This should help prove something

Martron

Statistics can prove anything these days!!! here is a poll to help prove my point.

I will be able to almost guarentee that this will prove something.

1. i do most of the driving instead of the girlfriend. ( which i would assume is nearly the same with most couples) so if i drive 3 times more than her of cousre i am more likely to have points or an accident.

2. who has more points. out of the drivers i know that female drivers are the ones that have more points ( this is strange because they would be in the same situatuion as my girlfriend i.e. driven everyewhere by the boy friend)

3. damage to cars. Again in my circle of friends its the femles that have a lot of light damage done to cars as inreversing into poles etc etc.

4. Stupid rotr questions asked....... i know my girlfriend a was in the wrong when the conversation starts ..... who is in the right when?

so anyway poll should help prove that if men do more driving but have less points and damage on their cars ...... should the insurance companies and radio advertisment redirect their attention.

i am not being sexist i am just point out a fact of averages that if i do more driving and have less points as my female counterpart .... does that not say something about my driving/ hers?

Zube

Martron wrote: »

1. i do most of the driving instead of the girlfriend. ( which i would assume is nearly the same with most couples) so if i drive 3 times more than her of cousre i am more likely to have points or an accident.

That still wouldn't make up for the differences in deaths. In the 21-24 year old bracket, you'd have to drive 6 times more. 24-35, 4 times more.

BrianD3

I'd tend to agree with points 1, 2 and 4 and very much agree with point 3. That has been my experience too.

This doesnt change the fact that when the stereotypical "young man" does have a crash it is quite likely to involve death and injury. A small number of idiots driving dangerously at 3 am on Sunday morning spoils it for everyone.

Martron

well this is what i am saying . we know that the death rate is 6 times higher. ok.... well is there a statistic proving how much more driving is done by the male?

i used 3 times more as an example. i am pretty sure that if i broke down the amount that i go on journeys over the year with my girlfriend i am pretty sure i could nearly count on one hand when she drives.
i am not trying to prove or disprove who is a better or worse driver i am just trying to state that the statistics are flawed because we drive more.

i would like to see the rate of accident per mile travelled per male and female. that would make for interesting reading.

Martron

BrianD3 wrote: »

This doesnt change the fact that when the stereotypical "young man" does have a crash it is quite likely to involve death and injury. A small number of idiots driving dangerously at 3 am on Sunday morning spoils it for everyone.

yeah but the chances are that she has left her car at home. because he more than likely do the driving.

i know its terrible that young lives are wasted but my argument is more about the statistic that seem to put the man in the firing line the whole time.
i reckon that surveys are not compiled against women because the statistic they have will have lost all their strenght.

peasant

If you look at it the other way round, the targetting of young male drivers by the RSA makes perfect sense.

It IS them that die and kill (at 3 on a Sunday morning).

So what, if statistically speaking any other group of drivers is mathematically proven to be a worse driver per mile travelled...it's the youngfellas and their passengers they're scraping from the trees by the dozens.

Martron

its unfortunate that this happens but i am talking about general statistics.

as in statements like women are less likely to have an accident. etc etc

L1011

Zube wrote: »

That still wouldn't make up for the differences in deaths. In the 21-24 year old bracket, you'd have to drive 6 times more. 24-35, 4 times more.

I'd argue that theres significantly more 21-24 year old male drivers than female (or are the figures you're using proportionally corrected?) and the male drivers of that age *do* drive a lot more - possibly even 6x+

Martron

yeah so by the law of averages you will have more accidents.

statistics can be used to prove anything.

for example look at the concorde it had one major crash in it whole life span. but because there was only 3 in operarton ..... that meant that 33% of its fleet was fatal!

it just annoys me about anything done like this but especially when its done about driving and where its already stacked against the male driver becasue we are in the car more.

daveharnett

Martron wrote: »

Statistics can prove anything these days!!! here is a poll to help prove my point.

I will be able to almost guarentee that this will prove something.

While I take your point, your anecdotal experiences are not going to prove anything. You may be just as guilty of bad logic as the RSA with those kind of statements.

Incidentally, in my situation herself does most of the shared driving. She owns the nicer car, and naming me on her policy is too expensive.

Martron

i tried setting up a poll but i did not realise you could only ask one question. if i had a way of setting up a survey i think i could prove that some statstics are left out of such rsa adverts.

and i did not say that all men drive couples around of course there will be incidents where a woman does more driving or a man will revers into more poles etc etc. but what i am trying to say is they on average men do more driving

TheBigLebowski

I agree with what your saying with regards to the way statistics are used and I agree that men drive a lot more. But you are missing one big point that has been made a few times. When men crash, they often do so at 100 miles an hour and kill everyone in sight. These are the big hitters with regards insurance not your girlfriend reversing into a lamp post which she proably won't claim for anyway.

Martron

i think in most cases inexperience leads to a lot of those accidents rather than speed alone.

but would it be a case that a woman would be in that accident if she was driving the same amount.?

if amen and women drove the same amount would the accidetn rate be equal?

its still to do with the proportion of driving doen.

in work and anyone in the construction industry will have seen the occurence of accident rates

for example it goes something like this

for every 3 minor non-reportable accidents there is a reportable accident.
for very 3 reportable accidents there is a major accident.

(the numbers are not accurate but there is a document issued with this)

so anyway if the man is doing more driving he will reach these milestones quicker.

women have less fatal accidents not becasue they drive better its just that they just dont do enought driving to have them

Cionád

If you wrote off your vehicle and died when hitting a bumper/wall/tree at 5mph the insurance may be higher for women.

They may have more accidents (and in my experience that is the case) - but they don't often end up making 100k's worth of damage/medical bills when they overtake on a bend at 3am @ 100mph

L1011

Martron wrote: »

for example look at the concorde it had one major crash in it whole life span. but because there was only 3 in operarton ..... that meant that 33% of its fleet was fatal!

There were 20 Concordes, so 5% of the fleet had hull-loss accidents.

Zube

Martron wrote: »

if amen and women drove the same amount would the accidetn rate be equal?

No. Not unless the difference in miles driven is actually 4 to 6 times, and you have provided absolutely no figures to suggest its that high.

Even someone tipping around town will do 5000 miles a year very easily. Less than that and it'd be cheaper to use taxis. Are you really suggesting that young males are averaging 30,000 miles a year?

L1011

Zube wrote: »

No. Not unless the difference in miles driven is actually 4 to 6 times, and you have provided absolutely no figures to suggest its that high.

Even someone tipping around town will do 5000 miles a year very easily. Less than that and it'd be cheaper to use taxis. Are you really suggesting that young males are averaging 30,000 miles a year?

I am... 10,000 a year for getting to/from work and over 20,000 for personal usage (family in two ends of the country, go clubbing in the far north, etc, etc)

sonners

I'm a female driver and although none of your points are correct in my case I do agree that they apply to most of the female drivers I know. I dont agree however that if women were on the road more they would have more fatal crashes, its just not in their driving.

Count how many women you know who have backed into a pole or done minor damage like this, I know plenty:rolleyes: Now count up how many women you know who have completely written off a car. I dont know any. I dont think its because they're not on the road as much I think its because they tend to drive slower, dont take as many risks, etc.

Obviously all of the above is based on the general population and there will always be exceptions to the rule (me )

t-ha

I don't understand this thread - why is the insurance company supposed to care if you drive more than your girlfriend? If your 'category' costs them alot in pay-outs then the premiums for that category will be higher. To put it another way, isn't it fairer that your girlfriend has lower premiums if she doesn't drive that much?

daveharnett

t-ha wrote: »

I don't understand this thread - why is the insurance company supposed to care if you drive more than your girlfriend? If your 'category' costs them alot in pay-outs then the premiums for that category will be higher. To put it another way, isn't it fairer that your girlfriend has lower premiums if she doesn't drive that much?

To answer your question, some insurers do ask applicants how much they drive. It helps them to establish an applicant's level of risk, and offer a more accurate quote. Some choose not to ask because there is no practical way to determine if the applicant's answer is truthful.

This thread isn't about insurers however, it is about the way the RSA manipulates road traffic statistics, in order to portray speed, alcohol and boy racers as the only dangers on the road.

It is much easier to be seen to tackle these issues than make real improvements in road quality, policing and driver education.

Martron

Zube wrote: »

No. Not unless the difference in miles driven is actually 4 to 6 times, and you have provided absolutely no figures to suggest its that high.

Even someone tipping around town will do 5000 miles a year very easily. Less than that and it'd be cheaper to use taxis. Are you really suggesting that young males are averaging 30,000 miles a year?

i just asked if they drove the same amount of miles would the accident rate be the same!!! i have not provided solid numbers becuase they dont seem to exist

Martron

t-ha wrote: »

I don't understand this thread - why is the insurance company supposed to care if you drive more than your girlfriend? If your 'category' costs them alot in pay-outs then the premiums for that category will be higher. To put it another way, isn't it fairer that your girlfriend has lower premiums if she doesn't drive that much?

this thread was noever about insurance it was about statistics.

now would the insurance company not be more interested in me because i drove approximatly in driving life just short of 90k miles without an accident and my girlfriend has had 2 claims and i would imaghine not even covered half the milegage

Marcus.Aurelius

The insurance companies, government, RSA, and pro-nanny-staters have all found their sacrificial lambs, speeding and young men.

These two will be targeted to maximise profits (insurance premiums and speeding tickets) despite the fact that the majority of accidents occur below the speed limit because someone did something stupid.

Where the young lads are being scraped off trees, its where speed cameras will never be located, at 3 AM in the morning with empty roads with no Traffic Corps on duty.

Brilliant idea Gaybo.

As for the women, I do notice in the course of the tours of duty that they are by far the worst drivers I encounter at regular speeds. And those of them that do speed are absolutely useless.

Martron

could not have said it better myself.

peasant

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

The insurance companies, government, RSA, and pro-nanny-staters have all found their sacrificial lambs, speeding and young men.

These two will be targeted to maximise profits (insurance premiums and speeding tickets) despite the fact that the majority of accidents occur below the speed limit because someone did something stupid.

Where the young lads are being scraped off trees, its where speed cameras will never be located, at 3 AM in the morning with empty roads with no Traffic Corps on duty.

Brilliant idea Gaybo.

That cynical view of things may well be correct ...but what do you suggest should be done about those needless late night stupidity deaths?

You cannot plant every rural roadside with speedcameras, neither can you police every quiet backroad during weekend nights.

It is up to the personal responsibility of the drivers not to kill themselves or others. How do you create that sense of responsibility in young men without becoming all "nanny state" and just laughed at and ignored ?

Martron

peasant wrote: »

That cynical view of things may well be correct ...but what do you suggest should be done about those needless late night stupidity deaths?

You cannot plant every rural roadside with speedcameras, neither can you police every quiet backroad during weekend nights.

It is up to the personal responsibility of the drivers not to kill themselves or others. How do you create that sense of responsibility in young men without becoming all "nanny state" and just laughed at and ignored ?

its obvious then that these types of drivers have no personal responsibility.hit them where it hurts.... in the pockets. speeding fines is a start


protect black spots with staic speed cams.

Marcus.Aurelius

peasant wrote: »

That cynical view of things may well be correct ...but what do you suggest should be done about those needless late night stupidity deaths?

You cannot plant every rural roadside with speedcameras, neither can you police every quiet backroad during weekend nights.

It is up to the personal responsibility of the drivers not to kill themselves or others. How do you create that sense of responsibility in young men without becoming all "nanny state" and just laughed at and ignored ?

That's just it peasant, I don't know. But I know the methods we use now have nothing to do with road safety, just nice numbers for Bertie and co to bleat about.

Personally I'd like to see judges get off their backsides and give the really dangerous drivers some huge fines and suspended licenses.

I imagine quite a few 3 AM wall hitters have been caught doing something really dangerous behind the wheel and gotten off scot free thanks to the buddy buddy judiciary/legal counsels, not to mention the p*ss-poor standard of driving expected of learners for the test.

It's like teaching a child to bang his head off a wall and then smacking him for bleeding on your carpet.

cobweb

another female driver here who drives 99% of the time. I drove for all my boyfriends as they didn't have cars and I know a lot of women for whom this would be the same.

Part of the reasom I drive is that I seldom drink and if husband is driving he will have a pint even though I have explained about the recently lowered drink driving limits, so its easier for me to drive as I would hae him to get points on his license or get banned for having a pint on him.

I have been driving for 21 years and have never had an accident or damaged a car and never got points on my license and neither do my female friends. Does this affect the statistics?

peasant

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

That's just it peasant, I don't know. But I know the methods we use now have nothing to do with road safety, just nice numbers for Bertie and co to bleat about.

Personally I'd like to see judges get off their backsides and give the really dangerous drivers some huge fines and suspended licenses.

I imagine quite a few 3 AM wall hitters have been caught doing something really dangerous behind the wheel and gotten off scot free thanks to the buddy buddy judiciary/legal counsels, not to mention the p*ss-poor standard of driving expected of learners for the test.

It's like teaching a child to bang his head off a wall and then smacking him for bleeding on your carpet.

To be fair now, you can't blame all of this on the Irish system.

Germany, which has a far better driver education system and fairly rigorous enforcement of traffic laws still battles with the problem of young male drivers splattering their and other's brains all over the countryside every weekend.

There are certain stretches of road (mostly in rural areas leading to and from the next major town with nightclubs) that have crosses at them like a small graveyard. Speed limits, cameras, special patrols and still, every other weekend another bad accident.

astrofool

cobweb wrote: »

another female driver here who drives 99% of the time. I drove for all my boyfriends as they didn't have cars and I know a lot of women for whom this would be the same.

Part of the reasom I drive is that I seldom drink and if husband is driving he will have a pint even though I have explained about the recently lowered drink driving limits, so its easier for me to drive as I would hae him to get points on his license or get banned for having a pint on him.

I have been driving for 21 years and have never had an accident or damaged a car and never got points on my license and neither do my female friends. Does this affect the statistics?

They haven't lowered the driving limit recently, they talked about it, but it never happened.

Anyway, even if statistically women have more accidents per mile as you claim, then the fact that men drive three times more, as you say, means men's insurance should be higher. All that matters is the total cost in claims to the insurance company of all it's young male drivers when setting the premium.

Marcus.Aurelius

peasant wrote: »

To be fair now, you can't blame all of this on the Irish system.

Germany, which has a far better driver education system and fairly rigorous enforcement of traffic laws still battles with the problem of young male drivers splattering their and other's brains all over the countryside every weekend.

There are certain stretches of road (mostly in rural areas leading to and from the next major town with nightclubs) that have crosses at them like a small graveyard. Speed limits, cameras, special patrols and still, every other weekend another bad accident.

I see what you're getting at, its just so frustrating! We could at least save some of them if we took out the finger once in a while

I wonder sometimes if we should exclude these fatalities from the overall value, maybe then we would have a better idea how well our safety strategies are performing.

paddyblue

Martron wrote: »

this thread was noever about insurance it was about statistics.

Marton - in your first post on this tread you said the following - 'should the insurance companies and radio advertisment redirect their attention.' - so this tread was partly about insurance companies. Also, do insurance companies not use statistics to work out target ages for high premiums?

Anyway, I strongly disagree with your argument. The fact is that young male drivers cause the worst carnage on the roads by a mile (pun intended). This is proven statistically. So the insurance companies and radio advertisement should keep on targeting them...

T-ha was spot on with his comment. If female drivers do drive circa 3 times less then why should they be targeted more by the media? Even if it could be proved that women would cause the same number of serious crashes/fatalities if they drove the same nr of miles as men - there would be no point targeting them based on this statsitic...until they actually did drive an equal amount of miles.

But I do not think that women would cause near as much serious damage as young males do if both sexes drove the same amount. Who cares if there will be more lamp posts hit, etc. It's the fatal crashes that the media target and young males are the big offenders here, irrespective of proportion of male/female drivers on the road.

I believe your argument is offensive & inconsiderate. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has lost a family member to an accident caused by a speeding young male driver....tell them that these murderers (thats what they are) are unfairly targeted by the press & insurance companies...do you think these people care how many more minor accidents/tips/etc there would be if there were more women on the roads?....hitting lamposts doesn't kill people.....

hot2def

dude, get over it. the insurance companies have the stats, and based on the stats women cost them less to insure.


i've heard this whiney "women are worse drivers" line all the time, but we just don't kill as many people. Simple as.


Personally, I believe if you gave a muffin to a young man he'd find a way to kill someone with it. Leave a muffin in a room full of young fellas, and when you come back some one will be missing a eye, choking on a muffin, surrounded by his mates laughing at him and fighting over who gets to wear the muffin wrapper on their head. you know its true.