[NemesisX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...rz-Y_Lc#at=120

BMW drivers are featured in the first 30 seconds of the video in case you're just fishing for that part.


Edit: Full article for everyone interested:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086

Just click "full text (PDF)" in the side bar (it's free).

[will.c]

Interesting. Makes sense. Capitalism is basically another term for financial slavery IMO. Any kind of slavery is generally far from ethical (in terms of societal standards).

[amanda hor$t]

there's no real connection between money and an old bmw. might be a lower-income guy who just likes fast cars

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by bosster hymen

there's no real connection between money and an old bmw. might be a lower-income guy who just likes fast cars

Yeah that's true, I caught that as well. It's still an interesting study nonetheless, even if the assumption that BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche drivers are all rich is an unfounded one.

But you can still take the study as saying BMW drivers (or "luxury car" drivers, including BMW, Mercedes and Porsche) are 4X as likely to not stop for pedestrians. That fact is (probabilistically true) in its own right, assuming the study's methods of inference were sound (I'll just grant that UC Berkeley researchers know what they're doing even though I haven't actually read the paper).

[dreamingat30fps]

The guy from the study looks like a douchebag BMW driver if I've ever seen one and 99% sure his partner is a vampire.

That being said it was an interesting video.

[supLOL]

Wait, this guy thinks that individuals who make 150K-200K are "all the way at the top"?

Lolwut

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by supLOL

Wait, this guy thinks that individuals who make 150K-200K are "all the way at the top"?

Lolwut

Yeah that's nice...



Anyways, I found the full article for anyone who's interested: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086

Just click "full text (PDF)" in the side bar (it's free). I haven't read it yet myself, but it should be a fun read. Enjoy!

[Vic311]

Originally Posted by supLOL

Wait, this guy thinks that individuals who make 150K-200K are "all the way at the top"?

Lolwut

[Kwando]

All the way at the top of the study sample maybe?

Rich people are cheap.

[kits135i]

Whoever did this article ovously never meet a prius driver!

[FDM68]

Stupid ass reporting that adds no value and the law is IN not at a crosswalk. The underlying principle outlined in the law is all persons driver or pedestrian is to exercise caution.

[Sam335ix]

Bullshit study, I always stop for pedestrians and let people in to my lane. Just because you have money doesn't mean your a douch, there are many broke people that act like total dicks on the road as well. He can take this study and shove it up his shitty broke ass lol j/k

[Billup]

Originally Posted by Sam335ix

Bullshit study, I always stop for pedestrians and let people in to my lane. Just because you have money doesn't mean your a douch, there are many broke people that act like total dicks on the road as well. He can take this study and shove it up his shitty broke ass lol j/k

Most of the time I see the shitty cars flying past me going 100mph with shit falling off, compared to the old lady in her 5 series going 10 miles under the speed limit. Big money can stroke an ego, but at the same time, lower class citizens can have a large ego as well and think they are top notch. I can't stand any kind of study that tries to compare money to mentality, theres no direct comparison.

[Maestro]

They make is sound like that rich people turn into unethical people. I would said that people who are rich are aggressive by nature and because of this they tend to have more than others. You have to ask yourself what makes someone successful and it usually not someone who is lazy and stand by and wait for something to happen it is those who go out and takes advantage of everything they can, including if someone giving something away they will take as much as they can.

I like the candy example, they said people took candy from kids, no they did not, just because they reference that it was for kids does not mean you took it from kids. It is free candy in a candy jar and you tell someone they have some then what would you expect them to do not take it.

I have to agree it is on the edge of junk science. Trying to draw conclusion which is not there. I bet if they went back and asked the people why the did not stop for a pedestrian, the answer maybe something like they did not see them since the were focused on what they were doing (thus successfully people tend to be very focus) or ask why they took the candy form kids they probable say they were told it was okay and it was not taking it from a kid.

The monopoly game was joke they took known liberals by their own omission and told them they were now rich they say they were entitled to win, aren't all liberals by definition believe they are entitle to have what everyone else has has plus more. All they did was take people who had an entitlement attitude and gave them incentive to be more entitled. How about testing with someone who wants to win and is successful verse the entitlement crowed and see what happen. I better their answer will not be they were entitled to win but they wanted to win and if you put a successful person on the handicap side they will still try to win verse saying there was no way to win.

It does not look like they even try to understand the motivating factors.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Maestro

They make is sound like that rick people turn into unethical people.

rick= rich dick?


This is racism against rich people.

[Comet]

I concur with Maestro.

This is junk studies
I'd take the candy too.
If I walk into toy store and see free candy, obviously it isn't meant for adults, but I'll take some because I like candy. I am NOT depriving some other kid from candy.

[supLOL]

Originally Posted by Comet

I concur with Maestro.

This is junk studies
I'd take the candy too.
If I walk into toy store and see free candy, obviously it isn't meant for adults, but I'll take some because I like candy. I am NOT depriving some other kid from candy.

You sick, self centered bastard!

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by kits135i

Whoever did this article ovously never meet a prius driver!

"The study, which took place in San Francisco, noted that drivers of shiny and expensive cars were 3-times more likely to “plow through” a crosswalk and not stop for pedestrians than drivers of older clunkers. Drivers of expensive cars were also four-times more likely to cut off other drivers at 4-way intersections.

As it turns out though, drivers of shiny and expensive cars aren’t the only a-holes on the road. Toyota Prius drivers failed to yield to pedestrians about ⅓ of the time, putting the Prius amongst the highest “unethical” vehicles. "




Source: http://gas2.org/2012/03/21/study-pri...e-like-pricks/

[Titanium3er]

You mean one of the most liberal schools in the country published a study critical of the successful? I'm usually not overly political, but the motives of this study seem suspect.

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

"The study, which took place in San Francisco, noted that drivers of shiny and expensive cars were 3-times more likely to “plow through” a crosswalk and not stop for pedestrians than drivers of older clunkers. Drivers of expensive cars were also four-times more likely to cut off other drivers at 4-way intersections.

As it turns out though, drivers of shiny and expensive cars aren’t the only a-holes on the road. Toyota Prius drivers failed to yield to pedestrians about ⅓ of the time, putting the Prius amongst the highest “unethical” vehicles. "




Source: http://gas2.org/2012/03/21/study-pri...e-like-pricks/

BAHAHA... Not surprising. I really would have thought it was worse than that!

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

"The study, which took place in San Francisco, noted that drivers of shiny and expensive cars were 3-times more likely to “plow through” a crosswalk and not stop for pedestrians than drivers of older clunkers. Drivers of expensive cars were also four-times more likely to cut off other drivers at 4-way intersections.

As it turns out though, drivers of shiny and expensive cars aren’t the only a-holes on the road. Toyota Prius drivers failed to yield to pedestrians about ⅓ of the time, putting the Prius amongst the highest “unethical” vehicles. "




Source: http://gas2.org/2012/03/21/study-pri...e-like-pricks/

What I find funny about about this, is the fact that CA has a very strict pedestrian laws and most people will slam on their brakes when someone even approaches a cross walk, however, the law is clear you only have yield right away when they actually step into the cross walk not is they are standing on the curb. Again if you look the video from the study the person was not in the crosswalk they were waiting on the curb, so why slow down or stop at the point. It becomes a Mexican stand off, you will yield first and when you have group of cars coming down the road, it becomes a problem since some people slow or stop and others keep going and the guy crossing has to guess what people will do. CA even enforces the law if the person is crossing against the light which is not right either.

The comment about Prius owner is interesting since they are probably they same type of people they used in study, it the same liberals who feel entitled to everything. It is maybe more of entitlement mentality issue than anything about how rich someone is. We know that there are people driving luxury cars who really can not afford them but they feel they are entitle to own them.