SafeSpeed wrote:
Not so quick, Basingwerk. If those offences were related to crash risk then we'd have 32 times more men crash involved (or causing or casualties or whatever) than women. We don't, so maybe we should be asking the women to take lessons in "getting away with it" from the men?
Slow down, SafeSpeed! The studies I have seen (admittedly rather old American and Australian ones) consistently indicate that women drivers are much less likely than men to have a crash, but when corrected for miles travelled there is not a great deal of difference. So JT has a point - one way of making the roads safer (which is our goal here) is to drive less.
But when we consider fatal crashes, males are more (1.5 to 2 times more) likely than women to get themselves or someone else killed (although there is a period of parity for elderly drivers). You’ll have to explain why you extrapolate linearly to expect 32 times as many crashes (?), but the massive disparity in driving offences eventually plays out in the fatality numbers, even when corrected for distance. I was surprised to see that the Australian report has some strange quirks e.g. more women involved in SI crashes, but the numbers are not as compelling as the fatals. The US report shows a clear trend.
As for the children, we need to tackle that by helping the boys and their parents, and also by nicely asking drivers to reduce the overall risk for all sexes. If drivers can’t do that, then parents will be entitled to demand a traffic system with cameras, humps, mini-roundabouts, obstacles etc. to force them to slow down.
Reports:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30 ... eSex96.pdf
http://www.tuti.com.au/PUBLICATIONS/200 ... hRates.pdf