Young Male drivers

loobylou

I actually agree with young male drivers being charged more for insurance based on the accident/claims statistics.
What I don't then agree with is that the same young drivers will be charged a "community rated" figure for health insurance, despite them having a much lower claim rate.

Pace2008

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Maybe in the papers, but on the news when they give how many people died and who they are (men), thats proof enough!

That's not my point. Just because the majority of fatal accidents you hear about on the news involves men doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually causing the majority of fatal accidents, though it does suggest it. It could be a case of bias in coverage; women could be causing ten times as many serious crashes and it's just not being reported. Gotta have dem facts if you want to be convincing.

Sorry to be a pedant but critical thinking is good.

Fink Goddie

Pace2008 wrote: »

That's not my point. Just because the majority of fatal accidents you hear about on the news involves men doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually causing the majority of fatal accidents, though it does suggest it. It could be a case of bias in coverage; women could be causing ten times as many serious crashes and it's just not being reported. Gotta have dem facts if you want to be convincing.

Sorry to be a pedant but critical thinking is good.

Most of these accidents dont involve anyone else though, its young men driving into trees or ditches. Yeh maybe a woman might have pulled out in front of them and they had to swerve but if they werent going so fast chances are they wouldnt die.
Are you going to blame cows, sheep and dogs for mens fatalities on the road too.
So the insurance companies are biased but now but so is the news. Come on now!

Snakeblood

Pace2008 wrote: »

That's not my point. Just because the majority of fatal accidents you hear about on the news involves men doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually causing the majority of fatal accidents, though it does suggest it. It could be a case of bias in coverage - women could be causing ten times as many serious crashes and it's just not being reported. Gotta have dem facts if you want to be convincing.

Sorry to be a pedant but critical thinking is good.

Are you saying that newspapers aren't covering fatal crashes if women are driving?

Lord Derpington

Snakeblood wrote: »

Are you saying that newspapers aren't covering fatal crashes if women are driving?

No he is saying that while men may be the ones dieing in the crash, they are not necessarily the reason that the accident happend in the first place.

Snakeblood

greenfly wrote: »

No he is saying that while men may be the ones dieing in the crash, they are not necessarily the reason that the accident happend in the first place.

It is the most likely reason though, isn't it? Considering the relative percentages elsewhere in the thread.

Edit: I mean, think about this. Let's say that men are unfairly victimised, because they have most road deaths, but it's all women drivers faults, pulling out into oncoming traffic or whatnot.

It's a bit odd then, that there are so many dangerous women drivers on the road causing male accidents, but they don't have anywhere near the same level of fatalities.

Lord Derpington

Snakeblood wrote: »

It is the most likely reason though, isn't it? Considering the relative percentages elsewhere in the thread.

Edit: I mean, think about this. Let's say that men are unfairly victimised, because they have most road deaths, but it's all women drivers faults, pulling out into oncoming traffic or whatnot.

It's a bit odd then, that there are so many dangerous women drivers on the road causing male accidents, but they don't have anywhere near the same level of fatalities.

Obviously saying that all the accidents are being caused by someone other than the driver is naieve to say the least, but a percentage are bound to be.
EDIT:
Also it wouldnt be women drivers as a whole arnt dangerous imo, people of older age who have become complacent behind the wheel and people in a hurry and taking risks would be much more dangerours, granted there are bad ones but im sure like has been said there are bad male drivers too.
I just think that this relentless targeting of "slow down boys" has gone a bit too far and the insurance companys are more than happy to climb onboard the bandwagon and rise there prices a bit more.

I have a good few friends who without having an accident this past year and gaining a no claims bonus have been given higher renewal quotes than was there premium for the previous year on the same car.

Snakeblood

greenfly wrote: »

Obviously saying that all the accidents are being caused by someone other than the driver is naieve to say the least, but a percentage are bound to be.
Also it wouldnt be just women drivers either, people of older age who have become complacent behind the wheel and people in a hurry and taking risks would be just as dangerours.

A percentage, but enough to make up the discrepancy between young male drivers and everyone else? That seems extraordinarily unlikely.

Young male drivers endure the same conditions as older male drivers, for example. Older male drivers still drive around a lot, and they have far less crashes.

Edit: Fatal crashes, I should say.

Pace2008

You're all completely missing my point. It has more to do backing up your statements than the topic at hand.

I'm not denying that men are involved in the majority of serious crashes. The facts are there and unless the RSA are lying for some unfathomable reason (they aren't) that settles it. Nor do I think that there in anyone else but the men responsible for the accidents in most cases - it's because of speed.

My point is that the picture portrayed by the media might not accurately represent the scenario in real life. For example, If you were to go by what the media are reporting you might think that murders in Ireland were comparitively high in 2008. This is not the case, they actually dropped sharply last year as this link shows. You can't rely on hearsay to prove a point, you need the hard facts.

Snakeblood wrote: »

Are you saying that newspapers aren't covering fatal crashes if women are driving?

No. I was creating a hypothetical situation. I think in some instances there is a strong bias against men in terms of coverage (domestic abuse springs to mind) but when it comes to road accidents you hear about men more simply because they're involved in more serious accidents.

greenfly wrote: »

No he is saying that while men may be the ones dieing in the crash, they are not necessarily the reason that the accident happend in the first place.

I wasn't actually saying that. As mentioned earlier in my post I think most men cause these accidents because they're speeding.

It could be a case of bias in coverage - women could be causing ten times as many serious crashes and it's just not being reported.

I think this was the line that caused confusion. Again, it was a hypothetical situation. It doesn't represent reality in this country.

Hope this clears things up.

KevR

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Most of these accidents dont involve anyone else though, its young men driving into trees or ditches. Yeh maybe a woman might have pulled out in front of them and they had to swerve but if they werent going so fast chances are they wouldnt die.
Are you going to blame cows, sheep and dogs for mens fatalities on the road too. The person who owns these animals has to shoulder some of the blame. The animals should be fenced in properly, a public road (especially a high speed one) is no place for animals to be wondering around.
So the insurance companies are biased but now but so is the news. Come on now!

That's kind of the point I was trying to make in my other post. Surely the woman is almost fully to blame in an incident such as this?!

You can say if the bloke wasn't going so fast he might not have been killed but if the woman doesn't pull out in front of him then there would be no swerving, no accident and no death.
It's not a good idea to completely clear the woman of all blame just because the bloke was going fast. It's not a good message to send out - you can do whatever the hell you want provided you don't drive fast.

I commute everyday on a 100kmh single carriageway road. It's a good quality road but there are lots of side roads. When conditions and visibilty are good I drive up at the speed limit, sometimes on the very good stretches I might creep over the limit for a moment or two to 105/110kmh without realising - I don't constantly watch my speed dial as that would be dangerous. I can't drive along at 50kmh in the fear that some fool (male or female) will pull out in front of me at the last second as I'm passing a side road. If someone pulls out at the last second when I'm passing and I have a crash, the crash is their fault. Obviously everyone should always try to anticipate people pulling out of side roads and never just presume that people won't pull out in front of them.

For the record, I don't want to or expect to be allowed to drive around at whatever speed I like. I tend to stick to speed limits regardless of whether or not I agree with them. It really annoys me that speed is focused on so much when every single day I see people doing stupid things that are argueably a lot more dangerous than driving fast

Snakeblood

Pace2008 wrote: »

You're all completely missing my point. It has more to do backing up your statements than the topic at hand.

I'm not denying that men are involved in the majority of serious crashes. The facts are there and unless the RSA are lying for some unfathomable reason (they aren't) that settles it. Nor do I think that there in anyone else but the men responsible for the accidents in most cases - it's because of speed.

My point is that the picture portrayed by the media might not accurately represent the scenario in real life. For example, If you were to go by what the media are reporting you might think that murders in Ireland were comparitively high in 2008. This is not the case, they actually dropped sharply last year as this link shows. You've can't rely on hearsay to prove a point, you need the hard facts.

No. I was creating a hypothetical situation. I think in some instances there is a strong bias against men in terms of coverage (domestic abuse springs to mind) but when it comes to road accidents you hear about men more simply because they're involved in more serious accidents.

I wasn't actually saying that. As mentioned earlier in my post I think most men cause these accidents because they're speeding.

I think this was the line that caused confusion. Again, it was a hypothetical situation. It doesn't represent reality in this country.

Hope this clears things up.

Yup, Thanks!

Pace2008

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Yeh maybe a woman might have pulled out in front of them and they had to swerve but if they werent going so fast chances are they wouldnt die.

I mostly agree with you. Suppose a man is doing 30 over the limit coming onto a roundabout. Mary, who doesn't understand roundabouts, doesn't yield to him and they collide, both suffering serious injuries. Who was responsible for the accident? Both of them, they were both committing traffic offences. Who's more responsible in my opinion? The male: because he was speeding he escalated what would have been a minor tip into something much worse.

ya-ba-da-ba-doo

Another point to note is that there seems to be a lot more young male drivers than females. Which would make it more likely for young males to have an accident simply because theres more on the roads. Sorry no link but hopefully one of u will help wit tha

Lord Derpington

Pace2008 wrote: »

I mostly agree with you. Suppose a man is doing 30 over the limit coming onto a roundabout. Mary, who doesn't understand roundabouts, doesn't yield to him and they collide, both suffering serious injuries. Who was responsible for the accident? Both of them, they were both committing traffic offences. Who's more responsible in my opinion? The male: because he was speeding he escalated what would have been a minor tip into something much worse.

Well to be honest noone should be doing even the speed limit coming into a roundabout as you are supposed to "aproach with caution" on your way to them.
In the senario you described, going to court.
If the woman was already on the roundabout, Mans fault.
Otherwise, womans fault as she failed to yield.

It might be true that if he was going slower there might be less damage.
But you could say the same if the woman was in a small car such as a micra and the man was in a jeep or a van or to an extreme a truck..
There would be a lot of damage at a slower speed.
Its disobeying the rules of road that cause accidents not the speed that is driven at although it does increase the severity of them

Kimia

I think young men do get a raw deal when it comes to road safety. I know that young 'girl racers' can be just as bad. Also older male drivers are lethal sometimes - arrogant b*stards in their mercs or bmws racing around trying to get to their important meetings or whatever. And aul ones are awful too driving so slow that they force people to overtake them etc.

However it seems that statistically young male drivers are the cause of not the most amount of accidents, but the severity of the accidents in which they are to blame.

Fink Goddie

KevR wrote: »

That's kind of the point I was trying to make in my other post. Surely the woman is almost fully to blame in an incident such as this?!

You can say if the bloke wasn't going so fast he might not have been killed but if the woman doesn't pull out in front of him then there would be no swerving, no accident and no death.
It's not a good idea to completely clear the woman of all blame just because the bloke was going fast. It's not a good message to send out - you can do whatever the hell you want provided you don't drive fast.

What i'm saying is though, everyone makes mistakes, you have to allow for these. I wouldnt clear the woman of all the blame, but the faster you go the more carnage there is.
And i dont agree with doing whatever you want provided you dont speed.

fifth

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but at the moment I am working on a website and a sort of campaign against this kind of discriminatory advertising - whether you like it or not, it is stereotyping - and against the ridiculous insurance premiums that young male drivers have been subject to for years.

Please feel free to PM me if you wish to help out or make comments.

Lord Derpington

Something you might like The draft EU Directive on equal insurance premiums for men and women

Gary ITR

Everybody speeds just seems that young males are sh1t at speeding.

I'd rather be driven by an experienced driver at 200mph than at 70 by an inexperienced driver.

It's driver education that's the problem here.

Fink Goddie

Onkle wrote: »

Everybody speeds just seems that young males are sh1t at speeding.

I'd rather be driven by an experienced driver at 200mph than at 70 by an inexperienced driver.

It's driver education that's the problem here.

Some people cant be educated though, like the scobies in their muppetised cars!

Cookie_Monster

Dartz wrote: »

I like going for the high-score on those 'Your speed is->' signs

That not even fun any more, they only go up to 99.

994

AnonoBoy wrote: »

No I didn't miss the point at all. I understand what he's saying completely. However there are not figures that back up his assertion so therefore it would not be allowable to use it as part of an advertisement.

However - there ARE facts, figures, stats and studies etc. that show that young men cause more fatalities on the road than any other demographic. So you can't complain when that is used in a road safety ad.

It's just the way it is.

But why only judge based on age and sex? Why not race, if blacks tend to to be worse drivers would they get higher premia? Or intelligence - people with low IQ probably crash more. Or number of tattoos?

Cookie_Monster

994 wrote: »

But why only judge based on age and sex? Why not race, if blacks tend to to be worse drivers would they get higher premia? Or intelligence - people with low IQ probably crash more. Or number of tattoos?

young men are an easy target that won't stand up or give out. If you accused black people of causing more crashes (whether they do or not) there'd be uproar and we'd all be branded racist

Gary ITR

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Some people cant be educated though, like the scobies in their muppetised cars!

Funnily enough I rarely see modified cars in accidents. Now when I say modified I mean a properly modded car not a Punto with a bad bodykit, go faster stripes and alloy wheels. These guys love their cars too much to abuse them

You're right in saying some people can't be educated, some can though and that's the point.

neil_hosey

Ive had id say 10 or 11 near misses in the 4 years im driving (now 23). Every single one of them was caused by either doddery old people not having a fecking notion what they are doing, or women...

Not to say all women are bad drivers, its just unfair the way young male drivers are treated.

christy c

Dartz wrote: »

I like going for the high-score on those 'Your speed is->' signs

I love that too, most of the time i'm stuck behind some garnny doing 30 mph though.

Maddison

I think Its unfair to victimise young male drivers, Ive seen quite an upsurge in girl racers too(I have also been known to drive a tad too fast, Im trying to stop this though) then you have elderly drivers that are atrocious. Ive seen dreadful male & female drivers of all different ages. IMO its the few little skanger me bangers that give all other responsible young male drivers the bad name.

Fink Goddie

Onkle wrote: »

Funnily enough I rarely see modified cars in accidents. Now when I say modified I mean a properly modded car not a Punto with a bad bodykit, go faster stripes and alloy wheels. These guys love their cars too much to abuse them

You're right in saying some people can't be educated, some can though and that's the point.

Ah ya gotta laugh at those muppets

experiMental

Its not the young male drivers' fault, its the ones that drive in front of them that are causing most of the problems.

Fink Goddie

experiMental wrote: »

Its not the young male drivers' fault, its the ones that drive in front of them that are causing most of the problems.

Yeh people should only be allowed drive behind them

Lord Derpington

Onkle wrote: »

Funnily enough I rarely see modified cars in accidents. Now when I say modified I mean a properly modded car not a Punto with a bad bodykit, go faster stripes and alloy wheels. These guys love their cars too much to abuse them

I agree, the majority of guys in proper modded cars adore there cars and dont want to damage them. Thats why i always try to park beside them in car parks .
But as always there a few who bought the car after it was already done and is a muppet behind the whell cos instead of being there pride and joy "its only a car"

TwoShedsJackson

aido179 wrote: »

This one really pisses me off. Im a young male driver (17 and driving on a full license for work 5days a week). Without sounding self righteous, I consider myself a safe driver. The insurance companies dont take the right information. Why should i have to pay for the shit driving of the shams around the country...?

Everyone thinks they're a great driver, your own opinion of your ability doesn't mean $hit. Not saying you're bad or anything seeing as I don't know you from Adam, but people need to remind themselves how insurance systems work.

While you remain in a high risk category overall, you'll pay more. That's never changing.

oldyouth

dionsiseire wrote: »

I have completed their ignition test with flying colours, im fully licensed, but im a bloke and 24, driving a 1.0 car (i know but i was hoping for cheaper insurance by doing this)

I have a female friend of 23, also driving a 1.0 engine car, she has a full license but has not passed any extra tests to prove ability, she pays 420

Where is the fairness in that

It is fair, because your grouping (maybe not you personally) is having more frequent and costly claims than her grouping. Simples:p

FlutterinBantam

Pace2008 wrote: »

It's partially because young males are statistically more probable to be in a serious car accident, and partially because young, white, heterosexual males are the last portion of the population whom you can discriminate against.

You know that if there was a road safety ad saying 'Women: learn how to correctly navigate roundabouts and use your ****ing indicators' there would be uproar.

heh heh load of rubbish pal.

Drivers male variety, under 25 think they own the road, cutting in cutting out, partaking in manouvres no sane person would consider.

Insurance companies are not dummies pal, neither are the general public.

Cop yourselves on and stop trying to be Mister Macho on the M50. or trying to be the big man for your bitch.

Get some sense pal.

Some of us are not stupid:rolleyes:

Teferi

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

heh heh load of rubbish pal.

Drivers male variety, under 25 think they own the road, cutting in cutting out, partaking in manouvres no sane person would consider.

Insurance companies are not dummies pal, neither are the general public.

Cop yourselves on and stop trying to be Mister Macho on the M50. or trying to be the big man for your bitch.

Get some sense pal.

Some of us are not stupid:rolleyes:

This is the most ridiculous thing I have read since I saw that the Blasphemy law had come into effect.

pickarooney

Would anyone support raising the legal driving age if it would result in lower insurance across the board?

jumpguy

My God people grow up. The reason young male's insurance are so high is because of those boy racer ***** out on the road at 4 in the morning. THAT is what the ad campaign is aimed at. If we want cheaper insurance, we should crack down on them joy-riding donutting bastards who think they're too cool for a muffler.

Eoin

There was a thread on this recently in the motors forum.

From what I remember, males don't cause more accidents when you take the average mileage into account, apart from young males 17-20 (or 21, can't remember), who do cause more crashes regardless of the mileage.

And if people think insurance is too high now, you have no idea.

aido179 - fair play, you have your full licence at 17. But you can still only have a tiny amount of legal driving experience.

FlutterinBantam

jumpguy wrote: »

My God people grow up. The reason young male's insurance are so high is because of those boy racer ***** out on the road at 4 in the morning. THAT is what the ad campaign is aimed at. If we want cheaper insurance, we should crack down on them joy-riding donutting bastards who think they're too cool for a muffler.

Spot on buddy.

Instead of carrying on with that bulldust of blaming experienced drivers, look to where the fault is.

Statistics prove it, so instead of targeting the wrong people, get to work on the pinheaded goons who think they are Jenson Button and tell them to cop the fcuk on and stop costing me money.


We see them every day of the week acting like tools.

Tell them.

rubadub

They are seen as acceptable targets to be prejudiced against.

If female, black, homosexual, overweight, illiterate, elderly, jewish people were statistically the most "dangerous" it would be a taboo subject, there is no way ads or campaigns would mention it for fear of being, sexist, racist, homophobic etc Young males are fair game, for now.

As an aside insurance is related to claims per year, not driving ability. A fireman is probably better able to protect himself if a fire broke out in say a pub, but his yearly insurance against getting burned would be higher.

A guy from the AA was on TV years ago saying women had more claims per mile, simply had less far less miles and hence less claims, he did say it was catching up and would soon take over. At which time I can imagine uproar over it being sexist, and only then I can imagine it happening the way it should, having the choice of insurance per mile. Dunno if any offer that. I think in some countries the insurance is included in petrol costs, which I think is a good idea. The petrol guzzling cars are more likely to be driven faster too.

Carsinian Thau

GreeBo wrote: »

I've yet to see a Fiesta with 4 40 year old blokes in it doing handbrake turns on their way up to the hellfire club.

True, but if it wasn't a recession I would pay to see that.

kmurray

im 25 and am turly sick of being over charged for my insurance just cos im male

FlutterinBantam

Not because you are male pal.

Just because a lot of males in your age group are total tools, and you are paying for them.

Thats the way it works buddy.

Eoin

rubadub wrote: »

A guy from the AA was on TV years ago saying women had more claims per mile, simply had less far less miles and hence less claims, he did say it was catching up and would soon take over. At which time I can imagine uproar over it being sexist, and only then I can imagine it happening the way it should,

That's apparently true, apart from young males 17-20.

rubadub wrote: »

I think in some countries the insurance is included in petrol costs, which I think is a good idea. The petrol guzzling cars are more likely to be driven faster too.

I'd be more concerned about a 17/18 year old in a 1.4 civic than a middle age man in a gas guzzling road yacht.

Liam O

I work in a supermarket. Sometimes I do the trolleys. In the car park. I can think of at least three occasions where I've nearly had my legs broken by people (two women, one elderly man) not looking in their rear view mirrors before they reversed. There was a time when I stopped at a zebra crossing because I knew someone wasn't going to stop at it. So when I start to walk across the zebra crossing I have to basically jump out of the way because the women in the car has decided to stop and reverse back over the zebra crossing. Absolute madness.

Add these to the roughly I'd say 80% of cars that are parked terribly. The point to this rant is that most people are bad drivers and prosecuting one group is just wrong, no matter what the stats say.

Donnelly117

completely agree with you, im sh1t sick of hearing about young drivers killing all around em when most of us are safe drivers

oldyouth

Donnelly117 wrote: »

completely agree with you, im sh1t sick of hearing about young drivers killing all around em when most of us are safe drivers

Sorry Donnelly (and I'm not having a go) but the whole point is that most of your group are not safe compared to other groups in the number and extent of accidents. The figures are bourne out

There are reasons for this and I'm not going in to them all but here are a few examples of why the stats head against younger drivers and males in particular.

Old foggies like myself are not usually on the roads at the peak serious accident times, which are late at night when the roads are emptier, leading to an increase in speed.

Younger drivers are more likely to have several passengers with them as they go from place to place while socialising at weekends (I'm not talking about drink driving). Any accident will result in multible injuries for the stats. When oldies go out in the car, it is usually as sole occupants or with their partner/spouse

Couples with young kids have been found to modify their driving behviour on account of this change in their lives

Any serious injury to a younger driver or passenger will result in a higher claim, given the potenial or life expectancy lost

When young couples go out, it is usually the man who drives.

Women drive less miles per annum than their male counterparts

Women are less likely to lose composure when faced with a twat on the road

Boy racers

Not all younger people can afford to maintain their cars in peak condition by way of tyres, brakes etc

Younger drivers are less experienced on the road, though that does not always make them poorer drivers

Rabies

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Well how often does that cause a death, so there would be no need really.
speed is the main factor in road deaths!

Doesn't cause too many deaths. But it does cause of fvck load of smaller insurance claims and damage that doesn't even get reported.

KevR

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Not because you are male pal.

Just because a lot of males in your age group are total tools, and you are paying for them.

Thats the way it works buddy.

It's obviously because he's male then..

If a male is paying high insurance because there are a lot of males in his age group who are tools then being a male is the reason for it, given that women in the same age group don't have to pay high insurance for these tools. What ever happened to men and women being treated equally?

Rebelheart

greenfly wrote: »

What is the story with this crap, im sick of hearing on the radio and in the papers that because i am a young male driver I;

1) I drive too fast
2) Im going to kill any girl in my passanger seat

I mean as if the radio add where "he drives, she dies" wasnt enough now this weekend under the Bank holiday road safety crackdown


I understad there is a stastic out there but at the same time, personally; ive never been in an accident and i see misktakes being made by other drivers every day on the road.
I by no means claim to be a brilliant driver, but there are a lot of terrible drivers out there that are not young male drivers.
I think these campaigns attacking young males have taken it a bit far.

Opinions?

Edit: If only this was passed and enforced..

If there could be a special offense for having a spoiler, tinted windows, seriously pikey alloys and reving up your car in pathetic attempts to be cool and attract the female talent in rural towns at 3am that would be an improvement.

How these complete - complete and utter - knackers think they are in any way cool defies belief. They are everywhere.