HOW SAFE ARE YOUNG DRIVERS?

Evening Star, Issue 23130, 2 December 1938, Page 16

HOW SAFE ARE YOUNG DRIVERS?

AH AMERICAN INVESTIGATION The younger people of U.S.A. who drive cars—those from 16 to 25 years, and particularly from li) to 21—have more accidents as a class than drivers of any other age, said J)r Marry M. Johnson in a recent lecture. Not only do they have more accidents, but they have worse accidents—more accidents involving death. While a hundred thousand middleaged drivers, 45 to 50 years old, are causing 6b deaths by accidents, the same number of 16-year-old drivers are killing 210 people, Seventeen-year-old drivers haven’t quite so bad a record. 1 They kill 186 persons, compared to the middle-aged drivers, which cause 66 deaths. And 18-year-oUis are a little better, causing 148 deaths. The very worst records of all are made by drivers between 19 and 21 years ol age. They kill no less than 215 persons, or more than three times as many as do the middle-aged drivers. • We can sum up the whole situation by saying the young drivers cause twice as many deaths as the average. The middle-aged drivers have the fewest accidents, and the • fewest deaths on their record ns a class. The number of deaths cause by older drivers—that is, the number of deaths per hundred thousand of these drivers—is higher than in. middle age. But not nearly up to the high death mark set by the young folks behind the wheel. We must remember, however, that the opportunities for accidents do not depend on the number oi miles that one drives. Some miles present more opportunities than other miles, and some drivers create more hazards for themselves than others by deliberately running into tight places in traffic which they can get out of only by putting somebody into danger. Most drivers do not know' how many miles they drive in a year. Even though they may know about how far their car has travelled, if it has'been driven by more than one person, they can only guess. But the American Automobile Association has put several thousand of these guesses together and has made out a worse case for the youngsters than the accident rates per 100,000 operators would indicate. According to their own estimates, youngsters 16 to 20 years old averaged only a little more than one-fourth as many miles a year as the drivers 46-50 years old; but we found that 100,000 of the youngsters killed nearly three times as many persons as the same number of these middle-aged drivers. Hence, if we can trust these mileage estimates, the youngsters are killing about 11 times as many persons in a given number of car miles as tho middle-aged, group with whom we compared them. The figures we have studied come from one representative State, Connecticut. We chose Connecticut because only two States—Rhode Island and Connecticut—keep records of all reported accidents, personal and nonpersonal, in a form according to the drivers rather than the owners or victims. And then Connecticut has some typical cities and typical farming country. And on its western boundary lies the biggest metropolitan area in America. So, while it is a small State, you find a variety of traffic conditions. And. in the third place, Connecticut’s people offer a good cross-section of the American public—from rich to < poor, highly educated to ignorant, recent immigrants to old colonial stock. We figure that, as goes Connecticut, so goes the Union, in traffic troubles. THE PARADOX. J udging by what’s happening in Connecticut, almost 8,500 people Jose their lives in this i country last year because young people—drivers under 25 years old —got into more automobile accidents than older drivers. If tho young people on the road kept their accidents down to average, it would save 8,500 lives. , We’ve just completed the work of getting tho figures, studying accident records of almost 30,000 drivers in the past six years in Connecticut, and going through fatal accident records of 2,000,00 Q drivers. The youngest drivers, or greenhorn drivers at any age, undoubtedly get into some accidents because they aren’t experienced. But why should the accident rate rise as drivers get to be 19 to 2i ? These age-groups contain a far smaller proportion of newly-licensed drivers than the 17-year-old group, nevertheless they kill people one and a-haif times as fast. And here's the paradox of the whole situation. These drivers under 25, who cause the death rolls to reach their peak, are just at the ageg when they’re most skilful. In tlie tests ot driving skill, the young folks make a fine showing. ’They can stop a ear quicker, react to a danger sign quicker. But it doesn’t keep them out of trouble. Nobody knows how many accidents their quickness does get them out of. Or how much trouble it gets them into. And so there’s the paradox 1 mentioned—the most skilful driving ago is the most dangerous. But why ? Inexperience may play some part. It isn’t how well yon drive, but now good you are at knowing your own skill It looks as though Judgment and experience play a bigger role in safe driving than youthful skill and alertness. And, yet elderly drivers have more accidents than the middle-aged. From the middle sixties the accident rate rises rather sharply, but not near to that of young drivers or oven to the average. It seems that as they crow older they drive better or drive less The safest age for driving then, speaking of human beings in general, is around middle age. when they re apt to combine judgment and dexterity- . . Young people may put too much confidence in their own skill. They are willing to take chances in situations where even driving genius couldn’t save them. That’s what I meant by saying—it isn’t how well you drive, but how good you are at knowing your own skill. But no single rule will mr°t all safety emergencies in driving. Because safety means so many precautions, from 'keeping your hiakca in repair, to not letting yourself tall asleep at the wheel.