Stupid girl 2 foot driving

[spec-u-later]

Nothin crazy. I saw this on the way home had to share my frustration.
http://youtu.be/9CBiaqOQj4w

[Jesda]

I wonder if its a tail light problem? Then again... Pontiac G6 owner... she's probably driving with both feet.

[spec-u-later]

Ha! It's possible but I doubt it

[alms24sebring]

women drivers

[themadscientist]

Male ego.

http://www.slideshare.net/MikeAnderson/ ... statistics

Males are 50% more likely to be in an accident.
Males are 61% more likely to be killed in an accident.

[IBCoupe]

Male ego.

http://www.slideshare.net/MikeAnderson/ ... statistics

Males are 50% more likely to be in an accident.
Males are 61% more likely to be killed in an accident.

That's a function of higher risk tolerance, not lower driver skill.

Statistically-speaking, women are in fewer accidents while moving, while men are in fewer accidents while parking.

[themadscientist]

Assuming you are correct, higher risk tolerance indicates more questionable judgment. Your second assertion is baseless without supporting study. Even if true, again, arguably a preferred condition.

[IBCoupe]

No study; just stuff I've heard on NPR.

Questionable judgment or otherwise, it could also be a function of the statistic-gathering method. Are we sampling drivers or are we sampling accidents? In other words, what is the study asking, and whom?

If it asks male drivers and female drivers to self-report on their accident rates, that's one thing, with its own reliability questions. If it asks insurance companies for the genders involved in accidents, the reliability issue goes out the window, but your sample is very easily skewed. One method would account for the difference in gender ratios on the road, and the other would not. Looking at the slides, those statistics appear to come from a study based around the latter.

If 75% of the cars on the road are driven by men, and 25% by women, what does that do? Imagine that men and women are equally accident-prone, and that 25% of men and women each year will get into an accident.

If there are 100 people on the road, that means roughly 19 men will be in accidents, and 6 women will be in accidents. But what would the insurance companies report? Of 25 accidents this year, 76% were from men, and 24% were from women. Here's where the logical flaw appears: "Thus, men are 52% more likely to be in accidents than women."

Lies, damned lies, and statistics, son.

[themadscientist]

"questionable judgment or otherwise." So we are arguing that one group is a poorer driver than the other based upon misogynistic "common knowledge" and in the same breath dismiss the known penchant of the accusatory group for riskier behavior? Wow.

I love that quote, but I have always found it misleading. Your preceding statements illustrate the true problem with statistical data, the analysis of the numbers.

If I take a hypothetical small town and tabulate accidents for year 1 with 100 and then for year two find it to be 200 I can make a statement of fact from this.

"accidents increased 100% from last year."

This statement has no opinion, but standing alone it could be portrayed as a very significant negative. If however it was placed into context of previously undisclosed additional facts it could be portrayed differently. Say the town had a population of 1000 licensed drivers for year 1, but had swelled to 4000 by year 2.

The same factual statistical data could be stated this way.

"accidents per licensed drivers decreased by 50% from last year."

This statement is as correct as the first, but has a positive spin to it.

The only lies are lies and damned lies. Statistics don't lie, but they can be misunderstood.

[Dattebayo]

Semantics.

Someone kill this thread with facts soon please.

[themadscientist]

Detest for fully understanding meaning is the mark of one who values ambiguity.

[Jesda]

[Jesda]

[IBCoupe]

I don't see how any of what you said supports the statistics you put forward or dismantles my criticism of them. It seems to be a very wordy attempt at deflection.

The statement that men are 50% more likely to be in accidents than women is not supported by the slides you presented. The slides you presented support the assertion that accidents are 50% more likely to involve men than women.

Similarly, the assertion that men are 61% more likely die in accidents is unsupported. The more proper assertion is that "the fatalities in fatal car accidents are 61% more likely to be men."

My point, which it appears I distracted you from by posting a colloquialism, is that the numbers you presented follow the incidents, not the individuals.

[Jesda]

You people are ignoring the elephant in the room.


HOW MANY OF THEM WERE ASIAN?

[themadscientist]

hehe, "the fatalities in fatal car accidents are 61% more likely to be men." begs the question, who was driving when they died doesn't it? The statistics of men who were being henpecked on a long trip would be contributory too. It would demonstrate intent and remove the moniker "accident" from the collision.

[IBCoupe]

My wife wants a BMW. But not until she gets all her "learning" done on the Corolla.

[IBCoupe]

hehe, "the fatalities in fatal car accidents are 61% more likely to be men." begs the question, who was driving when they died doesn't it? The statistics of men who were being henpecked on a long trip would be contributory too. It would demonstrate intent and remove the moniker "accident" from the collision.

Haha, a fair point.



"Hey, why can't we say 'accident,' again?"
"Because 'accident' implies there's nobody to blame."

[themadscientist]

I love my wife to death, but she is a terrible driver. She wants a mini, but I will likely get her something more substantial to "learn" on.

[IBCoupe]

My wife is improving. She drove only briefly when she lived in China, and she's quickly becoming... average.

[Jesda]

Bigger in men, for better spatial reasoning and cognition.



Bigger in women, for wiser and safer decisions.





What this means is that the ideal driver is a hermaphrodite.

[themadscientist]

Bigger in men, for better spatial reasoning and cognition.

to realize those bewbs are bigger and determine how to get to touch them.

Bigger in women, for wiser and safer decisions.

That their men will be expected to comply with.

[Mr1der]

left foot braking isn't easy.

Few pros even do it.

[numbnuts240]

my old man, as well as my grandfather left foot brake. my left foot has been conditioned to work a clutch pedal, so left foot braking with finesse is not in my repertoire.

[AZhitman]

Hilarious.

Hey, spec... you should go share this video on a really bigass Nissan forum... wait. Never mind.

Good stuff. The narrative rocks.

[spec-u-later]

Thanks AZ. I didn't realize I was over enunciating while I was speaking. I was just trying to ble clear because my car is really loud on the inside. I'm surprised it the mic picked up my voice so well and not the background noise. Hazzaahh for the Droid X.

I take it you read the comments. Lol

[PEZi]

Well this thread is full of win.............

For what it's worth... I'm a 2 foot driver. I left foot brake when staying in the same gear or neutral, and rev match downshift all other times. Keeps me from going "Wait, WTF am I doing?" when I get to the track.

[AZhitman]

Thanks AZ. I didn't realize I was over enunciating while I was speaking. I was just trying to ble clear because my car is really loud on the inside. I'm surprised it the mic picked up my voice so well and not the background noise. Hazzaahh for the Droid X.

That was funnier than s***.

"...it gets 38 mpg, so suck it."

(and yeah, I lol'ed at the pathetic spammer)

[Razi]

It's amazing how long she drove like that.

(and yeah, I lol'ed at the pathetic spammer)

I lol'd as well.
Then flagged it as spam.

[BusyBadger]

Hey, spec... you should go share this video on a really bigass Nissan forum... wait. Never mind.

I see what you did there.

Next one's on me...