T1B

What Ive noticed with friends' kids and whatsuch, is that like most teen drivers, they get a ticket or two, and the fines are so onerous these days, bye-bye license.

Burger flippers in college have a hard time coming up with a few hundred extra bucks.

The article reads like an auto industry propaganda piece.

Pretty amateurish writing, IMO.

Here's a completely useless statement:

At the same time, older people are driving more, researchers at the University of Michigan found. In 2008, those age 70 and older made up the largest group of drivers on the road, more than 10 percent, which was slightly higher than those in their 40s or 50s.

The number of drivers in any "age group" is pretty obviously going to depend on how wide that age group is. Are the 40s and 50s one age group or two? Assume that it's two age groups and that they each account for 10 per cent of the drivers. That would mean that about 70 per cent comes from the 20s, 30s and under 20s. Since 10 per cent is the highest number for any age group then those three groups would account for 30 percent max. That leaves 40 per cent of the drivers unaccounted for. Where did they go?

Mikey wrote:That leaves 40 per cent of the drivers unaccounted for. Where did they go?

Their 60s? You make no mention of them, nor are they included in your math. :?

Well. Mikey's logic is still sound. It doesn't make sense.

Unless this "age 70 and older made up the largest group of drivers on the road, more than 10 percent" can be taken to mean 15, 20, or 25. Not 10-11ish, as most rational thinking people would assume.

"You should buy a car, whether you can afford or even want one. Come on, are you some kind of eco-pussy? What's wrong with you? Obviously there's something wrong with you if you don't want to buy a car..."


There you go, folks. We are entering capitalism's Insult Phase.
If you don't play the game, you are mental and frankly, un-American.

Mikey wrote:Pretty amateurish writing, IMO.

Here's a completely useless statement:

At the same time, older people are driving more, researchers at the University of Michigan found. In 2008, those age 70 and older made up the largest group of drivers on the road, more than 10 percent, which was slightly higher than those in their 40s or 50s.

The number of drivers in any "age group" is pretty obviously going to depend on how wide that age group is. Are the 40s and 50s one age group or two? Assume that it's two age groups and that they each account for 10 per cent of the drivers. That would mean that about 70 per cent comes from the 20s, 30s and under 20s. Since 10 per cent is the highest number for any age group then those three groups would account for 30 percent max. That leaves 40 per cent of the drivers unaccounted for. Where did they go?

It’s not that hard to understand. Those age 70 and older made up the largest group of drivers on the road. A lot of the 20s and under 20s don’t qualify:

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Mikey wrote:That leaves 40 per cent of the drivers unaccounted for. Where did they go?

Their 60s? You make no mention of them, nor are they included in your math. :?

OK, you got me there. I just got back from vacation and still not thinking too straight yet. Maybe it's because I'm approaching that decade and just trying to ignore it.

The math still doesn't make sense, though, as you've already attested.

To Shoshana Gurian-Sherman, driving seemed like a huge hassle.

Just let Snake drive her away from Uncle Mo's Family Feedbag.

I have a friend who has gone long stretches in Rochester without a car. He has a simple strategy, he doesn't go to the suburbs for anything. Of course, should his employment situation change, he'll get a car. But until then he doesn't see where there is anything that he can't access by car, foot or bike.

BSmack wrote:But until then he doesn't see where there is anything that he can't access by car, foot or bike.

I bet he doesn't see nor have access to much pussy.

"Hey wanna go out on a date. Meet me at the Loser Street bus stop at 7 pm. Yeah..."

This isn't the 80's with $1/gal gas and an easy job to be had at McDonalds.

If your under 18 in Wa. State its a real bitch to get a job. Curfews and limitations on what you can and cant do all but eliminate most kids from getting a yob, cepting the well-to-do kids who have parents with connections.

If your a decent parent you make your kid pay at least some of the gas/insurance/car cost, If they cant get a yob because of government regs....why bother?

Also, when we were kids in the 80's, Friday night meant a kegger out in the sand dunes...not so much anymore...cops crack down hard on underage anything.
If there isnt a decent kegger to go to, why have a drivers license?

BSmack wrote:I have a friend who has gone long stretches in Rochester without a car. He has a simple strategy, he doesn't go to the suburbs for anything. Of course, should his employment situation change, he'll get a car. But until then he doesn't see where there is anything that he can't access by car, foot or bike.

Huh?

Goober McTuber wrote:

BSmack wrote:I have a friend who has gone long stretches in Rochester without a car. He has a simple strategy, he doesn't go to the suburbs for anything. Of course, should his employment situation change, he'll get a car. But until then he doesn't see where there is anything that he can't access by car, foot or bike.

Huh?

I meant to type bus. Just another sign of the American love affair with the auto.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I bet he doesn't see nor have access to much pussy.

"Hey wanna go out on a date. Meet me at the Loser Street bus stop at 7 pm. Yeah..."

He makes some decent bank at his job. He lives in a nice city neighborhood and has been working for a defense contractor in Rochester for quite some time that is walkable from where he works. He could easily afford a house in the burbs and a car. He chooses not to. I wouldn't want to live without a car, I'm just saying that there are those who live car free as a matter of personal choice rather than because they're too poor to afford a ride.

My younger son is in the same mind set, but he quit owning a car after a bad accident. He is a chef at a high end steak house near Ithaca NY, lives in the country near the local bus line, walks a lot, gets a lift from friends and co-workers when needed. Doing well and seems content. When MrsO was younger and working in Toronto she had the advantage of a really decent public transportation system. Got her driver's license after we were married. Cars are nice. A symbol of American freedom. Still many seem to get along. Good for them. Think of the money pit a car really is.

My older son is 33, and the only car he's owned was a beat-up RX-7 that ran for about a week when he was still a teen living with me. He's lived in the Bay Area for the last 13 yrs or so, and gets by w/o a car. (He DOES have a license.) Rides a bicycle & uses public transportation for most of where he needs to get, borrows/rents cars when needed. He can afford a car, but chooses to live w/o. My younger son is 18 and doesn't have a license. My guess is he'll get a car before long, but doesn't seem as hell-bent on having one as I was at his age.

Being as dependent on cars as I've always been, it would be very hard for me to adjust to living w/o one. But I sometimes wish I never developed the dependency.

Smackie Chan wrote:My older son is 33, and the only car he's owned was a beat-up RX-7 that ran for about a week when he was still a teen living with me. He's lived in the Bay Area for the last 13 yrs or so, and gets by w/o a car.

You're m2's dad, aren't you?

Sudden Sam wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:You're m2's dad, aren't you?

Ouch!

Not as painful as you may think, considering I was accused of being m2 in chat a couple weeks ago. If he were my son, at least I'd have the option to disown.

I didn't really want to put in the effort to learn how to drive ... I knew how to ride the buses, so it was not necessary.

I'm not sure how less idiots on the road is a bad thing.