You're taking about statistical averages but I'm talking about a significant minority of over-70s who are wildly dangerous. Most of them only stop driving when they cause an accident. Sometimes its a serious one.

There are already some measures for young people, like the 6 point thing. Maybe there could be more. Doesn't change the facts about dangerous OAP drivers

▲

7thpower 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Most over-70s are significantly worse than the average driver and some are so dangerous they shouldn't be on the road at all.

> You're taking about statistical averages but I'm talking about a significant minority of over-70s who are wildly dangerous.

You sure about that?

	▲	whimsicalism an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Over 70s do have higher rates of accidents per 100m over average, although it is small until you get to 80+.

▲

bumby 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

“I'm talking about a significant minority of [under 25 year olds] who are wildly dangerous.” (Edit mine)

Don’t you think that statement is also true?

▲

LEDThereBeLight 2 hours ago | parent [-]

16 year olds get better at driving.

	▲	bumby 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They also get less likely to commit crime, but that’s not how we gauge risk. We don’t generally say “that teenager’s crime risk is going down so they are less risky than that geriatric whose crime risk is fairly constant.” Risk probability is usually a hazard rate integral across an interval. Over a long enough interval, that reduction in risk would be important. So what is the appropriate time interval for these risk assessments?