Jump to content
chrisg

Perth drivers - again....

Recommended Posts

 


Close mate drives HR trucks, and was commenting the same thing just this weekend.

 

So, you know someone who's part of 2 demographics who are grossly overrepresented in road accidents and has the same opinion as you on P-platers vs older drivers and expect us to believe his word as well?

 

Stat-slap time. Look at this document: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/Road_Trauma_Australia_2016_rev.pdf

 

"Deaths by age group" on page 10. OK, so it's not necessarily drivers but still gives a good representation. And don't try giving us this crap that younger people "live in their cars".

Notice that the 17-25 age group has almost the same numbers as the 26-39 and 40-64 age groups, despite those groups encompassing a much greater range of ages and in fact if you interpolated it into raw numbers the 17-25 age group is in fact a distinct minority given the decline in birth rate and aging population.

 

Yet, raw accident numbers see them overrepresented, probably by a factor of 3 or more, in accident figures.

 

And you wonder and bitch about why your premiums are higher and you get hassled by the cops?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where you can do 5~6 100kmph down to 20kmph hour speed changes within a 30 second period

That seems like one of those situations where someone asks why you keep going back up to 100 if you have to keep dropping to 20 so often.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Close mate drives HR trucks, and was commenting the same thing just this weekend.

 

So, you know someone who's part of 2 demographics who are grossly overrepresented in road accidents and has the same opinion as you on P-platers vs older drivers and expect us to believe his word as well?

 

Stat-slap time. Look at this document: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/Road_Trauma_Australia_2016_rev.pdf

 

"Deaths by age group" on page 10. OK, so it's not necessarily drivers but still gives a good representation. And don't try giving us this crap that younger people "live in their cars".

Notice that the 17-25 age group has almost the same numbers as the 26-39 and 40-64 age groups, despite those groups encompassing a much greater range of ages and in fact if you interpolated it into raw numbers the 17-25 age group is in fact a distinct minority given the decline in birth rate and aging population.

 

Yet, raw accident numbers see them overrepresented, probably by a factor of 3 or more, in accident figures.

 

And you wonder and bitch about why your premiums are higher and you get hassled by the cops?

 

 

I dont get hassled. lol.

 

And I still maintain that those numbers are skewed because more people in the age group of 17~25 are 'new' drivers, than people int he 40~64 age group.

 

We need a much smaller sample size, say 10x 64yo drivers who passed their test today, vs 10x 25yo drivers who passed their test today;

Put them through the Reflex tests, hazard tests, and emergency correction (defensive driving) tests.

 

Its OK, we dont have to share the same opinion, but I have mine based on my life experience, and you have yours.

 

Just as one other anecdote;

Lets just say, there's a reason if you ever see a BMW use their indicator people declare "Holy hell, a Beamer just indicated, buy a lotto ticket!"; its not generally a young hoon car :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smaller sample sizes produce better results since when? :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

where you can do 5~6 100kmph down to 20kmph hour speed changes within a 30 second period

That seems like one of those situations where someone asks why you keep going back up to 100 if you have to keep dropping to 20 so often.

 

No argument there, go for gold.

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Contact-us

 

For me? usually a combination of the fact that Roadworks are 40kmph, on a 110 zone, even when no one is there, and there's no warning till you get close.

Add in idiots mass merging and the woeful M1 merge, doing your best to not encourage tailgating or dangerous overtaking, you know, driving.

 

It just creates idiots and road rage if the rest of the traffic speeds up to 80/100 and you decide "I'll wait at 20, and see if it goes back down again"....

logically you're right. IRL, it never seems to play out that way.

Smaller sample sizes produce better results since when? :p

 

Hey, if you wanna find 10'000 65yo's who have never driven before, and are getting their licence today, go for gold.

I just thought it'd be a hard thing to do.

Because, as i said, my opinion is that more young people are NEW than are OLD;

and the statistic isn't so much AGE (which they like to use) but EXPERIENCE.

 

How ever many 65yo's that you can find that are just passing their test, I'll happily expand the sample size, go nuts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another demographic can be brand. I might have already posted it but generally the ignorant pricks who don't indicate will usually be in a total shitbox or a $120K BMW or Audi.


I don't know what you're getting at - of course more young people will be new drivers.

 

The entire point being made is that inexperience and their attitude means they have more accidents. Fark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. My point is that the older generation, despite stigma, seem to have a more overconfident and 'own thew road' mentality. At least in my life experience.

 

Even higher risk though is that they seem to get either bored or complacent.

 

I mean, honestly, my father and all his friends will admit "im not what i used to be" at 65.

Dad used to rally drive in his late 30s, he believes he cant do it as well now, hes sore, and just has less energy.

 

Sure thats not everyone, but still.

 

My whole point is that insurance take a sample by age, rather than experience.

 

This skewes the numbers because the younger age will generally have less experience.

 

It should ask solely "how long have you driven" not "whats your age" .

 

And also, that once you pass X ammount of time (whatever it takes to get confident and experienced enough), that more time in life often (not always) leads to complacency.

 

My point is that its not OK (in my opinion) that someone whos made 2 claims, and been deemed unsafe to drive at least once, is a "better driver" than a male with perfect history.

 

Sounds like their sample is skewed by something to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they start changing how they do insurance pools and focus on you more as an individual for premium pricing, can we look forward to that happening for healthcare, too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


My whole point is that insurance take a sample by age, rather than experience.

 

*Groan.

 

Young = less experienced. In almost all cases. The people who don't get licenced until they're 30+ are a very small minority.

 

Really, for the most part they have the insurance premium calculations right - except of course the ridiculous margins and discrepencies among companies to the point where an identical policy might be 50% more from some insurers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurers are a bunch of scammers who will do anything to avoid payouts and are law onto themselves anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ponder this - If pretty well everyone else's normal factory brakes seem to do the job (at least in most cases) then why would you need to modify them?

Since we're talking modified cars here;

Because Most cars normal factory brakes AREN'T good enough for the main straight. You'll overheat your brakes on the first corner and plough into a wall at the next.

I couldn't agree more. Upgraded brakes are for track use, not emergency stops to reduce crashes.

 

 

What larger brakes allows is more Human Error (for lack of a better term) in braking.

 

If you have tiny disks with a 'pin point' contact patch, the foot travel\pedal feel from "heavy braking" to "fully locked up" can be VERY small.

Large brakes only need feather touches, nowhere near a 'solid clamp' to apply the same resistance on the rotating assembly.

The reduced force required doesn't mean bupkis under emergency brake conditions. The time taken for your foot to apply 300 newtons instead of 400 newtons is immaterial when compared to the around 1 second initial reaction time.

 

I know that people want to claim that improved brakes improve emergency stops and reduce crashes, but in general that's simply not the case.

 

 

It should ask solely "how long have you driven" not "whats your age" .

 

And also, that once you pass X ammount of time (whatever it takes to get confident and experienced enough), that more time in life often (not always) leads to complacency.

 

My point is that its not OK (in my opinion) that someone whos made 2 claims, and been deemed unsafe to drive at least once, is a "better driver" than a male with perfect history.

 

Sounds like their sample is skewed by something to me!

It's not a skewed sample, it's just the rating factors chosen by insurance companies, with implicit allowance for other factors.

 

Choosing the rating factors is a lot more complex than just "driving experience is a better factor!" Because driving experience is something that can easily be lied about, and there's no way to verify it.

 

Insurers aren't out there bumbling their way through life. They employ a lot of people with the sole purpose of estimating risks and coming up with rating factors. When there are ways for insurers to identify safer drivers, they take them. It's in their best interest to offer safer drivers lower premiums, so that they get more business. That's true of the insurance industry in general, they need to work out the appropriate premium, because if their premium for a given risk is too high they will lose that person's business to someone's who's a bit lower.

 

 

My point is that its not OK (in my opinion) that someone whos made 2 claims, and been deemed unsafe to drive at least once, is a "better driver" than a male with perfect history.

They're not saying she's a better driver. They're saying that using the risk estimation techniques, mathematical models, and their business profile, they expect the female driver to be less costly to insure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

My point is that its not OK (in my opinion) that someone whos made 2 claims, and been deemed unsafe to drive at least once, is a "better driver" than a male with perfect history.

They're not saying she's a better driver. They're saying that using the risk estimation techniques, mathematical models, and their business profile, they expect the female driver to be less costly to insure.

 

 

oh, no argument. I'm just saying thats flawed.

 

 

they expect the female driver to be less costly to insure.

Even once that is PROVEN to be incorrect (in that persons case)

 

 

 

The reduced force required doesn't mean bupkis under emergency brake conditions. The time taken for your foot to apply 300 newtons instead of 400 newtons is immaterial when compared to the around 1 second initial reaction time.

 

I know that people want to claim that improved brakes improve emergency stops and reduce crashes, but in general that's simply not the case.

 

It's not about how much effort you have to exert, it's about how much leeway there is between heavy braking, and the pad\metal 'digging' into each other and locking.

I've done 3 defensive driving courses and have clocked up a fair amount of track time.

 

A small rotor and pad, is much harder to UN-lock, and then reapply without RE-locking the brakes.

 

In an emergency stop when you JUMP on the brakes, you feel the car lock up, and quickly butterfly the brakes off till you find the balance point.

This is INFINITELY harder with small brakes.

Its a basic road skill anyone whos done defensive driving practice will instinctively do; so it's not like it's an odd thing to need to balance.

 

Even between cars that have good brakes, you try, say a WRX with 2 pot brakes, versus an STI with Brembo 4pot.

There's only a 1.5mm rotor diameter difference, but diving a corner (which is an identical skill to emergency braking) is DRASTICALLY harder with the 2pots, because they lock up.

Both are considered good brakes, but the brembos larger pad area just means you can get more force before it just BITES.

 

Slap a tub of water, and then poke it.

You can put a LOT more force into the surface before you sink your hand then poking it.

Ditto pads edge into metal (just on a much more microscopic scale)

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not saying she's a better driver. They're saying that using the risk estimation techniques, mathematical models, and their business profile, they expect the female driver to be less costly to insure.

Even once that is PROVEN to be incorrect (in that persons case)

 

It hasn't proven to be incorrect. They've used historical details with their risk estimation techniques, mathematical models, and their business profile, to determine that they expect the female driver to be less costly to insure.

 

 

 

I've done 3 defensive driving courses and have clocked up a fair amount of track time.

 

A small rotor and pad, is much harder to UN-lock, and then reapply without RE-locking the brakes.

 

In an emergency stop when you JUMP on the brakes, you feel the car lock up, and quickly butterfly the brakes off till you find the balance point.

This is INFINITELY harder with small brakes.

Its a basic road skill anyone whos done defensive driving practice will instinctively do; so it's not like it's an odd thing to need to balance.

 

Even between cars that have good brakes, you try, say a WRX with 2 pot brakes, versus an STI with Brembo 4pot.

There's only a 1.5mm rotor diameter difference, but diving a corner (which is an identical skill to emergency braking) is DRASTICALLY harder with the 2pots, because they lock up.

 

You really need to stop referencing track time, and corners, and butterflying brakes etc. All of that is irrelevant to emergency stopping to reduce crashes.

 

 

Both are considered good brakes, but the brembos larger pad area just means you can get more force before it just BITES.

No. You just broke physics. The actual determinator for when it 'just BITES' is the traction between the tyre and the surface. The wheels of the car will lock if a certain amount of torque - lets say 1000Nm - is placed on the brakes, regardless of whether that 1000Nm is being applied via old drums or nice brembos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why does a female who has written off two vehicles and had a license suspension still get cheaper insurance than a male who has a perfect history?

probably because the male is still statistically more likely to be at fault in a more costly accident?

 

i really dont know, but counter-intuitive conclusions are definitely possible in the long actuarial game when massive accumulations of data are known. which is not to dismiss them chasing whatever the market lets them get away with either...

 

in any case, quantitative measures arent necessarily ideal for making qualitative arguments, especially where semantic confusion abound.

 

the question of "Which age group is more dangerous?" is loaded with personal definitions. just like the old chestnut of who are the "better" or "safer" drivers, males or females. the insurance companies tell us its the women. the instinct of many men, though, is to read these words as synonyms for "skill". furthermore, i'd wager that most males in their heart of hearts would believe that if a large random pool of females battled a large random pool of males in an Ultimate Safest Driver Showdown, the males would dominate. but all that would still obscure the tangential question of temperament in the real world. i know that when i was growing up, i definitely proclaimed boys "better" at riding bicycles — i mean, we all had the skinned knees and elbows to prove it.

 

from my experience, older drivers are definitely more annoying :)

Edited by @~thehung
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

I'm pretty certain the brakes on my Pug 307 are unmodified although I did not buy it new but the first time I needed to brake for an amber it literally scared me - awesome stopping power.

 

Others who have driven her have said the same thing.

 

I've never modified brakes, just change the pads as needed, not much else in a car I haven't "improved" however :)

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

They're not saying she's a better driver. They're saying that using the risk estimation techniques, mathematical models, and their business profile, they expect the female driver to be less costly to insure.

Even once that is PROVEN to be incorrect (in that persons case)

 

It hasn't proven to be incorrect. They've used historical details with their risk estimation techniques, mathematical models, and their business profile, to determine that they expect the female driver to be less costly to insure.

 

 

So using historical details,

Driver A has written off 2 vehicles of her own (I have no data on other victims), and been deemed by law enforcement to be too dangerous to drive at some point.

Drive B has been driving for an equal amount of time, however has 0 accidents, and a 0 penalty license.

 

To me, it looks the the only historical detail they've used to establish is "Born with Penis: Y\N" because in this example, at least, I don't see how you can deny that Driver A has proven the more risky customer.

 

 

 

You really need to stop referencing track time, and corners, and butterflying brakes etc. All of that is irrelevant to emergency stopping to reduce crashes.

 

No, because these are all very real factors to a persons driving skill. People who haven't had at least 1 track day often don't know how their car will behave in emergency STEERING situations.

Even my mum came out and did one so she knew.

Look, even if I give you the benefit of track day-goers being a 'rare demographic' of people

 

 

You can't lump butterflying brakes into that same scenario.

This is something you're taught by your driving instructor, and can't pass a defensive driving course without.

Defensive driving courses are (almost) mandatory in highschool (parents can opt a kid out, not many do).

It's something you use EVERY time you need to emergency brake. Jump hard, butterfly off so you don't lock them up.

It's a basic and expected driving skill;

even the examiner asks for a verbal explanation, 'What do you do if your brakes lock up?' when you get your license.

:)

 

I'm pretty certain the brakes on my Pug 307 are unmodified although I did not buy it new but the first time I needed to brake for an amber it literally scared me - awesome stopping power.

 

Others who have driven her have said the same thing.

 

I've never modified brakes, just change the pads as needed, not much else in a car I haven't "improved" however :)

 

Cheers

 

207 GTI's have nice size brakes for their body, they pull up nicely.

 

Mums 307 and 308 (vintage about 2009) are terrifying.

Had an accident happen in front of us at 80kmph, at a guess I'd say we did have about the recommended 2 seconds following distance, and it only JUUUST pulled up.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy has obviously never driven down a mountain before.

 

At least he's got his choice of username pretty spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy has obviously never driven down a mountain before.

 

At least he's got his choice of username pretty spot on.

 

I mean, we're not arguing about whether or not it will stop the tyres from rotating, small brakes will do that fine.

It's just whether or not the human has to deal with 5% pedal travel before lockup, or 50%.

Shit brakes will only give you the last 5% before you're sliding. Big brakes will make friction early and have a better master:caliper ratio because of it.

 

And some how knowing how to unlock a brake skid isn't relevant to emergency braking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By his logic we should have a new ADR...

 

All new vehicles to be fitted with single trailing shoe drum brakes on all 4 wheels.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it looks the the only historical detail they've used to establish is "Born with Penis: Y\N" because in this example, at least, I don't see how you can deny that Driver A has proven the more risky customer.

If you can't see that then you haven't really been paying attention to me, nor the others that have tried to explain this to you. I recommend you open up your own insurance company, since clearly you are far better at choosing business than they are.

 

(Nah, I'm just joking, there's way too many hoops to jump through to start an insurance company. I'd actually recommend providing consulting and taking a cut of the profits, you'll end up a millionaire.)

 

 

 

You really need to stop referencing track time, and corners, and butterflying brakes etc. All of that is irrelevant to emergency stopping to reduce crashes.

 

No, because these are all very real factors to a persons driving skill.

You are seemingly unable to follow a basic stream of logic here.

 

You said: Better brakes reduce crashes.

I said: No they don't.

You said: But better brakes are better on the track, and corners, and easier to butterfly.

I said: That's irrelevant to reducing crashes [implied that it's in the context of better brakes].

You said: But a driver is a better driver if they are better on the track, corners, and know how to butterfly.

 

Yes, I totally agree with your last point, that is clearly a more skilled driver, but that has nothing to do with better brakes reducing crashes. That has to do with better drivers reducing crashes.

 

 

You can't lump butterflying brakes into that same scenario.

This is something you're taught by your driving instructor, and can't pass a defensive driving course without.

Defensive driving courses are (almost) mandatory in highschool (parents can opt a kid out, not many do).

It's something you use EVERY time you need to emergency brake. Jump hard, butterfly off so you don't lock them up.

It's a basic and expected driving skill;

even the examiner asks for a verbal explanation, 'What do you do if your brakes lock up?' when you get your license.

It might be time for you to do another defensive driving course. Today's recommendation for emergency stopping in cars with ABS is essentially "maximum brake and nothing else".

 

 

This guy has obviously never driven down a mountain before.

 

At least he's got his choice of username pretty spot on.

I've driven down many mountains. The only time I've felt an affect on the brakes was when I was partaking in, lets say, spirited driving. And even then I'm pretty sure that the brakes would still lock.

 

I'm surprised that everyone has so staunchly stood by the fact that better brakes reduce crashes under regular driving conditions (assuming they can lock up the wheels and the car has ABS). I've given the logic and the physics behind it, and dealt with every objection to the logic and physics so far (shout out to the claim that reducing the force required has a material impact).

 

I think we've just ended up "herp derp better brakes stop you quicker" which is true as a generalisation, but not true for emergency braking and therefore its rather difficult to claim that it reduces crashes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm, 'Scythe - think you've missed a few points so far, and you really need to draw clear differentiations 'tween normal everyday road users/hoons/track boys et al.

Because scrolling through all this again to try and pick up the ghist of your later posts it's getting rather scrambled with this bouncing 'tween comments/opinions 'n observations on vastly different real-world scenarios.

 

eg why would you be highlighting probable results of unmodified braking setups at the end of the straight on a track? Of course standard brakes/tyres/suspension etc will give you grief if you push them well beyond normal driving conditions - what's your actual point there? Make yer mind up, willya?

 

And just because someone hasn't had or reported having a prang in x-decades of driving does not mean they're inherently a better driver and deserve cheaper insurance risk/deserve cheaper premiums.

Apart from your noted aged nitwits on the phone, for all your weekly driving how many clowns do you observe on a daily basis that demonstrate they really need serious slapping around the head 'n shoulders? You going to tell us for all the mileage you clock up (even here in BrizVegas) that you don't encounter a good percentage of mobile dickheads right across the age spectrum, on both two and four wheels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better brakes can reduce crashes. If no other variables are changed then it's almost a certainty.

 

But it comes down to how and if they're used. A seatbelt is next to useless if not used or not used properly.

The shaky ground you stand on is representing that better brakes make no difference and only belong in track situations which is utter bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better brakes can reduce crashes. If no other variables are changed then it's almost a certainty.

Well, better brakes certainly don't increase crashes. And for some driving behaviour can reduce crashes. But regular driving behaviour it has almost no impact on crashes because stopping distance remain the same. That's why insurance premiums don't get reduced.

 

As I said on my very first post of the topic...

 

 

 

In general, "improved" brakes do not reduce crashes. If a car is able to lock up the brakes, like all modern cars do, then improving the brakes isn't going to make the car stop significantly quicker in an emergency situation. If you're wanting to reduce crashes then you're likely better off focusing on the tyres and how good the ABS/etc. system is.

 

A further problem that I've since discovered is that some people think that improved brakes reduces emergency braking distance, which probably increases crashes and leads to increased premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

You can't lump butterflying brakes into that same scenario.

This is something you're taught by your driving instructor, and can't pass a defensive driving course without.

Defensive driving courses are (almost) mandatory in highschool (parents can opt a kid out, not many do).

It's something you use EVERY time you need to emergency brake. Jump hard, butterfly off so you don't lock them up.

It's a basic and expected driving skill;

even the examiner asks for a verbal explanation, 'What do you do if your brakes lock up?' when you get your license.

It might be time for you to do another defensive driving course. Today's recommendation for emergency stopping in cars with ABS is essentially "maximum brake and nothing else".

 

 

 

No one here has mentioned ABS except you.

It's illegal to fit or tamper with ABS systems, so they're largely irrelevant.

Unless your car came with them, AND they're modern enough to somehow be better than a practiced human; its a moot point.

 

And when you do a defensive driving course, they disable the ABS! It's for you learn how to brake in a situation where ABS will kill you (such as 3 wheels on gravel, 1 on paved road).

ABS has a horrible time with diagonal slides.

If you're lucky enough to be a rich prick and have "Stability Control" then, you're in luck, but good ol ABS alone kills you in diagonals.

 

Can you link this literature please? My last course was 2 years ago, so I'm sure i'm out of date.

But if there's something new, I'll book another.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Maximum brake and nothing else"

 

So, just hit the anchors and don't bother trying to steer around that cow that wandered onto the road?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×