Driving Test II

Posted by: Steve Toy on 22 October 2004

Having completed Matthewr's
Driving Test

I'd like you to include following information with your scores:

1) Your approximate annual mileage over the last three years

2) The number of years you have held a full Driving Licence

3) Your estimated approximate total mileage since you first passed your test

4) The number of insurance claims you've had

5) The number of accidents you've had where your speed was greater than the posted limit immediately prior to impact (before any braking/swerving etc was attempted to avoid the collision)

6) Your score from Matthewr's test

In order that your responses aren't tedious for others to follow I suggest copying and pasting from 1 to 6 before adding your responses.

Here are mine:

1) Your approximate annual mileage over the last three years

60,000

2) The number of years you have held a full Driving Licence

16

3) Your estimated approximate total mileage since you first passed your test

550,000

4) The number of insurance claims you've had

0

5) The number of accidents you've had where your speed was greater than the posted limit immediately prior to the collision (before any braking/swerving etc attempting to avoid the collision)

0

6) Your score from Matthewr's test

26/12 (I'm being truthful now)

Taking into account accident rates per driver per 100,000 miles driven, I believe that those who scored highly on Matthew's test will prove not to have a higher accident rate than those with low scores.

This question in particular I found was definitely loaded:

"Decreasing the speed limit on motorways is a good idea"

Why was it not worded

"Increasing the speed limit on motorways is a very bad idea?"

The only drivers I can imagine who would actually welcome a reduction in motorway speed limits are those who rarely venture onto what are our safest roads because they are petrified to do so. They must also be a very small minority who almost certainly don't cover high mileages at all.

IME car drivers who don't at least drive to the speed limits on motorways are very rare.

Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Sat 23 October 2004 at 5:58.]
Posted on: 22 October 2004 by Steve B
Ok, anything for a laugh.

1) 12,000
2) 32 years
3) 650,000
4) 0
5) 0
6) 22/11

Steve B
Posted on: 23 October 2004 by Hawk
1) Your approximate annual mileage over the last three years
20,000 ish

2) The number of years you have held a full Driving Licence
19 Years

3) Your estimated approximate total mileage since you first passed your test
400,000

4) The number of insurance claims you've had
0 from my own, 2 from 3rd parties who crashed into me!

5) The number of accidents you've had where your speed was greater than the posted limit immediately prior to impact (before any braking/swerving etc was attempted to avoid the collision)
0

6) Your score from Matthewr's test
22/11
Posted on: 23 October 2004 by long-time-dead
1) 14,000
2) 21 years
3) 300,000
4) 0
5) 0
6) 21/15
Posted on: 23 October 2004 by BigH47
1) 15K

2) 40

3) 500,000

4) 4. 2 on 3rd parties 1 stolen car.
5) 0

6) 18/9

Howard
Posted on: 23 October 2004 by Markus S
1) Your approximate annual mileage over the last three years

14-15k

2) The number of years you have held a full Driving Licence

27

3) Your estimated approximate total mileage since you first passed your test

500,000

4) The number of insurance claims you've had

5; two my own fault, two wildlife accidents, one because of another driver

5) The number of accidents you've had where your speed was greater than the posted limit immediately prior to impact (before any braking/swerving etc was attempted to avoid the collision)

0

6) Your score from Matthewr's test

25/13 IIRC
Posted on: 23 October 2004 by Two-Sheds
1) Your approximate annual mileage over the last three years

10 000 (I used to do 20 to 30k/year, but haven't had a car for 1.5 years)

2) The number of years you have held a full Driving Licence

10

3) Your estimated approximate total mileage since you first passed your test

150 000

4) The number of insurance claims you've had

2 (1 was for theft)

5) The number of accidents you've had where your speed was greater than the posted limit immediately prior to the collision (before any braking/swerving etc attempting to avoid the collision)

0

6) Your score from Matthewr's test

24/10 (I'm being truthful now)
Posted on: 23 October 2004 by MarkLamble
1) Your approximate annual mileage over the last three years
40,000

2) The number of years you have held a full Driving Licence
20 Years

3) Your estimated approximate total mileage since you first passed your test
450,000

4) The number of insurance claims you've had
2 - neither my fault

5) The number of accidents you've had where your speed was greater than the posted limit immediately prior to impact (before any braking/swerving etc was attempted to avoid the collision)
0

6) Your score from Matthewr's test
22/7
Posted on: 23 October 2004 by JeremyD
1) 300 [yes, three hundred]
2) 23
3) 150,000
4) 0
5) 0
6) 20/6
Posted on: 23 October 2004 by Steve G
1) Your approximate annual mileage over the last three years

25,000

2) The number of years you have held a full Driving Licence

18

3) Your estimated approximate total mileage since you first passed your test

500,000

4) The number of insurance claims you've had

0

5) The number of accidents you've had where your speed was greater than the posted limit immediately prior to impact (before any braking/swerving etc was attempted to avoid the collision)

0

6) Your score from Matthewr's test

21/7
Posted on: 24 October 2004 by NB
1) 25,000 miles,

2) 24 years

3)600,000

4)1 (my car was hit while it was parked and the driver drove away!)

5) none,

6) 22, 15,

As Mathew states my chances of having an accident are five times higher than average PAH!



Regards


NB
Posted on: 24 October 2004 by andy c
HI,
My score on the other quiz was:
18/10

1: approx 8,000 (prior to 2001 this was nearer 25,000)
2: 21 years
3: god knows...
4: 3 (two for break ins and one for a crash)
5: 1 - but this was justified... Winker
6:18/10

regards,

andy c!
Posted on: 24 October 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
5: 1 - but this was justified...


So, one of our more anti-speed posters is the only one so far to admit to having an accident caused by speeding.

I admire and respect your honesty on this.

However, an explanation as to why it was justified at the time would be most welcome.

Safely exceeding speed limits is often (but only) justified in the absence of foreseeable hazards and/or during overtaking, when time/distance occupation of the danger zone (i.e: the other side of the road against on-coming traffic) is minimised as much as possible so as to return to the safe zone as quickly as possible, then it's a case, quite safely, of of go-go-go!

In order to return to the safety of the LHS of the road as quickly as possible I've often exceeded the speed limit by up to 30 mph just for the duration of the overtaking manoeuvre.

Regards,

Steve.
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by NB
Quote:-

5: 1 - but this was justified.
_____________________________

Andy,

You naughty boy!

Was this in a rush to get to Unckle Pete's to snap up a bargain



Regards


NB
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by andy c
Steve,

I honestly would love to post a reply to your question, but due to my circumstances am not going to. I have jenuine personal reasons for not being able to - this is a public forum.

The only clue I could safely give you is that the collision was caused deliberatly to deal with an incident - I'm sure you can work the rest out Winker

If you wish to PT me I will give you a clue.

NB, you know why the above is and I'm sure you can back me up on this..

regards,

andy c!
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by NB
Andy,

Yes of course I know why the accident was deliberate and I know why you cannot divulge details on a public forum.

As I know the circumstances in which this accident happened, I can confirm that Andy's actions were fully justified.

Steve I cannot say anymore than this but its easy to work out!



Regards


NB
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by matthewr
All I will say about this thread is the quite staggering lack of numeracy on display is quite depressing.

Matthew
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by NB
I didn't realise this was a maths test, SIR Big Grin



Regards


NB
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by Markus S
Numeray means "Knowing about number and number operations. More than this, it requires an ability and inclination to solve numerical problems, including those involving money or measures. It also demands familiarity with the ways in which numerical information is gathered by counting and measuring, and is presented in graphs, charts and tables. It relates to a sense of shape and movement.



quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
All I will say about this thread is the quite staggering lack of numeracy on display is quite depressing.

Matthew


Would you please explain yourself?
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by matthewr
Markus -- There is a fundamental lack of understanding of numbers at the heart of this discussion, both explicitlyy in Steven's original idea and implicitly in the replies.

See http://tinyurl.com/5jyn2 for an entertaining read on the subject.

Matthew

PS I shouldn't complain of course. Such misunderstandings keep the majority of online poker players playing hands like A5o which keeps me in cheap whiskey.
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by NB
on closer inspection I see what you mean Matthew Winker



Regards


NB
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by Markus S
Matthew, what is there to misunderstand? The numbers collated here are entirely meaningless.

If Steven thought he could prove a point with this thread, he's wrong, of course, but this thread is no more or less meaningless than any number of other threads. I don't think Steven attaches any more meaning to this one than I do, though.

Contrary to NB, I still don't understand what you're on about.
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by matthewr
Markus,

I must confess that it hadn't occured to me that a thread to gather meaningless numbers might not be inherently pointless and that existence of said thread rather implied that the participants didn't believe the numbers completely meaningless.

Matthew
Off to start a survey proving immortality by getting members to post how many years they have successfully lived without suffering death
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by Markus S
C'mon, Matthew, give us a little credit. We're (hopefully) not that stupid.

And in the spirit of things, I'll post on your immortality therad with just as much enthusiasm as on this one.
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by NB
Have a closer look at the numbers then Markus!



Regards


NB
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by Markus S
Why? There can be absolutely nothing to learn from the numbers because this thread doesn't fulfill the most basic requirements for statistic analysis.