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."

72 of 449 comments (clear)

  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 Avalain · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    4. 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)

    5. 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 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).

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.

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

    Is the "particular gene" a second X chromosome?

    I kid, I kid!

  4. 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 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"...

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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?
    5. 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.
    6. Re:First... define worse... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      FTFY

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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)

    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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
    15. 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
    16. 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...

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.
    20. 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."
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.

    24. 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!
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.

    28. 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.
    29. 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.

    30. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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."
  8. 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.
  9. 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."
  10. Driving While Asian by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, I went there.

  11. 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 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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."
  21. 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!
  22. 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.
  23. Re: Bad Driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just here to offer the wood for you to touch.

  24. 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!

  25. Other thoughts... by raftpeople · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "That loud thump has never turned out to be a pedestrian before"