She drives he dies!

j1smithy

Jeebus wrote: »

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.

The problem with your post is that you are normalising (in a statistical sense) accidents per kilometer per gender. It doesn't matter if men drive more than women or if they are better drivers or not. The reason we have these campaigns is that if you are a passenger in a car you are statistically more likely to have an accident if a young male is driving rather than anyone else from another demographic. This is the only fact that matters.

the_syco

Brouhaha wrote: »

Yes

Is there somewhere in that book that shows a graph with the number of male versus the number of female drivers in that category?

sock puppet

j1smithy wrote: »

The problem with your post is that you are normalising (in a statistical sense) accidents per kilometer per gender. It doesn't matter if men drive more than women or if they are better drivers or not. The reason we have these campaigns is that if you are a passenger in a car you are statistically more likely to have an accident if a young male is driving rather than anyone else from another demographic. This is the only fact that matters.

Actually if it is indeed true that men and women have the same number of accidents per kilometre then no you wouldn't be more likely to have an accident in a car driven by a young man. It would be the other way around ie. Ifyou were in an accdent you'd be statistically more likely to have been driven by a man.

Jeebus

j1smithy wrote: »

The problem with your post is that you are normalising (in a statistical sense) accidents per kilometer per gender. It doesn't matter if men drive more than women or if they are better drivers or not. The reason we have these campaigns is that if you are a passenger in a car you are statistically more likely to have an accident if a young male is driving rather than anyone else from another demographic. This is the only fact that matters.

If I'm normalizing accidents per km, per gender, and its showing that they are more or less equal, then, if you're a passenger with a young male, it shows that you are more or less as likely to get in an accident with them as you are if you get in the car with a 50 year old woman. Making your point moot.

Young male premiums should be loaded, but not to the ludicrous extent they are now. Young males should be targeted by safer driving campaigns, but the extent to which they are targeted now is insane. You could argue its killing people ! That would be pushing it a bit, though.

sock puppet

Jeebus wrote: »

If I'm normalizing accidents per km, per gender, and its showing that they are more or less equal, then, if you're a passenger with a young male, it shows that you are more or less as likely to get in an accident with them as you are if you get in the car with a 50 year old woman. Making your point moot.

Young male premiums should be loaded, but not to the ludicrous extent they are now. Young males should be targeted by safer driving campaigns, but the extent to which they are targeted now is insane. You could argue its killing people ! That would be pushing it a bit, though.

Ah but if young men drive and crash more then surely we should pay higher insurance costs?

jonnymufc

firstly i no a lot of the facts about this case and she did not pass out on a continuous white line that is where the car ended up.where she passed out the other car was perfectly safe and legal to do so.secondly it was proved in a court of law that the cause of the crash was from a piece of metal that was on the road and when the car drove over it got lodged in the alloy of the car which cracked the alloy and made the car lose control.and also a lot of you are saying men are discrimnated against but a lot of posts on this are saying she should have got done for manslauther without knowing the facts hence doin the same thing yourselves witch you are giveing out about ie being discrimanated against finally it does not mather to a jury wheather she was male or female they had the facts in front of them witch proved she was not guilty and that is also why she was cleared of careless driveing .

jonnymufc

it was also proved in a court of law that she was not speeding and was driveing under the speed limit

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

boogle wrote: »

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahah!
Make way for the Sarcasm Master and his/her acerbic wit! It must be lonely all the way up there on your ivory tower. So charitable of you to descend and grace us all with your wisdom.


No really. This is getting too much in this forum. Someone makes a typo or spells the odd word incorrectly and someone always jumps on them like the poster is some kind of dribbling simpleton. Now I hate reading posts written in txtspk or rambling posts without any kind of grammar or punctuation, but nobody's perfect for feck sake. Nobody likes a pedantic nitpicker.


Yeah, I know R&R is that way ---->

But it's fun


Anyway, I suggest we BURN HER AT THE STAKE...

While I think the judge took pity on her, if it was a male, I don't think the same pity would be shown.

Jeebus

jonnymufc wrote: »

firstly i no a lot of the facts about this case and she did not pass out on a continuous white line that is where the car ended up.where she passed out the other car was perfectly safe and legal to do so.secondly it was proved in a court of law that the cause of the crash was from a piece of metal that was on the road and when the car drove over it got lodged in the alloy of the car which cracked the alloy and made the car lose control.and also a lot of you are saying men are discrimnated against but a lot of posts on this are saying she should have got done for manslauther without knowing the facts hence doin the same thing yourselves witch you are giveing out about ie being discrimanated against finally it does not mather to a jury wheather she was male or female they had the facts in front of them witch proved she was not guilty and that is also why she was cleared of careless driveing .

Sweet Jesus.

jonnymufc

Jace Poor Sorrow wrote: »

But it's fun


Anyway, I suggest we BURN HER AT THE STAKE...

While I think the judge took pity on her, if it was a male, I don't think the same pity would be shown.

that really shows how smart you are i hope you never find yourself in the same sitiuation where do people like you come from?

jonnymufc

jonnymufc wrote: »

that really shows how smart you are i hope you never find yourself in the same sitiuation where do people like you come from?

The only reason she got off so easily is down to her lacking a penis. Had a male been driving and you can guarantee that we would be hearing a different story. She was driving a car which was not road worthy, the condition of her tires proves this.

Your friend killed two people and you have the audacity to come on here and blame the crash on everything but the girl.As the driver she is responsible and should be punished accordingly.

Overheal

isnt the driver responsible for vehicle maintenance? :rolleyes:

pistonsvox

It really just depends on the person he/she is. If the person doesnt think they'll ever crash and gets a buzz outta speed theyll be flyin up and down the m50 like god knows what. Most young drivers think they're invincible and they dont get the point until they end up on their roof with glass in their teeth.

My sneaky way to gettin the young lads to slow down is flashin your lights when they fly past you at twice your speed and pretending youre the 5 0 :pac:

ShooterSF

j1smithy wrote: »

The problem with your post is that you are normalising (in a statistical sense) accidents per kilometer per gender. It doesn't matter if men drive more than women or if they are better drivers or not. The reason we have these campaigns is that if you are a passenger in a car you are statistically more likely to have an accident if a young male is driving rather than anyone else from another demographic. This is the only fact that matters.

Oh sweet enola gay!

That was a wind up right?

zero19

Overheal wrote: »

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

You can get a decent enough car nowadays for that kind of money, if you know how to bargain people down of course.

Wile E. Coyote

jonnymufc wrote: »

firstly i no a lot of the facts about this case and she did not pass out on a continuous white line that is where the car ended up. where she passed out the other car was perfectly safe and legal to do so.

jonnymufc wrote: »

it was also proved in a court of law that she was not speeding and was driveing under the speed limit.

If it was such a perfectly safe place to overtake and she wasn't speeding, how far did she travel after hitting the brakes to end up at a blind bend on a continuous white line?

Looking that the picture you'd have to assume it was a regional road with a speed limit of 80km. If she was under the speed limit the stopping distance would have been about 50meters on a dry day. Even if you take into account the worn tyres and increase her stopping distance to 70/80 meters, what was she doing overtaking that close to a blind bend?

muppetkiller

In the spirit of After Hours ..I demand a Gender Test !!!

biko

Is still discussion still going?
Angry emotional drivers getting all keyboardwarrioresque (it's a word) over a campaign to save their girlfriends. Shouldn't they just be happy about it instead?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

zero19 wrote: »

You can get a decent enough car nowadays for that kind of money, if you know how to bargain people down of course.

If anything this statement is quite the opposite, nowadays cars are being sold for next to nothing... they are worthless.

Magnus wrote: »

Is still discussion still going?
Angry emotional drivers getting all keyboardwarrioresque (it's a word) over a campaign to save their girlfriends. Shouldn't they just be happy about it instead?

No, people should not be happy about it. It is discrimination and is unlawful.

The Big Red Button

C.D. wrote: »

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

This is all very true, and it's a pity the RSA couldn't take this and sub in the correct figures to see what societal groups are actually causing problems.

However, all the media and the public see is the simplistic view - a higher number of young male drivers are involved in accidents than any other group - and the RSA just seems to pander to the media, in a misguided attempt to win public support.

From my own (admittedly limited) experience on the road, I have found younger drivers (both male and female) to have the best knowlege of the rules of the road and to have the most respect for other drivers. It's the older drivers, maybe aged 45+, who havent a clue about road positioning or use of roundabouts or proper motorway driving etc. However, I certainly can't see the RSA blatantly targeting them in any campaign - there would be public outcry!

biko

I don't see the discrimination here. RSA is simply stating that more than two-thirds of women who died in car crashes from 1997-2006 were passengers in cars driven by men.
Looking at the Motors forum about what type car people are getting it's very much young guys getting high-powered cars where young girls go for Micras and other small cars.
I think it touches men deep down in the "I'm a great/good driver whereas my wife/gf is not!" department and hence the fury.

Maybe we should disallow anyone to drive a car higher than 1.4 until they've had the full licence for 5 years and gained enough experience?

ShooterSF

Magnus wrote: »

I don't see the discrimination here. RSA is simply stating that more than two-thirds of women who died in car crashes from 1997-2006 were passengers in cars driven by men.

That part is fine. The discrimination is when you use those facts to claim young males are more dangerous drivers when as shown on this thread that can't be proven from those stats.

DarkJager

Magnus wrote: »

I don't see the discrimination here. RSA is simply stating that more than two-thirds of women who died in car crashes from 1997-2006 were passengers in cars driven by men.
Looking at the Motors forum about what type car people are getting it's very much young guys getting high-powered cars where young girls go for Micras and other small cars.
I think it touches men deep down in the "I'm a great/good driver whereas my wife/gf is not!" department and hence the fury.

Maybe we should disallow anyone to drive a car higher than 1.4 until they've had the full licence for 5 years and gained enough experience?

As I provided to the BCC, here's a transcript of the advert detailing the discrimination in it:

Voice 1: To think they have the cheek to talk about women drivers (Blatantly sexist statement, ignores any safety faults with female drivers)
Voice 2: When they're the dangerous ones? (Blatantly sexist, referring to all males as being dangerous drivers)
Voice 3: And even worse its us girls that suffer for it (Making advert gender specific again, men are making women suffer is the general message)
Voice 4: In Ireland most female road deaths
Voice 5: Are caused by male drivers (Blatantly sexist regardless of stats, it says "male drivers" rather than advising of the condition or road habits of said driver)
Voice 6: So it's time for all of us girls (Making advert gender specific)
Voice 7: To put our foot down (Great line for a road safety advert I'm sure you'll agree)
Voice 8: That means, the next time a fella wants to take you for a spin
Voice 9: And you don't trust his driving
Voice 10: Don't even think about it (These 3 lines sum up the message that should be portrayed)
Voice 11: Because in too many collisons
Voice 12: He drives,
Voice 13: She dies. (Both lines sexist)

jonnymufc

Deleted User wrote: »

The only reason she got off so easily is down to her lacking a penis. Had a male been driving and you can guarantee that we would be hearing a different story. She was driving a car which was not road worthy, the condition of her tires proves this.

Your friend killed two people and you have the audacity to come on here and blame the crash on everything but the girl.As the driver she is responsible and should be punished accordingly.

and in what court was she proved guilty ?? was she not cleared in a court of law of dangerous driveing as well as careless driveing so how you come to the conclusion that she killed 2 people shows how stupid you really are. were you in the court for the court case no. were you born with special needs yes god help anyone that ever has any misfortune that knows you like they say theirs always one

Hagar

@johnnymufc

An amount of righteous indignation is one thing but if you don't keep your posts civil you will not be allowed post on this forum.

Brouhaha

ShooterSF wrote: »

The discrimination is when you use those facts to claim young males are more dangerous drivers when as shown on this thread that can't be proven from those stats.

It can be proven from plenty of studies that they are, e.g. this major OECD report I posted earlier

Wile E. Coyote

Brouhaha wrote: »

It can be proven from plenty of studies that they are, e.g. this major OECD report I posted earlier

Thanks for the link Brouhaha but can anyone provide a link to Irish statistics for this info as information relating to anywhere else in the world is irrelevant.

Ickle Magoo

I don't like the "he drives, she dies" lines, I don't care if the statistics would lend themselves to that assumption, it's a horrible phrase. I presume it's only trying to reduce the numbers of female passengers & not appealing to the drivers on purpose?

I think rather than spending millions insulting young drivers and thinking that is going to save lives indirectly, roads should be improved so it's possible to overtake safely. I've had my fair share of young eejits in souped up fiestas driving up my @rse and overtaking on a blind corner but I've seen far more issues caused by drivers in other demographics pulling onto fast roads and trundling up to 40km/hr, not pulling over and letting much faster traffic over-take, travelling significantly under the speed limit on a single track main-thoroughfare.

If the arterial roadways linking the main cities weren't wee country lanes that pootle through every little village en route, I'd bet there would be a significant drop in the deaths on the roads - but an ad campaign blaming young men is much cheaper. :rolleyes:

Brouhaha

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Thanks for the link Brouhaha but can anyone provide a link to Irish statistics for this info as information relating to anywhere else in the world is irrelevant.

There's no way there would be any report as detailed. I don't think it's irrelevant though, men and women's inate characteristics don't differ from country to country. A sample quote from page 70 below will hold true in any country:

"Gregersen and Berg (1994) and Schulze (1990) have also related males' high traffic crash risk to a greater propensity to take risks in their everyday lives, in comparison to females."

That's not true of all males, the reverse can be true of some females, but over the entire population it's accurate and consequently dangerous on the roads.

LD 50

Originally Posted by Ultimate Chin
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.

Saying that men are more dangerous drivers than women may be sexist, but letting a woman driver off after being charged previously with dangerous driving, and then later driving dangerously so as two people die IS sexist.