16 yr old teen lost at sea

[Vudak]

It's not an either or situation.  They're going to be driving also...

Right, but, again, what they are driving makes a BIG difference.

Would you rather have a two week driver behind the wheels of a WRX, or a Tempo?

[Jayhawk]

Would you rather have a two week driver behind the wheels of a WRX, or a Tempo?

Neither,

[2bighorn]

There is a big difference between giving an inexperienced driver the keys to a 1992 Taurus GL and a 1992 Taurus SHO.  I think if we're going to drag in statistics, we'll need them much more detailed than any of us are likely to bother to get (understandably).

My point is that parents routinely either buy their kids, or let their kids buy, high performance sports vehicles, and those kids routinely kill themselves, their passengers, and other motorists with them.  I believe half a dozen kids from my town alone have died in just the past 4-5 years because of this.

Are you saying that high performance cars are more dangerous? Or that people who drive high performance cars are more prone to accidents?

I will grant that a solo sailor could endanger the lives of the coast guard, but that's a little different than slamming into an unassuming motorist just driving home.

As for the young drivers stats. True, they are 4 times more likely to cause accident (including non fatal) per mile driven than the rest of the drivers.
But when it comes to fatalities, they're just 1.2 times more likely to die in car accident then any other age group.

I don't have numbers for solo sailing circumnavigating globe treens, but let's assume they're as save as any other sailor, and we'll adjust number for young drivers stats.

Per 100 millions miles driven we correct fatality rate from 1.25 to 1.5 for young car drivers and we leave fatality rate for solo sailors as it is, 40.23.

Now the ratio is 1:27 in favor of car driving (instead of 1:32)

Again, I'd much rather those parents sent their kids sailing.

Nothing wrong with sailing. Sailing solo around the world is another matter and is extremely dangerous.
Waaaaaay more dangerous than driving a car. No matter how much you folk wanna believe otherwise.

[2bighorn]

Right, but, again, what they are driving makes a BIG difference.

Why?

[Vudak]

Are you saying that high performance cars are more dangerous? Or that people who drive high performance cars are more prone to accidents?

I'm saying a high-performance anything tends to require experience to operate efficiently and safely.  That goes for anything from fighter jets to fishing rods.  

I've also noticed that fatal teen car crashes tend to make the papers, and in situations where the teen was at fault, they tend to be in very fast cars that they let get away from them.

This is just what I've noticed in my area, and maybe it's not the same as yours.  My area is wealthy, and perhaps this skews my perception.  

Nothing wrong with sailing. Sailing solo around the world is another matter and is extremely dangerous.
Waaaaaay more dangerous than driving a car. No matter how much you folk wanna believe otherwise.

But it's not more dangerous to me, or to people I love, than sending them onto public road in a vehicle they are not prepared to handle.  

Solo sailing around the world is the same as mountain climbing.  It might be dangerous to the person sailing or climbing that mountain, and it might bring danger to the rescue workers who have voluntarily put themselves in a dangerous profession, but I can't conceive that it's more dangerous to third party citizens innocently going about their day.

My point is not to say "she'll be fine," but to say it's interesting that there's an awful lot of hooplah going about over this girl's parents allowing her to take risks with her own life, yet every day a parent tosses their very inexperienced drivers the keys to some vehicle that can very quickly get away from them, thus risking the lives of others, and no one gives it a second thought.  It's odd to me.

[2bighorn]

I'm saying a high-performance anything tends to require experience to operate efficiently and safely.  That goes for anything from fighter jets to fishing rods.  

I've also noticed that fatal teen car crashes tend to make the papers, and in situations where the teen was at fault, they tend to be in very fast cars that they let get away from them.

This is just what I've noticed in my area, and maybe it's not the same as yours.  My area is wealthy, and perhaps this skews my perception.  

But it's not more dangerous to me, or to people I love, than sending them onto public road in a vehicle they are not prepared to handle.

Again, you're correct, it's your perception. Unfortunately your perception does not corresponds with reality.
Media won't change reality either. It'll just skew your perception.

Wealth won't change the fatality rate among young drivers. It may however change the fatality rate among young solo-around-the-world-sailors (because that's what needed to afford such an undertaking, wealth).

 

Solo sailing around the world is the same as mountain climbing.  It might be dangerous to the person sailing or climbing that mountain, and it might bring danger to the rescue workers who have voluntarily put themselves in a dangerous profession, but I can't conceive that it's more dangerous to third party citizens innocently going about their day.

Did you read about that 13 year old climbing Mount Everest? Are you aware that fatality rate in past decade was 4% among those who attempted to climb it? That's for every 25 climbers one dies.

How is that not "more dangerous to third party citizens innocently going about their day"?

My point is not to say "she'll be fine," but to say it's interesting that there's an awful lot of hooplah going about over this girl's parents allowing her to take risks with her own life, yet every day a parent tosses their very inexperienced drivers the keys to some vehicle that can very quickly get away from them, thus risking the lives of others, and no one gives it a second thought.  It's odd to me.

It's no odd. Everyday activities are for the most part necessary. You have to go to school, work. You do what you got to do. Simple as that.
Sailing around the world or climbing Mount Everest are optional though.

[Vudak]

Again, you're correct, it's your perception. Unfortunately your perception does not corresponds with reality.
Media won't change reality either. It'll just skew your perception.

Wealth won't change the fatality rate among young drivers. It may however change the fatality rate among young solo-around-the-world-sailors (because that's what needed to afford such an undertaking, wealth).

I could get into this more, but you're not going to accept first-hand experience, and you shouldn't.  I on the other hand, will rely on this when it's time to raise my own little monsters.

I do wonder if the "fatality rate among young drivers" includes their passengers and the people they strike.  From the title, it doesn't seem like it. 

Did you read about that 13 year old climbing Mount Everest? Are you aware that fatality rate in past decade was 4% among those who attempted to climb it? That's for every 25 climbers one dies.

How is that not "more dangerous to third party citizens innocently going about their day"?

I've heard of it, but did not read about it, so please fill me in...  Have they installed sidewalks full of pedestrians and interstates on Everest these days?   Because if they haven't, I'm not so sure we're using the same definition of "third party citizens."  I'm talking about people on their way to the grocery store.

It's no odd. Everyday activities are for the most part necessary. You have to go to school, work. You do what you got to do. Simple as that.
Sailing around the world or climbing Mount Everest are optional though.

Buying your newly-licensed kid a sports car is most certainly optional.  They can do what they've got to do in something a little less quirky until they get the hang of things.  I contend it is more irresponsible for a parent to buy their teen a sports car than to let them chase a dangerous (to themselves) dream.

I don't see anything inherently "wrong" with letting this girl try to circumnavigate...  Not to say that I would allow it.  I won't know if I would until later.

[2bighorn]

Buying your newly-licensed kid a sports car is most certainly optional.

You have to explain to me a relevance of a sports car in this discussion.
In all the fatality stats, sports cars are included.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure, if we exclude all the other cars and keep stats for sports cars only, comparison of odds among driving a sports car and sailing solo circumnavigating the Earth, will be favorable to sports car.

Lets look at the car lots of young people (teenagers) drive. Honda Civic.
In 70s when first generation of Honda Civic was sold in US, the smallest engine had output of about 50hp.
Today it has 140hp. Performance wise, it's equal with many entry level performance cars of the 70s.
Yet somehow today's teens are driving safer than '70s teens.

As such, can we really say that performance of the car is responsible for unsafe driving? Or is it rather lack of experience?

I contend it is more irresponsible for a parent to buy their teen a sports car than to let them chase a dangerous (to themselves) dream.

Why? Why is something which is safer and affordable suddenly more irresponsible? Please, explain that to me.

And what if sport car is their dream?
Aren't those type of cars a dream to more teenagers than it is some other dangerous activity like climbing Mount Everest or sailing solo around the globe?

[68Wooley]

Getting a bit off topic here, but my first car was a Fiat Uno with a 1 liter engine developing a whole 45 hp.

Safe for a young driver? Possibly, but it was still capable of 90mph which is more than enough to have killed me and any unfortunate enough to get in my way. You don't need a sports car to be dangerous.

[Vudak]

All I'm saying, is I would rather my kids take up a hobby that could get themselves killed, than a hobby that could kill someone else.

I'd rather they do drugs than sell them, and I'd rather they go flying around a race track than an Interstate.

I don't see how it is anyone's business what risks someone takes with their own life.  Emergency workers might be an exception, but considering they voluntarily assumed the risks that come with that job...

And Wooley, true, you don't need a sports car to be dangerous.  My friend was a walking accident in an AstroVan.  But you do need more experience to safely drive a car with 200hp than one the same weight with 100hp.

[2bighorn]

I don't see how it is anyone's business what risks someone takes with their own life.  Emergency workers might be an exception, but considering they voluntarily assumed the risks that come with that job...

Rescuers paid by?

That's right. Tax payers.

How about instead of wasting millions of $$ to rescue spoiled children of stupid parents we spend that money on [insert your wish list].

[Penguin]

You have to explain to me a relevance of a sports car in this discussion.
In all the fatality stats, sports cars are included.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure, if we exclude all the other cars and keep stats for sports cars only, comparison of odds among driving a sports car and sailing solo circumnavigating the Earth, will be favorable to sports car.

Lets look at the car lots of young people (teenagers) drive. Honda Civic.
In 70s when first generation of Honda Civic was sold in US, the smallest engine had output of about 50hp.
Today it has 140hp. Performance wise, it's equal with many entry level performance cars of the 70s.
Yet somehow today's teens are driving safer than '70s teens.

As such, can we really say that performance of the car is responsible for unsafe driving? Or is it rather lack of experience?



Why? Why is something which is safer and affordable suddenly more irresponsible? Please, explain that to me.

And what if sport car is their dream?
Aren't those type of cars a dream to more teenagers than it is some other dangerous activity like climbing Mount Everest or sailing solo around the globe?

Yes, but consider this- safety and fuel efficiency equipment has also increased in quantity and weight.  It's HEAVY STUFF!  You need that 90 extra horsepower to lug around all of the antilock brakes, CPU's, rear and curtain airbags etc.  A modest increase in acceleration never hurt anybody though.

-Penguin

[crazyivan]

It is all over the news, the father of the girl had cameras all over him and his family for weeks prior to her trip.

Why? Reality TV... the father signed a deal. That explains his willingness to let her go alone.

Awww. just saw this aswell.  Well risking a kid for a reality show.

Yes, bathtub with a sail good description for the optimist, or dumptruck on water.

Heres laser's  penguin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tWb3pNvXQc

[2bighorn]

Yes, but consider this- safety and fuel efficiency equipment has also increased in quantity and weight.  It's HEAVY STUFF!  You need that 90 extra horsepower to lug around all of the antilock brakes, CPU's, rear and curtain airbags etc.  A modest increase in acceleration never hurt anybody though.

Increase in power by factor: 2.8
Increase in weight by factor: 1.75

first gen Civic: 30lbs per hp
last gen Civic: 19lbs per hp

And I didn't say performance is bad, Vudak did...

[sntslilhlpr6601]

I contend it is more irresponsible for a parent to buy their teen a sports car than to let them chase a dangerous (to themselves) dream.

Kinda off-topic, but I think its irresponsible for a parent to buy their teen a sports car and not take them to an empty parking lot to learn how to drive the damn thing.

Saved my life.