She drives he dies!

Professey Chin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

There is a reason for that actually.

Young males are the most dangerous class of driver on the road.

Statistics prove it.

That is the reason.

So because one class has more knobends then another, someone from the the group with the least should get off lighter for the same crime.
You realise thats nonsense.

boogle

tech77 wrote: »

Thanks.
Were these guys on the roof or inside the tower?
From that article, it looks like they might have been inside.

Yeah they were inside in an oak-panelled room wearing smoking jackets and sipping cognac.

El Weirdo

Robbo wrote: »

Dangerous causing death was the offence she was charged with in the trial last year. A jury found her not guilty of that offence.

The item in today's paper was in relation to the inquest, a separate matter altogether.

One can still ask the questions though.

Why was that not classed as dangerous driving?

Would she have been found guilty if she was male?

It doesn't matter whether the item in today's paper refers to the inquest or the trial.

RustyNut

El Weirdo wrote: »

Because she has a fanny?

Edit: Wahaaay! 500th post! Glad it had the word "fanny" in it. Phew.

Fanny rocks

Smart Bug

boogle wrote: »

Yeah they were inside in an oak-panelled room wearing smoking jackets and sipping cognac.

One enjoys sipping a fine cognac whilst reclining before the hearth. Boogle, there's a good man, fetch me a light for my belvedere.

/adjusts monocle

Snakeblood

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

So because one class has more knobends then another, someone from the the group with the least should get off lighter for the same crime.
You realise thats nonsense.

You aren't really reading what he was responding to. There's a huge emphasis on dangerous driving by young men: That's because statisics prove young men are more dangerous drivers.

This thread is basically waving an anomaly that has nothing to do with the issue of male drivers around and whining 'That's unfair'. That particular case does seem unfair, if those are the only facts of the case.

Robbo

El Weirdo wrote: »

One can still ask the questions though.

Why was that not classed as dangerous driving?

Would she have been found guilty if she was male?

It doesn't matter whether the item in today's paper refers to the inquest or the trial.

Again, your truck is with the jury who were directed that they may also find her guilty of careless driving. They decided not to. Moreover, given that they found her not guilty of dangerous driving causing death, it is unlikely that they could feasibly find her guilty of just dangerous driving since a higher level of recklessness is required to prove "dangerous driving causing death".

Edit: Just as a quick note, careless driving requires a much lower standard of recklessness than dangerous driving. It is therefore easier to successfully prosecute.

boogle

Smart Bug wrote: »

One enjoys sipping a fine cognac whilst reclining before the hearth. Boogle, there's a good man, fetch me a light for my belvedere.

/adjusts monocle

Here you go


Muahahahahahahahaha!

Professey Chin

Snakeblood wrote: »

You aren't really reading what he was responding to. There's a huge emphasis on dangerous driving by young men: That's because statisics prove young men are more dangerous drivers.

This thread is basically waving an anomaly that has nothing to do with the issue of male drivers around and whining 'That's unfair'. That particular case does seem unfair, if those are the only facts of the case.

I realise that now:o
*note to self,read threads from start*

FlutterinBantam

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

So because one class has more knobends then another, someone from the the group with the least should get off lighter for the same crime.
You realise thats nonsense.

No I don't actually, just the way things work.

Poccington

Snakeblood wrote: »

You aren't really reading what he was responding to. There's a huge emphasis on dangerous driving by young men: That's because statisics prove young men are more dangerous drivers.

This thread is basically waving an anomaly that has nothing to do with the issue of male drivers around and whining 'That's unfair'. That particular case does seem unfair, if those are the only facts of the case.

Do the statistics take into account the amount of men driving compared to women? Or the amount of time spent driving by both sexes?

Rather than just looking at the amount of deaths on the roads and doing the maths there and then.

Overheal

Gran Hermano wrote: »

So to summarise, if you're a young male up on a dangerous driving charge your best bet is to have a sex-change before the court case and avail of the lesser punishments given to women?

Hmm...
























@Tar, how much is your insurance?

Snakeblood

Poccington wrote: »

Do the statistics take into account the amount of men driving compared to women? Or the amount of time spent driving by both sexes?

Rather than just looking at the amount of deaths on the roads and doing the maths there and then.

Are you saying there are vastly more under 25 men driving than over 25 men driving? Because the under 25s are the ones who are statistically outsize.

El Weirdo

Robbo wrote: »

Again, your truck is with the jury who were directed that they may also find her guilty of careless driving. They decided not to.

I understand that but how does that make the questions less relevant?

Robbo

El Weirdo wrote: »

I understand that but how does that make the questions less relevant?

Because, to the best of my knowledge, no Irish jury decision has ever been overturned by asking rhetorical question on the internet?

I've answered your questions. And now our Graham with a quick recap...

Why was that not classed as dangerous driving?

Because the jury decided that the level of recklessness was not there.

Would she have been found guilty if she was male?

You'll have to break open the skulls of 12 jurors for that one.

Bobeagleburger

she spanks
he ****

994

Gran Hermano wrote: »

So to summarise, if you're a male of any age or race up on any charge of any kind your best bet is to have a sex-change before the court case and avail of the lesser punishments given to women?

fyp

C.D.

murfie wrote: »

You cant argue the statistics, and 25% of deaths on the road are caused by young men! That's far more then any other age/gender demographic...

I would like to highlight one thing; I am neither disagreeing or agreeing with the "male drivers cause more accidents", merely illustrating how easy it is to jump on a bandwagon without considering the facts.

OK let's presume this is true, 25% of all deaths are caused by young males. Let's assume that there are three age categories- young, middle-aged and old. Assume there are two genders- there are now 6 categories, so if all things were equal, each category would cause ~17% of road deaths.

However, the above is all useless and meaningless as it is out of context. Why? Let's assume that young males have a higher car ownership rate. Let's play around with hypothetical figures- let's say 50% of young males own cars vs. a national average of 30% ownership in the other 5 categories (also assume that each demograph has equal numbers).

Now let's assume that young males cover more mileage per annum than the other groups, let's say 20% more mileage.

Just to recap, we are now in a position where young male have 50% car ownership vs 30% in the other 5 categories and they cover 20% more kilometres per annum.

Assuming the national average is 12,000 km, let's do the maths.

1) Take 100,000 people.

2) There are 16,667 people in each category.

3) Out of the young males category, 6,667 own cars.

4) All the others combined own 25,000 cars.

5) Young males cover 14,400 km each, giving a total of 120,000,000 km.

6) Everybody else combined covers 300,000,000 km.

7) Young males drive 28.57% (120/300) of all km driven each year, so all things equal they should cause 28.56% of accidents, but they don't, in this scenario they cause 25% of accidents, which means that there is an extra 3.56% to distribute amongst the other groups (ie. higher risk).

While this is a very simplistic scenario, it is merely to highlight that statistics are very easy to misinterpret. Additionally you could factor in that young males do more late night driving (high risk) etc etc.

On the subject of distorting statistics, my favourite is: "There is a direct correlation between the number of ice creams sold and the number of drownings in Ireland". This statement is designed to mislead, leading one to assume a cause-effect relationship where none exists. Quite simply, on a hot day, more people eat ice creams and more people go swimming (and hence drown).

Apologies for spelling/grammatical/mathematical errors, it is rare I create such long posts

stepbar

I believe the car was drove by a woman....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0826/fermoy.html

C.D.

As I'm sure somebody will do it, with regards to the above, it was a simplistic "proof of concept" and was not meant to be exhaustive, it was illustrative in nature so I did not formulate it with either mathematical of logical rigour.

C.D.

Ah crap, just noticed this is in AH. I would never have made such a serious post if I'd realised. Thought it was in Motors!

Brouhaha

Poccington wrote: »

Do the statistics take into account the amount of men driving compared to women? Or the amount of time spent driving by both sexes?

Yes

C.D.

Brouhaha wrote: »

Yes

I thought as much, but it nevertheless my I stand by my point that a lot of people use statistics when jumping on a bandwagon without having any idea of the real data behind supposed statistics presented minus the data.

phasers

That ad is horribly sexist and untrue.

My sister is a mental driver but my dad is brilliant. I'm pretty shyte myself tbh

segaBOY

stepbar wrote: »

I believe the car was drove by a woman....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0826/fermoy.html

Jesus H Christ how/why would you overtake on a corner like that? And the continuous white line is there for a reason, ffs :eek:

phasers wrote: »

That ad is horribly sexist and untrue.

My sister is a mental driver but my dad is brilliant. I'm pretty shyte myself tbh

The one thing I don't understand is just why they have to bring gender into it in the first place? As a young male driver an ad with condescending women (the one with the northern accent really gets my goat, sounds like a real B.I.T.C.H :P ) nattering on about how he drives/she dies just makes me temporarily speed up out of annoyance/sheer anger when the ad comes on.

GLaDOS

C.D. wrote: »

Assume there are two genders

Wait, what?

phasers

segaBOY wrote: »

The one thing I don't understand is just why they have to bring gender into it in the first place? As a young male driver an ad with condescending women (the one with the northern accent really gets my goat, sounds like a real B.I.T.C.H :P ) nattering on about how he drives/she dies just makes me temporarily speed up out of annoyance/sheer anger when the ad comes on.

Also, does this ad condone women speeding?

"Ladies, you need to go home and get dinner ready. Pedal to the metal!"

:pac:

Jeebus

I don't mind them telling young males to slow down. I am a young male. We do need to slow down.

BUT, we have been getting all the attention from these ad campaigns for the past twenty years or more. They could save a lot more lives by telling people how to indicate correctly, how to get in lane for roundabouts properly etc. etc. Informative, educational ads would be far more productive than condescending, vaguely sexist drivel that is currently being oozed out of the bloody, menstruating vagina of the RSA.

Seriously, statistics may say that men cause more accidents, but if things were taken into account, simple things, like the percentage of young males who drive, how much they drive etc - then the difference would be negligible. For the amount of attention we get, you would think we cause all the accidents.

It's not fair really, whatever way you look at it - paying four grand insurance on a car worth €700 or so is outlandish, I mean you'd insure a blind midget on that in most countries. And the RSA is on our back too. I wouldn't even mind so much if the ad's weren't so condescending and badly done. Any young male listening to that drivel is only going to be encouraged to drive faster out of blind rage and spite. If anything, this ad is just something to make women feel good about themselves ! Bet you a tenner the people behind it were all women. Fat ones, too.

Overheal

you must have a seriously old beater to get it for €700?

j1smithy

segaBOY wrote: »

J
As a young male driver an ad with condescending women (the one with the northern accent really gets my goat, sounds like a real B.I.T.C.H :P ) nattering on about how he drives/she dies just makes me temporarily speed up out of annoyance/sheer anger when the ad comes on.

Wow, you sound like you really have the maturity to be driving...