Discussion
This thread is bound to ruffle a few feathers, but that's not my intention. I hope we can have a civilised discussion, and perhaps even use those things called "facts" and "figures" that I hear people talking about occasionally
My g/f is learning to drive, and I take great pleasure in a little good natured sexism when out driving with her (I never used to be sexist until I found out it annoyed her!). However, things have gotten to the point now where I might have to back up my glib remarks with some data. I recall reading here before (it may have been Derek that mentioned it?) that although women do have lower accident rates than men, it's because they drive less. Mile for mile, women's accident rates are actually higher. Is there a source for this?
Companies like Shielas Wheels, who only insure women drivers - if women really were worse drivers, wouldn't a company like that quickly go bust? How do they operate?
SGirl said:
So you're driving with an inexperienced driver and think all women drive like that? 
Of course not, and I realise the whole "women driver" thing is an exageration and joke that many people take too far. I was just wondering if there is any actual data from insurers that either put the rumour to rest or validate it. Also, even if it is validated, there are many reasons why it can be true, other than driving ability. It's not a black and white issue, and I'm hoping for some real data and discussion on the subject.
erdnase said:
I recall reading here before (it may have been Derek that mentioned it?) that although women do have lower accident rates than men, it's because they drive less. Mile for mile, women's accident rates are actually higher. Is there a source for this?
Firstly let me say that I don't want my research to be used to attack women drivers. When I was in charge of my force's driving school two out of the four most naturally gifted drivers were women. The big difference, according to my instructors was that they listened to what they were told and then, remarkably, followed instructions.However, for an article for the TVR Car Club magazine I decided to check on the suggestion, in one advert, that women were safer drivers and had less accidents. My daughter worked for an insurance company at the time and the chap in charge of the stats provided me with an overview.
Firstly, at all ages up to 65, women have more accidents than men per mile driven. This was then a constant over a number of years. As men get older the difference increases. The safest person on the road in the sense of the least likely to have accidents, are men between the ages of 35 and 55. The accident rate was less than half that of women.
Further, men are much more likely to drink and drive, speed and drive carelessly/dangerously. So even while pissed and going too fast, with their eyes shut and with a grudge, men have less accidents per mile than women.
However, and it is a big one: women drive mainly in town and in areas of high congestion. There is considerably more chance of having an accident down School Lane at 0855 at 10 mph than on a motorway. Further, at 30mph they drive fewer miles for the same length of time on the road.
The reason men have higher premiums is that they drive on roads with higher speed limits so if there is an accident then the claim is likely to be considerably more costly than a wing mirror being knocked off.
The only comparative research I'm aware of - pointed out by a PHer - was one in Germany where it was suggested that women have five times as many accidents as men. This may or may not be applicable in this country.
I found a bit of research by an undergrad which suggested that women were much more alert in cars than men. (The undergrad was a woman. Bet you guessed that.) When I looked at her method, the way she decided a driver's alertness was to look to where their hands were on the steering wheel. The nearer to ten to two the more alert they were thought to be. I will do research on logic in women next.
What my research tended to suggest was that there is little difference between male and female drivers as regards safety, and what there was tended to support men.
But what was very clear was that a male driver between 35 and 55 is a real class act. That's for sure.
When men get to the age of 65 they drive like old women. That said, the accident rate per mile of people over the age of 65 was still around half that of drivers under the age of 25.
But I'd appreciate it if you didn't use my reasearch to beat up on your girlfriend.
So the research supports the idea that women have a lot of small accidents. While men have a few big ones that cost more.
However where's the data on how many accidents go unreported by each sex? Are men between 33 and 55 more likely to have disposable income, and more likely to have experienced exorbitant increases in premiums when making a claim in their 20s. So they just repair the car "off the record"? Which would explain why they are such a low risk.
However where's the data on how many accidents go unreported by each sex? Are men between 33 and 55 more likely to have disposable income, and more likely to have experienced exorbitant increases in premiums when making a claim in their 20s. So they just repair the car "off the record"? Which would explain why they are such a low risk.
Derek Smith said:
erdnase said:
I recall reading here before (it may have been Derek that mentioned it?) that although women do have lower accident rates than men, it's because they drive less. Mile for mile, women's accident rates are actually higher. Is there a source for this?
Firstly let me say that I don't want my research to be used to attack women drivers. When I was in charge of my force's driving school two out of the four most naturally gifted drivers were women. The big difference, according to my instructors was that they listened to what they were told and then, remarkably, followed instructions.The instructors said that they would rather teach women to ride over men anyday, simply because they did exactly what they were told without question, whereas men would do 'roughly' what they were told to whilst secretly thinking they know better...
TuxRacer said:
I would think those with less disposable income could be more likely to do try and keep it off the books. And it's probably pretty hard to keep those larger smashes men have off the books. As they're unaccounted for though I guess we can only ever speculate.
I think what I'm saying is only the big crashes get through. Men fix/ignore the little stuff. Women might be more likely to claim for anything.Derek Smith said:
But I'd appreciate it if you didn't use my reasearch to beat up on your girlfriend.
Aww c'mon, where's the fun in that? Seriously though, great post, and just the sort of information I was looking for. It's not a clear cut issue, and there's many more factors than just the sex of the driver involved. From personal experience, I can say that the few times I've been genuinelly scared as a passenger in a car have all been with male drivers.
Munter said:
TuxRacer said:
I would think those with less disposable income could be more likely to do try and keep it off the books. And it's probably pretty hard to keep those larger smashes men have off the books. As they're unaccounted for though I guess we can only ever speculate.
I think what I'm saying is only the big crashes get through. Men fix/ignore the little stuff. Women might be more likely to claim for anything.The same article also mentioned that a lot of small accidents incurred(?) by women weren't recorded, as the women often got them fixed without claiming, before the husband noticed.
No idea of the truth of either statement, just something I remember being posted before (possibly in connection to the '5 times more likely' statement mentioned above).
Loving the 'alertness' research above!
In the years that I spent observing/assessing for my local IAM group, I found that there was a very noticeable difference between the men that I had as associates and the women.
In the case of the men, I found that they were either very poor, pretty average, and in a small number of cases, very good. i.e. the majority of them were in the bottom two categories.
In the case of the women, I found that they were either exceptionally poor or exceptionally good, in roughly equal measure with only a few cases that fell somewhere between.
Now, make of that purely unscientific and personal observation what you will, but my conclusion was that men are pretty average/poor with some exceptions - nothing new there. Women drivers? ... When they are good, they are very, very good but when they are bad they are awful.
In the case of the men, I found that they were either very poor, pretty average, and in a small number of cases, very good. i.e. the majority of them were in the bottom two categories.
In the case of the women, I found that they were either exceptionally poor or exceptionally good, in roughly equal measure with only a few cases that fell somewhere between.
Now, make of that purely unscientific and personal observation what you will, but my conclusion was that men are pretty average/poor with some exceptions - nothing new there. Women drivers? ... When they are good, they are very, very good but when they are bad they are awful.
erdnase said:
I recall reading here before (it may have been Derek that mentioned it?) that although women do have lower accident rates than men, it's because they drive less. Mile for mile, women's accident rates are actually higher. Is there a source for this?
Simply park outside a school during a school day - you will witness standards of driving which must be seen to be believed.Or go sit in a Tesco car park for a few hours.
Fubles said:
derek, were those numbers broad over views or did they do it "per head"?
IE is there a significant difference in the number of women drivers compared to men?
These were statistics recorded over years and they were clasified under age, sex, address, car type (very broad) and one or two other details. They were used to approximate risk.IE is there a significant difference in the number of women drivers compared to men?
Also they were, the chap said, 'out of date' (durrent ones were very valuable) but the newest he could let me (my daughter) see. There were trends in accident rates, one of which was an increase in the accident rate of young women. Another was a drop in the rate of accidents for women between the ages of 35 and 55. There was also a suggestion that the age ranges of best risk varied between men and women but he would not tell me what these were.
Interesting that the willingness to listen and to do what they are told goes for other instructors. I wondered if it was deference to authority in the police. (So what is so different when they get married?)
My wife commented that I drove slower with less overtakes when I had kids in the car. I did this unconsciously but I sort of kept an eye on me (stupid way to put it but you know what I mean). I reckoned it was because they were distracing as I drove slower if there was someone who talked all the time, not a character deficit my wife suffers from. But I do wonder if the number of accidents has something to do with kids screaming and such.
The highest scoring person, a woman, we had on the initial advanced course went into surveillance. She wrote off three cars within about 6 months. The feeling was that we were wrong in our assessment of her abilities. She was a graduate of a system I was obliged to install whereby students were trained to a standard and not to the best we could in a given time. Some traffic hierachy didn't like this and didn't therefore like me.
When this kid - she was a real character. Intelligent, humerous and a bit of a looker - came through early on it looked like an endorsement for 'my' changes. So when she kept totalling cars it was all guns towards Derek time. I had to wrote a full report on her, including an assessment of her driving ability and whether she should keep her high 3. I did some enquiries.
Firstly, in two of the accidents she'd been driven into, and at some speed, by the cars she had been following, one putting her into hospital. The third accident the driver of a rigid lorry (a real thickie according to the polacc report) had his attention taken from the road by the sound of the two tones. So that's why he didn't see the car. Each time the conclusion had been that she was not at fault. Further, her boss said that if the job looked particularly difficult or needed the best driver on the unit, he and all his staff picked her because they could recognise how good she was.
By the way, they used a system whereby the front seat passenger's job was to call the follow off if it got too dangerous. Good system I reckoned.
So my instructors, different to the ones who taught her, said that they would up her grade since her course, I said none of the accidents were her fault, although, as with all accidents, some of the blame must attach to her, but not much.
But there was no doubt in my mind that the action against her was because she was a woman. And not only that a young woman, an attractive one, one with a bit of sense, a good sense of humour and who styled her hair as a punk. If she'd been a bloke and the accidents were not her fault, they'd have asked her to buy drinks for those in the car each time and called her (him) a character.
Derek Smith said:
Interesting that the willingness to listen and to do what they are told goes for other instructors. I wondered if it was deference to authority in the police.
It's the same reason why girls do better at school than boys - (most) girls have a built-in tendancy to want to please.Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff