Gamers Far Worse Drivers than Non-Gamers

[neiroatopelcc]

That result sort of makes sense to me.
I'm driving quite a bit (2700km a month on average), and I'm a fan of driving games.

What I seem to notice in myself is a complete lack of concentration when driving in reallife. I mean when you've just been going 252km/h in a vw buggy in tdu2 and you find yourself in your 21 year old accord automatic, you're not exactly feeling challenged. You simply drive like in slow motion. And when you're sitting there being bored you've got two options.
1) drive faster/riskier to force a level of concentration, and highten the risk of an unhappy ending. or
2) continue carelessly driving on routine alone, and sometimes find yourself daydreaming and risking to collide with something unpleasant at low speed.

In the last 10-12 years I've had at least a handful of accidents. Not all of them my fault, but still. Those that were got caused by being absendminded and just not concentrating on the task of driving. I've been driving with an average speed above 160 for an hour at a time without incident (the #1 solution, incurring higher risk of quickly approaching unpleasant endings) in the past. I've grown a bit older and don't really speed that recklessly anymore though, which means I'm prone to bumping into something or overlook a fellow motorist (#2).

Earlier today I spoke to a collegue about it (because some bimbo reversed into my car last weekend), and as it turns out he's not caused a single accident in 40 years of driving - and he doesn't play computer games. And my aunt who's a taxi company owner has been driving 29 years without accidents despite being a taxi driver. She too doesn't play car games on the computer.

In short - I think the routine and confidence one aquires thru the playing of computer games is what causes that group of people to crash. They don't have less car control or situational awareness, they just consider the situation as so basic and routine that they don't concentrate.

Same as what happends if you stumble over something on the floor - you're so used to walking on it, that you didn't pay attention to where you were going.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]cpatel1987[/nom]@RevolutionRed: I don't mean to sound rude, but going 150+ mph in a public road, which I'm gonna assume has a high 45 mph speed limit, is a lot more reckless than going 80 in a 55 mph highway zone.[/citation]
That might be an excessive speed, but that's hardly the point. His point is that young gamers are more prone to make riskier choices like driving this fast on two wheels. But even if it's more risky than going 200 on a highway, both are caused by the same drive, and both cost the insurrance money.

I mean a few years ago we were going more than 250km/h in an old opel kadett hatchback (voxhaul or holden depending on your region) on the german autobahn. It was legal, sure, but was it nessecary? if it had been my grand dad driving certainly not. That's the same sort of reckless that makes you drive 310km/h on a bike, it just happened to be legal in that particular instance. So the severity of the lawbreaking has absolutely no relevance to this study.

ps. I'd argue that worse driver and worse customer isn't the same, and therefore the insurrance company's conclusion is wrong. But the results aren't.

 

[g00fysmiley]

perhaps people who are predisposed to driving fast are the type of audiance who activle plays racing video games, the study isn't scientific enough. you have a prebiased set of participants. to make it a fair study you'd need to take non gamer sna dhave half of them play racing titlea few hours a day, or take gamers who play alot of racging games already and have half odf them stop and see what happens... this study was biased from the beginning

 

[rhino13]

This is totally true.
The lack of in-game consequences encourages gamers to ignore rules and common courtesy in the real world.
However, I believe it better prepares them for driving at dangerous speeds, which the study did not concider a part of the deffinition of a "good driver".

I'll take an FPS gamer to have my back in paintball any day of the week. Cause good there isn't defined by arbitrary speedlimits or yellow lights.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Whatever..Gamers are far better pilots.

 

[Silmarunya]

Correlation does not imply causation. Most of us have are tired of hearing it, but it strikes yet again.

What do we know about the hardcore gamer?

- Mostly male
- Mostly under 30
- Often lower educated.

And what do we know about lower educated young males? Right, that they are the worst drivers.

Being a gamer doesn't make you a bad driver. The reason why gamers are more involved in accidents is simply that gamers belong to a demographic that is known for reckless driving, often even under influence.

 

[HavoCnMe]

First of all just because you are good at F-Zero and Mario Kart doesn't mean you can parallel park a Chevy suburban in NY. Everything vehicle is different in terms of braking, turning radius, ect. But thats obivious. Just because you learned to drive a smart car and can park it in a closet doesn't mean you are going to drive a 27' Budget Rent-a-truck with ease, you have to worry about the rear of the truck swinging into other objects. Just like a tank you have to worry about running the barrel into the object in front of you. Good drivers are patient drivers. Even the best racer's in the world are patient. Otherwise they wouldn't be great racers, they would be DNQ at qualifing due to imature decisions. Thats my rant.

 

[normano]

when are people going to come to the most obvious conclusion......

fast driving is not the same as dangerous driving

accidents are more often than not caused by lack of awareness or just plain bullish ignorance to other road users - usually people driving fuckwit-mobiles (I believe you Americans call them SUV's). They actully truly believe that they have more rights to the road than other folk. These are closely followed by owners of expensive Mercs, BMW's and Audi's who often have such disdain for Joe Bloggs driving his Ford that he ignores the fact he is on the road.

I cover many miles on the motorway network of the UK and the sights I see on a daily basis are shocking - its just a shame that due to budget cuts that there are less Traffic Officers on the roads to stop these people and have them charged with driving without due care and attention.

 

[scifiguy101]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Has anyone ever thought that the people that are risky drivers enjoy playing driving games that they can live out risky driving scenarios? Maybe the same thing that has wired those 'worse drivers' to be worse drives also makes them enjoy driving games...

 

[Anomalyx]

According to this study, rich people are crappy drivers. This study seems to fit, as rich people tend to have game money.

I'd say rather that people who THINK they're rich, but aren't, are the crappiest drivers.
Every time you're cut off, or see someone just driving dangerously, take note of the make of the car. The *overwhelming* majority is in the BMW/Mercedes group.

 

[mikem_90]

The study also found that gamers were more aware of driving hazards like blue turtle shells, banana peels, and deceptive launch ramps that send you off the track.

 

[Guest]

@Anomalyx

that's easy, majority of Mercedes drivers are geriatrics and majority of BMW drivers are Asians...... hahahahahahahahahaha

flames me!!!!!!!!!

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]HavoCnMe[/nom]Good drivers are patient drivers. Even the best racer's in the world are patient. Otherwise they wouldn't be great racers, they would be DNQ at qualifing due to imature decisions.[/citation]
I just can't agree with this.
Good racing drivers are risk takers. Ascari and the likes. The safe and dependable drivers are good for the company, but not nessecarily good racers

 

[HavoCnMe]

So what your saying is that you can't be a patient risk taker?

I just can't agree with this.
Good racing drivers are risk takers. Ascari and the likes. The safe and dependable drivers are good for the company, but not nessecarily good racers

 

[RevolutionRed]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]Correlation does not imply causation. Most of us have are tired of hearing it, but it strikes yet again.What do we know about the hardcore gamer?- Mostly male- Mostly under 30- Often lower educated.And what do we know about lower educated young males? Right, that they are the worst drivers.Being a gamer doesn't make you a bad driver.[/citation]

I'm guessing you missed this part of the article:

[citation]
The survey conducted by Continental spanned across 2,000 motorists between 17 and 39 years of age. Half were regular gamers who apparently proclaimed themselves as better drivers
[/citation]

What you say is true, correlation does not equal causation, but in this case they were comparing gamers and non-gamers, of the same demographic. In other words Males, under 39, who play games are more likely to make claims than Males, under 39, who don't play games. There was a control to isolate the demographic factor.

 

[greenrider02]

If you look at it from the insurance company's perspective, then there is merit to the correlation only. They can count how many claims come from that demographic compared to others.

My problem is that people who talk about good vs bad drivers fail to define their criteria. There is a difference between people who are good AT driving and people who are considered good drivers. There are also people who fit into both groups, but probably still get shafted by insurance companies. I can nearly guarantee you that most of the participants of that "study" are more capable drivers than the people who are considered the "safest" drivers. And when it comes to adaptive driving (as in avoiding accidents that are about to happen or any other such problematic situation) I can once again almost guarantee that people in this study group will perform better. On the other hand I've been in the car of a "good" driver who panicked and drove the vehicle we were in through a very nice picket fence and nearly into a house (I had to remind them to brake to prevent that).

I am one of those guys in the BMW who is driving faster than the rest of the traffic, accelerating a bit fast from a stop, and taking corners faster than other cars can. But I also am part of the group of people that is both good at driving and a good driver. It's because I've taken the time to understand what my car can do and how it works. Every aggressive driving action is premeditated with a consideration of the obvious driving conditions and of the implications of my actions relevant to the people/vehicles around me. So I drive as fast as I feel comfortable relative to all of the observable driving conditions (including the capabilities of my car).

In 4 years of driving I've gotten no tickets, and filed no claims.

How do I feel about other people's driving? (considered from a perspective of being in the car)
-It scares me.
-The only drivers I'm comfortable with usually drive stick shift (male or female)
-It's amazing/horrifying how little attention people pay to the driving conditions other than the immediately obvious.
-I won't let my mother drive when I'm in the car with her. She may have "never had an accident" but that doesn't mean that driving slow is safe for everybody around her. I have personally seen her cause four accidents (she didn't even notice) since I started paying attention a couple years ago. (Seriously, try not to pee your pants when you're merging onto the highway at 35mph with an 18-wheeler pulling up in that lane doing 70)

Conclusion:

In the perfect system that the Insurance company wishes existed, everyone follows all of the rules and they avoid claims. The downfall of this system is that traffic is unbearably slow and the entire car industry moves to a single company with a single boring model for each class of vehicle (SUV truck sedan minivan and utility vehicles will be the only kinds necessary with a few exceptions). It really has the potential for a beautiful system but so does communism and we all know how that worked out.
In reality people have a tendency to break arbitrary and annoying rules, so the drivers that cannot safely adapt to their driving environment are the ones who cause accidents, even if they don't see any repercussions for that.

 

[scifiguy101]

[citation][nom]RevolutionRed[/nom]I'm guessing you missed this part of the article:[citation]The survey conducted by Continental spanned across 2,000 motorists between 17 and 39 years of age. Half were regular gamers who apparently proclaimed themselves as better drivers[/citation]What you say is true, correlation does not equal causation, but in this case they were comparing gamers and non-gamers, of the same demographic. In other words Males, under 39, who play games are more likely to make claims than Males, under 39, who don't play games. There was a control to isolate the demographic factor.[/citation]

From the original article:
"The study of 2,000 motorists consisted of 1,000 gamers and non-gamers aged between 17 and 39 and quizzed them on their driving habits and attitudes."

If you follow the link at the end of Tom's article no where does it say that they took non-gamers and had them play driving games over a prolonged period of time to see how it affected their driving habits.

This is taking gamers and non-gamers and following them. What I originally said still stands. Those gamers that they followed very well could be more prone to reckless driving and as a result enjoy driving video games, and not necessarily the other way around.

 

[thegeeesta]

Subjects should be given a Nissan GT-R and a lap on Laguna Seca.
Let's see who wins.

 

[shanky887614]

using only 2000 people is not enough for a patern to emerge

the test need to invole at a minimum 10-100 thousand people for it to be considerd a fair test

and becasue this is done through insurance claims it is not acurets,

my parents for example have claimed 5 times in the last 5 years for people scraping there car when its parked

and i know loads of people that wouldnt claim for most things and would foot the bill themselfs becasue it is cheaper in the long run

 

[mac_angel]

I wasn't surprised. Like it said, lack of consequences is a big thing, but also, there are no turn signals on any steering wheel set up I've ever seen. Also, no mirrors, etc. And you don't use your turn signal when racing, nor check your blind spots while gaming. Driving is a 360* function and eyefinity can't even get close to the need of it.
Don't get me wrong, I love driving games and I have quite a lot. I haven't been playing any of them because I want to save up for the G27 steering wheel. But I do believe in the article.