So why do people continue to believe women drivers are worse

File: 1499707862175.jpg (82KB, 750x486px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 750x486px

>>133220548
Bitter virgins

File: 1493707112393.jpg (369KB, 3204x1546px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 3204x1546px

all women are terrible drivers

a lot of young men like to have fun in cars

The second causes more fatalities

the first just fucks your paint work up and pisses you off.

One is riskier.. one is being female..get it retard?

>>133220710
But risky driving translates to bad driving.

Dr Sivak and his colleague Brandon Schoettle studied data from a nationally representative sample of police-reported crashes in the U.S. from 1988 to 2007.

They had expected to find that accidents involving two male drivers would make up 36.2 per cent of all crashes, while female/female accidents would account for 15.8 per cent and male/female 48 per cent.

Instead, they discovered that accidents involving two women drivers were 20.5 per cent, while male/male crashes were 31.9 per cent.

Accidents involving male and female drivers stood at 47.6 per cent, as expected.

ADDITIONALLY

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124430.htm

"Men consistently outperform women on spatial tasks, including mental rotation, which is the ability to identify how a 3-D object would appear if rotated in space. Now, a University of Iowa study shows a connection between this sex-linked ability and the structure of the parietal lobe, the brain region that controls this type of skill."

aka

Chicks are shit at driving.

File: 1427682766402.jpg (3KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 250x250px

>>133220548
now do one of distance driven by gender

>>133220548
There are more deaths among males car crash, though females are more implied in random crash with only broken materials

>>133220779
it translates to exceeding limitations of your hardware. if you're tyres or the road surface can't handle whatever the fuck you're doing.. for example.. that's not bad driving.. that's overestimating ability v's risk / reward. If the males and females were within the same constraints.. as in, if the females also had the peer pressure males do in cars, they would be fucking.. far worse

>>133220548
Data is also fucked considering most jobs involving driving at almost exclusively male dominated.

File: 74VJxEz.png (23KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 1280x720px

>>133220548
There's nothing worst in statistics than just counting deaths, especially with car accidents where you have lots of minor accidents and even lots of disabilities as result of a crash.

>>133220548
Even women know women are terrible drivers.

>>133220548
Men tend to drive more agresive and fast, hence the accidents

File: 16803558.jpg (11KB, 400x224px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x224px

>>133220548
You cannot be the one who crashes the car if you are always asking a man to drive you everywhere.

>>133220548
>Women are better drivers than men
That explains why they dominate the list of winners at Monaco, Indianapolis and Daytona.

>>133220928
this

Because men drive more than women

>>133221245
This, I'm sure a lot more males drive than women. Personally I've met some women that have never driven, but I don't know of any guy that hasn't driven a car and is over 17

>>133221519
Affirmative action by requiring half women racers in Formula One and NASCAR would yield similar results to opening the WTA or LPGA to men.

>>133221519
lol

it must be the internalised misogyny.

>>133220928
not only that but how many women to men are driving.

>>133221107
besides, that also accounts for passengers, and doesn't even say who was driving and who caused the incident
what a fucking joke

>>133221625
It's like saying that that 70-year-olds are better skaters than 20-year-olds because the former have fewer accidents on the ice.

>>133220548
This study is much more like the ((wage gap)). Men drive more professionally, heavier, more dangerous loads and for longer hours.

Women mostly drive in ideal conditions, will not go out in snow, ice storms or overall bad weather conditions, cause honestly they don't really have to. When they do, they ask a man to drive for them or pick them up.

I'm sure if they accounted for all of this, the tables would either even out or show a slight male advantage. But that would be misogyny to even try to show men are good at something.

>>133220548
Because men think they can do more than they can. And women can do less than they think they can.

Women should be in the kitchen

File: 1490171679353.jpg (74KB, 526x567px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 526x567px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWZHfXP41TM

Sorry about the music, still worth a rage.

>>133220548
Men take more risks.
How fast were those women driving compared to men?

Women suck at 3d.
Thats why they are not good at parking or almost no women architects.
Nothing new.

File: 1489908037535.gif (808KB, 225x249px) Image search: [Google]

808KB, 225x249px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf4TIWECZ30

>>133220928
oy vey shut it down

>>133220548

That chart looks pretty bad for women. Consider for a moment the gender parity in professional driver work (truck drivers, taxi drivers, etc).

If it was on a per km driven basis what would the graph look like? I have a feeling it would put women in first place.

That aside, I assume men make up the larger contingent of high speed crashes, whereas women pull their weight in low speed fender benders. The former is about risk taking, the second more to do with hand eye co-ordination and fine motor skills/spacial awareness.

Classic /pol/, you love hard data right up until it stops validating your worldview.

>stats show blacks are more violent/have lower IQs
Fucking liberals can't accept the facts, lol, I bet they have some line about how IQ is fake and the stats are bullshit
>stats show women are better drivers than men
HERE'S WHY THOSE STATS ARE FAKE AND BULLSHIT

>>133220548
More men drive than women, also men spend more hours on the road than women do.
I worked in traffic control for a few years while I was studying and I can tell you that every major fuck up or near miss I saw was an Asian or a woman; they can't drive, don't pay attention and can't park.

>>133220548
Your graph is bullshit because men tend to drive much more than women in the first place. Show a graph of vehicle crashes per per person per mile.

>>133223507

I wonder how much cheaper car insurance would be if women weren't allowed to drive? Only country that doesn't allow it is Saudi Arabia, but they don't seem much of a like for likeness (they fuck up driving as much as they fuck up everything else).

>>133223418
Except people aren't just flailing their arms and dismissing it as fake stats. They're giving reasons why that statistic is misleading; because it's not taking into account the disparity in amount of driving done by men and women.

Men tend to work more, and thus commute to work more.
Men tend to have longer commutes to work.
Do you know what the number one profession for men is? It's driving trucks thousands of miles cross-country.
And you don't think any of this should be taken into account?

>>133221046
we're not paying you men to crash our trucks

>>133220548
I do statistics for state funded projects in driving research, I can tell you that men are involved in more fatal crashes but women are involved in more non-fatal crashes. Men also drive almost twice as many miles as women, particularly highway miles. Your graph means nothing since it doesn't account for exposure.

>>133223963
Liberals who dismiss the racial IQ disparity give reasons why they think those stats are misleading too. It just so happens their reasons are mostly bullshit. Ditto for this. See, I happen to know for a fact that all y'all are just speculating, not one person here actually looked up the stats on crashes / miles driven, they just grabbed onto that and decided that HAD to be the explanation because the alternative ran contrary to their worldview.

How do I know nobody actually looked it up? Because I just looked it up. Didn't have to look hard, either. There's a breakdown on literally the same fucking page that the graph in the OP comes from. Men are involved in more crashes / miles driven, full stop (data for 2008 - I can't wait to hear all the reasons that year was CLEARLY an anomaly ...)

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/gender
>The number of driver fatal crash involvements per 100 million miles driven in 2008 was 50 percent higher for males (2.1 per 100 million miles traveled) than for females (1.4 per 100 million miles traveled)

And just to be clear, I don't give a shit about this - I'm a man and I'm a safe driver, I'm not bothered by the fact that my demographic is statistically more irresponsible in this one specific way.

I am bothered by how willing y'all are to
>flail their arms and dismiss things as fake stats
especially given what board we're on. You KNOW many of the people in this thread would have an absolute field day if they found a reddit thread or whatever with liberals grasping for reasons that whatever graph they found on /pol/ about racial crime stats was bullshit. Bad driving doesn't bother me, intellectual dishonesty does.

>>133224788
>Men are involved in more crashes / miles driven, full stop

>Graph shows only fatal crashes
>Proposition is that women are involved in more non-fatal, low speed crashes

You went out of your way to find the graph but didn't even read the title?

>>133225324
Literally what's your fucking point? Obviously I'm aware that graph is for fatal crashes. SO IS THE GRAPH IN THE OP, the graph that everybody was so quick to call bullshit on. You know. The graph we're talking about.

I have no problem believing that women are involved in more nonfatal crashes (in fact, a quick search suggests that is in fact the case), and I have no issue with anyone (>>133224427 like this guy) who pointed that out. I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to the people who immediately decided something was wrong with the OP's graph because, well, because they didn't like it.

Or in your case:
>>133223369
I have no quibble with your last paragraph, it's the first two that I'm sperging out about.

>>133226082
I read your post 3 times to try and figure out what exactly the fuck youre saying. I came to the conclusion that you're a fucking idiot and did not understand that guys post. Holy shit how do you not comprehend exposure percentage comparison? Do you vote? Ffs

File: average-miles-per-driver-usa.jpg (17KB, 395x176px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 395x176px

This graph doesn't account for the fact that men drive 60% more hours than women

>>133224788
your logic doesn't make any sense. You're saying that stats are never misleading and whatever is put out doesn't require any ounce of critical thinking or anything of the sort. IQ is legit precisely because it actually stands up even when people try to find reasons why the disparities don't exist. But on the other hand, you have statistics like "women only get paid 77% as much as men!" that are complete bullshit and don't take differences in work done into account. Just as OP's statistic doesn't take amount of driving into account.

If it's such a solid fact, just find some data that shows number of crashes per person per mile. Otherwise it's like comparing GDP of USA vs Switzerland rather than GDP per capita.

>>133226082
>I have no quibble with your last paragraph, it's the first two that I'm sperging out about.

You're sperging because I didn't read the title to that graph either - thought it was about bingles generally.

But, here's the clincher: I'm an Australian, so I don't have to read titles before shitposting. You fucked up, mate.

>>133226630
>If it's such a solid fact, just find some data that shows number of crashes per person per mile.
Did you read past the first fucking paragraph of the post you quoted? That's exactly what I did. Which is also what the first person who said "b-but that graph doesn't account for the fact that men drive more!" should have done, and didn't.

Obviously I'm not saying you should uncritically accept whatever stats people try to feed you, but equally, you can't dismiss those stats with an ad hoc explanation, without bothering to look up the actual data, purely because you don't like them.

(And yes, to be absolutely clear, both the data I linked in my post and the graph in the OP pertain to FATAL car crashes specifically. I'm not talking about anything else at the moment.)

>>133226388
Right back at you. Nothing in my post was hard to understand, none of it was fallacious, and if you're confused, it's because you either failed to read or failed to understand the read of the thread.

>>133226738
It was all worth it to learn the word "bingles." Holy fuck that's amazing.

>>133221214
ur an idiot who does not statistic. without time driven included the stats are meaningless.
say a town has 1 asian driver who never had an accident. stats would say asian are best drivers in the world for traffic study of that town.

>>133227457
That's still only per distance. I said you need PER PERSON PER DISTANCE. There are more men on the road AND each of those men drives a longer average distance.

>>133227585
>Holy fuck that's amazing.

Everything is amazing when you spend your time on reddit.

>>133220548
Flawed comprehension of given data. More men die by crash than women, that's all this chart says. Show me a combined lethal and non-lethal crash statistic by gender and we might talk about the issue.

>>133220548
There is a difference between neglent and incompetent

Place each party where you will

>>133220779
>risky driving translates to bad driving
By that definition professional stunt drivers are bad drivers, when actually they're the most skilled drivers in the world.

>>133226477
Souse?