Should Women Have the Right to Drive?
Fathers Manifesto
http://fathersmanifesto.org/menwomendrivers.htm
-
Per Traffic Safety Facts' "Vehicle Miles of Travel, 1975-1996" http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/www/cfm/library/rpt_info.cfm?index=Trends:Occupants&recordid=0 Americans drove passenger cars 1,478 billion miles in 1995.
-
Per the "Early Results Report" of the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survery http://www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/index.shtml men drive 65.3% or 965 billion and women drive 513 billion of those miles.
-
Per Traffic Safety Facts' "Drivers Involvement in Crashes" from the FARS data base http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/www/cfm/library/rpt_info.cfm?index=People:Drivers&recordid=0 male drivers were involved in 2,418,799 fatal and injury crashes and female drivers were involved in 1,701,043, for a total of 4,119,842 drivers in approximately 2,059,921 accidents.
-
The accident rate per one million miles driven for men is 2.5 and for women is 3.32 (33% higher).
-
Per the NHTSA http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/ecomvc1994.html the economic cost of motor vehicle crashes in 1994 was $150 billion.
The higher probability that women will have an accident contributes to an increase in the accident rate for men. To determine exactly how much higher the accident rate for men is because of women drivers it is necessary to calculate the probability for both men and women to have an accident. If we let Pm be the probability that a man will have an auto accident, and Pf that a woman will, then we have two equations and two variables. The total probability that a man will have an accident is the sum of his probability of having a single driver accident, the square of this probability to represent a two driver accident involving another man, and the Pm times Pf to represent a two driver accident involving a woman:
(Pm + Pm2 + PmPf) x 965,000 million miles driven = 2,418,799 accidents
Pm + Pm2 + PmPf = 2.5
The equation for women is similar:
(Pf + Pf2 + PmPf) x 513,000 million miles driven = 1,701,043 accidents
Pf + Pf2 + PmPf = 3.32
Pm = (3.32 - Pf - Pf2)/Pf
(3.32 - Pf - Pf2)/Pf + (11.0224 -6.64Pf - 5.64Pf2 + 2Pf3 + Pf4 )/Pf2 + 3.32 -Pf -Pf2 = 2.5
3.32Pf - Pf2 - Pf2 + 11.0224 -6.64Pf - 5.64Pf2 + 2Pf3 + Pf4 + 3.32Pf2 - Pf3 - Pf4 = 2.5Pf2
3.32Pf + 5.82Pf2 = 11.0224
Pf = 1.087 = Probability that a woman will have an auto accident
Pm = 0.213 = Probability that a woman will have an auto accident
Pf = 5.1 x Pm
If all drivers were men who drove the 1,478 billion miles which are currently driven by both men and women, the total accident rate would be 0.26 accidents per million miles, for a total of 380,480 accidents:
(Pm + Pm2) x 1,478,000 = 380,480 accidents
If all drivers were women who drove the 1,478 billion miles which are currently driven by both men and women, the total accident rate would be 2.271 accidents per million miles, for a total of 3,352,945 accidents:
(Pf + Pf2) x 1,478,000 = 3,352,945 accidents
If only men drove today, accidents would decrease from 2,059,921 to 380,480 per year, a reduction of 81%. If only women drove, accidents would increase from 2,059,921 to 3,352,945 per year, a 63% increase and there would be 8.8 times as many accidents than if only men drove.
Women drivers are thus responsible for $121.5 billion of the $150 billion annual economic loss and 36,450 of the 45,000 lives lost each year to auto accidents.
OhSojourner
Meanwhile, ask the insurance companies why male drivers are charged a higher
premium...
Anna
Because overall, women do present a lower risk - because despite
having more accidents per mile than men they drive siginificantly
less. Insurance companies care about the no. of accidents you are
likely to have annually, not per mile.
The only thing is that, in the UK, you get your insurance
according to projected mileage, and AFAIK, unlimited commercial
insurance (for couriers, salespeople and others who drive a lot
as part of their job) is still cheaper for women than men. Mind
you, the insurance co. discriminate worse by age than sex here -
under 25's find it very difficult to get insurance and even
though I'm past that threshold, the only way I can afford
unlimited milage commercial insurance to have my much older
hubby on the insurance as secondary driver (insurance is for a
particular person to drive a particular vehicle), making savings
of £500+ - BTW insurance is also significantly cheaper for
married people (to have me on his insurance also lowers his
premium, though not so dramatically).
Anna
Deborah Terreson
> per year, a reduction of 81%. If only women drove, accidents would increase
> from 2,059,921 to 3,352,945 per year, a 63% increase and there would be 8.8
> times as many accidents than if only men drove.
Hmmmm. If only men drove, who would get to do the grocery shopping? How
about paying the bills? Laundry? Let's not even think about taking the kids
to football practise after school. Yes! I'm all for it! Men should be the
ones to do it all. Then we happy little housewives truly can say we are kept
little birdies and the men can be worked like dogs until they drop and we
will be sitting pretty with the loot at home watching soaps and eating
bon-bons all day long! I concur, men should be the only ones allowed to
drive. It's going to be too bad for all those workers in the auto industry,
when women are forced to give up their cars, but hell, that's O.K., they can
find other jobs. ;-)
Deb.
OhSojourner
> If only men drove today, accidents would decrease from 2,059,921 to 380,480
> per year, a reduction of 81%. If only women drove, accidents would increase
> from 2,059,921 to 3,352,945 per year, a 63% increase and there would be
> 8.8 times as many accidents than if only men drove.
Again, here Mr. Knight is attacking women as a class, instead of suggesting
remedies that specifically target those individuals who have proven to be
irresponsible drivers (a stricter driver's license test, perhaps?). According
to Mr. Knight's logic, responsible individuals must be punished for the
transgressions of irresponsible individuals.
This sort of thinking sounds very similar to the arguments proposed by the
anti-gun lobby: guns are the cause of thousands of tragedies each year, so
let's eliminate them altogether. Because of the misdeeds of irresponsible
individuals, let's take them out of the hands of even those who have proven to
be responsible.
I wonder what Mr. Knight thinks about gun control.
Bobbie Dean
Funny, there is no discussion of the type of accidents that we are
looking at. I think that you'll find that women are more likely to
report simple fender benders (especially with minor damage) that men
are (especially if they are young men).
Also, loved your massaging of the stats. Just proves the old adage -
there are liars, damn liars, and statasticians.
In article <qMHr5.115480$3E6.1...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>,
"Fathers Manifesto" <fathersm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:http://fathersmanifesto.org/menwomendrivers.htm
:
:
:
:
:
: a.. Per Traffic Safety Facts' "Vehicle Miles of Travel, 1975-1996"
: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/www/cfm/library/rpt
: info.cfm?index=Trends:Occupants&recordid=0 Americans drove passenger
: cars 1,478 billion miles in 1995.
:
: b.. Per the "Early Results Report" of the Nationwide Personal
: Transportation Survery
: http://www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/index.shtml men drive 65.3% or
: 965 billion and women drive 513 billion of those miles.
:
: c.. Per Traffic Safety Facts' "Drivers Involvement in Crashes" from
: the FARS data base http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/www/cfm/library/rpt
: info.cfm?index=People:Drivers&recordid=0 male drivers were involved in
: 2,418,799 fatal and injury crashes and female drivers were involved in
: 1,701,043, for a total of 4,119,842 drivers in approximately 2,059,921
: accidents.
:
: d.. The accident rate per one million miles driven for men is 2.5 and
: for women is 3.32 (33% higher).
:
: e.. Per the NHTSA
:
B
Remember - Usenet isn't like life - it is often worse! ;-)
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <20000901191706...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
ohsoj...@aol.comedy (OhSojourner) wrote:
I betcha he's aginst it! Oh, didn't you know? That's an Honest-To-Goodness
Sacred Right, given to all those lashing, slashing hunks o' Manhood by John
Wayne, the NRA and the Con-Sti-Too-Shun! ;-)
Deb.
>
Bobbie Dean
Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
:----------
:>
Yes, Bubba is alive and well and posting on alt.feminism
J. S.
> This sort of thinking sounds very similar to the arguments proposed by the
> anti-gun lobby: guns are the cause of thousands of tragedies each year, so
> let's eliminate them altogether. Because of the misdeeds of irresponsible
> individuals, let's take them out of the hands of even those who have proven to
> be responsible.
> I wonder what Mr. Knight thinks about gun control.
Bad analogy. He's not saying automobiles should be banned. He is
saying certain drivers should be banned (women).
Go take Logic 101 at your local community college.
Feritas1
"Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> :----------
>> ohsoj...@aol.comedy (OhSojourner) wrote:
>>> John Knight wrote:
>> Deb.
Actually, John "Knut" is a pseudonym of Daniel Amneus PhD., author of a book
called "The Garbage Generation". You might want to do a search on that name.
And check out this link to find out what he has to say about other issues,
including the Holocaust:
http://www.deja.com/profile.xp?ST=MS&URN=661654465
OhSojourner
> OhSojourner <ohsoj...@aol.comedy> wrote:
I stated that the argument sounds *simliar;* i.e., the rights of the
responsible are revoked due to the actions of the irresponsible, when we are
looking at "private gun owners" as a group, just as we are looking at "women
drivers" as a group. The anti-gun lobby isn't advocating COMPLETE elimination
of guns because they are obviously needed by the military and trained law
enforcement officials. However, many anti-gun advocates would like to see the
PRIVATE privilege of gun ownership restricted, due to their irresponsible use
by private citizens.
Mr. Knight's agenda is one of class-targeted hatred. It is a mirror of
"Jesse562" 's, who says that we ought to have surveillance cameras monitoring
every male since statistically, males are more likely to commit violent crime.
The suggestion that women shouldn't be allowed to drive is ludicrous in light
of all the practical benefits another poster pointed out (i.e. running errands,
taking the kids to school, etc.) His concern isn't over irresponsible
driving or rational voting; the real agenda is one of completely removing all
means of autonomy from women.
Goddess
"OhSojourner" <ohsoj...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20000902154420...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> JS wrote:
>
> > OhSojourner <ohsoj...@aol.comedy> wrote:
>
> >> This sort of thinking sounds very similar to the arguments proposed by
the
> >> anti-gun lobby: guns are the cause of thousands of tragedies each year,
so
> let's
> >> eliminate them altogether. Because of the misdeeds of irresponsible
> individuals,
> >> let's take them out of the hands of even those who have proven to be
> responsible.
>
> >> I wonder what Mr. Knight thinks about gun control.
>
> > Bad analogy. He's not saying automobiles should be banned. He is saying
> certain
> > drivers should be banned (women).
I think ALL bad drivers should be banned. Period.
> I stated that the argument sounds *simliar;* i.e., the rights of the
> responsible are revoked due to the actions of the irresponsible, when we
are
> looking at "private gun owners" as a group, just as we are looking at
"women
> drivers" as a group. The anti-gun lobby isn't advocating COMPLETE
elimination
> of guns because they are obviously needed by the military and trained law
> enforcement officials. However, many anti-gun advocates would like to see
the
> PRIVATE privilege of gun ownership restricted, due to their irresponsible
use
> by private citizens.
I understood your comment completely. Some are merely nit picking in order
to cause confusion.
> Mr. Knight's agenda is one of class-targeted hatred. It is a mirror of
> "Jesse562" 's, who says that we ought to have surveillance cameras
monitoring
> every male since statistically, males are more likely to commit violent
crime.
I agree, they are mirror images of each other.
> The suggestion that women shouldn't be allowed to drive is ludicrous in
light
> of all the practical benefits another poster pointed out (i.e. running
errands,
> taking the kids to school, etc.) His concern isn't over irresponsible
> driving or rational voting; the real agenda is one of completely removing
all
> means of autonomy from women.
Absolutely correct. That IS his agenda. As well as being the agenda of
those who support him in his belief system.
Lan
> Women drivers are thus responsible for $121.5 billion of the $150
> billion annual economic loss and 36,450 of the 45,000 lives lost each
> year to auto accidents.
Shut the fuck up you idiot. Some women are wonderful people and
understand how much I hate evil sexist females. I'm it in for them too.
Don't waste anyones time with this bullshit. Even if it is true (Which
I can't be bothered to work out), you are questioning the rights of
people who deserve those rights.
Its not like women are gonna loose those rights, cos at the moment only
males are loosing rights and females are gaining them, so I'm not
worried about that, its just a female friend who reads this group was a
bit annoyed and I wanted to say something reassuring ;o)
--
Kill all feminists, make them feel the pain they are responsible for creating
so that it destroys them. Stop at nothing to make every single fucking evil
sexist female feel every thing they did do, plus everything they could have
done, and added to that everything they even ever wanted to do. DESTROY THEM
ICQ: 26027485
Angilion
Because insurance companies can get away with it.
--
Modesty is my only imperfection.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <20000902150140...@ng-fv1.aol.com>,
feri...@aol.comix (Feritas1) wrote:
*LOLOLOLOLOLOL***** Just the kind of man "Society" would support! (see
thread titled Re:Fem Whine) What a nitwit! <g>
Deborah Terreson!
Goddess
"Angilion" <angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com> wrote in message
news:39b167c...@news.enterprise.net...
> On 01 Sep 2000 06:45:53 GMT, ohsoj...@aol.comedy (OhSojourner) wrote:
>
> >My driving record is perfect. I've driven across the country solo, in
fact.
> >
> >Meanwhile, ask the insurance companies why male drivers are charged a
higher
> >premium...
>
> Because insurance companies can get away with it.
Exactly! And it is about high time that people started refusing to take it
anymore.
Goddess
"Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:u0hs5.55479$NH2.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
You got it! But don't let Michael know about it. After all, HE thinks that
"Society" is one of the good guys. :-)
> Deborah Terreson!
ja...@mindspring.com
ohsoj...@aol.comedy (OhSojourner) wrote:
> I stated that the argument sounds *simliar;* i.e., the rights of the
> responsible are revoked due to the actions of the irresponsible, when we are
> looking at "private gun owners" as a group, just as we are looking at "women
> drivers" as a group. The anti-gun lobby isn't advocating COMPLETE elimination
> of guns because they are obviously needed by the military and trained law
> enforcement officials. However, many anti-gun advocates would like to see the
> PRIVATE privilege of gun ownership restricted, due to their irresponsible use
> by private citizens.
That way lies tyranny and madness I believe.
By they way you need to know two things:
1. The Anti-Gun Organizations have said that their goal 'IS' total
CONFISCATION. Even the famous Sarah Brady herself said so. And the Brady
Law doesn't do a thing about gun crimes.
2. More women than ever are buying guns in record numbers. Are you
planning it on making it harder for women to get guns that they just might
need?
Just something to think about.
Jaxi
OhSojourner
Not at all, and that isn't my stance on the gun issue. I was making an
analogy to the suggestion that women as a group shouldn't have driving
privileges at all.
kav...@my-deja.com
No, he's not saying that certain drivers should banned (bad ones), he's
saying that all people as a class, (women) should be banned.
He cares not about quality of the driver, only the gender class they
belong to.
Go take Logic 101 at your local community college.
>
>
--
K.
....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
kav...@my-deja.com
Geez, I guess you can by anything on the internet now. PhD, hmmm, they
really should be more careful out there.
Samuel Waters
*The* question: Do I have a right to protect myself?
Angilion
Men who drive need insurance. So what do they do?
Goddess
Either stop driving. (Fat chance, eh?) :-)
OR, start making a big stink about the inequity in the insurance rates.
Look around and find an insurance company that *doesn't* charge males more
than females. Start one's own insurance company that offers equal insurance
rates for both.
Angilion
>"Fathers Manifesto" <fathersm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Women drivers are thus responsible for $121.5 billion of the $150
>> billion annual economic loss and 36,450 of the 45,000 lives lost each
>> year to auto accidents.
>
>Shut the fuck up you idiot. Some women are wonderful people and
>understand how much I hate evil sexist females. I'm it in for them too.
>Don't waste anyones time with this bullshit. Even if it is true (Which
>I can't be bothered to work out), you are questioning the rights of
>people who deserve those rights.
I'm surprised to see that from Lan.
[..]
Kavking
Hmmm. Me too.
Thanks Lan.
K
.........we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of
smart..............
(remove Q's, before replying)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not even sure about the universe."
--Albert Einstein
Goddess
So am I. But then, perhaps he has a girlfriend and doesn't want to piss her
off. :-)
Jen Larson
Kavking wrote:
> >angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion)
> >On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 22:06:52 +0000, Lan <as...@zxcv.net> wrote:
> >>"Fathers Manifesto" <fathersm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Women drivers are thus responsible for $121.5 billion of the $150
> >>> billion annual economic loss and 36,450 of the 45,000 lives lost each
> >>> year to auto accidents.
> >>Shut the fuck up you idiot. Some women are wonderful people and
> >>understand how much I hate evil sexist females. I'm it in for them too.
> >>Don't waste anyones time with this bullshit. Even if it is true (Which
> >>I can't be bothered to work out), you are questioning the rights of
> >>people who deserve those rights.
> >I'm surprised to see that from Lan.
> Hmmm. Me too.
> Thanks Lan.
Hmmm, not me. I had lan pegged right off as a beautiful and kind
young man who needs to ventilate :)
Angilion
Perhaps what I've been told is true - Lan is a coherent and reasonable
person whose ng posts are a manifestation of anger which he doesn't
express elsewhere and are therefore completely unrepresentative of
what he is really like.
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else.