Way to take a number out of context to try to incorrectly* prove your point, which happens to be irrelevant to the original claim, to counter the original claim (which had nothing to do with your point).

Original Claim:
"I'm reasonably certain that "kids" do not have the market cornered on getting into car crashes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornering_the_market
In finance, to corner the market is to get sufficient control of a particular stock, commodity, or other asset to allow the price to be manipulated. Another definition: "To have the greatest market share in a particular industry without having a monopoly.

Even if teenagers have accidents at 4x the rate of non-teenagers, in Los Angles (since you're talking about California) they (including 15 year olds) only make up about 7.2% of the population. In addition in this subset of the population, the many of them do not have licenses.

According to this 2010 data, for 16, 17, 18, 19 year olds, only 28%, 45%, 61%, and 70% have licenses. For the overall population of CA it's 77.4%.

If we multiply the accident rate per 1000 drivers by the percentage of the population with licenses, we can get accidents per 1000 people.

If we multiply the percentage of the population in the age group with the population of Los Angeles (unnecessary if you're willing to work in percentages, but it makes the data more readable), we get number of people in that age group.

If we multiply those two numbers together we get number of accidents in that age group.



From there we can see that teenagers only make up 13% of the accidents. Sure, they are over represented, almost by a factor of two. However, they are far from having a huge controlling portion in the number of car accidents.

Sure, the numbers will be different if we applied this to only S2000s. Maybe their rate would be twice as high as before and for the rest of the population it will be half as much. Even if that was the case, they'd still be in the minority.

*Your statement is grossly incorrect context because first it fails to factor in the fact that the data is per 1000 drivers. If you look at the fourth column in my data it shows that 16s are less likely to cause accidents than 17-19 year olds. This is solely because of their low license rate. Your blanket statement of teenagers also includes 13-15 year old which cause very few accidents. Finally and most importantly, your claim that the averaged data for >19 years old applies to 20 year olds is absolutely absurd.

 

Pretty sure you've read the info wrong. It's a break down by age group. Those 16 years old by 1000 16 year old drivers will see 61.4 in accidents. Not 16 year olds in a 1000 drivers of any age.

Accident rates are higher in teens it's pretty stupid to debate this and I won't. We see higher accident rates in teens and then again in the elderly. Those are facts. Move along now...

 

The elderly, now why did you have to bring me into this.

ROD

 

You're the one who wanted to bring numbers into this but I'm not surprised that you still don't understand what you said was factually incorrect, and as I've said before, no one is arguing that teenage drivers are more likely to cause accidents. The point is that a higher rate in a small population can cause fewer accidents than a lower rate in a larger population because the total is a product of the two.

 

To the OP:

Your repair looks impeccable. I have a certain fondness for the NFR and I'm glad they were able to bring yours back from the brink of death.

 

LOL Rod you aren't elderly just yet!

 

The point of a 1,000 sample size is to standardize

 

Thank you kindly I was just thankful it wasn't totaled out.

 

It appears you don't work for an insurance company.
[/quote]

My profession really has nothing to do with the fact I stated. Not all car crashes involve only "kids." If they did, then insurance for non-"kids" would be free or not even required. Not all S2000s get crashed by "kids."
[/quote]
Accident rates for teens is by far more expensive then adults. Furthermore married men get even cheaper. And you must not be married. Wives basically get on your policy for free.

For example, on my two sedans $137/month. Add a wife as primary driver on one of them. Still $137/month.
[/quote]

Then I suggest you add as many wives to your policy as can stand the process. LOL!

I stand by my statement which is accurate: Not all car crashes involve only "kids." Not all S2000s get crashed by "kids."

Rates for under 25 year old drivers are higher, but that does not mean they are the *only* people involved in car crashes and that the *only* people who have crashes in S2000s are "kids." It's simply impossible.

Argue it if you want for whatever your reasons might be for doing so, but it's impossible to honestly and accurately say that people over a certain age never crash cars.

Edit:
To make it even clearer: "kids" don't have a monopoly on car crashes. Crashes can and do happen to drivers of all ages. It is not a requirement that you be under a certain age to be involved in a car crash.
[/quote]
The average teenager is 4 times more likely to crash then someone who's 20.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/

State of California results



It's illegal to have more then one wife... oh darn.
[/quote]

1. The stats are all well and good but they don't disprove my statement that it isn't only "kids" who crash cars. But the pretty colors in the graph certainly brighten the place up.

2. It isn't illegal to have more than one wife. Larry King has had at least 8. It's only illegal if you have multiples simultaneously. So there is hope for you yet.

 

You're the only one talking rates. We're talking count. "Why so many totaled S's", not "Who's most likely to total an S." It's a shame you don't understand the difference. You should look into taking a stats class at your local community college.

By the way, didn't you say you weren't going to continue?