Interesting road toll statistics.

[Bravotwozero]

Looks like the 18-25 year old bracket aren't the most dangerous on the roads afterall.

Of the 333 people that died on Victorian roads last year, the highest representation was actually in the 30-39 age group.

The toll included 173 drivers, 67 passengers and 41 pedestrians.

Of the victims, 243 were male and 90 female.

Country Victoria had 174 road deaths, while 159 were killed in Melbourne.

By age, the worst brackets for fatalities were 30-39 years with 52; then 21-25 years, 42; 40-49 years, 40; and 50-59 and over 70 years, each 39.

Be interesting to see the trend in other states.

[crazyspoon05]

Where's the under 21 group ?

Those figures you've given only account for 212 of the 333 road deaths, would that mean the remaining 121 are the under 21 age group ?

Edit...

Just realised there was no 26-29 group so obviously the remaining 121 are shared between this group and the under 21's

[minux]

now can you also post the percentages of each group that are licenced of each group?

[Bravotwozero]

now can you also post the percentages of each group that are licenced of each group?

What?

Are you asking how many in each group are licensed? You're not being very clear. If that is what you mean, do your own research.

[ClairBear]

I want to know how many were in minority groups in those statistics. Also how many were wearing sunglasses at time of impact and how many were wearing slippers.

I love statistics.

C.

[DannyboyDS]

The dangerous group cannot be classified by who has died though.

It is who caused the accident.

The ages of the person at fault for the accidents, the ages of people recieving fines and for what action.

These are the statistics that determine what age group is more dangerous on our roads. It is also a common misconception that because a driver is simply younger and had less experience they must be worse drivers.

In the end it comes down to individuals, some 35 + people can be very inatentive on the road, as can many 16 + drivers ( L platers and beyond )

I could probably count the F witt P platers I have seen last year on one hand, where as the full lisence gorup i ran out after using all my knuckles and my toes.

[commsirac]

Looks like the 18-25 year old bracket aren't the most dangerous on the roads afterall.

By age, the worst brackets for fatalities were 30-39 years with 52; then 21-25 years, 42; 40-49 years, 40; and 50-59 and over 70 years, each 39.

Be interesting to see the trend in other states.

As pointed out by others, you dont know the % of australians(or more specifically road users) that fall into those age groups.

Perhaps more obvious, well perhaps not.....is that the age groups dont represent the same span of ages. (you are comparing apples with bananas)
21-25 representing 5 years for 42 deaths
30-39 representing 10 years for 52 deaths, without any other stats to hand, the number of people in the 30-39 bracket is basically double the amount of people in the 21-25 bracket.
We could basically say 30-34 was 26 deaths, 35-39 (26) or however the split goes, making the 21-25 , 42 deaths still the highest of any age group.

Perhaps the results are encouraging, as previous results Ive seen show the rates to be 5 times higher for 21-25 year olds as the 40s bracket, or perhaps it was 18-25(where is the data for 18-20)?. Evidence to show the current regulations we have in operation are perhaps improving the situation.......but as you say lets wait for some more data.

[minux]

What?

Are you asking how many in each group are licensed? You're not being very clear. If that is what you mean, do your own research.

You want to post incomplete statistics, then expect questions. If you are going to provide bull**** stats, at least be able to back them up.

I guarantee the amount of drivers licensed in the 30-39 group is at least double that of 21-25. That being said, your 21-25 group starts looking pretty ****ty.

RACV released a report that showed break ups to perfection, it also showed that 18-25 were the most likely to be in accident even thought hey only represent 14% of all drivers. This was a full report, not just snippets.

[commsirac]

It is also a common misconception that because a driver is simply younger and had less experience they must be worse drivers..

I could probably count the F witt P platers I have seen last year on one hand, where as the full lisence gorup i ran out after using all my knuckles and my toes..

Unfortunately as per the stats that bravotwozero has supplied there can be no misconception at all(unless one cant read)..........perhaps your method for counting runs into problems after you run out of toes, perhaps you have not accounted for 18-25 year olds only make up 1 in 7 drivers.(according to minux/RACV), or perhaps you are mistakingly only counting P platers.........rather than all drivers in the 18-25 year span, or perhaps everywhere you drive 18-25 year olds do the right thing........we need you to be on the road all the time!

[1991_Vn2nV]

You want to post incomplete statistics, then expect questions. If you are going to provide bull**** stats, at least be able to back them up.

I guarantee the amount of drivers licensed in the 30-39 group is at least double that of 21-25. That being said, your 21-25 group starts looking pretty ****ty.

RACV released a report that showed break ups to perfection, it also showed that 18-25 were the most likely to be in accident even thought hey only represent 14% of all drivers. This was a full report, not just snippets.

16-25 year olds are involved in 14% (1:7) of accidents according to Transport SA, so if the 18-25 year old group accounts for 14% of all drivers... Then thats pretty spot on in South Australia.

I don't think that is the correct statistic to be looking at though, it tells very little... It should be a break up of AT FAULT accidents... But that statistic would be under 14% for the 16-25 year old age group which means they are actually under-represented... So there is no incentive for the government to publish such statistics.

[commsirac]

There are stats available that do split the rates up into drivers, occupants etc and per capita of that age group in the population.
See:http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...da_ss_2005.pdf
What is there can only support that 17-25 year old DRIVERS are most at risk on our roads, total % wise or as the number of them per 100000 of population in that age group.
The road toll has been decreasing for quite a while, especially on a per capita basis. Interesting is that in 1981 we had 39% of driver deaths in the 17-25 year group, and that is down to 26% in 2005........and by most people's reckoning the % of young people being able to own and run cars has increased significantly during that time period(ie "your not taking the Kingswood" was indicative of that) -with the suggestion that the km travelled would also have increased.
One could also look at that per kms driven death rates have decreased by a over a factor of 4 since 1975.

There are some great stats there(look at the differences for male and female).....please have a read before posting one's own on the way to work survey as an official statistic......

[Bravotwozero]

You want to post incomplete statistics, then expect questions. If you are going to provide bull**** stats, at least be able to back them up.

RACV released a report that showed break ups to perfection, it also showed that 18-25 were the most likely to be in accident even thought hey only represent 14% of all drivers. This was a full report, not just snippets.

Ok first of all I'm quoting from a newspaper article and nowhere in my original post did I say anything about the stats being "official"

Secondly if you actually put some effort into your original reply there wouldn't have been any confusion. I'm pretty sure your grasp of the english language is better than that so I'll just put it down to laziness on your part.

I don't think the RACV report you are referring should be mentioned because I'm talking about 2007 stats. So unless RACV have already completed their reports (which I highly doubt)for 2007 I'll deem them irrelevent to the current topic.

If you have some stats relating to 2007 that contradict what I shown then by all means show them.

[minux]

now can you also post the percentages of each group that are licenced of each group?

Post the percentages of licensed drivers in each group. So, how many drivers are licensed in the 20-23 group, how many are licensed in the 30-35 group, how many are licensed in the 100-120 group. Now what are the percentages of licensed road users for each group?

Ok first of all I'm quoting from a newspaper article and nowhere in my original post did I say anything about the stats being "official"

Secondly if you actually put some effort into your original reply there wouldn't have been any confusion. I'm pretty sure your grasp of the english language is better than that so I'll just put it down to laziness on your part.

I don't think the RACV report you are referring should be mentioned because I'm talking about 2007 stats. So unless RACV have already completed their reports (which I highly doubt)for 2007 I'll deem them irrelevent to the current topic.

If you have some stats relating to 2007 that contradict what I shown then by all means show them.

I was basing stats on 2006, i highly doubt the statistics would have changed that drastically seeing as the trends have followed the same path for some 15 years.
You are basing your stats on some newspaper article that is clearly written by a younger person. The fact they compare a 30-39(10 Years) age group to a 21-25(5 Years) age group says that the stats will be flawed.

Can i ask what paper this was quoted from and which person wrote it?

[Kikki]

Stats dont bother me at all, 19 or 90 simple fact really people are being killed on the roads regardless of age families loose a son, daughter, father, mother, uncle, aunty etc etc. So eyes open, dont speed, pay attention to your surroundings and stay alive.

[crazyspoon05]

Looks like the 18-25 year old bracket aren't the most dangerous on the roads afterall.

Of the 333 people that died on Victorian roads last year, the highest representation was actually in the 30-39 age group.

The toll included 173 drivers, 67 passengers and 41 pedestrians.

Of the victims, 243 were male and 90 female.

Country Victoria had 174 road deaths, while 159 were killed in Melbourne.

By age, the worst brackets for fatalities were 30-39 years with 52; then 21-25 years, 42; 40-49 years, 40; and 50-59 and over 70 years, each 39.

Be interesting to see the trend in other states.

The Herald Sun ran an article today which had the following figures (slightly different age groupings here)

18-25 - 82 deaths (up from 64 in 2006)
30-49 - 92 deaths (down from 109 in 2006)
70+ - 38 deaths (down from 50)

So unfortunately more young road users died last year while other age groups had a reduction in their fatalities if you go by the Herald Sun's stats

These stats make the younger road toll even more damning as an age span of 7 years accounted for just 10 less deaths than an age span nearly three times as big

[VN_Luke]

unfortunately statistics can always be phrased, presented and interpreted in such a way to benefit the one telling the story

while I've got no idea what the most dangerous age group on the roads is - these statistics could be telling a completely different story: what if every accident that was caused by a 20-25 year old actually involved a collision with a car carrying 5 30-39 year olds (therefore adding 5 fatalities to the 30-39 year old group)?

I don't think it's possible to make a fair assumption/interpretation of who is a good/bad driver based on this group of statistics alone.

[Bravotwozero]

I was basing stats on 2006, i highly doubt the statistics would have changed that drastically seeing as the trends have followed the same path for some 15 years.
You are basing your stats on some newspaper article that is clearly written by a younger person. The fact they compare a 30-39(10 Years) age group to a 21-25(5 Years) age group says that the stats will be flawed.

Can i ask what paper this was quoted from and which person wrote it?

Article was in Yesterday's Herald-Sun. I'm not vouching for the accuracy of these figures so feel free to tear them to shreds! But if you are then at least discredit with some factual information and not personal opinion.

But if that's what you or anybody else plans to do then show some stats for the same period. Whilst I agree that the stats may not change all that much from one year to the next, never say never.

Clearly some people are far more passionate about this subject than I am. But still interested nonetheless.

[Low_VX_Taxi]

With the statistics as well it doesnt state who is at fault rather just the deaths.

The Herald Sun ran an article today which had the following figures (slightly different age groupings here)

18-25 - 82 deaths (up from 64 in 2006)
30-49 - 92 deaths (down from 109 in 2006)
70+ - 38 deaths (down from 50)

So unfortunately more young road users died last year while other age groups had a reduction in their fatalities if you go by the Herald Sun's stats

These stats make the younger road toll even more damning as an age span of 7 years accounted for just 10 less deaths than an age span nearly three times as big

Interesting to see that even with the p plater restrictions have clearly not decreased fatalities, but there has been an actual increase.... maybe time for a change of strategy?

[crazyspoon05]

With the statistics as well it doesnt state who is at fault rather just the deaths.



Interesting to see that even with the p plater restrictions have clearly not decreased fatalities, but there has been an actual increase.... maybe time for a change of strategy?

Yeh, doesn't state the at fault drivers but it is sad that one groups toll has risen while other groups have all dropped, still at least the road toll has dropped overall this year, hopefully it drops further in 2008

[J_D]

With the statistics as well it doesnt state who is at fault rather just the deaths.



Interesting to see that even with the p plater restrictions have clearly not decreased fatalities, but there has been an actual increase.... maybe time for a change of strategy?

Hahaahahaha. Like any govt would actually change strategy, that would be an admission that they stuffed up. Nice idea but wont happen. I can already see what the govt response will be, same as always, harsher penalties. Which of course wont work and will result in............. (can anyone guess yet?)



HARSHER PENALTIES.


I think we have proven the stick method doesnt work very well, how about some carrots for a change.

[DannyboyDS]

Unfortunately as per the stats that bravotwozero has supplied there can be no misconception at all(unless one cant read)..........perhaps your method for counting runs into problems after you run out of toes, perhaps you have not accounted for 18-25 year olds only make up 1 in 7 drivers.(according to minux/RACV), or perhaps you are mistakingly only counting P platers.........rather than all drivers in the 18-25 year span, or perhaps everywhere you drive 18-25 year olds do the right thing........we need you to be on the road all the time!

ahahaah gold ^^

I got ripped, your right what I have seen is only what I MYSELF have seen, and it is true, I am breaking my groups up into only two catagories by lisence type full or provisional, not by age.

[commsirac]

unfortunately statistics can always be phrased, presented and interpreted in such a way to benefit the one telling the story

while I've got no idea what the most dangerous age group on the roads is - these statistics could be telling a completely different story: what if every accident that was caused by a 20-25 year old actually involved a collision with a car carrying 5 30-39 year olds (therefore adding 5 fatalities to the 30-39 year old group)?

I don't think it's possible to make a fair assumption/interpretation of who is a good/bad driver based on this group of statistics alone.

Hmm.....did you bother reading my post ^?......I know its presumptious to expect such a thing, however, if you did it would be hard to understand why you have written the above.
Easier still go and have a look at http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...da_ss_2005.pdf
Yes I know its 2005, I suppose the 2006 one is hiding somewhere, but the look at deaths by passenger, driver and all that and compare it right back to 1980.....well worth the trouble if you are going to have some input into this thread.

[commsirac]

With the statistics as well it doesnt state who is at fault rather just the deaths.
?

Interesting preoccupation from some of our young that somehow all the 18-25 year olds are smashed into by older drivers causing the accidents. You cant be serious......and the cars that lose control all by themselves and smash into trees......those old folks moving the trees again!

Just for entertainment perhaps have a read of http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...da_ss_2005.pdf

[commsirac]

ahahaah gold ^^

I got ripped, your right what I have seen is only what I MYSELF have seen, and it is true, I am breaking my groups up into only two catagories by lisence type full or provisional, not by age.

Refreshing

[minux]

Interesting preoccupation from some of our young that somehow all the 18-25 year olds are smashed into by older drivers causing the accidents. You cant be serious......and the cars that lose control all by themselves and smash into trees......those old folks moving the trees again!

Just for entertainment perhaps have a read of http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...da_ss_2005.pdf

thanks for that link, i have a 3 hour meeting i have to sit in tomorrow, will give me something good to read while trying not to sleep