Now we already know that if women drove as many miles as men, more people would be killed more often..

That's a fact and I have written about this before..

The Herald Sun published the second item below because they know that fact to be true. So how can they change that fact ?

Let's take the typical feminist "emotive" angle and raise the privilege princesses status by applying emotions and feelings to ridicule the fact that men are better drivers..

This is precisely how feminists pursue their outcomes every time, muddle the truth and point the finger, this also includes how they approach rape statistics, domestic violence statistics plus all their other main inflationary topics they want to attack our sex on and ofcourse manipulate it according to their own interpretation of the truth..

Just goes to demonstrate how easy it is to change this general emotive issues, promote women as the best drivers and ignore the facts..

Wang and Knipling (1994) reported that age and sex frequencies varied according to whether the number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT, a variable called Crash Involvement Rate) or the number of licensed drivers (Crash Involvement Likelihood) was measured.

For both sexes, the age group with the highest involvement rate was 15-19. The age group with the lowest rate for males was 55-64 and 25-54 for females.

Female Crash Involvement Rates were higher than those of males in every age group, while the Crash Involvement Likelihood was higher for males than females across all age groups.

This counter-intuitive ratio can be explained by the fact that a given number of females drive fewer miles than the same number of men, but they become involved in a comparable number of crashes. (For example, if 10 females get involved in 2 crashes and 10 males get involved in 4 crashes, male likelihood would be higher, not taking into account how far each driver drove.

However, if the 10 females drove a total of 1,000 miles with 2 crashes and the 10 males drove 10,000 miles with 4 crashes, the females would have more crashes per mile than the males. Their rate per mile would be higher, but their involvement per driver would be lower.)

A comparison of involvement rates and involvement likelihoods by age and sex shows that older women have a low likelihood but a high rate, meaning that older women drive fewer miles but are disproportionately involved in crashes per mile.

Here is the "emotive" response from a "poll" they instigated just to try and even those odds. Thanks to that feminised vehicle manufacturer Hyundai. Like I would be seen dead in one their death traps..

Poll shows children prefer mum to drive, say dad is aggressive


Herald Sun
(Note..No name allocated to this bit of drivel..)
November 19, 2008

Mother driving
Safe hands ... children prefer it when their mother drives because she has a more even temperament and they feel safer, a new poll reveals.

* Children prefer mum to drive
* Dad is too fast, aggressive, cranky
* But he is better at parking, kids say

MOTHERS are better drivers than fathers and children feel happier when women are behind the wheel.

Youngsters said their dads were aggressive, drove too fast and lost their tempers quickly when in the driving seat, but mothers managed to appear happy all journey.

A poll by Hyundai revealed that four out of five children thought their mum was a better driver, even though she was more likely to stall or have trouble reversing.

"Most men believe they are better drivers than their partners and would naturally grab the car keys when setting off with the family," said Tom Barnard, of Hyundai.

Here is a quick calculation that I found concerning this exact issue..

Women Drivers: Hidden Health Risk To Men

Women drive only 30% of miles driven but are in 37% of the fatal accidents

Scientific Evidence that Men and Women are Designed Differently

How drunk does a man have to be to drive as dangerously as a sober woman?

Answer: seven drinks

Clues that NHTSA is too much of an advocacy organization to trust their conclusions
The dramatic difference between men and women in hand/eye coordination suggests that women drive far fewer miles than NHTSA estimates.

Women pilots have a crash rate four times higher than men pilots.

Women truckers have a crash rate six times higher than men truckers.

NHTSA data suggests that women drivers are only 70% more likely than men drivers to have a fatal accident.

NHTSA data suggests that a man who drinks and drives increases his probability of having an accident by 4% and ignores that sober women drivers have a probability of having an accident equivalent to that of men drivers with a BAC = 0.12.


NHTSA data suggests that if only men drove:
Traffic accidents would decrease only 22%.

Only 9,159 lives would be saved each year.

Only 330,000 lives would be saved over the next 30 years.

Only $44 billion per year would be saved in crash repair costs.

Their data suggests that if only women drove:
There would be 23,879 more traffic fatalities each year.

There would be 7,674 more women killed each year.

More...

Of course. Why didn't it occur to me before. Let us ask children before we make public policy. It is sensible to ignore experienced, competent adults and instead seek the views and approvals of citizens who still wet the bed, refuse to eat broccoli, can't tie their shoelaces and get stuck half-way through their six times table. And children are even more in touch with their feelings than women are. They throw tantrums that the average feminist harpy can only stand in awe at.

First, although I do genuinely find this believable (what CJ's saying), it would be useful to have a source instead of just text to copy & paste. So, ChristianJ, if you got a source, I'd really appreciate it. For one, I'd like to throw these figures at a feminist or ten.

Second, my biggest beef with women drivers (I have beefs with both men & women, but I'm talking about my observations with women atm), is they are so indecisive and overly-cautious, I suspect this causes half their accidents.
For example, when I had just passed my bike test, I would wait at a junction to turn. If I saw any hint of a vehicle coming my way within a 2 mile area-zone, I'd wait until the vehicle passed.
Now my confidence has grown I can zip into traffic without worrying about it. It's not a matter of aggressive riding or being in a rush, but simply "getting it done".
I need to be at point A by 9am. I can dwindle along and make everyone wait for me at every junction, or I can learn to make best potential out of all available gaps between traffic.

Which should I do?

Take my time and make everyone late with me - or get there on time?

Then - Oh then comes the indecisiveness. "I need to go riiiiiight... I'm going right... yes, I'm leaning to the right...NO!!! Wait - damnit! I need to pick up a prescription, and the pharmacy is left! I need to go LEFTTTTTT - and I'll wait until the verrrrry last moment to change indicators (if at all) before swerving, assuming I checked mirrors, to the leffffffffft.

Top News

View archive | RSS Feed

Study shows men riskier drivers than women


Published: Nov. 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 16 (UPI) -- Men drive more dangerously than women and are more likely to be at fault when involved in a traffic accident, a company's analysis reveals. Quality Planning Corp., a San Francisco company that validates policyholder information for auto insurers, said in a Friday news release it has determined that men are cited for reckless driving 3.41 times more often than women. Men also are pulled over for driving under the influence 3.09 times more often.

Men are cited more frequently for seatbelt violations (3.08), speeding (1.75), failure to yield (1.54) and stop sign/signal violations (1.53).

Women drivers were about 27 percent less likely than men to be found at fault when involved in an accident, Quality Planning's study of 12 months of 2007 policyholder information for U.S. drivers found.

The differences held true across all age groups, the company said.

Dr. Raj Bhat, president of Quality Planning, said because men are more likely to violate laws for speeding, passing and yielding, the resulting accidents caused by men lead to more expensive claims than those caused by women.

There you go. Even Tera is supporting Cjs view. Ain't that nice.

Dr. Raj Bhat, 'Ding' to his friends, needs to be told about likelihoods and rates though before he calims 'quality' research credentials.

And what about this -

No doubt the feminists will say that finding a woman at fault at all will deter other women from reporting accidents.

Marx, thelink

I would consider the heading to be link enough, but eh !

There is nothing to agree with, it's fact..

Story time..
A mate receiving the attention of a "hair stylist" noticed a women reversing out "next to his $ 64,000.00 FSV Ute", so he was real attentive. Noticed how close she got but missed that she left a big black mark along the side..
Upon inspection, he noticed the damage. The female driver just left in her old beat up Mitsubishi Magna..
He managed to get the name out of the "hair stylist" and promptly tracked her down. Called her on his mobile and promptly informed her of his opinion aka. "surrender your license as you are a menace on the road"..

Female cried poverty when he explained how much it was going to cost her to repair the damage plus a lawsuit for leaving the scene of a crime..

Further conversation with the "hair stylist" extracted the fact that she only drives that car when she goes out to scrounge discounts and wrangle cheaper price on anything, she normally leaves her latest model Mercedes Benz at home..

I gather that according to statistics, children under the age of five have no record of accidents at all, fatal or otherwise. Nor of any other traffic violations.

So it's blindingly obvious, isn't it? Children under the age of five are without any doubt the safest drivers, and are the only people who should ever be allowed behind the wheel.

Thank God for statistics. If only more of us believed in them we could make the world - or at least our roads - completely safe.