Car Profiling????

[daevans315]

I posted this same message to a local "import \ ricer" message board I'm active on. (Its also the club that does many of the local auto crosses) Their comments were very interesting. I'll post a link to the site once this group has chimed in....

**********

I’m 31 years old. I had not gotten a speeding ticket before yesterday. I have recieved other tickets for a fender bender and totaling a car on a test drive(another story) but never a speeding ticket. I’ve driven non sports cars for the most part, 1964 Impala, 1979 Malibu 4 speed coupe, 1997 S-10 pickup, 2002 S-10 4wd and a couple Subaru’s. I generally dive fast, 5-10 mph over the speed limit is a norm.

I just bought a 1991 CRX for a daily driver and beater. The person I bought it from said among other reasons for selling it. “I’m tired of getting pulled over with it. Seems like I’m always getting pulled over for little crap…. Tail light flickering, weaving, 5 mph over the speed limit… Stuff that I never get pull over for in my truck.”

Well Tuesday I my number came up…. The new stretch of 74 through downtown Peoria… I was running 55 in a bumper to bumper rush hour pack. A state trooper got me on laser for 55 in a 45. $375 construction zone ticket. Must appear in court. When I asked him how he picked me out of the pack he paused and said “You were clearly going faster than the other cars.”

Mind you, I don’t deny that I was speeding, and I will pay the ticket. I bought the car to save gas money. This ticket is half of what I paid for the car. It will take another 5 months of gas savings to break even on the deal with this ticket.

So.. was my number just up or was it the car?

[AZS10Crew]

It was probably the car. With all the emphasis on street racing and rice rockets over the past few years, it wouldn't surprise me if cops were intentionally picking out small import cars to ticket. Trying to "nip it in the bud" so to speak.

[killian96ss]

How can the officer be sure it was you that was speeding especially in bumper to bumper traffic? I have gotten out of tickets like this simply because there is no way to prove it was you who was speeding since there were so many cars around you at the time. If you were to argue this in court, all you would have to say to the judge was that a car was passing you at the time and that must be the car that the officer picked up on his laser or radar gun. I have said this before in court and gotten away with it.

Steve

[F9K9]

Probably a combination of both with the car leading the way.

I had a rash of 3 speeding tickets when I first got out of the military inside six months

Back in '91 I had a red turbo Laser when the first gen eclipses were marketed as eclipses, talons and lasers. I was in law enforcement and was not always issued a free "get out of jail card" when another officer would pull you over for speeding.

At that time there was a study out that convinced me that Red sportscars were more likely to be stopped than other colors. Of course mine was red but, the study convinced me to dump the red one and to use it as an excuse to get an AWD blue one

[daevans315]

OK.. I was just pulled over again. This time for 39 in a 40..... yes.. It’s a lengthy story but I actually got the cop to say he was ... get this... WRONG.... and where I passed him the speed limit was 40 MPH and not 30 MPH has he attempted to give me a ticket for. So I was actually pulled over for 39 in a 40.

Today is the first day with no fart cannon on the back of the car. So from the outside it looks like a POS CRX.

WTF is going on?

[barch97]

Let me preface this by saying that I am sure there are some very fine upstanding people that have careers in law enforcement for very legitimate reasons and genuinely want nothing more than to serve and protect.

On the other hand...

I have long believed that traffic enforcement is a joke. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety. It has everything to do with money. Renue generated by traffic fines is a staple of municiple budgets. Combine that with a profession that requires a dominant intimidating presence and you practically guarantee abuse of authority.

For as long as I have been driving I've been hearing how males under twenty five are by far the most dangerous drivers. Cops will tell you this is absolutely undisputed fact. Insurance companies will tell you the same thing. I don't believe this is true. I believe that this statistic is skewed very subjectively by the people charged with enforcement of traffic laws. Yes, absolutely more tickets are issued to males under twenty five than to any other demographic but that is EXACTLY my point. They receive more tickets because they're the easiest to issue and not because they commit more infractions than other ages/sexes.

No one, especially a bully power trippin' first week on the job traffic cop, wants to issue a speeding ticket to a 19 year old girl crying on the side of the highway. Nor do they want to be embarrassed by an adult with a lawyer when the ticket comes up in court.

Males under twenty five are easy to intimidate and they hardly ever cry.

So, if you drive a car that looks like it's driven by an under twenty five male, you're just beggin to help make someone's quota.

Again, I'm sure there are plenty of people in law enforcement that are exactly the opposite of what I just described. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to get some nasty responses to this anyway.

[HenryJ]

The traffic accident statistics tend to back up the dangerous nature of the under twenty male driver.
It is that invincibility phase we all went through.

[barch97]

I disagree. Accident statistics, that I am aware of, are not typically broken down relative to the number of drivers in each sex/age group. Yes, the number of twenty five and under males involved in collisions is higher than other groups but there are far more of them on the road than other sex/age groups. And to publish statistics that show males twenty five and under are less likely to be involved in accidents would hurt the revenues of the very corporations that fund the studies. I am also skeptical of statistics that do not include how frequently collisions are caused by drivers that are not involved in the collision.

[HenryJ]

My figures come from cutting a kid out of a drag racing rollover this weekend.
Not the first and I'm sure not the last.

BTW, he still had a pulse and O2 SAT was 100% by the time we hit the hospital, but died later after Lifeflight transported to Boise.
Massive head trauma.

[barch97]

tragic but statistically speaking... that's one

[adrenalnjunky]

I had a similar thing happen to me in higschool - black truck, tinted windows, lowered suspension and chrome 14" rims. (hey it was 1990 and the biggest rims you could get for a nissan hardbody was to swap out a set of 16" Z71 wheels)

I was on a 4 land main road through town - surrounded front back and on the side. If you think about it as 6 cars running in pairs, I was in the right hand lane, in the second row. car in front, car in back, car to my side all running the same speed in a pack.

Cop said he got me on radar 43 in a 35. Problem with that - he was on the left side of the road. There was absolutely no way he could say that for certain.

I was under 18 at the time and my City gives 1st time minor traffic offenders a freebie just for showing up in court. The juvie judge back then would even send male and female drivers out into the parking lot with a court official to demonstrate that they could change a tire on their own, or check all the vital fluids in their car and such. I thought it was actually a pretty cool concept.

[HenryJ]

... that's one

Of three in the last three months. And that is just my little back woods response area. Seeing the occurrences first hand I have no doubt that the statistics are genuine.

Males in that age range tend to push the limits and with the testosterone flowing more often than not push a little too far. They are risk takers. I speak from experience. I'm lucky I survived those years. I doubt that there are more than a few who don't feel the same way about their early manhood.

If you disagree , then what age group and gender would you say has done more damage to our insurance rates?

[bwenny247]

my buddy totalled his 92 Z24 one mid winter day at the ripe age of 17, i was in the passenger seat.

ice and curvy roads don't mix well with telephone poles
when you're pinning the speedometer on icy spots coming out of corners, to try and show off, bad things happen. hitting it "dead" on, the telephone pole ripped halfway into the hood and destroyed the engine. luckily the pole didn't come down on top of us. otherwise......i might not be here.

[adrenalnjunky]

From NSTB data found here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alerts/SA_003.pdf

• More of our teenagers die in traffic crashes than from any other cause.
• In 2003, teen drivers represented less than 7 percent of the driving population, but they accounted
for more than 13 percent of the drivers involved in all deadly crashes.
• More than 21 percent of all highway fatalities occur in crashes that involve our teenage drivers.
• From 1997 through 2001, more than 16,600 people died in crashes involving 14- to 17-year-old drivers.
• 16-year-old drivers driving alone are more than twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as
older drivers.
• The risk of a crash increases greatly with each additional teen passenger riding with a young teen driver.
• 16-year-old drivers driving alone are more than twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as older drivers.
• Two-thirds of the passengers who were killed in these teen driver crashes were teenagers
themselves, between the ages of 15 and 19.


Now I will state that these numbers don't nescessarily reflect the arguement of male vs. female young drivers, and doesn't reflect much on the 20-25 age range, but a statistic like the fact that at the time this was published (2003) that teens were less than 7% of all drivers total, but they accounted for 13% of all fatal highway accidents is kinda sobering.

[barch97]

... that's one

Of three in the last three months. And that is just my little back woods response area. Seeing the occurrences first hand I have no doubt that the statistics are genuine.

Well, in that case you win. The rest of us don't have acccess to your personal statistics. We'l just have to take your word for it.

But, for anyone that's keeping count, that's three. In your response area. Could it be that your response area is primarily inhabited by males under twenty five? what proportion of drivers in your response area does this group account for?

Males in that age range tend to push the limits and with the testosterone flowing more often than not push a little too far. They are risk takers. I speak from experience. I'm lucky I survived those years. I doubt that there are more than a few who don't feel the same way about their early manhood.

This is exactly my point. This opinion is based on an emotional response not fact not statistics. And, this is precisely what this thread is all about. Everyone thinks it's that way so it must be true. Thus cops go after the easy target. The one everyone expects to be guilty.

You instead want to turn this into an emotional tyrade about the tragedy of young lives cut short and splattered on highways. A kid died so you must be right.

If you disagree , then what age group and gender would you say has done more damage to our insurance rates?

I can't say. Those statistics aren't recorded. And if they are, they're not made available to the public. I will however tell you that in my experience, it is far more frequently females in that same age range that are the more dangerous drivers. I've also witnessed and/or been involved quite a few collisions that resulted from the unsafe driving of people of both sexes and all ages that were not involved in the accident and therefore drove off completely unaware that such a collision had even occurred let alone noted on the accident report. are such figures taken into account in your response area statistics?

[barch97]

From NSTB data found here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alerts/SA_003.pdf

• More of our teenagers die in traffic crashes than from any other cause.
• In 2003, teen drivers represented less than 7 percent of the driving population, but they accounted
for more than 13 percent of the drivers involved in all deadly crashes.
• More than 21 percent of all highway fatalities occur in crashes that involve our teenage drivers.
• From 1997 through 2001, more than 16,600 people died in crashes involving 14- to 17-year-old drivers.
• 16-year-old drivers driving alone are more than twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as
older drivers.
• The risk of a crash increases greatly with each additional teen passenger riding with a young teen driver.
• 16-year-old drivers driving alone are more than twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as older drivers.
• Two-thirds of the passengers who were killed in these teen driver crashes were teenagers
themselves, between the ages of 15 and 19.


Now I will state that these numbers don't nescessarily reflect the arguement of male vs. female young drivers, and doesn't reflect much on the 20-25 age range, but a statistic like the fact that at the time this was published (2003) that teens were less than 7% of all drivers total, but they accounted for 13% of all fatal highway accidents is kinda sobering.

Again I have to disagree. These statistics very clearly show that teens are involved in a great many accidents. They do not in fact say one way or the other if teen drivers were the cause of any of the accidents. I believe that that is exactly the point that they're trying to make here. So, if the data did support that opinion, don't you think they would be less shy about saying so?

Also, while these statistics were published in 2003, there is no indication of what time period they were collected within. Was it over the course of a year? or a month? or ten years? or ten days? And from where were these statistics obtained? Police reports? Insurance data? The personal observation of first responders? Man on the street interviews? Much like statistics on any subject, the numbers are only as accurate as the data to back them up.

[HenryJ]

Could it be that your response area is primarily inhabited by males under twenty five?...in my experience, it is far more frequently females in that same age range that are the more dangerous drivers.

Nope, just alot of rednecks in 4x4's
So far the girl's haven't picked up the sport of car surfing

[barch97]

• In 2003, teen drivers represented less than 7 percent of the driving population, but they accounted for more than 13 percent of the drivers involved in all deadly crashes.

I couldn't stop thinking about this one on my way in to work. "Less than 7 percent", that sounds disporportionately low, doesn't it? That's not many drivers at all. 16 to 19 year olds are an awfully small percentage of drivers, aren't they? At least that's what's being implied here, right?

Well, rather than just take them at their word, or in this case at thier implication, I thought a little more about this. What percentage of drivers fall into other age groups? If we assume for the sake of using nice round numbers, that only people between the ages of 16 and 86 drive, that's 70 years of drivers. Divide those into age groups of four years each. That's 17.5 groups. Even if the number of drivers in each group were equal at 7%, that would be 122.5%. That can't be. There cannot physically be 22.5% more drivers than there are. So, at least three of those groups must be less than 7%, right? That's somewhat controdictory to the implication that such a small number of drivers that are 16-19 year olds make up "less than 7 percent". 7% in a single four year age group is a significantly large number of drivers to fall into a single four year age group. And all the while you were reading those statistics you thought 16-19 year old were a pretty small group, didn't you?

I would guess that that specific age group probably accounts for a higher percentage of drivers than any other four year age group. In fact, I don't know very many people in the high end age group I used, those between 83 and 86. Maybe a dozen or so and of them, only about half drive. On the other hand, I know at least twice as many people between 16 and 19 and everyone of them not only drives but drives A LOT. Every chance they get, they're out on the road behind the wheel. Every one of them went to the DMV on thier birthday to get their driver's license. So, not only does that youngest group contain the greatest number of drivers but those youngest drivers likely spend the most time on the road, greatly increasing the likelyhood of being involved in a collision. How often are people of any age involved in accidents while inside their homes?

Granted, I'm making some assumptions here and have not got any specific statistics to support these assumptions. My point is that the statistics provided by the national traffic safety board would be far more believable if they listed the numbers for other groups. Their report forces you to make assumptions as well. "Less than 7 percent" compared to what percentage in other groups?

[adrenalnjunky]

Again I have to disagree. These statistics very clearly show that teens are involved in a great many accidents. They do not in fact say one way or the other if teen drivers were the cause of any of the accidents. I believe that that is exactly the point that they're trying to make here. So, if the data did support that opinion, don't you think they would be less shy about saying so?

Also, while these statistics were published in 2003, there is no indication of what time period they were collected within. Was it over the course of a year? or a month? or ten years? or ten days? And from where were these statistics obtained? Police reports? Insurance data? The personal observation of first responders? Man on the street interviews? Much like statistics on any subject, the numbers are only as accurate as the data to back them up.

First, I don't think that you can honestly dispute the fact that a smaller percentage of drivers that is involved in a much larger percentage of all accidents of a type is inaccurate data? To answer your question about how the data is obtained - I feel pretty safe that the NTSB is cllecting this data through accurate, accountable means - but if you're that worried about it, then you call them and ask them where their data comes from.

Also you are correct - it does not state that the young drivers "caused" all of these accidents, but it does indicate that they were "involved". And "involved" in an accident means that most likely an insurance company is either covering their young driver's liability, or the individual at fault's insurance comapny is paying out for damages to the young driver. Either way, that fact that young drivers are involved in a larger percentage of accidents than their normal distribution as a percentage of all drivers, still means that insurance companies are putting them at a higher risk to have to pay out on, and adjust thier rates accordingly.

I'm afraid at least I have brought some data to the conversation here, if you want to claim that young drivers are just unlucky, or being misrepresented because of intimidating law enforcemnt procedures, that's fine. You're allowed to follow your gut instinct.

[barch97]

First, I don't think that you can honestly dispute the fact that a smaller percentage of drivers that is involved in a much larger percentage of all accidents of a type is inaccurate data?

This is a case of bad timing. I was responding above while you were responding here. I think I clarified how that very statistic has been misrepresented in the above post. If not, I'd be happy to elaborate further.

To answer your question about how the data is obtained - I feel pretty safe that the NTSB is cllecting this data through accurate, accountable means - but if you're that worried about it, then you call them and ask them where their data comes from.

I'm not quite as willing to accept statistics in this format but, you posted them as an example of how my opinion is incorrect. And, to just assume that because it's on NTSB letterhead that it is indisputable fact... well, that's what this discussion is all about. If everyone just assumes that it's true... they must be right, right?

I'm not so much questioning the legitimacy of the collection as its method. How many traffic accidents are caused every year by car stereos? If you believe without question the accounts of drivers involved, it's a very high percentage. "I just looked down for second to adjust my radio." It's so common in fact that car manufacturers have reponded by moving radio controls to the steering wheel. How many accidents have been prevented by this modification? Very few I suspect. Just because someone says it, even if they really believe it, it's not neccessarily the truth.

Also you are correct - it does not state that the young drivers "caused" all of these accidents, but it does indicate that they were "involved". And "involved" in an accident means that most likely an insurance company is either covering their young driver's liability, or the individual at fault's insurance comapny is paying out for damages to the young driver. Either way, that fact that young drivers are involved in a larger percentage of accidents than their normal distribution as a percentage of all drivers, still means that insurance companies are putting them at a higher risk to have to pay out on, and adjust thier rates accordingly.

But, they're specifically trying to make the point that younger drivers are more dangerous drivers. If they are merely "involved", that doesn't neccessarily mean that they were at fault. Nor does it mean that no one of any other age was "involved". Yes, I understand how insurance companies work and they will raise rates for any reason they can. Whether legitimate or not. Maybe if people stopped just believing what they're told and question the presentation of statistical data more often, they'd have a harder time getting away with it.

I'm afraid at least I have brought some data to the conversation here, if you want to claim that young drivers are just unlucky, or being misrepresented because of intimidating law enforcemnt procedures, that's fine. You're allowed to follow your gut instinct.

You're implying that I have no data to support my opinion and you are absolutely correct. Because such data is not reported. It's just assumed that younger drivers must be worse drivers. So, there's no need to report statistics on other age groups. I think if it is so obviously clear cut that younger drivers are more dangerous than they ought to come right out and say so. Instead they rely on misrepresentation and assumption and incomplete statistics to keep everyone in the dark and believing the myth.

[adrenalnjunky]

Oh - in reference to your sig line - the ExxonMobil Quarterly profits were reported at 9.9 Billion - they came up a tad shy of estimates.

[adrenalnjunky]

Oh - here's some more data - Again, I can't prove how it was obtained, but most of it does seem relatively straightforward in what it is reporting.

It also does break several statistics down among all age groups - one thing that I found interesting that between 1993 and 2003 there was a increase in young femal drivers involved in these accidents, while the male driver seemed to decline.

Oh, that and that it appears that in 2002 , licensed drivers over 70 made up 10.2% of all drivers -- that surprised me.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30 ... 809774.pdf

[barch97]

Oh - in reference to your sig line - the ExxonMobil Quarterly profits were reported at 9.9 Billion - they came up a tad shy of estimates.

uh huh... but once again, if you blindly believe the pack of lies they're tellin', the price they were charging us would have led to nearly that number in losses. The fact remains that the 3rd quarter of 2005 while having the highest pump price of gasoline in the history of the world, was a more profitable quarter for exxonmobile than any business in any industry ever since the dawn of time.

[adrenalnjunky]

Oh - in reference to your sig line - the ExxonMobil Quarterly profits were reported at 9.9 Billion - they came up a tad shy of estimates.

uh huh... but once again, if you blindly believe the pack of lies they're tellin', the price they were charging us would have led to nearly that number in losses. The fact remains that the 3rd quarter of 2005 while having the highest pump price of gasoline in the history of the world, was a more profitable quarter for exxonmobile than any business in any industry ever since the dawn of time.

And we all keep buyin the stuff, and electing governemnt officials that cut most of the environmental protection laws, and funding out from the people that are trying to find a way to get away from petro-fuels. But this is a deep thought discussion for a different thread

[barch97]

Oh - here's some more data - Again, I can't prove how it was obtained, but most of it does seem relatively straightforward in what it is reporting.

It also does break several statistics down among all age groups - one thing that I found interesting that between 1993 and 2003 there was a increase in young femal drivers involved in these accidents, while the male driver seemed to decline.

Oh, that and that it appears that in 2002 , licensed drivers over 70 made up 10.2% of all drivers -- that surprised me.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30 ... 809774.pdf

HA... talk about skewed statistics. the first age group, 15-20 year olds? how many states license drivers at 15? even at 16? it's relatively few. The overwhelming majority of this group is drivers between 17 and 20. So, four years worth make up nearly 8.5%. And, then the majority of the other age groups are ten years each or more. So, take their best case scenario, the 35-44 group at 15.3% and reduce that to four year groups, Even if evenly distibuted, which clearly they are not, that'd be about 6% each. So, even in the case that best supports their claim, the largest group of drivers are 15-20. That sure takes the wind out of that "less than 7%" claim, don't it?

And 70+? 70+ what? does any state have a maximum age for drivers? So, that 70+ group is an awfully broad age range. And a significantly low percentage of drivers per four year group. And, those maniacs are responsible for more accidents than any four year group. It appears the NTSB is trying awfully hard to keep from upsetting members of the age group that is most likely to vote.

[daevans315]

I think I might have struck a nerve here.... You guys are getting more worked up over this than I am and it’s going to cost me $400!!...

What I would like an opinion on is what does pulling over the "teenagers" do for this these stats (or urban legions) . We all see and or have experienced the officers pulling over the cars that look like they belong to the teenagers.
Would the stats be worse if they didn't?
Is it discrimination to 'target' these cars \ age groups?
Should I have been let off because I wasn’t a teenager once I was pulled over?

[barch97]

"...turns out they were stopping every car that was driving down that sidewalk. That's profiling... and profiling is wrong."

[daevans315]

"...turns out they were stopping every car that was driving down that sidewalk. That's profiling... and profiling is wrong."