Jerks and the cars they drive
- Thread starter Pendejo
- Start date
I'm gonna go with pick-up trucks. At least in my area. Closely followed by whatever giant SUV is popular. I keep hearing people say bimmer drivers are jerks, but I've never noticed that. They may drive faster, but they rarely threaten to kill you (like the vehicles listed previously).
I'm going to go with none of the above, that there is, in fact, no correlation between the car someone drives or the motorcycle someone rides, and their behavior.
Interpretations, though, of the behavior of drivers in certain car makes or on certain motorcycles are easily biased by an incident or two.
Interpretations, though, of the behavior of drivers in certain car makes or on certain motorcycles are easily biased by an incident or two.
I can't count the number of times that a group of under 20 idiots wait until they are right next to me an then lay on the horn and yell at the top of the voice at me. I almost fell over the first two or three times before I got used to it.
I would love to meet up with a couple of car loads of these locals when they were not in there cars to run away.
Mark In NC
I would love to meet up with a couple of car loads of these locals when they were not in there cars to run away.
Mark In NC
It's possible though that if a car's main selling point is its engine and manoeuvrability, then it might attract buyers who want to exploit that in their driving. And when you buy a bimmer, a lot of dealerships have a short race course out the back where a professional driver takes you for a hair-raising spin to show you your car's capabilities. So its not perhaps a random sample of car owners.alienator said:
Having said that... I agree with you that most people make prejudiced judgments based on hearsay and no real evidence.
Alienator, stop trying to ruin our fun. As a scientist you know full well that, contrary to popular opinion, you CAN generalize. In fact, done carefully it's the scientific method = induction. Based on your comments, then, you must believe that the occupants of a Lincoln Town Car are just as likely to throw a beer can at a cyclist as are the occupants of a Camaro.alienator said:
Sure. It's not like aggressive drivers might choose an aggressive handling car. It's also not like insurance companies, which set their rates on statistics and have money riding on whether they get it right, use the type of car they are insuring when determining rates; that's why they insure sports cars at the same rate as non-sports cars.alienator said:
Sarcasm as the last defense? So answer the question: Do you think the occupants of a Lincoln Town Car are just as likely to throw a beer can at a cyclist as are the occupants of a Camaro?alienator said:Uh-huh. Right. Please, oh wise one, learn me about science and your keen intuition about people.
Pendejo said:
I don't know. Who are the occupants?
Sarcasm is all your bigoted viewpoint deserves. When you substitute lazy generalization for critical thought is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously?
Let me know when you learn something about science or cross sections of a given population. Then we'll talk.
FWIW, here are some wonderful generalizations from folks, like you, that preceded you:
- All Jews are bankers and love money.
- Black folk are incapable of learning.
- Gay folks are predisposed to anonymous sex and pedophilia.
- All Southerners are racists.
- Women aren't smart enough to vote.
- American indians are savages.
So, if you and your kin think that generalizing based on a car is so accurate, you should realize exactly how your generalizations fit perfectly in the molds of the generalizations listed above and how your generalizations make you look like idiots.
Bro Deal said:Sure. It's not like aggressive drivers might choose an aggressive handling car. It's also not like insurance companies, which set their rates on statistics and have money riding on whether they get it right, use the type of car they are insuring when determining rates; that's why they insure sports cars at the same rate as non-sports cars.
Ah, the insurance rates argument. Well, there's a stroke of genius. Let's base an argument on a tactic an industry that only looks at short term profit. Example? Poor coverage of preventative care and virtually non-existent coverage for people with certain pre-existing conditions.
Golly, y'all sure do like your generalizations, but I'll bet you chafe when someone generalizes about you. Sure you'll say you don't, but if that's really the case then you really don't stand for anything.
That has got nothing to do with his point.alienator said:
The problem with the PC anti-generalization crowd... is that they have to perpetuate a falsity (that all population distributions are the same irrespective of factors that may bias the various means, standard deviations etc.) to protect the poor individual from being pre-judged. It is a false concept IMO to protect the individual from the ignoramuses who can't delineate the difference between population characteristics, and the fact that resultant changes in probability are only that... probability. Not absolutes concerning the individual.
"German Shepherds are generally good guard dogs". There's a generalization. And, assuming for the sake of argument it is a correct statement, whilst the probability of a German Shepherd being a naturally good guard dog might be high... it would be wrong of me to judge an individual German Shepherd as a good guard dog until I'd seen that it was good at guarding. But many people like to prejudge because it saves a lot of guessing and research. Its just easier. But not fun to be on the receiving end of it when it goes against you.
So we perpetuate false myths in my opinion... to protect us from ourselves.
Crankyfeet said:
Yes it does. Those practices are based on insurance company statistics. You should read better. Or maybe you think one set of insurance statistical data is better than the other. That's a ripe one if you do.
And FWIW, it's been shown in many cases that the conclusions of the insurance companies re: their statistics have been dead wrong. Many times.
Gosh, those insurance companies must be run by idiots. I am sure with your vast experience with vehicle crash statistics, you'll be able to tell the insurance companies how to adjust their rates to make more money. Funny how the guy who high handedly dismisses any anecdotal experience and generalizations by other posters gets his panties in a bind when confronted with decisions made with huge amounts of data he doesn't have access to. All he can do is make a limp dicked argument about "short term profits" and "non-existant coverage for pre-existing conidtions." What lack of health insurance has to do with auto insurance rates I have no clue, but demonizing the inurance companies is always a good way to draw attention away from lack of reasoning.alienator said:
I can't believe that you are subscribing to the belief that there are no generalized characteristic differences between the users of different types of cars. You should ring up the car companies... cause their whole marketing strategy is based on specific targeted demographics, gender and disposable income sets. You could save them millions in wasted advertising and design strategies by letting them in on the revelation that all car buyers are random.alienator said:
It's not just that. Why should alienator be wasting his time doing physics for chump change. If the insurance companies have mispriced insurance rates then that is a huge opportunity to make bank. There are millions of sports car owners out there who would leap at a chance for reduced rates. You would have to beat them off with a stick.Crankyfeet said:
