Bad Driving May Have Genetic Basis 449
Serenissima writes "Bad drivers may in part have their genes to blame, suggests a new study by UC Irvine neuroscientists. People with a particular gene variant performed more than 20 percent worse on a driving test than people without it — and a follow-up test a few days later yielded similar results. About 30 percent of Americans have the variant. 'These people make more errors from the get-go, and they forget more of what they learned after time away,' said Dr. Steven Cramer, neurology associate professor and senior author of the study published recently in the journal Cerebral Cortex."
Why is this surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)
We know that other tasks involving acquired skills are influenced by natural ability. Intelligence is partly inherited, athletic ability is partly inherited, etc. It should come as no surprise that a task requiring some cognitive skill (paying attention to the right things) and physical skill (good steering, etc) is also influenced by genetics.
Starting off with a poor hand genetically just means you have to work harder. Some athletes have to work harder than others to get peak performance. Some students have to work harder than others to ace their exams. And some drivers need to work harder than others to drive well.
Sample size issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The driving test was taken by 29 people - 22 without the gene variant and seven with it."
Ummm... Sounds like interesting research, but until your sample size increases a bit, you don't got nothing.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are testing the memory of the track. Take one of the failures out and put him in a real car with genuine feedback, real handling, g-forces, etc... then see how he performs. Or simply change the track every time its driven.
A good driver by their standards will know the turn is coming and compensate before they see it.
A good driver by my standards will know how to control their vehicle when presented with an unexpected turn or a kid on a bike shooting out between parked cars.
Essentially they created a test to see the effect of this gene on practiced behaviors... but it didn't test driving at all. Few accidents are the result of a driver forgetting how to drive, they are the result of a driver not knowing how to really drive in the first place (ie how to respond to the unexpected, or letting themselves be distracted and/or complacent).
They already knew this gene effected memory, all this test did is test memory by having them repeat the same course over and over again. Change the course regularly and the results may change, those with great memories may not be able to adapt to changes/suprises.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
"However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control."
Do you realize that traffic rules were designed _specifically_ to minimize the impact of drivers' mistakes? And that if your 'best drivers' actually obeyed the laws, they'd have most probably avoided accidents. Even the ones caused by other drivers.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you cannot maintain your speed at the posted limit, and have no respect for when a U-Turn is allowed or appropriate, than you are not maintaining "superior control" of your vehicle. You're just trying to justify your asshattery. (Yes, we all got that you're talking about youself.)
Re:First... define worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
No... they tested memory. They even brought the group back for a second session to see who remembered the track and who didn't.
A great driver is one who responds appropriately to the unexpected and maintains focus on driving amidst distraction.
Think about it this way, play your favorite racing game on a new track... if you stay on the track the first time through it, it's not because your bad at the game its because the game makes it impossible to be successful unless you either a. drive crazy slow or b. have memorized the track. Now if you have memorized the track, there is nothing unexpected to respond to so you go much faster. I hate racing games for this very reason, I can never remember the track.
Insurance companies must be salivating (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First... define worse... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to respond to this kind of stuff but I will.
To make an analogy, imagine that traffic laws are like government mandated school curriculum, they are designed to be of the most benefit to the majority, they are by no means designed to define driving ability.
There are people who shouldn't drive at all, and there are those who are capable of driving in much more extreme situations.
Well I agree that disregarding traffic laws is not a 'good' thing, a persons ability to conform to them will never dictate to me their ability to drive.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.
If you cannot maintain your speed at the posted limit, and have no respect for when a U-Turn is allowed or appropriate, than you are not maintaining "superior control" of your vehicle. You're just trying to justify your asshattery. (Yes, we all got that you're talking about youself.)
No, you're confounding skills with ethics here. A hacker can both be skilled and be a blackhat; by the same token, a driver can be skilled and be an asshat. (Of course there is not necessarily always a positive correlation - cf. script-kiddies)
Re:My daughter is a lousy driver (Score:5, Insightful)
She gets it from her mother.
But I bet you taught her to drive.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure... but memorizing your route home from work does nothing to make you a good driver.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
A good driver avoids most accidents even if they are caused by another driver's lack of control. I can't tell you how many times I've anticipated a dumbass move by some driver, pedestrian, or cyclist and preempted a collision.
You talk about "superior control" over the vehicle as if that's the hard part. That hard part is all the other people on the road. A good driver doesn't collide with things, period.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.
So, perhaps this gene is more of a "disrespect for authority" gene?
Well, I'm not certain that this study is actually testing driving ability... Seems more to be about their memory than their ability to drive...
But, regardless of how well you handle a vehicle, if you can't follow the speed limits and whatnot - you are a bad driver.
The speed limits, turn restrictions, signage, whatever is all there for a reason. It's to create a safe and predictable driving environment for everyone. Generally speaking, you aren't the only person on the road. A speed limit of 30 mph isn't there to make it take longer for you to get to work - it's there to ensure that everyone is traveling at roughly 30 mph. Which makes it possible, for example, to enter and exit the flow of traffic from parking lots relatively easily.
Sure, you may be able to handle your vehicle well... But if you're speeding up the road at 60 mph, in a 30 mph zone, somebody else may very well try to pull out in front of you and cause an accident.
Surprises cause accidents. Traffic laws and signage are there to reduce surprises. If you cannot follow the laws and signage, you are creating surprises. You may be able to deal with the surprises, or you may not - but that isn't the big problem. The big problem is how all the other drivers are going to deal with your surprises.
predictable behavior in cooperative hazards (Score:5, Insightful)
roads aren't a career. They aren't a place where some should excel at the expense of others. Since you are sharing the road with others, if your behavior isn't predictable then it is bad behavior. Say for example a champion race-car driver decided that, to prove how great a driver he was, he would drive on the wrong side of a freeway. Would that not be "bad driving?" I don't care how good your skill at steering and breaking might be, driving is a social contract to act within an established set of norms. A surgeon can have extreme skill at controlling how deeply they cut, and otherwise have perfect hand-eye coordination, but if that perfection is applied to cutting out part of your liver when you're supposed to be having a brain tumor removed, then completely independent of any amount of hand-eye coordination and grace - that person is a bad surgeon.
Same as a driver. If you aren't driving in a way that is predictable, and aren't driving the way you should be, then you are a bad driver. I don't care if you can do a controlled 360 on the road in front of your house - if you actually do it, then you are a bad driver. period.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, his post was kind of asshatty. But here's another way to think about it. There are two modes of driving. In one mode, you are alert, aware of your surroundings, you know what lane changes and turns you can make without causing an accident. In the other mode, your brain is on autopilot and you should follow the rules to a T. People who haven't had enough experience driving don't really fit into these categories yet.
The laws are there to stop people from driving recklessly on autopilot, and indeed, that is when most accidents and tickets of experienced drivers happen. People who are distracted with daydreaming, eating, talking on the phone, passengers, etc should be in mode 2 and following the rules.
If you're in mode 1 and following all of the traffic laws, then you're probably bored out of your head. That's just how humans work. As long as driving is *the activity*, people are going to get bored, impatient, and ultimately break laws to make things quicker and more interesting. As long as the driver is being responsible, then it's generally okay, and I can prove that by the fact there aren't more accidents and traffic cops.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:2, Insightful)
Traffic rules are designed to balance speed and safety for the majority of drivers... if they were designed "to minimize the impact of drivers' mistakes" you wouldn't be driving.
I can show you many cases, where a person is not capable of driving safely even within the confines of the law. While I can show you an equal number of cases where the laws actually restrict a driver from achieving their optimal balance between speed and safety.
I could also argue that some drivers become more complacent when they fail to drive in their optimal speed/risk range, which might actually make them less safe... but that is purely speculative.
Avoiding accidents is far more about being defensive, aware, practiced, and very comfortable with the capabilities of your vehicle. The first thing I do every winter is take my wife and I out to an icy parking lot to practice stopping, swerving, and spin out recovery because I know that these skills are FAR more valuable than obeying traffic laws.
Finally, your argument that accidents would be avoided if those drivers had obeyed the traffic laws is moot. I wasn't suggesting that they were disobeying when the accidents occurred... I just didn't want to say that they NEVER got into an accident as that would have been a lie. Its just as likely that the accident would have been much worse if they had been conforming.
Re:My daughter is a lousy driver (Score:2, Insightful)
She gets it from her mother.
But I bet you taught her to drive.
You can't teach stupid.
Re:Another way for insurance companies to screw us (Score:3, Insightful)
Watch Gattaca and get back with us. I would argue that a responsible society would provide extra help to such people, rather than punishing them for something that they have no control over.
Re: Bad Driving (Score:2, Insightful)
I kid, I kid!
Who are you hiding from? It's not like any women are going to be reading your post.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
And based on my own experience as a driver and a witness of others' driving, the level of comfort memorization encourages may be one of the more dangerous parts of driving.
You get into a habit of thinking things like:
There are never any cars around this corner
I never see kids on this street
Everybody drives 40mph on this street (posted speed of 25mph)
All my closest calls as a driver have happened when you get in autopilot mode when driving in familiar streets.
Contrast this to driving in a storm, in heavy traffic, in an unfamiliar area. Statistically I'm probably much more likely to get in an accident in the latter case, but I'm definitely paying much more attention and am being a much better driver.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Few accidents are the result of a driver forgetting how to drive, they are the result of a driver not knowing how to really drive in the first place
This is a false dichotomy. Accidents don't happen in a vacuum. They're usually comprised of several factors. Aggressive driving is one factor, but by itself, it's not sufficient to cause an accident. An unexpected event like a pedestrian runnig out is a second factor, but also not necessarily enough to cause an accident, even when said pedestrian runs out into an aggressive driver. And a driver who forgets how to drive, even momentarily, won't necessarily cause an accident, even with any one of the above factors in play.
Put all three together however, and that changes things significantly.
Safety requires all three aspects. Anybody thinking that their aggressive driving won't cause an accident because they know what they're doing is delusional. Anybody thinking that they can drive however they like so long as they're within the limits of the law is delusional. Anybody thinking that driving is time for pleasure, relaxation, or unwinding, is delusional.
Driving is about cooperation. Cooperation with the conditions of the road, with the other drivers on the road, and with the other elements that can enter the road. Since drivers have no control over what enters the road (pedestrians, a dog, etc.), a good driver needs both things you've described, an ability to make predicitons, and an ability to react to the unpredictable. The former is tied to experience and training, which is why new drivers are far more dangerous, because they're lacking in both (you can't honestly call the driving test real training).
The article implies that a certain subset of people are lacking in the ability to retain this. It means that their driving ability is automatically decreased. Even if they can react unnaturally quickly, even if they're typically "safe" drivers that drive within the limits of the law, they're still more prone to accidents by nature of their deficit. Even if they drive slower and less aggressive, if their training doesn't kick in at a moment of need, they're still more likely to get into an accident.
In the end though, it's about chance. When something major happens, your ability to avoid it is really about whether you're feeling lucky or not.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Insurance companies jsut want extra money.
While that is quite likely the case, the insurance companies put a lot of effort and expense into the risk models, and it's unlikely that those models are far wrong. People with lots of tickets are statistically more likely to get into accidents. If they weren't, some insurance company would figure it out, and price their insurance lower to get more money, because, as you note, they want more money.
The same logic holds for under 25 males, people with bad credit, etc. These are used to price your insurance, BECAUSE THEY WORK from a statistical standpoint. Insurance is all about stats. The logic also likely holds for some sets of ethnic/demographic groups, but there are a lot of legal restrictions on what you can use in the models. Hence, zip code gets used, which is a pretty good proxy for ethnicity and economic status.
As a side note on that last point, I worked for a few years developing collections recovery models. We did some work with census data and zip codes. We found that zip code captured most of the predictive signal that was available from ethnicity and economic status, of which there is plenty.
Re:Sample size issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose you've looked over their statistics, then? Or maybe you're just completely ignorant of behavioral sciences where a significantly larger sample size usually indicates poor design, lack of understanding of statistics, or a fishing expedition?
Many kinds of experiments require large sample sizes, either because of small effects or large amounts of variance in the population being studied. But not everything needs a large sample. And using a large sample where a small one will do is just wasteful.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
The insurance companies have models, but they're useful for assessing risk of a claim and not so much for driving ability. Any factor which is correlated with driving _more_ but is uncorrelated with driving ability will show up with increased risk of a claim. Similarly, any factor which is correlated with being around other bad drivers but is itself uncorrelated with driving skill will show up as having increased risk.
In addition, I think the insurance companies do some deliberate cheating; for instance they add high-risk premiums according to a number of factors, without considering whether those factors are independent or not. For instance, young drivers have high claims. Drivers of small, sporty cars have high claims. So a young driver of a small sporty car gets dinged twice... even if the only reason small, sporty cars have high claims is that young drivers prefer them.
Re:New Jersey Drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
From the linked article:
The Coalition to End Needless Death on Our Roadways (END), a physician-led safety advocacy group, looks specifically at those fatal car crashes in which alcohol was involved. On Nov. 30, it put out its annual study on the states where alcohol most frequently played a part in fatal auto accidents. [...] Here's a look at the 10 safest states in reference to alcohol-related car crashes
Re:First... define worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of those fantastic drivers was doing 60mph in a school zone and splattered a 6 year old all over the pavement, His family was on tv talking about how he did not have any tickets.
Honestly if you speed in residential zones you are a complete fucking idiot and people need to smack you because of it.
Other thoughts... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Chromosomes? (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of comments (and tags) to that effect on this story.
Remember that story about sexism in the F/OSS world a few weeks back? [slashdot.org] Remember how many people denied that such a thing could exist? Here's your proof.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. There are plenty of poor drivers who obey the laws and are generally cautious. I'm one of them. I drive reasonably safely, though, because I know my limitations --- I don't have accidents, and I've had one near miss in years. And that makes me a better driver than my highly competent friends who have accidents because ...
it doesn't matter what excuse they give: they have accidents and I don't, so whatever the reason, my premiums are lower and my family is safer.
Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards (Score:3, Insightful)
Texans don't know what "rain" is, and when it happens, they lose all ability to drive.
Or maybe they know something about the nature of their local roads and rain-slickness that you don't.
Re:predictable behavior in cooperative hazards (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not an example of too defensive or too aggressive, but my biggest peeve lately is with roundabouts. The roundabouts themselves are great -- it would be nice if we had a lot more of them here in the U.S. But too many stupid U.S. drivers haven't a clue how they are supposed to work.
No, traffic circles are horrible, for exactly the reasons you cite. Just because something is good in theory doesn't make it good in practice. Traffic circles are like communism; it sounds like a good idea, until you take into account human nature, then it falls apart. The only way traffic circles would work in the USA would be for there to be strict driver training and testing, and anyone who can't handle it wouldn't be able to drive. But that's never going to happen here; people believe it's their right to drive, and the fact that it's basically impossible to live and work in many places without a car makes it very difficult to keep people from driving.
Re:Chromosomes? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I probably don't because the fact that men are (on average) worse drivers than females on pretty much every measure is well known. Judging by the sexism of a lot of these posts (above and below), this really pisses some people off.
Re:Chromosomes? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, so I need to remind everyone that males have more accidents than females? Greater injury rates? More traffic violation fines? Higher drink driving rates? (Even after controlling for greater time on the roads).
No, I probably don't because the fact that men are (on average) worse drivers than females on pretty much every measure is well known. Judging by the sexism of a lot of these posts (above and below), this really pisses some people off.
Men drive dangerously. Probably Y/testosterone. Women just can't drive.
Re:My daughter is a lousy driver (Score:5, Insightful)
I have the same problem. My wife has a serious problem with judging time and distance. She knows this and overcompensates by being way too careful. The end result is no accidents. But she does frequently piss of people behind her. My daughter (now 17, just had her first accident on friday) has the same time and distance judgment problem. Only she's an indestructible teenager who's personal life is so important, she needs red and blue lights on her car. After nearly two years of me trying to teach my daughter how to drive, i still don't like to be in the car with her. Her friends, sisters, and younger brother all refuse to ride with her. It's that scary. And she still isn't ready for the snow we'll get next month. :-/
Then why do you let her drive? I mean, really? You're her FATHER , and you won't tell her "no, you can't drive"? I think you're failing as a parent if you can't restrain her bad behavior.
If she is going to insist, and you're going to let her, make her pay for all her own expenses - insurance, maintenance, gas, etc.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you are spot on and I have long thought that myself. As I was taking the same route to work as I always did, one day I woke up out of a day dream and couldn't immediately figure out where I was. I was about 7 miles farther in the drive than I expected to be. That was a frightening thought because I realized how little attention I must have been paying to the road and the cars around me.
Since that time, I've changed how I get to work. There are four different routes I can take, all of which are within 2-3 Miles or 5 minutes worth of driving of each other. When I start to feel complacent about one route, I go with another one for awhile. I find it keeps me on my toes.
Re:First... define worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
You will probably have more than one top in your curve. My personal optimum tends to be farther on the "arrives in a reasonable time" and "does not slow down others" side.
Remember: The safest driver is the person who _never_ drives. But we can probably agree that this is not the local optimum most people would choose.