Male errors 'killing women' on road

BlackWizard

Most women killed in road crashes die at the hands of a male driver, road safety chiefs warned today.
In the latest attempt to curb boy racers and drink-drivers, women are being urged to turn the tide of massive road deaths by refusing to get into the car with irresponsible men.
The Road Safety Authority (RSA) is hoping its hard-hitting "He Drives, She Dies" campaign will strip away the motivation of male drivers to act recklessly behind the wheel.
RSA chief executive Noel Brett said the facts show men are the drivers in 80 per cent of fatal road crashes in Ireland.
“At the risk of offending male sensitivities, women need to know that they are being killed through male-dominated driver errors such as speeding and drink-driving,” he said.
Helping kick off the campaign, Rose of Tralee Aoife Kelly, who helps car crash patients with serious injuries in her work as an occupational therapist at the National Rehabilitation Hospital, called on women to seize the initiative.
“Ladies, you need to take a stand and not get into a car with a guy with a need for speed and a blatant disregard for his own and others right to life,” she said. “It’s a simple choice - live or die.”
RSA figures show more than two-thirds (67 per cent) of female passengers killed in the 10 years between 1998 to 2007 were being driven by a male driver.
The "He Drives, She Dies" campaign will include radio ads broadcast on radio stations during the high risk summer months , with the message that most female road deaths in Ireland are caused by male drivers.
“Reckless driving is not impressive and people do not realise the consequences of such crazy behaviour until they attend a funeral of a family member, best friend, or a lost loved one,” said Ms Kelly.

Male errors 'killing women' on road - IrishTimes 16/07/2009

This just comes across as silly. It's true and accurate, but still it's frustrating that they take the statistics and just blurt out a snippet of information from them which favours their new campaign.

I have to also add that most male passengers that die in car accidents are driven by men. "Males errors 'killing both sexes' on road" should be the title.

What the article is hopefully going to get across ( and it should be getting it across to male and female passengers :mad: ) is that the passenger should realise that their lives are in the hands of the driver. The driver should respect that and the passenger should just tell their mate or who ever else is driving to take it easy or slow down.

stealthyspeeder

BlackWizard wrote: »

The driver should respect that and the passenger should just tell their mate or who ever else is driving to take it easy or slow down.

My girlfriend is always wanting me to slow down ......................

Anan1

BlackWizard wrote: »

"Males errors 'killing both sexes' on road" should be the title.

Doesn't quite have the same ring though, does it?;)

robtri

don't particularlly care how they phrase it, as long as the overall message gets through....

B00MSTICK

Damn women distracting us while we're driving!

WillieCocker

"curb boy racers"
LULZ.........:pac:

Boy racers usually have the car full of can weilding scumbags not women.

maidhc

I have often felt like killing women drivers, not by error either!

herya

I guess the campaign might be directed towards girls/young women as to discourage them from egging on irresponsible or drunk lads with cars. Like "don't make your boyfriend try an impress you when he's in no state to drive".

B00MSTICK

LIGHTNING wrote:

I`d guess that the average male spends more time in a care than your average women so thus you would expect above results based on pure statistical probability.

Indeed.

If a family is going on a car journey its generally the husband/father that does the driving. Particularly if its a long drive.

If I was going down to the shops with my mother/sister/girlfriend I'd do the driving even though they are all capable of it. Its not like I'd demand to do it either. Most of them just prefer to be driven.

smash

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

My girlfriend is always wanting me to slow down ......................

That's cos 10 seconds of fast friction isn't enough for her :P

In seriousness though, I hate those radio ads... they really annoy me. It's statistically proven in a previous report that more women cause accidents, but the payouts are always smaller, whereas accidents caused by men are a lot more messy. If I made one saying "Women, don't do your f*cking makup in the car cos you're going to rear end someone" then I'm sure they'd be all out burning their bras about sexist advertising.

Yakult

ok so, who cares about the male drivers, let them go off and kill them selves, but we gotta make sure no wimmins get in the car with men. cos we'll kill them.

^That mite aswell been the article imo.

Blitzkrieger

As usual the headline grabbing advertisers/media are going about things the wrong way, but I applaud the aim of the campaign. If a guy drives like a twat, don't get in the car....

stealthyspeeder

steve06 wrote: »

That's cos 10 seconds of fast friction isn't enough for her :P

10 seconds? she'd be lucky!

Its a stupid ad, giving a scaremongering message that is true due to bais in the base stastics. I'd much prefer an ad informing women that the drivers seat of a car is not a beauty salon where you do your make up and nails!

Da Bounca

I'm pretty sure these women know already that they don't have to get into the car with boy racers/drunks.

Fact of the matter is, women are far worse than men at driving(in general) and I have no doubt that they cause more fatalities than men. Of course, it's the man's car that will do the majority of the damage, probably because he was driving too fast, and sadly that is all the information that will get recorded. The woman changing lanes suddenly or not using her mirrors will be the cause of the crash, but of course that isn't looked into at all. It's the same with the rule of thumb that if you go into the back of someone, it's your fault. Never mind that the person in front jammed on in the middle of an open road. It's bull**** to say that you should still have enough time to break or avoid the collision because you have to check what is behind you and by that stage you've gone into the back anyway, not to mention the fact that it happens all of a sudden, not everyone has the reflexes and quick thinking of a ninja fox. If you don't check and just swerve, then you run the risk of taking someone else out. It's stupid. Do a bit of research into the crash y'know. Find out WHY it happened, don't just put the blame on the person behind.

I see terrible drivers on the road every day. Out of curiosity I take a glance just to see who the moron is that's 'driving' the vehicle. 7 times out of 10 it's a woman. 2 times out of 10 it's a very elderly person. Guess what that leaves? 1 in 10 terrible drivers are men.

Another fact that fails to ever make it into these studies is that a lot of crashes are probably similar to the 'aggrevated assault' issue. A woman driver was probably indecisive and driving in two lanes, or indicating to turn and not turning at all, or doing something else totally retarded. So the fella who's been patient for the last 20 minutes and is now late for work goes crazy and passes her out. *Crash into another car*. His fault, but of course the woman who shouldn't have been on the road at all just drives on oblivious to the riot that she helped cause and will not get called up on anything. Probably mutters to herself, stupid boy racers.
I can't understand how so many women have drivers licenses, it's actually shocking.

To finish.
Boy racers and drunk drivers; bad and worse.
Women who get into the cars with these fools only encourage them. Hell they probably asked for a lift home fully knowing that the boy racer didnt want to go yet, or that the drunk was ****ing drunk. Stubborn and demanding woman crap.

You may think I'm just bashing women here, but I'm sure a lot of fellas here have seen or experienced a lot of what I have said.

NOGMaxpower

Da Bounca wrote: »

I'm pretty sure these women know already that they don't have to get into the car with boy racers/drunks.

Fact of the matter is, women are far worse than men at driving(in general) and I have no doubt that they cause more fatalities than men. Of course, it's the man's car that will do the majority of the damage, probably because he was driving too fast, and sadly that is all the information that will get recorded. The woman changing lanes suddenly or not using her mirrors will be the cause of the crash, but of course that isn't looked into at all. It's the same with the rule of thumb that if you go into the back of someone, it's your fault. Never mind that the person in front jammed on in the middle of an open road. It's bull**** to say that you should still have enough time to break or avoid the collision because you have to check what is behind you and by that stage you've gone into the back anyway, not to mention the fact that it happens all of a sudden, not everyone has the reflexes and quick thinking of a ninja fox. If you don't check and just swerve, then you run the risk of taking someone else out. It's stupid. Do a bit of research into the crash y'know. Find out WHY it happened, don't just put the blame on the person behind.

I see terrible drivers on the road every day. Out of curiosity I take a glance just to see who the moron is that's 'driving' the vehicle. 7 times out of 10 it's a woman. 2 times out of 10 it's a very elderly person. Guess what that leaves? 1 in 10 terrible drivers are men.

Another fact that fails to ever make it into these studies is that a lot of crashes are probably similar to the 'aggrevated assault' issue. A woman driver was probably indecisive and driving in two lanes, or indicating to turn and not turning at all, or doing something else totally retarded. So the fella who's been patient for the last 20 minutes and is now late for work goes crazy and passes her out. *Crash into another car*. His fault, but of course the woman who shouldn't have been on the road at all just drives on oblivious to the riot that she helped cause and will not get called up on anything. Probably mutters to herself, stupid boy racers.
I can't understand how so many women have drivers licenses, it's actually shocking.

To finish.
Boy racers and drunk drivers; bad and worse.
Women who get into the cars with these fools only encourage them. Hell they probably asked for a lift home fully knowing that the boy racer didnt want to go yet, or that the drunk was ****ing drunk. Stubborn and demanding woman crap.

You may think I'm just bashing women here, but I'm sure a lot of fellas here have seen or experienced a lot of what I have said.

You're playing with fire dude, I dont agree with most and well i do agree with some. however the facts speak for themselves. While women cause more accidents on the road these are non fatal - fact. Men drive too fast - fact. Women (not all) have poor observation on the roads - fact (why they cant park or use roundabouts). Bottom line is dude regardless of how one sided this report is its fact men are in more fatal accidents than women. 9/10 times its speed or drink related, women are just more sensible than us men - fact.

But they are far worse drivers than blokes in general... drive on the N2 any time and you'll who does more speeding (surprisingly its women).

BrianD3

Dangerous driving by young males is part of risk taking/alpha male/bad boy behaviour. Women of a certain age are drawn to these lads like flies to sh1t - and no press release from Noel Brett or the Rose of Tralee is going to change that. It's about as much use as pleading with teenagers not to drink and smoke. As an aside, with more and more women/girls smoking and with lung cancer deaths at over 1600 per year now and road deaths under 300, I think road deaths hardly constitute a "massive tide of deaths" for women.

Anan1

Da Bounca wrote: »

It's the same with the rule of thumb that if you go into the back of someone, it's your fault. Never mind that the person in front jammed on in the middle of an open road. It's bull**** to say that you should still have enough time to break or avoid the collision because you have to check what is behind you and by that stage you've gone into the back anyway, not to mention the fact that it happens all of a sudden, not everyone has the reflexes and quick thinking of a ninja fox. If you don't check and just swerve, then you run the risk of taking someone else out. It's stupid. Do a bit of research into the crash y'know. Find out WHY it happened, don't just put the blame on the person behind.

Is this a joke? I was driving to Galway last month, doing 120km/h on a national primary road when the car in front of me hit an oncoming SUV which was turning across our path. I managed to stop before hitting the car. Guess why?

Da Bounca

Because you're amazing?
Because you had plenty of time to see?

That's completely different to the example I gave and makes no sense in comparison... so whatever point you're trying to make, it's not working.






Didn't think you could edit quoted text.

Anan1

Da Bounca wrote: »

Because you're amazing?
Because you had plenty of time to see?

That's completely different to the example I gave and makes no sense in comparison... so whatever point you're trying to make, it's not working.

Because I kept sufficient distance and because I was aware of what was going on in front of, behind, and to the side of my car. It doesn't require any special powers, just a basic knowledge of how to drive. If you don't feel you can safely stop without hitting the car in front then there's a problem with either the distance you keep or your observation skills. Either way, it's something you need to sort out.

metzengerstein

theres plenty of hazardous lady drivers out there also,and more on the uprise
probly more aggressive then the road rage male also,ive come accross a good few in my driving time,you never hear about them though

Da Bounca

If you think that you are always at the right distance behind a car, you are straight out lying. Nobody is perfect.
Besides, I was talking about the 'what if' scenario. What ifs happen a lot to people that aren't as vigilant on the road as you or I Anan.

Congrats on avoiding the collision of the two cars in front of you. I hoped you stopped to help.

Back to topic. Women, stop encouraging young men to drink and drive and pushing the suffering on to men everywhere.

Anan1

Da Bounca wrote: »

If you think that you are always at the right distance behind a car, you are straight out lying. Nobody is perfect.
Besides, I was talking about the 'what if' scenario. What ifs happen a lot to people that aren't as vigilant on the road as you or I Anan..

No you weren't, here's what you said:

Da Bounca wrote: »

It's the same with the rule of thumb that if you go into the back of someone, it's your fault..

Yes, it is.

Da Bounca wrote: »

Never mind that the person in front jammed on in the middle of an open road...

You should be able to stop in time.

Da Bounca wrote: »

It's bull**** to say that you should still have enough time to break or avoid the collision because you have to check what is behind you and by that stage you've gone into the back anyway

Assuming basic observation skills, you should already know what's behind you.

Da Bounca wrote: »

not to mention the fact that it happens all of a sudden, not everyone has the reflexes and quick thinking of a ninja fox. If you don't check and just swerve, then you run the risk of taking someone else out. It's stupid.

Only if you routinely drive with your eyes shut. If you can't reliably stop when the car in front of you jams on then you shouldn't be driving - it's that simple. Rather than ranting about women drivers, you need to focus on improving your own ability behind the wheel.

KamiKazi

What about all the women that almost knock me off my bike every morning on the M50 while doing their makeup / talking on the phone / eating breakfast @ 100km/h?

Da Bounca

Can't you just respond instead breaking every line up into a quote?
You don't have to seperate it out to make it look more meaningful.


I was of course talking about a hypothetical situation.

If I was talking from experience, I would have said "Well when I crashed bla bla bla".
I'm pretty sure that I know what happend in my own life thanks. Thankfully haven't rear ended any vehicles, yet.

Assuming nothing has emerged from a side road or has sped up behind you at an unreasonable speed then yes, you should be aware of what's behind you.
Bear in mind that do be aware of what is behind/besdie you, you actually have to check these things. That requires looking away from in front of you(however brief that time may be).

You have no idea about my driving skills, they are good. So how about improve your own assumption making ability.

Eoin

If I made one saying "Women, don't do your f*cking makup in the car cos you're going to rear end someone" then I'm sure they'd be all out burning their bras about sexist advertising.

As some people say, discrimination is fine once it's against young white males.

But even if the stereotypes are true, I'd prefer to be rear-ended by a lady doing her make up, than hit by a young male driving like a lunatic.

I'd say any close calls I've had are split pretty much 50/50 between male and female, and the ones that the female would have caused would have been more minor collisions.

You can explain away the statistics by saying that men drive more - and I'd say that is true to an extent - but I think we're hiding our heads in the sand if we don't admit that there are too many young males driving too aggressively.

Anan1

Da Bounca wrote: »

Can't you just respond instead breaking every line up into a quote?
You don't have to seperate it out to make it look more meaningful.


I was of course talking about a hypothetical situation.

If I was talking from experience, I would have said "Well when I crashed bla bla bla".
I'm pretty sure that I know what happend in my own life thanks. Thankfully haven't rear ended any vehicles, yet.

Assuming nothing has emerged from a side road or has sped up behind you at an unreasonable speed then yes, you should be aware of what's behind you.
Bear in mind that do be aware of what is behind/besdie you, you actually have to check these things. That requires looking away from in front of you(however brief that time may be).

You have no idea about my driving skills, they are good. So how about improve your own assumption making ability.

All any of us has to go on is what you've posted in this thread. For all we know, you could have been joking. If you were, then that's fine. If you weren't, then for everybody's sake get some lessons.

hobochris

KamiKazi wrote: »

What about all the women that almost knock me off my bike every morning on the M50 while doing their makeup / talking on the phone / eating breakfast @ 100km/h?

+1

When I'm on the bike and avoiding one of the usual "I didn't see you"(really meaning i didn't look) assassination attempts that occur all to often when riding a motorcycle, It is usually a female culprit behind the wheel who is either too blind to be driving or too preoccupied with others things then driving while behind the wheel.

While Statistically men are the cause of more fatal accidents then women(a lot of us like to put the foot down), women are the cause of a lot of non fatal accidents.

It still negates the fact that focusing in on this one part of the statistics and generalizing(branding an entire sex with the same brush) based on it while conveniently neglecting the others is Sexism.

If the tables where turned there would be marches in the streets.

Anan1

hobochris wrote: »

While Statistically men are the cause of more fatal accidents then women(a lot of us like to put the foot down), women are the cause of a lot of non fatal accidents.

It was put to me a while back that women cause accidents by stopping where they should go, whereas men cause them by going where they should stop.

KamiKazi

What about a 'Don't leave your car parked in the street, there is an 80% chance a woman will hit it while trying to park beside it'

There would be uproar!

Da Bounca

Ana, you make literally no sense.

First you try to compare a hypothetical crash situation to your heroic crash avoidance due to perfect driving, and then try to tell me that my driving in the imaginary crash was sub par.

Then after I try to go back on topic, you tell me I should forget about the topic at hand and again look after my driving skills after you assumed that I was talking about some sort of collision I had been in.

Like you said, all we have is what I have posted, and you are twisting into something it's not.

Get out of here ya looney.

ottostreet

Anan1 wrote: »

doing 120km/h on a national primary road

you were SPEEDING!!11! :P

hobochris

Anan1 wrote: »

It was put to me a while back that women cause accidents by stopping where they should go, whereas men cause them by going where they should stop.

who ever put that to you obviously isn't a biker.

I've been forced to take evasive action twice in the past 24 hours alone, one lady in an X3 was nice enough to try drive through my bike yesterday on the m50(why? because she didn't look when changing lanes).
While another nearly rear ended me in a Yaris while I was siting stationary on the white broken lane awaiting the oncoming traffic to clear for a right turn(why? as far as i can tell she was sending a text while driving and not watching the road ahead) lucky for her i scan my mirrors while waiting to turn.

smash

eoin wrote: »

I think we're hiding our heads in the sand if we don't admit that there are too many young males driving too aggressively.

A lot is down to the cars they drive i.e. a 19yr old in a Civic type R is going to drive a lot more aggressively than a 19yr old in a Micra! - it's down to the insurance companies to monitor this, and some of them are doing a good job at it now.

Anan1 wrote: »

It was put to me a while back that women cause accidents by stopping where they should go, whereas men cause them by going where they should stop.

Probably true, I've nearly rear ended a woman on a roundabout where she stopped to let traffic out... on a f*cking roundabout like!

Anan1

Da Bounca wrote: »

Ana, you make literally no sense.

First you try to compare a hypothetical crash situation to your heroic crash avoidance due to perfect driving, and then try to tell me that my driving in the imaginary crash was sub par.

Then after I try to go back on topic, you tell me I should forget about the topic at hand and again look after my driving skills after you assumed that I was talking about some sort of collision I had been in.

Like you said, all we have is what I have posted, and you are twisting into something it's not.

Get out of here ya looney.

Try to calm down and make your point without resorting to personal insults - that's a formal warning.

I'm questioning your driving skills because you claimed that it is unreasonable to expect a driver to be able to stop reliably without hitting the car in front, something which any competent driver should be able to do. I can't see how any driver with a basic degree of competence could think this. Perhaps you could explain for us?

jimbling

I think the basic point here is what was mentioned early in the thread. The statistic states that 67% of women that die in car crashes are been driven by men.
But realistically. Who knows of any couples* where the woman does the driving. It just rarely happens. The stats are completely skewed to favour "blame the male" mentality.
How this isn't obvious to the people involved in putting these things together (and the media) is beyond me.



*I do actually know one, but that's because he never learnt to drive :eek:

stesaurus

Da Bounca wrote: »

Ana, you make literally no sense.

Literally gets literally overused these days!:D

KamiKazi

steve06 wrote: »

A lot is down to the cars they drive i.e. a 19yr old in a Civic type R is going to drive a lot more aggressively than a 19yr old in a Micra!

Don't agree with this at all! Its down to the driver and his attitude to driving not the car he's in. Have you never seen some 17 year old in a 1ltr Micra thinking he was Loeb? Or a 17 year old in a Type-R that drives competenly, because he's put a lot of time and money into his car and doesn't want to wreck it?

I'll say it again, its the driver, not the car. Just like its the driver, not the gender, not the age, not anything other than the driver and his / her attitude on the road.

hobochris

jimbling wrote: »

I think the basic point here is what was mentioned early in the thread. The statistic states that 67% of women that die in car crashes are been driven by men.
But realistically. Who knows of any couples* where the woman does the driving. It just rarely happens. The stats are completely skewed to favour "blame the male" mentality.
How this isn't obvious to the people involved in putting these things together (and the media) is beyond me.



*I do actually know one, but that's because he never learnt to drive :eek:

I'd say it is obvious to them, but its in their interest to skew the figures in favor of the "blame the male" mentality, as the insurance companies would fork out money for these studies and if they can blame the male and jack up insurance costs accordingly everybody wins. except male drivers.

The only fair solution is a fixed starting price for all and adjust insurance costs accordingly based of driving history.

It seems a bit unfair that insurance companies don't increase health insurance policies with age/gender yet they do it with car insurance.

obviously the revenue is too good for the government to do anything about this inequality.

jimbling

hobochris wrote: »

I'd say it is obvious to them, but its in their interest to skew the figures in favor of the "blame the male" mentality, as the insurance companies would fork out money for these studies and if they can blame the male and jack up insurance costs accordingly everybody wins. except male drivers.

ah, don't know about that. Seems like a bit of paranoia there. I mean if the stats came out saying women cause all the crashes then they could jack up their prices. Shouldn't make any difference to the insurance companies.

It's just an easy target for the RSA and the media. Forget the fact that there's hundreds of thousands on the road that haven't got a bulls how to drive.

WillieCocker

steve06 wrote: »

A lot is down to the cars they drive i.e. a 19yr old in a Civic type R is going to drive a lot more aggressively than a 19yr old in a Micra! - !

LULZ.
When i had an M5 , nearly every young lad in a Micra wanted to have a go, and drove like a c**t.
That's not to say no Civic drivers didn't, just at least you could understand why in a Civic, in a Micra though.........WTF.

KamiKazi

hobochris wrote: »

I'd say it is obvious to them, but its in their interest to skew the figures in favor of the "blame the male" mentality, as the insurance companies would fork out money for these studies and if they can blame the male and jack up insurance costs accordingly everybody wins. except male drivers.

+1, of course they know, but this blame-the-male campaign is playing to whatever hidden agenda they have.

Eoin

KamiKazi wrote: »

I'll it again, its the driver, not the car. Just like its the driver, not the gender, not the age, not anything other than the driver and his / her attitude on the road.

But the driver is a product of their age and gender. Young males often think they're brilliant drivers, and that 1 or 2 years experience is a lot.

spurious

jimbling wrote: »

I think the basic point here is what was mentioned early in the thread. The statistic states that 67% of women that die in car crashes are been driven by men.
But realistically. Who knows of any couples* where the woman does the driving. It just rarely happens.

Maybe it should happen more.
Anything that stops even one person being killed by/because of a driver driving at too high a speed is welcome.

All this male/female thing is missing the point.

Saruman

I drive a lot, I spend a lot of my time in the car and women and older men seem to be the most clueless when it comes to driving.

Only the other day I was driving at the back of the airport heading in the finglas direction when a car pulled out of the Saint Margaret's turn off on the right, ignored the stop sign and pulled out hitting, or more precisely causing the car in front of me to hit her car. Both drivers involved were women, though the poor girl in front of me was in no way responsible.

I saw this was going to happen instantly and beeped a warning but the culprit never once looked to see if someone was coming and the girl in front of me was too close to stop and avoid hitting her.

Anyway I pulled in behind them after they moved off the road to give me details as a witness if needed. Both were shellshocked and shaking and the culprit came over after I gave my name and number and said "I don't even know whose fault it was" And we explained the number of errors she made. Her excuse? She had just come from a funeral. I found that Ironic as if it had been a truck that hit her, well... its pretty obvious.

When it comes to roundabouts I find very few people are able to use them properly. I can and do use them properly and I am sick of people hopping lanes, not sticking to the lane they start out in, being in the wrong lane in the first place such as right lane to go straight ahead when there is only one exit lane and the most dangerous of all, being in the left lane when going right (3rd exit) or in the case of the auburn roundabout from the auburn road, the muppets that go in to the right hand lane to go left to the M50 even though its very well signposted as to what lane to be in even if common sense is not your strong point.

The reason men cause more fatal accidents is down to us driving faster. That is not to say we are driving at excessive speed or breaking the speed limit. Just that we do drive faster than women for the most part so if there is an accident, it is more likely to be fatal than the same scenario with a woman driver.

That said, there are plenty of crazy girl racers out there too and they are on the increase since insurance is so much cheaper for them they can get faster cars, or at least cars that give the illusion of being fast like a normal civic with a large exhaust.

Eric Cartman

id say bring in penalty points for women who nag men while driving, sort them out rightly, id say 2000 women off the roads in 24 hours

Da Bounca

Anan1 wrote: »

Try to calm down and make your point without resorting to personal insults - that's a formal warning.

I'm questioning your driving skills because you claimed that it is unreasonable to expect a driver to be able to stop reliably without hitting the car in front, something which any competent driver should be able to do. I can't see how any driver with a basic degree of competence could think this. Perhaps you could explain for us?

I'm calm as can be fella.

I was trying to make the point that simply jamming on isn't a 100% safe card from hitting the car in front. Some cars have better brakes than others, there could be a slick on the road, anything. Possibly I could have conveyed my thoughts more clearly. I wanted to say that just hitting someone from behind shouldn't automatically make it the fault of the person behind, since there are plenty of reasons how it could happen with the person in front being the reason for it. What if someone was reversing up the road? Do you yourself stop in the middle of the road and wait for them to pass and potentially cause a crash yourself? Do you swerve to avoid them? What if they try to correct their path to avoid you and you both collide anyway? Unfortunately driving isn't as black and white as you would like to believe.

Could you give yourself a formal warning for insulting my driving? Isnulting my driving is insulting me. Insulting me is a personal insult. If you are getting worked up about a remark made in jest , I'd hate to see your road rage.


Women nagging is indeed another huge issue. Women nagging a boy racer who is drunk, woah, that's like a warhead ready to blow. She probably nagged at him to drive, then nagged at him while driving about his driving. Kablamo.

Quint

I hate this ad. I'm going to speed up just to spite them

jimbling

spurious wrote: »

All this male/female thing is missing the point.

eh, the whole point of this thread is the male/female thing... so not exactly missing the point is it

spurious wrote: »

Anything that stops even one person being killed by/because of a driver driving at too high a speed is welcome.

BS.

Paparazzo

spurious wrote: »

Maybe it should happen more.
Anything that stops even one person being killed by/because of a driver driving at too high a speed is welcome.

So you're in favour of 60kph on all roads and GPS systems restricting the power depending on the road?

Anan1

Da Bounca wrote: »

I'm calm as can be fella.

I was trying to make the point that simply jamming on isn't a 100% safe card from hitting the car in front. Some cars have better brakes than others, there could be a slick on the road, anything. Possibly I could have conveyed my thoughts more clearly. I wanted to say that just hitting someone from behind shouldn't automatically make it the fault of the person behind, since there are plenty of reasons how it could happen with the person in front being the reason for it. What if someone was reversing up the road? Do you yourself stop in the middle of the road and wait for them to pass and potentially cause a crash yourself? Do you swerve to avoid them? What if they try to correct their path to avoid you and you both collide anyway? Unfortunately driving isn't as black and white as you would like to believe.

All these things do happen, which is why we have to maintain awareness & distance. A good driver will weigh up the worst case scenario and allow for it. If I knew the car in front wasn't going to stop suddenly I could safely drive two metres from his bumper at 100km/h.;)

Da Bounca wrote: »

ould you give yourself a formal warning for insulting my driving? Isnulting my driving is insulting me. Insulting me is a personal insult. If you are getting worked up about a remark made in jest , I'd hate to see your road rage.

Insulting your driving is not insulting you, if we all had that attitude then nobody would learn anything. I welcome constructive criticism of my own driving, it can only make me better.

Da Bounca wrote: »

Women nagging is indeed another huge issue. Women nagging a boy racer who is drunk, woah, that's like a warhead ready to blow. She probably nagged at him to drive, then nagged at him while driving about his driving. Kablamo.

I'm right with you on that one.

Anan1

Quint wrote: »

I hate this ad. I'm going to speed up just to spite them

Don't forget to bring women with you.