Here is a generalisation for you.
6 months per person WOW, I bet their relatives arent too happy.
Generalisations are very much like the choises a government is given on how to tak the people.
Do you do a flat-rate tax, so that everyone pays the same regardless of what they earn. This is just like current driving laws.
Do you go to the other extreme, and have the huge amount of extra cost in manpower to find out exactly how much people should be taxed, this would be like giving everyone a driving test every 6 months to make sure that they are a good driver.
Or do you build generalisations into the problem of more fairer tax, or less unfair tax. The answer would be to stop the danger groups from driving at all.
So the under 25 group wouldnt be allowed to drive, the over 70's group wouldnt be able to drive. This kind of generalisation is easy, cheap and very efficient as it generally rules out the worst drivers. But it is of course unfair to stop all of the good under 25 drivers, and the good over 70's drivers from driving.
RE: that book you read, I have heard about hardcore smokers who have eventually died aged 95 of nothing to do with the last 85 years of smoking, what was the point of that statement, except to point out that some people are lucky.
Even writing a book like that and having it published is quite stupid, I would laugh my head off if I heard that she hit a tree and died, and the post-mortem proved that she would have survived if wearing a seatbelt, but only as long as she had not brainwashed everyone else in the car to thinking that they are immortal too. She is obviously as lucky as she is stupid, and her dying in a car accident would be a fitting last chapter in her book.