I know it’s the pit, and things aren’t supposed to make any sense here, but this argument seems to be even more nonsensical than most. If you’ll look here, you’ll notice that the the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled has dropped every year on the chart. I didn’t look for a chart with more years, but the rate has dropped every year since they started keeping that statistic, even with raised speed limits, road rage, etc. I know some of you will try and say drivers are horrible, cars are death traps, nobody should ever die except in their beds when they’re ninety, etc., but you can’t prove to me that any alternative would be better.
Also, if you don’t have any jobs lined up for the millions of people this would put out of work, then shut up.
That’s not the conclusion I came up with.
At any rate, I don’t often drive much at all and usually prefer not to in distances beyond the local area. However, I have the choice to drive and I intend to keep it. I don’t mind public transport, but that doesn’t mean that I’d be willing to give up driving entirely.
If you think cars give you freedom, go right ahead. But please keep in mind that there are many people who think of car-based cities as binding, not liberating. I hate driving long distances and would much rather spend the time sleeping or reading on a train. My mother is a bad driver and knows it, so she does’t drive - which is a perfectly workable option where she lives (suburb of Tokyo). In most US cities that’s not an option. Do you want to force someone like that to drive, or is it better for everyone if they didn’t have to?
Where I live, it’s not an option. Even if it were, my job doesn’t allow it as an option. Not too big a deal to me. I just think forcing either way is not a good idea.
You actually quoted the explanation. “men… drove many more miles than women, thus had a greater opportunity of being in a crash”. I’m not realy sure how to rephrase that to make it clearer. It’s not really a mathematical problem, more commmon sense.
Let me try it like this. Imagine that there is a 1% chance of having an accident for every 1000 miles driven. Also imagine that one in every 100 crashes is fatal. Add to that a suposition that the average man drives 10, 000 miles in any given year, and the average woman drives 1000 miles. Now take a sample of 1, 000 men and 1, 000 women.
1000 men driving an average 10, 000 miles a year = 10, 000,000 miles driven.
10, 000, 000 miles driven x 1% chance of an accident/ 1000 miles = 10, 000% chance of an accident. IOW our men will have 100 accidents each year.
100 accidents X 1% chance of fatality/accident = 100% chance of a fatal accident accident this year.
IOW one of our group of men will, statistically be involved in a fatal accident this year.
1000 women driving an average 1, 000 miles a year = 1, 000,000 miles driven.
1, 000, 000 miles driven x 1% chance of an accident/ 1000 miles = 1, 000% chance of an accident. IOW our women will have 10 accidents this year.
10 accidents X 1% chance of fatality/accident = 10% chance of a fatal accident accident this year.
IOW statistically our group of women will only be involved in one fatal accident in the next decade.
Note that nothing at all has changed aside from the miles driven. We are simply compounding probabilities. The more hours you spend on the road the more likely you are to be involved in a crash. The more crashes you are involved in the more likely you are to be involved in a fatal crash. It’s that simple. Even ifyou are a perfcet driver you will have more fatal accidents if you drive more miles simply because your chances of encountering a drunk or a lunatic increase every minute that you drive.
My understanding is that they were explaning two different phenomenon. Men crash a bit more than women, and men have a markedly higher fatality rate than women. This has always been true, and continues to be.
But the researchers looked a little closer at the data, and broke it down by crashes per mile driven. When they did this, they found out that women crash more than men, which is totally contrary to not only accepted wisdom, but also their aggregate numbers I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
So what gives?
It turns out that men drive almost double the number of miles than women, (100 vs 57), and this accounts for how men get in more accidents overall despite getting in fewer accidents per mile.
But that still doesn’t completely explain the higher fatality rate of men. (It apparently only explains half the difference.) To explain the rest, they talk about crashes involving men being more severe.
Does that help?
(Bolding mine.)
At this point my brain shut down. Interesting dichotomy in our simulposts. I went with the Stephen Hawking approach.
He was told by his editor that every equation he put in his book would cut his potential readership in half. His response was to put in E=mc[sup]2[/sup] and just accept that half the people who might have read his book would take a pass.
Are you reading the same thread I am?
This is a thread entitled “Alright, that’s it- fuck cars, and the stupidity of the human race for using them.” The OP wanted everyone to be forced to use government run public transportation after abolishing all cars except those used for special government purposes.
This is what kicked off the thread:
This thread isn’t about forcing people to drive, and those of us who love it and will not ever give up our cars are not trying to force you or your mother to drive cars. I can’t speak for others, but I know for a fact that I wasn’t suggesting we eliminate public transportation and shove everyone into their own private car, just expressing my displeasure with the idea of being forced to take public transportation myself as the OP’s perfect America would entail.
How can we not keep in mind that there are people who think of car-based cities as binding? That was the point of the fucking thread’s creation. What you’re seeing from car lovers is a reaction to the asinine idea that our personal choice be completely overruled by the OP’s wet dream for America. We’re not trying to take away your buses and trains. Just leave our cars the fuck alone.
Well, keep in mind, catsix that it’s andrewdt85.
Consider the source. 
What, I can’t have my own position? I have to be either 100% with the OP, or 100% against?
Fuck your comment, Guin. This thread was intelligent and on a very important topic.
Yup. This thread was obviously intelligent, lucid, and sensical, right up until that little barb from Guin.
For shame, Guin. How do you sleep at night?
May I suggest a move to Mackinaw Island?
Just a thought.
She doesn’t. She stays up late reading this board. And for this, she is punished by having to read andrewt’s threads.
No. In fact, you could describe me as not being 100% against the OP: I favor the expansion of mass transit, especially into areas which don’t have it at all right now.
However, that isn’t what the whole fight is about. The fight is about the OP’s absolutist anti-driving position. To wit: andrewt85 thinks nobody should be allowed to drive, regardless of preference or ability, and everyone should be forced to take mass transit, regardless of how severely that would screw up America as we now know it.
You can’t be less than 100% absolutist; if you try to be, you’re no longer absolutist. Since this whole thread is a fight over an absolutist position, it isn’t about any position you have taken. At all.
I just don’t understand these criticisms about this thread; the OP is sensical, all my following posts are sensical.
Never mind, I won’t try to argue anything, you two are having too much fun flaming someone who doesn’t deserve it. You won’t listen anyways. Fuck you.
You’re not putting that to a vote, are you?
Hey andrew did you ever wonder what sensical means?
Huh. Apparently it’s not a real word.
Anyways, go back and show me where my arguments were non-sensical. I specifically stated that my national bus service in the OP was a ‘dream’- is Martin Luther King’s dream about all the races of the world living together in peace and brotherhood sensible either? No, so why not go shit on that too.
My other arguments are sensical and I make good points. Fuck you for flaming me for no reason.
Gosh, did Martin Luther King say “fuck you” to people? I mean, if we’re going to draw ridiculous comparisons, let’s match the bad along with the good.