that is increased repetition of experiments and peer-review. This study reeks of the lax and lacking methodology of most social science fields.

    13. Re:Sample size issue? by Serician · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely correct, I am just a random guy on slashdot. I'm not a "scientist", and have a limited knowledge of biology and genetics. However, I do have some experience with reporting study results - I administer surveys, analyze the data, and report. And if I were to base my conclusions on 29 respondents, regardless of who they were or how carefully they were selected, I would feel obligated to include a section on the limitations of the study.

      Repeat this study with a larger sample to remove other possible coincidental effects, and maybe you might have something. Then when I apply for insurance, the company can check my genetics and hit me with 30% penalty and blame it on my genes.

    14. Re:Sample size issue? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Sorry to dismiss you as random slashdot guy, even if you are a research scientist. My point being that yammering on about "sample size" and "correlation != causation" usually is an indication of a fledgling knowledge or research design. For now, I'm going to stick with the article's premise and esme's rationale, because they both sound far more authoritative and convincing on the subject than you, random slashdot guy, do. But hey, what do I know, I'm a random slashdot guy too!

    15. Re:Sample size issue? by Hacker_PingWu · · Score: 0

      In Science, authority means *nothing* and evidence means everything. One of the points here, is that he has nothing that amounts to meaningful evidence both in the number of subjects in his experiment, and the lack of any causal evidence that having this gene will make you a bad driver. His sample size alone, and the distribution of gene-carriers to non-gene-carriers immediately rules out any possibility for him to possess data on which he can base a conclusion. Not to mention the fact that he is making an assertion that would be extremely difficult if not impossible to substantiate. In science, everything is *false* until proven true, and he is not providing any explanation as to *why* this gene might do as it does, nor testing his hypothesis. Which makes this not Science, but faith and hand-waving.

  18. Jersey Is Genetically Defficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess that means everyone in New Jersey is genetically deficient then because no one from that state would pass a drivers test!

  19. blood-type, driving, and toxo by doug141 · · Score: 1

    A study found people with Rh-neg blood and toxoplasmosis had more accidents. Here's more info:
    http://theshermanfoundation.blogspot.com/2009/06/toxoplasma-parasite-may-cause-humans-to.html

  20. Re:Bad Driving May Have Genetic Basis by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

    We call it the "X" chromosome.

    So... that's everyone, then. Based on my observations, I wouldn't argue with that.

  21. No surprise here by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Funny

    I live in an area with an astonishing number of epically bad drivers. I figured the epically bad drivers were (unfortunately) surviving long enough to have children, who themselves grew up to be epically bad drivers. A genetic component to epically bad driving doesn't surprise me in the least.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:No surprise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably also worth considering who taught these people to drive. Yes, they inherited their genetics from their parents, but they most likely also learned to drive from their parents.

      If their parents are bad drivers, they most likely passed along bad driving through their driving lessons.

    2. Re:No surprise here by TimedArt · · Score: 1

      I live in an area with an astonishing number of epically bad drivers. I figured the epically bad drivers were (unfortunately) surviving long enough to have children, who themselves grew up to be epically bad drivers. A genetic component to epically bad driving doesn't surprise me in the least.

      So what part of Florida do you live in?

    3. Re:No surprise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're from Florida?

    4. Re:No surprise here by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What part of Arizona do you live in?

  22. Wait, Don't Tell Me - They're ALL From Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frickin' Mormons on the I-15 goin' to Zion! (and not the park, either)

  23. Re:Another way for insurance companies to screw us by BarefootClown · · Score: 1

    And how would that be "screwing" you? Seems to me that it would be considering a factor that has a correlation, if not an effect, upon an outcome. That's pretty much the basis of actuarial science.

    --

    "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
    --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

  24. Correlation by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    We know that other tasks involving acquired skills are influenced by natural ability. Intelligence is partly inherited, athletic ability is partly inherited, etc. It should come as no surprise that a task requiring some cognitive skill (paying attention to the right things) and physical skill (good steering, etc) is also influenced by genetics.

    Good thing there's no cultural correlation with genetic similarities, eh?

    There are huge cultural differences in how people drive. In Italy, people seem to have a passing regard for things like lane markings, etc., when on the interstate. I loved watching drivers just meandering from one lane to another, or just driving stradding two lanes at once. Very different from how, say, people tend to drive in Germany. But if you were to do a genetic similarities analysis on these different populations, you'd probably get all sorts of false positives.

    Honestly, genetic correlation tests like these are the modern day equivalent of phrenology.

  25. It's called the XX chromosome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_determination_system to type a bit more for the /. filter ...

  26. Insurance companies must be salivating by Jordan+ez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man, and I thought the main cause for concern with the upcoming revolution in genetic testing was losing my health insurance.

  27. Yup its genetic no doubt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Yup its genetic no doubt ...
    Two X cromossomes makes you a BAD driver, one X and Y makes you a good one !

  28. +1 UCI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ZOT!

  29. I think it would save us a lot of time... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1

    ...if we could just start making a list of all the people who *didn't* come here to make the XX/XY joke.

    1. Re:I think it would save us a lot of time... by selven · · Score: 1

      Sure, Y not?

  30. A women? by ghislain_leblanc · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Are they saying that being a woman is genetic? I am truly chocked, choked I tell you!

  31. Re: Bad Driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Possibly, but personally I think it must the same gene that makes people want Toyota Corollas.

  32. Re:Bad Driving May Have Genetic Basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's a recessive trait.

  33. They might still cause accidents. by wfstanle · · Score: 1

    They might not get into accidents but their driving might cause other drivers to get into them by trying to avoid these idiots. On a related issue, a friend was always getting hit from behind. When someone was tailgating him, he would hit the brakes, HARD! After several tail end accidents, his insurance company came down on him for causing the accident even though legally he wasn't liable. Needless to say, he stopped that nonsense.

    1. Re:They might still cause accidents. by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 1

      If a cop had seen "your friend" (by "your friend" I mean you, since that's who you're talking about), he would have received a reckless endangerment citation. At least, in Texas he would have.

    2. Re:They might still cause accidents. by wfstanle · · Score: 1

      Wrong! I actually mean someone who WAS my friend. Definitely it was not me!

    3. Re:They might still cause accidents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't waste my brakes on tailgaters. I drive a manual transmission and I downshift. I never have been hit because I am then in a lower gear and can accelerate quickly. It does give the tailgater a heart attack however.

  34. predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by dAzED1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    roads aren't a career. They aren't a place where some should excel at the expense of others. Since you are sharing the road with others, if your behavior isn't predictable then it is bad behavior. Say for example a champion race-car driver decided that, to prove how great a driver he was, he would drive on the wrong side of a freeway. Would that not be "bad driving?" I don't care how good your skill at steering and breaking might be, driving is a social contract to act within an established set of norms. A surgeon can have extreme skill at controlling how deeply they cut, and otherwise have perfect hand-eye coordination, but if that perfection is applied to cutting out part of your liver when you're supposed to be having a brain tumor removed, then completely independent of any amount of hand-eye coordination and grace - that person is a bad surgeon.

    Same as a driver. If you aren't driving in a way that is predictable, and aren't driving the way you should be, then you are a bad driver. I don't care if you can do a controlled 360 on the road in front of your house - if you actually do it, then you are a bad driver. period.

    1. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      Very well said. Predictability is the best measure of good driving. And that cuts both ways; by which I mean that I routinely encounter idiots who endanger me by driving too defensively as well as those who do so by driving too aggressively.

      Example: people who yield when they have the right of way, forcing drivers behind them to hit the brakes. Or people like my old man, who feels the speed limits were correct back when they were no higher than 55 anywhere, and insist on driving 50 in a 75mph zone. When you are going 75 mph, and round a curve to come upon someone going 50mph, they might as well be parked on the road.

      This is not an example of too defensive or too aggressive, but my biggest peeve lately is with roundabouts. The roundabouts themselves are great -- it would be nice if we had a lot more of them here in the U.S. But too many stupid U.S. drivers haven't a clue how they are supposed to work. I regularly see people barge onto them without yielding, cutting off drivers already in the roundabout -- and then stop once they are in the roundabout to yield to drivers that are waiting to enter. Arg!

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    2. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      And that cuts both ways; by which I mean that I routinely encounter idiots who endanger me by driving too defensively as well as those who do so by driving too aggressively.

      you know how many of the idiots on the roads don't do something simple like looking ahead? almost every time I see an accident happen I get over and some idiot will always get mad I went into his lane and get over and floor it only to panic 30 seconds later when they encounter the accident I was able to plainly see and I know they could see it as well.

      Drivers licenses should be harder to get and keep as well as be far more expensive.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by DieByWire · · Score: 1

      Mod parent +1 Grown Up.

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    4. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      How about this scenario--on my morning commute I'm frequently the only car that is actually going 65 in the 65. Everyone else is usually doing 45-50 mph. Who's wrong? I'm obviously not following the "norm" (whatever that is), but I'm also the only one not impeding traffic. I know it sounds like a ridiculous scenario, but since I've moved to Texas from Oregon, German, then England, I've realized that Texans don't know what "rain" is, and when it happens, they lose all ability to drive.

    5. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by aztektum · · Score: 1

      The way you should be based upon laws that are passed for political reasons, "for the children" or whatever other talking point of the month or based on rational debate and reason?

      Look at how people drive in other countries (YouTube some traffic videos in say India). You take responsibility for yourself and act accordingly. You don't expect others to act a certain way because the law says so.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    6. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by minorproblem · · Score: 1

      I can completely agree. I ride a high performance motorcycle and it is extremely easy to ride unpredictably around other motor vehicles. So when i am riding in traffic i just cruise along like a grandma. The size and acceleration of a motorcycle make it extremely unpredictable to car drives which just increases the chances of an accident. I figure the extra 10 minutes in traffic doesn't matter as i can still park right outside the place i want to visit instead of parking 3 blocks away and i would rather come home at night in once piece =p I have found the best practice to be to wait until the traffic comes to a complete stop and then filter to the front and take off quickly once i am sure no one is going to run a red light. I can easily cover 200-300m before the cars have even crossed the intersection and then i can just go back to grandma mode once i catch the next lot of traffic.

    7. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Drivers licenses should be harder to get and keep

      Agreed.

      as well as be far more expensive.

      Why? Having money available to pay for an expensive licence is not indicative of an ability to drive. If you want to make people be more careful about driving, increase fines for poor driving and apply suspensions (of increasing durations for repeat offenders) for even small but dangerous driving infractions, no exceptions. Making licences expensive beyond the cost of testing and issuance is a form of prior restraint for being poor. Now if your driving test is more rigorous, time consuming, and therefore has a higher cost, then pass on that cost. But raising the cost of a licence by itself won't improve the quality of driving. There were (are) lots of immigrants in Vancouver willing to pay more (i.e. bribes) to be assured of obtaining a licence.

      My visit to HK in the late 90s gave me some insight into why more asian immigrants seem to have bad driving habits. Only the rich there could afford a vehicle and parking. Everybody else got out of their way because they were at a mass disadvantage (pedestrian/cycle) and the driver might be able to bribe their way out of consequences. I expect it's the same all over SE Asia. Now when somebody comes from that culture and gets a drivers licence in NA, they're likely to drive that way (ignoring the laws of physics and expecting everything mobile to get out of their way) even if they weren't rich in their home country, because they have the mental model that that is how driving is done. Increased availability of vehicles in China and SE Asia will force those attitudes to change over the next few decades through a brutal process of natural selection.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    8. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you aren't driving in a way that is predictable, and aren't driving the way you should be, then you are a bad driver. I don't care if you can do a controlled 360 on the road in front of your house - if you actually do it, then you are a bad driver. period.

      If they have done a 180 you can probably predict the other 180 quite easily... your logic is flawed sir.

      On another note, if you drive predictably how can you avoid someone who isn't?

    9. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by Quirkz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No kidding about the roundabouts. My quaint little town has put in a couple lately, and I used to work by one and live by another. I almost never went a day without someone endangering either life or vehicle at one of them by yielding or failing to yield appropriately, or by cutting through lanes in a panic as they try to figure out how to get where they're going. Pedestrians are bad, too -- the college kids tend to cut through the middle of the circle, derailing ALL of the traffic at once, rather than using the crosswalks.

    10. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Texans don't know what "rain" is, and when it happens, they lose all ability to drive.

      Or maybe they know something about the nature of their local roads and rain-slickness that you don't.

    11. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roads aren't a career. They aren't a place where some should excel at the expense of others.

      And some could argue that your career is not a place where one should excel at the expense of others.

      And yet others make a career of roads. Especially making roads. They even have unions

    12. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by lgw · · Score: 1

      It really annoys me when someone on a sport bike does this to me. If you white-line to get in front of me at a red light, I'm going to ignore you as I accelerate. If you're not accelerating faster (and I know you can: sport bike) you'll deserve the consequence. OK, I exaggerate slightly, but it's just over the top when a bike cuts in front of me that way and then goes slow.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is not an example of too defensive or too aggressive, but my biggest peeve lately is with roundabouts. The roundabouts themselves are great -- it would be nice if we had a lot more of them here in the U.S. But too many stupid U.S. drivers haven't a clue how they are supposed to work.

      No, traffic circles are horrible, for exactly the reasons you cite. Just because something is good in theory doesn't make it good in practice. Traffic circles are like communism; it sounds like a good idea, until you take into account human nature, then it falls apart. The only way traffic circles would work in the USA would be for there to be strict driver training and testing, and anyone who can't handle it wouldn't be able to drive. But that's never going to happen here; people believe it's their right to drive, and the fact that it's basically impossible to live and work in many places without a car makes it very difficult to keep people from driving.

    14. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by maxume · · Score: 1

      It astonishes me how frequently I see behavior where it is clear the driver isn't even looking 30 feet in front of them (or so it seems, they certainly aren't paying much attention 10 seconds ahead of themselves).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Bravo to you, good sir. Well said.

    16. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > if your behavior isn't predictable then it is bad behavior

      I do not turn a light when changing lanes when there is no one directly in front or behind of me. This means I am acting against the law, but I maintain a slightly better grip on the steering wheel than others.

      Similarly, I always drive between two lanes when there is no other traffic. Against the law, but I can swerve in _both_ directions if something happens.

    17. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      You are a prize dickhead. If for no other reason than you think swerving is a suitable reaction to anything. And most cars since the 40s have turn signals right there on the steering column, you don't have to take your hand off the wheel to use them.

    18. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Disregarding the needless and baseless personal attack, let me answer this.

      1) How is driving in the middle of the road less secure than sticking to the right-hand side when there is _no other traffic_?

      2) Sure they do. I only have to tip my turn signal and it will blink three times. But how is this relevant if there is no one near me who can care about it?

      3) How do you arrive at the conclusion that I "think swerving is a suitable reaction to anything"?

      I would prefer if you went lighter on the personal attacks and heavier on the actual facts and relevant statements so we can do more than throw bits of conversation at each other.

    19. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by shiftless · · Score: 1

      If for no other reason than you think swerving is a suitable reaction to anything.

      And you don't? That would make you a dumb ass, as well as a poor driver.

      Free clue: There are very often situations where braking wouldn't work and swerving is the only way to avoid a sudden hazard.

    20. Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Let me rephrase that. It needs to be more expensive to cover the cost of yearly training and testing. I'm talking track testing and if you fail you have to go to training again that year.

      Two tier drivers license. 1 for city, 1 for highway. you have to pay $300.00 to get trained at high speed driving and have to retake that test yearly. or you dont get to drive in the interstates.

      Plus, getting a ticket loses your ability to drive on the interstates.

      now, remove the speed limits from the interstates EXCEPT for when they are inside cities with a lot of exits and on ramps.

      Let me do 120mph between Lansing and Ann Arbor, those that dont want to pay the privilege to drive high speed by getting training yearly can drive the old highway system at 55mph.

      THAT is what I mean by more expensive. Driving at 120mph is not easy, in fact it's stressful as hell. At least on a track I know the other guys are competent, on a public roadway I can be 100% accurate by assuming that everyone around me is incompetent. Eliminate that, allow only skilled drivers at no speed limits, safety goes way up, the whiners that claim that speed limits are for only tickets shut up, and the state get's a hefty boost to the coffers by giving giant fines to people that dont have a highway license on the highway.

      My motorcycle endorsement costs me $12.00 a year plus I add a $50.00 yearly cost to attend a "ride like a pro" class every spring. I am in the top 3% of all motorcycle riders because of it. I personally wish it would be required for all motorcyclists.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  35. Gene variant also correlates highly with "dumbass" by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    We used to just call it "stupid."

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  36. Re:Another way for insurance companies to screw us by Compholio · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And how would that be "screwing" you? Seems to me that it would be considering a factor that has a correlation, if not an effect, upon an outcome. That's pretty much the basis of actuarial science.

    Watch Gattaca and get back with us. I would argue that a responsible society would provide extra help to such people, rather than punishing them for something that they have no control over.

  37. Re: Bad Driving by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I kid, I kid!

    Who are you hiding from? It's not like any women are going to be reading your post.

  38. What the heck... by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

    > Bad drivers may in part have their genes to blame
    I started thinking about poorly designed device drivers written by genetically-damaged programmers. Time to shut down the PC and go home...

  39. Bonferroni Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The chances of this being anything more than a simple correlation are extremely unlikely, unless this gene has a role in vision or concentration that affects many other things, like ability to read, etc. In this case the gene responsible is supposedly BDNF, which has a role in memory. There are approximately 30,000 known coding genes in the human genome. If you keep running comparisons on a bunch of them, then you're going to find a correlation eventually. This is why you're supposed to do a "Bonferroni correction". For example, if they checked out 500 genes looking for a correlation with driving ability, then the P-value they're supposed to accept as "significant" should be 0.05/500 = 0.0001 (although there are other ways of doing the correction as well). The article doesn't say how many genes they actually tested or if they altered their level of significance accordingly. Bottom line - the genome is a big place, and you may well find the correlation you're looking for if you just keep testing enough genes.

  40. Texting, talking, fiddling, eating, smoking, etc.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    While racing at top speed and taking the road as a slolem course weaving through traffic, raging and cursing everybody else on the freeway!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  41. Re:Another way for insurance companies to screw us by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

    You don't *have* to drive. And even if a job within public transport pays less, and a home close to a supermarket and bus line costs more, no insurance/gas/car payments/stress is a huge benefit. Higher insurance costs for people who shouldn't drive will help more people see this...

    For the record, I do not own a car, and pulled off the above with relative ease... the real problem is, no one even *tries*.

  42. Different take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Officer, it was not my bad driving, but my genes.

    If you write me a ticket, I will sue under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

    1. Re:Different take by selven · · Score: 1

      Ok gene boy, be prepared to pay your new mathematically calculated 25% higher insurance premium.

  43. Re:Another way for insurance companies to screw us by CheddarHead · · Score: 1

    I would argue that a responsible society would provide extra help to such people, rather than punishing them for something that they have no control over.

    OK, I'd be willing to chip in to get them a bus pass.

  44. Not surprised by ianare · · Score: 1

    My wife is a self proclaimed bad driver, but she always says it's not her fault and is genetic. At first I thought she was kidding, but it's true : her mom, her dad, her brother, many of her cousins -- a whole family of bad drivers.

    1. Re:Not surprised by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's probably not genetic, it's probably the way the learned, and passed on a driving style.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every one of my siblings change from a mild mannered agreeable person to a foul mouthed pyschopath when behind the steering wheel. It's not genetic, it's just because that's how our mum drives.

      100% nuture.

    3. Re:Not surprised by ianare · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing, but her parents learned to drive in S. America (where the driving is much more demanding), she learned in the US - and was not thought by her parents! And it also doesn't explain her cousins, again some learned in S. America, some here.

  45. Re:Another way for insurance companies to screw us by BitterOak · · Score: 1

    Watch Gattaca and get back with us. I would argue that a responsible society would provide extra help to such people, rather than punishing them for something that they have no control over.

    One could argue that being male or female is a result of genetics (XX vs. XY chromosomes), and it is perfectly acceptable that car insurance companies charge more for male drivers than female because statistically they are in more accidents. How is this any different?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  46. Insurance by JesseBHolmes · · Score: 1

    Oh, no! No if my uncle gets in a car accident, I get my rates upped by my insurance. Thanks a lot, UC Irvine!

  47. Re:Another way for insurance companies to screw us by steelfood · · Score: 1

    They should just take this into account on the driving test. You don't need a genetic screen. Just make the test (road or written or otherwise) take this into account. That way, people who shouldn't be on the road won't be, and the people who are on the road won't suffer because of it.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  48. Re:Another way for insurance companies to screw us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch Gattaca and get back with us.

    Of course. I, too, base all my moral decisions on what Hollywood moviemakers imply I should think.

  49. Taking your half out of the middle by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    is common practice everywhere, especially on residential streets that have cars parked on both sides, as well as people entering and exiting those cars, kids playing on both sides of the road, and no center divider or double yellow line. I do agree with the point DGatwood made about population density affecting driver safety, probably the most salient fact presented, far more relevant than a possible genetic connection.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  50. Re: Bad Driving by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

    a-hem?

    Signed,
    A lady who (touch wood!) has never had an accident

    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
  51. Are we sure... by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

    ...that this gene just affects driving? Because making errors, forgetting things frequently... that sounds like some of the people I work with. Aren't we really just isolating the "stupid" gene at this point?

    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
    1. Re:Are we sure... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      according to the article* it was done to test more complex motor skills. in fact:

      ""I'd be curious to know the genetics of people who get into car crashes," Cramer says. "I wonder if the accident rate is higher for drivers with the variant.""

      They don't test it at all. As usually dimwits only read as much as the summary as they could before their lips got tired then started posting there 'views' and incorrect opinions.

      *What's that? there's someone who reads the aricle on Slashdot? I am shock, simply shocked.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  52. Safety? by phorm · · Score: 1

    The speed limits, turn restrictions, signage, whatever is all there for a reason. It's to create a safe and predictable driving environment for everyone

    Except in places where they're made so that it's easier to make money off of speeding tickets, etc. No, this isn't the case always, but there have been plenty of cases where limits are *lowered* for no apparent reason (and suddenly that stretch is radar-heaven), or where stop-lights have had the yellow-red interval lowered to a point where it's less safe, or numerous other foolish reasons.

    As a motorist it's not my place to decide whether a law/sign/etc is in place for the right or wrong reason, but it's also wrong to ignore the fact that this happens.

  53. East Asian here. by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1, Troll

    ...and my friends, family, and I all agree that Asians (East Asians, SE Asians, S Asians) are all collectively pretty terrible. I've heard Middle Eastern guys are not too much better either.

    Whether this is genetic is debatable, however. Many immigrants and their first/second-generation kids typically come from highly urban areas with very cheap and convenient mass transit, which decreases the number of car drivers (and hence, driving experience) in this demographic.

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    1. Re:East Asian here. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, drivers tend to be better in Asian countries than in the US. Actually, drivers tend to be better everywhere else.

      There are two reasons I can think of for this:

      1) Driving is more exclusive, and so only the better drivers get to drive.
      2) They don't treat driving like a walk in the park, and treat it like driving.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    2. Re:East Asian here. by drkoemans · · Score: 1

      Yea, not sure about that. These guys seem to drive pretty well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUqeoXAgRBk&feature=related

    3. Re:East Asian here. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If you got the balls to start a new life in another country, then you probably have a high testosterone level which can be a key ingredient is driving douche baggery.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:East Asian here. by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      If you got the balls to start a new life in another country, then you probably have a high testosterone level which can be a key ingredient is driving douche baggery.

      Thats the most flawed reasoning I've seen for a long time.

    5. Re:East Asian here. by RichiH · · Score: 1

      How is the ability to earn money and/or status related to the ability to drive?

      The reason you guys suck at driving is that you never learn to do so. Come over to Germany and take a course.. We also have crappy drivers, but ours are a _lot_ better than yours.

  54. Reminds me of the old joke..... by ChrisLeif · · Score: 0

    How do you blind a [ethnic group]? Put a windshield in front of him/her.

  55. I firmly believed in the wisdom of "Repo Man" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The more you drive, the less intelligent you are."

    Now you're telling me there is a genetic basis for driving skill itself? I'm shocked.

  56. Re: Bad Driving by Hatta · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was in the car once with my girlfriend (driving) and we got stuck behind a slow driver, swerving all over the place. In our frustration we engaged in some stereotyping. "Probably old" I said. "And asian, she replied". When we were finally able to get around this person, I look over. "Sure enough, an old asian lady." My GF says "Yep, that's two strikes against her" At which point I say "No, that's three."

    I was glad she was driving and had only one hand to hit me with.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  57. Maintaining Sharpness... by DomNF15 · · Score: 1

    From the article: "The gene variant isn't always bad, though. Studies have found that people with it maintain their usual mental sharpness longer than those without it when neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's, Huntington's and multiple sclerosis are present."

    My take: "usual mental sharpness" - a dull knife is still dull after you run it over concrete. Maybe the people with the gene variant just aren't as "sharp" to begin with, which is why they appear not to change for a longer period of time.

    Alright so here's my contribution to the whole driving/traffic laws discussion - I was driving home from work during rush hour one day and coming up to an automated toll plaza (the booth accepted either exact change or EZPass, here's a link for those who don't know what EZPass is - http://www.ezpass.com/). So this car in front of me decided to go through the clearly marked EZPass only lane of the toll booth, only, she didn't have an EZPass. So, she stopped her car at the booth. And I stopped behind her, and traffic started piling up behind me rather quickly since it was rush hour and she was blocking the only EZPass lane at the toll plaza. I gave her 2 minutes to figure out what she should do, and then proceeded to get out of my car and walk up to hers. I asked her what the (expletive) she thought she was doing there. She told me she was driving a rental car and forgot she didn't have EZPass. So I replied, "What the (expletive) do you think is going to happen here? This is an automated plaza, no human being works here, and no one is going to magically show up and fix this. There's at least half a mile of cars backed up here because you've stopped. Just continue to drive through and you'll get a ticket in the mail, the camera (I pointed out the security camera that was aimed at her license plate) already took a picture of your plate because you have no EZPass, so the damage is done. You can't do anything about it now."

    Moral: If you have no common sense, do not operate a motor vehicle. You will definitely injure, kill, or piss people off. Do everyone a favor and use mass transit, or just shop on the Internet.

  58. My father always said... by hallux.sinister · · Score: 1

    My father always said, (and long before this study too,) that it is either an absence of y-chromosomes, or an overabundance of x-chromosomes, or possibly a combination of the two.

  59. Re: Bad Driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just here to offer the wood for you to touch.

  60. Re: Bad Driving by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

    Living in Seattle, we apply the following formula with a 75%+ success rate:

    if driver is in front, in the left lane and slow:
            if car is a Nissan:
                    driver is probably from India
            elif car is any other Japanese make:
                    driver is probably East Asian
            elif car is large American-made SUV:
                    driver is probably from Eastern Washington (judging by dealer plate frames)
            elif a box of Kleenex and furry stuffed animals is visible:
                    driver is probably East Asian female, or highly emasculated Asian male.

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  61. This is amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I lived in Costa Mesa, the nickname going around for UCI was the "University of Chinese Immigrants". All of my vietnamese friends called it that (and all of them eventually wound up attending UCI).

    This study struck me as somewhat appropriate.

  62. Re:New Jersey Drivers= very good - I concur by spineboy · · Score: 1

    Considering accidents are probably proportional to traffic density, then comparing Jersey to the other states on the list, the drivers are superb. What do you think the population density is in those others states?

    Interesting note - having lived in many of the states on the eastern seaboard, and now California (don't get me started how BAD the drivers are here), New Jersey drivers (and NYC drivers) appear to me to very good. New Jersey also has some of the highest insurance premiums as well.

    Would be nice to look at safety vs insurance costs - i.e. it costs too much to get into an accident, so people drive more safely.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  63. midewest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would explain midwest drivers, get out of the fast lane, slowass!!

  64. It's all genetic by Haxx · · Score: 0, Troll

      You could make an argument that all human behavior can be traced to genetics. In fact my father is typing this same reply at another forum over at AARP.COM. He can't spell either.

      year 2600 dictionary: Capitalism --- [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] -noun. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned by Walmart.

  65. Other thoughts... by raftpeople · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "That loud thump has never turned out to be a pedestrian before"

  66. It's possible they drive poorly because by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    the people setting the rules think from the point of view of someone with the other gene setting.

    I.e. if the 20% set the rules, then would the 80% be able to comply or would most of them make errors?

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  67. Asians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love to see some research into why asians insist on reversing into every park (not just parellel ones), and why even with all that practice are they unable to do it without making 100 failed attempts first

  68. Re:Another way for insurance companies to screw us by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    There is no need. The people who drive poorly already pay more for their insurance because of reality. In other words, of the people who pay higher rates, a subset of them are likely those who have the gene variant. Genetic testing is not required. They are already covered by existing rates.

  69. Define best by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Someof the WORST driver I know are driver which do exactly the same as above, and THINK they can maintain control of their vehicle in all circumstance except when the OTHER are responsible. I think there is definitively a gene for overestimating one own attitude. There has been recently an article on that recently, where the worst people were overestimating their aptitude more than the one really apt.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  70. Re: Bad Driving by geekoid · · Score: 1

    not true without pics.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  71. Is this the "quick learning" gene? by Firedog · · Score: 1

    I wonder if people without this genetic variant are quicker learners in general. Or if the quick learning is limited to spatial and motor skills. I'd like to see them study other activities, like playing video games of other types, learning some non-physical skill, rock climbing, playing basketball, riding a bike, etc. It would be interesting to see where correlations pop up.

  72. Haha...so you think you're a great driver, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well everybody thinks they are a great driver. Everybody believes they could make it on the racecar circuit, if only they had the chance or inclination. "I can drive really really fast, and take corners really well! When I crash it's the fault of those stupid slow drivers who can't handle their cars!"...

  73. pakkoputki by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    It looks like there is more to this than just snow, since several of the safest states have pretty decent snowfall.

    Maybe snowfall has a positive effect? I drove in snow a lot as a youngster, even when I only had a learner's permit. While there's other things like traffic density to consider, if you can drive in snow then driving in good conditions is a picnic.

    It's a good explanation of why Finns are disproportionally represented in motorsport. Certainly better than assuming that having k as a third of the letters in your name makes you good at driving.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:pakkoputki by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      It's a good explanation of why Finns are disproportionally represented in motorsport. Certainly better than assuming that having k as a third of the letters in your name makes you good at driving.

      I think it has more to do with the 3-year process that the Finns go through to get their license, which includes manditory skid school, snow driving school, and training on loose surfaces.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    2. Re:pakkoputki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which in turn has a lot to do with them having a shitton of snow, yes? Maybe licensing varies in those states proportionately to snowfall... at least for the percentage of drivers who take their road test in winter (e.g. after a fall semester driver's ed course).

  74. Re:Another way for insurance companies to screw us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard the government is going to start tracking this gene by placing it on our drivers licenses.

    This gene will be marked with an F, while those without a gene will get an M on their license instead.

  75. asianness by hooshman · · Score: 1

    there are lots of asians at uci

  76. Darwin by ascari · · Score: 1

    This is almost like a test case for Darwinian evolution: We have a gene that has a bad effect on it's carriers, and a mechanism ("horrid accident") that potentially removes that gene from the gene pool. So the over time the gene should disappear and everybody will be better drivers. The old joke about every American being an above-average driver will actually be reality.

  77. Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes its true, its called being Asian.

  78. Re: Bad Driving by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

    Seriously, do you have any stats to back up your claims that Asians are bad drivers?

  79. Re: Bad Driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only men with beards; high voices and throwing stones.

  80. Not male or female but where you come from matters by SpeleoNut · · Score: 1

    Interesting to look at the HapMap. You should feel very safe if your driver is of sub saharan African descent. They don't seem to have the minor allele at all http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=6265#Diversity . Of course one allele rarely controls the whole show.

    --
    rnadom txet for a sngrutaie
  81. All together now by Naznarreb · · Score: 1

    Say it with me folks: Correlation does not equal causality.

  82. The Oval Gene by pmontra · · Score: 1

    About 30 percent of Americans have the variant

    Researchers should also investigate which gene variant prevents most American professional drivers to correctly turn right at high speed. That ultimately led to the creation of oval tracks and gave a competitive advantage to foreign drivers which find it easy to go to the USA and win races and titles.

    Disclaimer: that was intended to be both fun and informative ;-)

  83. X chromosome by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    It's a well known thing that people with two X chromosomes are very bad drivers, they are prone to panic attacks in any adverse conditions, and have no sense of direction or consideration for other drivers. They also can't read maps.

    If we can get these potential killers off the roads and perhaps isolate the boy-racer gene and get them off the roads too it will save many, many, lives.

  84. Re:Bad Driving May Have Genetic Basis by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    We call it the "X" chromosome.

    So... that's everyone, then. Based on my observations, I wouldn't argue with that.

    Indeed. But half the population are twice as bad.

  85. Finland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well that's the explanation for Finns who drive Audis, Volvos and BMWs .... aparently the same gene causes a small penile development, delusions of granedur (hey, I can drive like Kimi Raikkonen) and a severe lack of self confidence...

  86. That explains what's happening in the Netherlands! by RichiH · · Score: 1

    Seriously, it does.

    What do they do to Dutch people who fail the driving test at least three times in a row? -- They force them to put yellow licence plates onto their cars!

  87. Another Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These results demand another study! The question to be answered is this: Why is there such an overabundance of these genetically-hampered drivers in the Washington, DC area?

  88. Re:Not male or female but where you come from matt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, but if you actually USE your eyes every time some prick behaves in an extraordinarily dangerous way on the road you'll wonder where your researchers got their statistics.

  89. Mod parent rofl & insightful at the same time. by RichiH · · Score: 1

    And to think I used up my mod points in the discussion about mere light particles!

  90. This is nonsense. by Hacker_PingWu · · Score: 0

    A relation does not a correlation make. And less so does a correlation make a causation. They are drawing the conclusion that the gene is associated with bad driving for... I don't know why, or what logic. Probably little to none. I couldn't tell without looking at the study, but their sample size probably is too small to even be statistically significant. And even if it was, they can't provide an explanation as to *why* this gene could have the effect of making you a bad driver, and *what causes it*. And there are *so* many factors that can affect the test scores than just the gene. The researchers cannot possibly have justification for drawing a causal relationship between said gene and bad driving. This isn't any more scientific than eugenics.

    1. Re:This is nonsense. by Hacker_PingWu · · Score: 0

      Ok, now that I've read the link, I can definitely say this isn't a scientific study. The sample size of 29 people, 7 of which had the gene that supposedly causes bad driving is not nearly enough to draw a positive causal conclusion. And most importantly, he cannot possibly demonstrate that the gene *causes* bad driving. If he cannot demonstrate it, it's simply his belief based on... whatever else he may have studied. Or random, but it's of equal value to science - a belief is not science. It's small wonder this tidbit is just on UC Irvine's webpage.... it'll never make scientific publication.

  91. Re: Bad Driving by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

    Just here to offer the wood for you to touch.

    And now you've reduced the number of female slashdot readers back to zero.

  92. Re:Another way for insurance companies to screw us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you want to give them HANDOUTS? That's SOCIALISM!

    [/republican]

  93. Re: Bad Driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You missed the most important part, if it has a 'PROUD WASHINGTONION NATIVE' bumper sticker on it, they are guaranteed to merge on the freeway at 45mph, and never get above 50mph in the fast lane.