I saw an amazing piece of nonsensical gobbledegook in this BBC science story, which is in turn based on the amazingly biased writings of a “professor” of extremely soft subjects at a university which has incredibly low entry standards, and which comes 45th in the current University League Table. Apparently, “new research” – that’s layman’s science-speak for “we put some easily obtainable data into a spreadsheet and pressed a button” – shows that drivers aged 70+ are involved in 3-4 times fewer accidents than 17-21 year olds.
The fun part is that the “research” was done by a “professor of gerontology” at Swansea University’s “Centre for Innovative Ageing”, and was presented at the “British Science Festival” (with a very poor website), which is being held in… yes, you guessed it. Swansea. Oh, and “gerontology” means:
So there’s no bias, then. Reading between the lines, it would appear that the “conclusions” were made by a guy who specialises in philanthropic studies relating to old people in order to prove that said old people were not a risk on the road. Somehow, the following disconnected conclusions were drawn, but portrayed as being inherently related to each other:
- older people are not dangerous drivers
- drivers aged 70+ have fewer accidents than 17-21 year old men (see what they did there?)
- older drivers make most mistakes when turning right and overtaking
- young men drive too fast and lose control whereas older drivers drive more slowly (see, what they did again?)
- dangerous driving “is not generally an issue for older people”
- older drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents than the safest 40-50 year olds
- older drivers are “less likely than very young drivers to be involved in accidents”
- older drivers make mistakes when they felt under pressure from other road users
- 17-21 year old men are the most accident prone
- 17-21 year old men are 3-4 times more likely to have an accident than 70 year olds
- those over 75 show an increase in accident involvement due to failing faculties
- older and younger drivers are involved in different types of accidents
- young men are most likely to be involved in single vehicle accidents (i.e. lose control, hit a tree)
- older drivers have smaller impact collisions (i.e. fence, wall, kerb, other peoples’ cars)
- older women are more likely to have “small accidents” when doing tight manoeuvres (so, just like younger women, then)
- older people are most likely to be involved in accidents involving other older drivers
- older drivers compensate for declining skills by driving slower, leaving bigger gaps, and only going out when it is quieter (i.e. weekends)
Unbelievably, this muddled up tosh was presented at a so-called science festival. I suspect delegates then split into groups, and went away to make models out of papier mâché, dried macaroni, and glitter sprinkles to represent what they had learnt.
We already know – and have known for many years – that the 17-24 year old male group has more accidents. It’s why their insurance is so high. We also already know that this is down to lack of experience and lack of various biologically-controlled emotional restraints which only become fully matured in the mid-20s. We know that this male age group generally likes to drive fast and show off, and that they are therefore more likely to lose control. We could get colloquial and add that it is because they are generally arseholes. And we might also add that – in spite of not mentioning it one way or the other in the “research” – plenty of young females are at least as bad. And this has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not older drivers are “safe” drivers. The two issues are not connected in any way whatsoever. Both details might be true, but they are completely independent of each other. No one has ever… EVER… claimed that older people purposely drive like maniacs, whereas that’s the precise accusation levelled at younger drivers.
The “research” is therefore absolutely right that older drivers don’t drive like younger ones. It might also have told us that fire is hot, and water is wet. However, it seems to deliberately avoid the far more serious issue of older drivers tending to drive badly because they can’t do it any other way.
Something that is apparent is that there isn’t much breathing space between supposedly “safe” 70 year olds and 75 year olds, who the research admits do have more accidents simply due to their age. It naively ventures into very dangerous non-PC territory by identifying older female drivers as being poor at manoeuvres (you’re only supposed to say good things about women by default, then recommend that they be given executive jobs in large corporations or in government).
The article then brings out the usual emotional claptrap about independence, freedom, and mobility – and the obvious inference that risking other people’s lives means less than risking the loss of an old person’s ability to drive. The comedian – sorry, the “professor” – who has come up with all this suggests that in order to deal with older drivers’ inability to turn right properly (i.e. their poor judgement skills), there should be dedicated filter lanes or wider roads to help them! Or, in other words, he wants to fix a problem he has just done “research” on and concluded doesn’t exist.
British science is dead.
The same “science festival” has also included feedback on a “study” on the effects of weather on chronic pain. It seems that “researchers” have been using a smartphone app to collect “data” about how people experience pain under different weather conditions.
Just imagine this, for a moment – and try to think about it objectively. You give a phone app to a group of people who suffer pain as a result of some ailment so they can provide feedback about how they feel at any given moment. Talking about their aches and pains is quite probably their favourite (and only) discussion subject. Many of them will be the type where if you say to them “I’ve got a cold, and feel terrible” will immediately inform you that they feel worse. Or, if you foolishly ask them how they feel, will tell you about things they wouldn’t have otherwise deemed worth mentioning because they’re incapable of setting a personal baseline.
Give these people a brightly-coloured app – I saw it on the news, and it is brightly-coloured and simplistic – and ask them to tell you how they feel after the slightest twinge, and you have created the most biased and subjective bank of data imaginable.
RIP, British science.