Young Male drivers

Lord Derpington

Wertz wrote: »

To go one further, most of the radio news reports I've heard all day said the acident occured in a well known "accident blackspot". For those of you unaware as to what a blackspot is, it's a place in the road where the local council stick up a roadsign to signify that people have died at that place.
A roadsign.
Very rarely do we see remedial work to erradicate the factors that lead to the place being a blackspot in the first place.

Instead of apportioning blame based on the gender of the two poor souls involved, how about apportioning some of the blame on local authorities, the NRA and the RSA whom collectively, although in full knowledge that the stretch of road has an inherent danger, do nothing to rectify the situation short of putting up a f*cking roadsign...?

I know this is one thing that really grinds my gears...

"Accident black spot" well fukin fix it then!

And the other ones like road liable to flood, drains arnt exactly complicated...

I seen one recently that said no verge at road edge, it wasnt just no verge it was about a 6inch drop to the old road surface below from which the top one had broken away.

tinkerbell

I'm a woman and the whole RSA campaign against males really pisses me off. The ads are always about young males getting into accidents or the one that REALLY annoys me is the "never ever drink & drive" - the guy at the bar is picking up his pint, the girl looks at him in disgust, then he puts it down and she smiles. WTF? Why is it just geared towards men? Women drink and drive too, they are all stupid idiots drunk drivers.

Anyway, I think that their statistics are warped. Perhaps there are more male deaths but like somebody else said their mileage is higher. BUT they never seem to mention the cause of the accident once they've said there has been a fatality. Perhaps they should do a proper analysis and see if they can find out road conditions at the time, other traffic, road rage and the like. I'd say plenty of accidents are caused by road rage from ignorant idiots driving 30km/hr on a 100km/hr zone. Drivers behind them get really pissed off and just then let their emotions run and overtake stupidly and then an accident happens.

Or what about the car up ahead making a sudden movement that you don't have enough time to react (assuming you are a safe distance behind them) but the movement is so sudden that you can't react quickly enough. Or why don't the RSA take into account how crap the road was, pot holes, etc? The roads in this country are a disgrace.

Oh and also, what about the older age group of 40-60 yr olds in their BMWs and Mercs? I find those the most aggressive drivers of them all. And what about those who got handed their licence in the 70s without doing a test as they were trying to clear the backlog?

And what about trucks who travel three or four in a line on the N7 (in Dublin) very tightly together on the left lane right where there is a slip road and cars joining cannot join the N7 because there is no space and trucks won't let them in, resulting on cars driving on the hard shoulder? (I saw this happen recently).

Oh and to whoever said about women needing to learn how to use roundabouts, I'd agree BUT I think it's an Irish thing, people haven't a clue. Oh and one thing that really pisses me off about women drivers is applying makeup while traffic is moving!!! AAARGH!!!! I once had this stupid woman in the car behind me doing her mascara while we were stuck in traffic but she continued to do it when the traffic started moving AND she started moving her car at the same time. I quickly changed lanes as I didn't want her to run into the back of me. DO YOUR STUPID MAKEUP AT HOME GOD DAMMIT!!! LAZY IDIOT JUST GET UP 5 MINS EARLY IN THE MORNING!!! :mad:

Sorry, rant over, I needed to get that out!

GreeBo

tinkerbell wrote: »

Or what about the car up ahead making a sudden movement that you don't have enough time to react (assuming you are a safe distance behind them) but the movement is so sudden that you can't react quickly enough.

Erm if a sudden movement causes you to crash then you obviously arent a safe distance back...right?

Stark

Yeah but it's fine if it's a man and a motorcyclist because then it goes in the male deaths bucket. (speaking of the tit I saw riding the back wheel of a motorcyclist doing 100km/hr on the M50 the other day).

MarkN

Just a way of life, us men should just get used to it.

One thing is for sure, there's very few women I know that I'd hand the keys of my car to as it ain't a 1.4 Golf or similar - something else I don't get is why you generally don't see women driving proper high performance cars in this country.. are they not skilled enough? Do they do enough damage as it is with the everyday cars they drive on the roads? Do they have no interest in cars? Do they not want to go fast?

Can't remember the last time I saw a woman driving any even remotely exotic in this country (Audi TTs not included, sorry). Maybe if they were given some of these cars to balance out we'd see a lot more accidents to show women crash cars too.

rubadub

GreeBo wrote: »

If they levelled the playing field then I know that I for one would end up paying more.
Which statistics would you like them to use? Age? Education? Location?

They already do use a whole load of different stats in quoting insurance, some are subtle questions they ask you, you might not even realise you are increasing your premium depending on the answers you give. I expect some are secret, like racist ones as there would be uproar (as I said I expect there would be uproar if they advertised mens insurance cheaper). e.g. I am a mechanical engineer, some insurance company used to give discounts to members or some engineering insititute (might still do). Obviously their stats showed they got less claims (as I said before insurance is to do with CLAIMS, not skill or the amount of accidents etc). When ringing other companies they would ask my occupation and they always queried it asking if I was a mechanic, since many mechanics might call them selves mechanical engineers. I then heard a car mechanic is likely to be penalised, turns out stats show they are likely to tinker with the car and mess it up and put in claims, and probably more likely to be in claim, it is a broad statement and I do not wish to offend but the mechanics I do know drive a hell of a lot more than other people, and drive fast. They are usually good but I expect they would clock up more claims.

Barmen were also listed, some presumed it was since they were drunk driving, but no- lots of damage happens in pub car parks so they claim more. Pro sports men get high quotes, they are more likely to have another athlete in the car who will sue for huge amounts for injuries. There are a whole host of obscure reasons for high insurance.

Age? Education? Location?

All of the above are already taken into account by some companies, a mate of mine gets far cheaper insurance by using his parents address outside of dublin. If your area gets cars robbed and burnt out of course you are more likely to claim.

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

And if men are more likely to be involved in more crashes, they're more likely to claim more, and so the insurance companies will charge them a higher premium. Is this stuff not self-evident??

It is still all about claims, I have heard the mens crashes might result in more damage and so higher claims.

greenfly wrote: »

Maybe but he has a point.
The difference from those figures of 21-29 year olds
Milage covered: Males:6590 Females:3111

So males are driving 2.1 times more miles than women of the same age,

So if a man and is "only" paying twice the insurance that a woman does he is actually getting cheaper insurance, if you view it as insurance per mile. As I said before I would like the option of per mile insurance. I do not have a car, I would drive very little and it would be cheaper for me to get taxis or rent cars during the course of a year. I would love per mile insurance, (and tax etc)

tinkerbell

GreeBo wrote: »

Erm if a sudden movement causes you to crash then you obviously arent a safe distance back...right?

Oh yah but when I said that I said as well - assuming you are a safe distance behind them so that you can stop. If it's like some sorta insane sudden movement or something! Like somebody pulling out in front of you when they are stationary on a hard shoulder of a motorway, that's v dangerous or pulling out of a junction or something without looking.

Wertz

tinkerbell wrote: »

Like somebody pulling out in front of you when they are stationary on a hard shoulder of a motorway, that's v dangerous or pulling out of a junction or something without looking.

What...you mean like a woman would do? :pac:

[edit] To be fair, either sex is as likely to do this, but in all seriousness, when a man pulls out in front of you, at least they'll sink the boot and get up to the traffic speed...women doing this barrel out onto the road and force you to either brake or overtake...in my experience anyhow.

Stark

Wertz wrote: »

[edit] To be fair, either sex is as likely to do this, but in all seriousness, when a man pulls out in front of you, at least they'll sink the boot and get up to the traffic speed...

Assuming they're between the ages of 20 and 50 and not wearing a driving cap*

*Can't go wrong with piling on more stereotypes

Wertz

Stark wrote: »

Assuming they're between the ages of 20 and 50 and not wearing a driving cap*

*Can't go wrong with piling on more stereotypes

That's a fair point.

*hides driving cap behind back*

Enough of this...I'm falling into the same trap the RSA did...but at least I'm big enough to admit it instead of hiding behind incomplete statistics...

wonder.woman

greenfly wrote: »

Im not trying to argue facts, but do you honestly believe that is fair, right and just.
To target young males as the worst drivers on our roads instead of having a national campain to improve observation and safety amoung all drivers?

What about people who arnt young male drivers? Is it ok for them to feel like these warnings dont apply to them but only to a certain category into which they dont fall?
Are they not as dangerous/at risk as everyone else.

Im not trying to argue facts, a fact is a fact end of.

It took me a good while to decide exactly what i want to say to all of this, so here it goes...
Do you know any young male drivers that were killed in accidents, or any young male drivers that were in a one man car crash against a wall...or maybe you have heard about the racing that goes on at night...and it is mostly male drivers.
I am a girl enthusiast(girl racer) or whatever else you want to call it, i have had my fair share of fast cars and high speed and all stupid things that racers do. Well i am sorry but where i live most of the stupid drivers are young and male. Yes i know that there are girls around who will drive up your arse, and in fairness it is pretty funny when you are barely crawling in front of them...but believe me when i tell you that she will not be the person who will cause an accident...It will more than likely be a 17yrs old with a Glanza, that thinks that he owns the road.

And to the dear Tinkerbell...honey if you can put on make up while you are driving, well then i can say that you are a good driver!!!
You people should stop blaming the road surfaces and the conditions because they are things that can be seen...it is all part of a thing called observation and judging by the statement that Tinkerbell made...well girl you lack it...If you are a safe driver, no matter if man/woman, and you see that the speed limit is 100km/h and the road condition is really bad, well you will not continue to drive with the max. But most of the young male drivers do, As they say "I was only f***ing drivin with the limit!!!

Wertz

wonder.woman wrote: »

And to the dear Tinkerbell...honey if you can put on make up while you are driving, well then i can say that you are a good driver!!!

I'd have said the opposite was true...if anyone considers themselves a good driver, they would first consider the point that the road should be commanding 100% of their attention at all times, particularly whilst in slow moving multi-lane traffic. People applying make up or chatting on their mobile are neither giving the road nor other cars their full attention, and so they should not be considered good drivers...doesn't matter if it's a micra or a merc.
Please don't try and dress this up as multitasking or anything either. Like Tinkerbell said, if you must apply make-up get up 5 minutes earlier and do it in your bathroom mirror not in your rear view mirror...

Stark

wonder.woman wrote: »

It took me a good while to decide exactly what i want to say to all of this, so here it goes...
Do you know any young male drivers that were killed in accidents, or any young male drivers that were in a one man car crash against a wall...or maybe you have heard about the racing that goes on at night...and it is mostly male drivers.

Plenty of stories in the newspapers about female drivers of all ages dying in single vehicle crashes.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

dionsiseire wrote: »

Its a disgrace really, im with hibernian for insurance, and im paying them just a few euro's under a grand per year, without the ignition test it was 1300

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, women might be better drivings, but they are not THAT much better, and considering i passed an extra test just to bring myself down from 3 times her premium to double her premium, i find it an absolute disgrace

Wasnt so long ago women were campaigning for equality of pay etc etc, but it seems that insurance being so sexist is absolutely ok in the business world

Your main problem is you are with hibernian...

B!tches who do their makeup on the N81, you know who you are... FCUK OFF.

Woman drove right up my arse in dublin while texting on her mobile, she was looking at her phone then the road, phone, road etc etc...

Anyway, turing 25 does nothing for your insurance. I paid 30 euro less on my insurance last year, I turned 25 AND got a full licence. I don't call that a reduction.

tinkerbell

wonder.woman wrote:

And to the dear Tinkerbell...honey if you can put on make up while you are driving, well then i can say that you are a good driver!!!

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you are applying makeup while driving then you are a complete and utter idiot.

wonder.woman wrote:

You people should stop blaming the road surfaces and the conditions because they are things that can be seen...it is all part of a thing called observation and judging by the statement that Tinkerbell made...well girl you lack it...If you are a safe driver, no matter if man/woman, and you see that the speed limit is 100km/h and the road condition is really bad, well you will not continue to drive with the max. But most of the young male drivers do, As they say "I was only f***ing drivin with the limit!!!

Ha? I lack observation? I don't think so. How did you come to that dumb conclusion? Road conditions can suck no matter what speed you are going. I can't speak for others but I drive according to what road conditions are. I'm a very careful driver.

CR 7

wonder.woman wrote: »

if you can put on make up while you are driving, well then i can say that you are a good driver!!!


You people should stop blaming the road surfaces and the conditions because they are things that can be seen...it is all part of a thing called observation

wonder.woman wrote: »

It took me a good while to decide exactly what i want to say to all of this, so here it goes...

Really?

Lucky you didn't rush it so.

Feathers

Publicans:

Statistically, more pints get sent back which were pulled by women bar staff than men.

If you're hiring barstaff, hire a barman.

- Ad paid for by the Vintners Assoc.

Let's say this were true. Would it be alright to publish, because it's based on statistics? I think it boils down to the fact that judging a person on an attribute which they can't control is called discrimination & is illegal (on the 9 grounds, anyway).

People mentioned that insurance companies are businesses & are interested in the bottom line. The bottom line is that these companies are turning over profits of tens of millions every year and between them have a hold on the market.

If it is all down to statistics why don't they say this:

• Before we insure you we don't know how well you can drive.
• In Year 1, all young male drivers will be €2,500/yr.
• No claim in Year 1, brings your insurance down, let's say to €1,000 - this is paid out of your original payment
• No claim in Year 2 brings down your insuance to a reasonable amount, say €500 (depending on your details at this stage)- this is also paid out of your original payment
• Year 3 onwards operates from your new low premium & you start paying.

rubadub wrote: »

So if a man and is "only" paying twice the insurance that a woman does he is actually getting cheaper insurance, if you view it as insurance per mile.

No, what you're doing is taking the aggregate statistics for the "crash:mile" ratio and saying men do more miles - dearer insurance; women do less - cheaper insurance. Rightly what they should do here is use how many miles you drive. Everyone keeps harping on about stats - there are individuals involved here too.

Stark

Feathers wrote: »

If it is all down to statistics why don't they say this:

• Before we insure you we don't know how well you can drive.
• In Year 1, all young male drivers will be €2,500/yr.
• No claim in Year 1, brings your insurance down, let's say to €1,000 - this is paid out of your original payment
• No claim in Year 2 brings down your insuance to a reasonable amount, say €500 (depending on your details at this stage)- this is also paid out of your original payment
• Year 3 onwards operates from your new low premium & you start paying.

Insurance companies already offer no claims discounts. Have you even thought about the practicalities of your solution?

Feathers wrote: »

No, what you're doing is taking the aggregate statistics for the "crash:mile" ratio and saying men do more miles - dearer insurance; women do less - cheaper insurance. Rightly what they should do here is use how many miles you drive. Everyone keeps harping on about stats - there are individuals involved here too.

Some insurance companies do offer discounts if you declare you do less than 5,000 miles a year or less than 10,000 miles a year. I've never declared less than 10,000 so not sure about the scale of the discount but I think it can be between 5-15%. I imagine it's very difficult for the insurance company to determine you've been truthful when you go to make a claim so that's a limiting factor when it comes to offering you a discount.

Feathers

Stark wrote: »

Insurance companies already offer no claims discounts. Have you even thought about the practicalities of your solution?

The no claims discounts don't cover the amount extra they charge you purely for being male though. Practicalities? Dominos can figure out how to credit my account, I don't see why an insurance company can't. Why, what gaping hole do you see in it?

Stark wrote: »

Some insurance companies do offer discounts if you declare you do less than 5,000 miles a year or less than 10,000 miles a year. I've never declared less than 10,000 so not sure about the scale of the discount but I think it can be between 5-15%. I imagine it's very difficult for the insurance company to determine you've been truthful when you go to make a claim so that's a limiting factor when it comes to offering you a discount.

The point though isn't the discount for the amount of miles, the point is that male drivers are charged more because of stats that are flawed to begin with. Are they technically right? Yes, of course. Are they quoted out of context? Again, yes.

Stark

Feathers wrote: »

The no claims discounts don't cover the amount extra they charge you purely for being male though. Practicalities? Dominos can figure out how to credit my account, I don't see why an insurance company can't. Why, what gaping hole do you see in it?

Insurance works on the principle that most people don't get their premium back if they don't claim. That's how other people can get more back than they put in if misfortune strikes.

Feathers wrote: »

The point though isn't the discount for the amount of miles, the point is that male drivers are charged more because of stats that are flawed to begin with. Are they technically right? Yes, of course. Are they quoted out of context? Again, yes.

Unfortunately using those stats means they can make more money. Is it wrong? Yes, but then we all know sexism only applies to women...

There are also issues when it comes to community rating and car insurance due to its discretionary nature. If they applied equal premiums to everyone, then low risk drivers would not apply, the insurance company would lose out on revenue and they would have to increase premiums to compensate. Meaning you don't actually win anything.

greenfly

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..

Depends if speed is a risk factor,I am a young male and drive whatever speed I want and havent got a ticket in the 5 years I have been driving.

I would still consider myself a very good driver and many on the road are worse,I think men have a weakness for speed,whether that contributes or not is another story.

I dont think speed neccessarily means unsafe.

rubadub

Originally Posted by rubadub View Post
So if a man and is "only" paying twice the insurance that a woman does he is actually getting cheaper insurance, if you view it as insurance per mile.

Feathers wrote: »

No, what you're doing is taking the aggregate statistics for the "crash:mile" ratio and saying men do more miles - dearer insurance; women do less - cheaper insurance. Rightly what they should do here is use how many miles you drive. Everyone keeps harping on about stats - there are individuals involved here too.

Thats what I was saying.... Except I never mention crashes, they are irrelevant as I keep saying, it is all about the amount claimed.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Stark wrote: »

Insurance companies already offer no claims discounts. Have you even thought about the practicalities of your solution?



Some insurance companies do offer discounts if you declare you do less than 5,000 miles a year or less than 10,000 miles a year. I've never declared less than 10,000 so not sure about the scale of the discount but I think it can be between 5-15%. I imagine it's very difficult for the insurance company to determine you've been truthful when you go to make a claim so that's a limiting factor when it comes to offering you a discount.

Thing is, the no claims discount in my case is useless... it's only 3 years, but hardly effects my premium. I pay 800+ a year, I drive a standard 1.4 ford focus, hardly a fast or powerful car. I am 26 with a full licence. I expect my premium to stay around the same this year... which is not fair.

Thing is, "the man drives, the woman dies", how many couples out there will have a woman driving most of the time. My GF has her licence a lot longer than me, but I do 100% of the driving, of course the statistics will show that she dies when he drives. Thing is, men drive a lot more than women.

Stark

Paola Kind Octagon wrote: »

Thing is, the no claims discount in my case is useless... it's only 3 years, but hardly effects my premium. I pay 800+ a year, I drive a standard 1.4 ford focus, hardly a fast or powerful car. I am 26 with a full licence. I expect my premium to stay around the same this year... which is not fair.

Insurance premiums for everyone went up this year due to the collapse of insurance company investments. That's why it seems like you haven't gotten a discount for your NCB this year. Most insurance companies offer 50% discount over what they would have quoted you if you have 5 years NCB.

Paola Kind Octagon wrote: »

Thing is, "the man drives, the woman dies", how many couples out there will have a woman driving most of the time. My GF has her licence a lot longer than me, but I do 100% of the driving, of course the statistics will show that she dies when he drives. Thing is, men drive a lot more than women.

Yes, that's true. That campaign is nothing more than sexist hate mongering.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Stark wrote: »

Insurance premiums for everyone went up this year due to the collapse of insurance company investments. That's why it seems like you haven't gotten a discount for your NCB this year. Most insurance companies offer 50% discount over what they would have quoted you if you have 5 years NCB.



Yes, that's true. That campaign is nothing more than sexist hate mongering.

Oh I understand that during a recession, premiums will go up. Before the recession my quote did not differ that much. I don't expect it to go down this yea either

Do you get a 50% discount with a 5 year NCB? That would be pretty nice

Overheal

Rylie Wonderful Yoga wrote: »

Depends if speed is a risk factor,I am a young make and drive whatever speed I want and havent got a ticket in the 5 years I have been driving.

I would still consider myself a very good driver and many on the road are worse,I think men have a weakness for speed,whether that contributes or not is another story.

I dont think speed neccessarily means unsafe.

Speed factors in, but the worst factor anymore?

Distracted driving is another problem, and one I notice, women are quite guilty of: Texting While Driving. The latest studies in the subject show that Texting while behind the wheel makes you 23 times more likely to be in an accident. Drunk Driving? "Only" 11 Times more likely.

DarkJager

This campaign won't be around for much longer I hope. I've responded to a very ****ty "please **** off" response from the adverts creators, filled with fantastical stats that I got in return for my original complaint, by transcribing the advert line for line, then painstakingly pointing out which sections of the broadcasting code are being broken. Would you believe out of 13 lines in the advert, only 3 do not contain material which sexistly discriminates against male car owners?? Its gone for discussion between the BCC board members now, and I've been told I will hear again when they reach a decision.

There is simply no way in hell they can ignore what I've presented them with regards the sexist content of this campaign. I've also asked for stats from 1997-2009 (the same 12 year period the RSA used for their woefully misguided campaign) which show female driver, male passenger deaths and also female driver, male pedestrian deaths. Men need to know the risks they face from abberant female driving after all, if I'm at risk of a distracted female driver running me over or smashing into my car, I damn sure have the equal right to know about it.

If the RSA want to keep pandering to this notion of "only boys crash cars" "only boys kill female passengers", while also ignoring the safety faults of the female gender - then it really would be in the best interests of public safety awareness if this shameless, sexist, utterly hollow organisation be disbanded and a new independent and unbiased safety authority set up in its place. Then Gaybo and Noelly and even the know it all rose of tralee if she wants to go too, can pack their ****ing bags and take the next horse into the sunset - after all the taxi driver might be a male..

j1smithy

Isn't the problem that statistically young male drivers are more likely to be involved in serious accidents than any other demographic. Therefore they are higher risk, which requires a higher premium. You shouldn't blame the insurance companies they are only protecting themselves, but the mindless clowns that are 18-25 that go out and cause these accidents. Unless risk equalisation is introduced to car insurance higher premiums for young men are likely to continue.

He drives, she dies is intentionally offensive. Like much of advertising its considered a success when talked about.. from the marketing mantra, all publicity is good publicity.

What I would like to see after the "He drives, she dies" campaign is that the gardai publish the likely causes of fatal accidents. This not talking ill of the dead annoys me. If a young fella drives into a tree while doing 120km/h on a country road while out of his mind with drink and kills himself and others, the story should be told, loudly and publicly.

I'm an under 25 male driver btw

DarkJager

j1smithy wrote: »

Isn't the problem that statistically young male drivers are more likely to be involved in serious accidents than any other demographic. Therefore they are higher risk, which requires a higher premium. You shouldn't blame the insurance companies they are only protecting themselves, but the mindless clowns that are 18-25 that go out and cause these accidents. Unless risk equalisation is introduced to car insurance higher premiums for young men are likely to continue.

They will obviously have a higher chance of an accident when they do more drving than females in the first place?? And high insurance premiums for male drivers will continue to exist as long as this "males are responsible for everything" attitude continues.

He drives, she dies is intentionally offensive. Like much of advertising its considered a success when talked about.. from the marketing mantra, all publicity is good publicity.

There is no publicity to be gained from this advert, not one bit. The arsehole who came up with the script probably thought "this will get them all talking about the 12 years of stats, and then they'll realise the grand scale murder of females they are committing and the roads will be a safer place". Wrong! This advert has offended people deeply, it has been allowed to run for a number of weeks now which is dispicible, disgusting sexism on its own right, but they have the bare faced cheek to try and pass it off as road safety? They can quite frankly eat a bag of dicks.

What I would like to see after the "He drives, she dies" campaign is that the gardai publish the likely causes of fatal accidents. This not talking ill of the dead annoys me. If a young fella drives into a tree while doing 120km/h on a country road while out of his mind with drink and kills himself and others, the story should be told, loudly and publicly.

I'm an under 25 male driver btw

What I would like to see after it, is a similar campaign highlighting dangerous female road usage, just so us male drivers/pedestrians are aware of what can happen if you meet a car with a female driver. Thats equality, and if there's any such ****ing thing as equality left in this country, they will make that advert or apologise for the cock handed way in which their current campaign came across.

If you ask me personally, the person responsible for this advert concept and tagline deserves to join the dole queue. He/she is a disgrace.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Speed factors in, but the worst factor anymore?

Distracted driving is another problem, and one I notice, women are quite guilty of: Texting While Driving. The latest studies in the subject show that Texting while behind the wheel makes you 23 times more likely to be in an accident. Drunk Driving? "Only" 11 Times more likely.

I would talk on the phone while driving aswell the odd time,guilty as charged.

j1smithy

DarkJager wrote: »

They will obviously have a higher chance of an accident when they do more drving than females in the first place?? And high insurance premiums for male drivers will continue to exist as long as this "males are responsible for everything" attitude continues.

You are missing the point, what you are introducing is another variable (kilometers per gender) so I will make this more simple. Say there are 2 drivers in Ireland, 1 male and 1 female. man drives 10000km per year woman drives 100. Statistically the man is more likely to have an encounter with a tree because he is exposed to more risk (on a larger annual scale) all other things being equal. Therefore in this instance it would be safer to travel with the female. Thats not because the female is a better driver. In this way, He drives She Dies is true.

On any given night they both make the 10km trip home... with all other things being equal they are equally likely to have an accident.

However all things are not equal. I believe it to be an established fact that males are more likely to take risks than females. They therefore have a higher serious accident/fatality rate, and this is borne out by the road death statistics. Females may be involved in more minor collisions however.

DarkJager wrote: »

There is no publicity to be gained from this advert, not one bit. The arsehole who came up with the script probably thought "this will get them all talking about the 12 years of stats, and then they'll realise the grand scale murder of females they are committing and the roads will be a safer place". Wrong! This advert has offended people deeply, it has been allowed to run for a number of weeks now which is dispicible, disgusting sexism on its own right, but they have the bare faced cheek to try and pass it off as road safety? They can quite frankly eat a bag of dicks.

What I would like to see after it, is a similar campaign highlighting dangerous female road usage, just so us male drivers/pedestrians are aware of what can happen if you meet a car with a female driver. Thats equality, and if there's any such ****ing thing as equality left in this country, they will make that advert or apologise for the cock handed way in which their current campaign came across.

If you ask me personally, the person responsible for this advert concept and tagline deserves to join the dole queue. He/she is a disgrace.

You know denial is not just a river in Egypt?!

DarkJager

j1smithy wrote: »

You are missing the point, what you are introducing is another variable (kilometers per gender) so I will make this more simple. Say there are 2 drivers in Ireland, 1 male and 1 female. man drives 10000km per year woman drives 100. Statistically the man is more likely to have an encounter with a tree because he is exposed to more risk (on a larger annual scale) all other things being equal. Therefore in this instance it would be safer to travel with the female. Thats not because the female is a better driver. In this way, He drives She Dies is true.

On any given night they both make the 10km trip home... with all other things being equal they are equally likely to have an accident.

However all things are not equal. I believe it to be an established fact that males are more likely to take risks than females. They therefore have a higher serious accident/fatality rate, and this is borne out by the road death statistics. Females may be involved in more minor collisions however.

Established facts??? You've visited every single male driver in the country then and surveyed his driving habits? That's generalising, just like the RSA is doing. It seems there is a very bizzare and ****ed up stereotype of male drivers in this country. You'd swear every guy owning a car was out on the roads pulping grannies, pulling handbrake turns into oncoming traffic and pwning young couples with his gravity defying death machine.

My point is that you don't know every male driver in this country or what their views on taking a risk vs getting home alive are. Some of us just want to get from A to B in one piece, safely at that.

You know denial is not just a river in Egypt?!

I have no idea what you mean by this.

cliojamie

I have 2 sisters and each of them are more careless at driving then i am, i may speed a bit but on motorways (wheres there is less serious accidents) but my sisters are mad on back roads where they are always well above the speed limit so if any one is going to kill some one from speeding its the girls!!:o

El Guapo!

It really pisses me off that a poxy statistic can allow insurance companies to rob every young male driver in the country. Its nothing short of criminal.
A statistic....so what. I bet if the statistic said black people get in the most crashes they wouldn't even think about crucifying every black person cause then they'd be "racist".(Im not picking on black people just using it as an example). Its a fúcking disgrace.
But what annoys me even more is everybody just bends over and takes it. People march and protest about everything else every day of the week so why not this? I personally am sick of it and think its about time we do something about it. :mad:

Stark

Dean09 wrote: »

But what annoys me even more is everybody just bends over and takes it. People march and protest about everything else every day of the week so why not this? I personally am sick of it and think its about time we do something about it. :mad:

Go on then.

givyjoe81

DamoDLK wrote: »

Stats man, ya cant argue with the stats... roll on 25 for me!

Statisitcs mean nothing to the individual, just cos a small proportion of tiny dciked clowns cant slow down doesnt mean I cant and am therefor going to murder everyone else on the road.

Bob_Harris

I'm a young male driver.

Some guy in a white van shouted at me calling me a "Prick" today, funnily enough he was actually the one in the wrong, but there's no talking to van drivers.

Eoin

Dean09 wrote: »

People march and protest about everything else every day of the week so why not this? I personally am sick of it and think its about time we do something about it. :mad:

There was MIJAG back in the day, not sure if they're still around. Insurance premiums dropped considerably when the MIAB was introduced. I would bet that most the young fellas bitching about the cost of insurance are:

1) Paying less than what they would have a few years ago
2) Getting their own policy younger
3) Driving more powerful cars than could be afforded a few years ago

If they don't go by probabilities and statistics, how would you propose they measure the charge to you? Each person is monitored / assessed, driving the cost of insurance up?

j1smithy

DarkJager wrote: »

Established facts??? You've visited every single male driver in the country then and surveyed his driving habits? That's generalising, just like the RSA is doing. It seems there is a very bizzare and ****ed up stereotype of male drivers in this country. You'd swear every guy owning a car was out on the roads pulping grannies, pulling handbrake turns into oncoming traffic and pwning young couples with his gravity defying death machine.

My point is that you don't know every male driver in this country or what their views on taking a risk vs getting home alive are. Some of us just want to get from A to B in one piece, safely at that.

Yes it is an established fact that young male drivers are the riskiest to insure. Thats different from saying all young male drivers are careless. Yes its generalising but thats what statistics are... a sample of a set.

One could consider it a form of risk equalisation across the demographic. Its the same reason why say, fire and theft cost more if your address is Finglas. Is that fair either, no, but insurance companies aren't charities. What you put down as your profession also affects your premium, a journalist would pay quite a bit more than an engineer. A single journalist might be a great driver, but the likelihood that he isn't is greater than that of the engineer so he pays more.

Anecdotally I can see where the insurance companies are coming from. Anytime I see someone acting the bollocks in a car it is always a young male. I'm not saying all do but a proportion, and because of this young males pay more. It would be great if insurance companies could price these **** off the road, however its all to easy to pass "ignition" and then go and do handbrake turns in the middle of the road when you leave. There is no way of isolating the good from the bad so we all pay more.

Is it fair? No, but the alternative is to not let all young males drive at all until the mindset of some of them changes.

givyjoe81

j1smithy wrote: »

Anytime I see someone acting the bollocks in a car it is always a young male. I'm not saying all do but a proportion, and because of this young males pay more. It would be great if insurance companies could price these **** off the road, however its all to easy to pass "ignition" and then go and do handbrake turns in the middle of the road when you leave. There is no way of isolating the good from the bad so we all pay more.

Total bull sh1t unless you close your eyes when your out driving, course there are skobes acting the clown but for me, its taxi drivers who act the clown on the roads and dozy bints who do all manner of dangerous things on the road such as stick the nose of their car out to 'force' you to let them of a minor road and onto a major..

But anyway, total tosh. And as for no way of isolating good from bad, total balls too,which insurance companies would have you believe to justfify continual raping of young male drivers. There are systems which can be installed to monitor the speed and driving patterns etc of ANY driver, particularly those who statistically would be considered to be high risk.

Think any young driver would jump at the chance to stump up the expense of such equipment in return for cheaper insurance. Incidentally other countries, such as Sweden, have breath tester installed into cars (dont know how widespread) to stop drink drivers from starting their car driving away (as far as i remember from college research a few years back anyways)

Eoin

givyjoe81 wrote: »

There are systems which can be installed to monitor the speed and driving patterns etc of ANY driver, particularly those who statistically would be considered to be high risk.

Think any young driver would jump at the chance to stump up the expense of such equipment in return for cheaper insurance.

I thought they did consider (or even introduce) some sort of GPS tracking over here, but there wasn't the demand.

As I said, young males seem to be paying less, driving younger and driving much more powerful cars then someone under 25 could ever have dreamed of 10 years ago.

Stark

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Total bull sh1t unless you close your eyes when your out driving, course there are skobes acting the clown but for me, its taxi drivers who act the clown on the roads and dozy bints who do all manner of dangerous things on the road such as stick the nose of their car out to 'force' you to let them of a minor road and onto a major..

Ah, the classic driver sentiment. No matter what class you fall into, it's always someone else who's causing all the damage. "It's not us men, it's them women". "It's not us women, it's them men". "It's not us drunks, we only drive at 10mph while weaving about the road, it's them speeders". "It's not us careful and sober speeders, it's those drunks" etc. etc.

givyjoe81 wrote: »

But anyway, total tosh. And as for no way of isolating good from bad, total balls too,which insurance companies would have you believe to justfify continual raping of young male drivers. There are systems which can be installed to monitor the speed and driving patterns etc of ANY driver, particularly those who statistically would be considered to be high risk.

Think any young driver would jump at the chance to stump up the expense of such equipment in return for cheaper insurance. Incidentally other countries, such as Sweden, have breath tester installed into cars (dont know how widespread) to stop drink drivers from starting their car driving away (as far as i remember from college research a few years back anyways)

Insurance companies (Hibernian being one example) have tried the technology approach. People have either not opted for it or have taken their business elsewhere. Irish people prefer to pay over the odds rather than having a such a restrictive device installed.

givyjoe81

eoin wrote: »

I thought they did consider (or even introduce) some sort of GPS tracking over here, but there wasn't the demand.

As I said, young males seem to be paying less, driving younger and driving much more powerful cars then someone under 25 could ever have dreamed of 10 years ago.

Wasnt a demand says who?! The insurance company..?! I mean they are hardly going to be championing a device which is going to reduce the amount of profits they make.

The thinking of some insurance companies just baffles me sometimes, for example I cant get a quite from Hibernian even though I have a full licence for 2 years! Flat out, no! Cos I drive a two litre car?! I can break the speed limit just in my old punto just as 'easily' albeit a few seconds later, as I can in my new car

Stark

If it was effective in reducing claims then it wouldn't reduce their profits would it?

Eoin

givyjoe81 wrote: »

The thinking of some insurance companies just baffles me sometimes, for example I cant get a quite from Hibernian even though I have a full licence for 2 years! Flat out, no! Cos I drive a two litre car?! I can break the speed limit just in my old punto just as 'easily' albeit a few seconds later, as I can in my new car

So you don't think there should be any loading based on the car (as any car can break the speed limit), or because a driver is a young male (because not all of them are bad drivers)?

givyjoe81

Stark wrote: »

Ah, the classic driver sentiment. No matter what class you fall into, it's always someone else who's causing all the damage. "It's not us men, it's them women". "It's not us women, it's them men". "It's not us drunks, we only drive at 10mph while weaving about the road, it's them speeders". "It's not us careful and sober speeders, it's those drunks" etc. etc.



Insurance companies (Hibernian being one example) have tried the technology approach. People have either not opted for it or have taken their business elsewhere. Irish people prefer to pay over the odds rather than having a such a restrictive device installed.

Eh what?! I was merely making the observation that its ridiculous to label people, sorry a group bad drivers on an obviously blinkered personal experience. I did acknowledge the dopey skobes into that too remember, and if your trying to imply that im a bad driver, my record to date would prove otherwise, as would my obersvations on the poor skills of others outlined by my example.

And insurance companies haven't exactly pushed the idea now have they, i bet the reduced premium was neglible, I also bet many people simply werent aware of it, as for it being restricting?! You are having a laugh, it only requires that you dont break speed limit etc, doesnt it?! Why would any good driver have a problem with such a device!

Stark

givyjoe81 wrote: »

The thinking of some insurance companies just baffles me sometimes, for example I cant get a quite from Hibernian even though I have a full licence for 2 years! Flat out, no! Cos I drive a two litre car?! I can break the speed limit just in my old punto just as 'easily' albeit a few seconds later, as I can in my new car

2 years? Jasus, seems like only yesterday that you were giving out because they wouldn't let you drive alone on your provisional.

givyjoe81

eoin wrote: »

So you don't think there should be any loading based on the car (as any car can break the speed limit), or because a driver is a young male (because not all of them are bad drivers)?

No, there shouldnt, please explain the rationale behind it, as i have never understood it, my car is a 2 litre but no speed machine by any means, I can break the speed limit just as easily in my old 1.2 litre punto etc. I think as utilising the technology I mentioned, god forbid making it mandatory in all vehicles would see sort out good law abiding drivers from those who arent. Of course that would be subject to some improvement on speed limit settings on various roads etc;)

givyjoe81

Stark wrote: »

2 years? Jasus, seems like only yesterday that you were giving out because they wouldn't let you drive alone on your provisional.

Oh god, deary me, build a bridge perhaps? I embelish a little just under 21 months then.. Hardly yesterday, but time flies as you get on eh?;)

ilovelamp2000

Stark wrote: »

There were no males involved in any of the fatal crashes over the bank holiday weekend. The RSA advice to women not to get into a car with a man driving really made a difference :rolleyes:

I wondered would anybody else have noticed that.

TWO women in their 20s were killed in separate road crashes in counties Meath and Tipperary yesterday.

A woman in her 20s was killed when the car she was driving collided with an articulated lorry on the N24 near Kilsheelan in Co Tipperary last night.

The incident happened at about 9.50pm, a garda spokesman said. The victim, who was alone in the car, was pronounced dead at the scene and her body was taken to Waterford Regional Hospital.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Clonmel Garda Station on 052 61 77640.

Separately, a 23-year-old woman died when the car she was driving crashed into a ditch in Co Meath early yesterday morning.

The incident happened at about 3.15am on the M51 at Curleyland, Athboy. Gardaí said the woman was killed when she lost control of the car and it hit a ditch.

The victim was alone in the car. Her body was removed to Navan General Hospital.

In Co Clare, meanwhile, a 26-year-old pregnant woman was left in a serious condition after a two-car collision. Two other people, including the teenage driver of one car, were also hospitalised after the crash.

It occurred shortly after 3pm yesterday in poor weather conditions on a hill at Knockalough on the R484 Kilmihil road, just a few hundred yards from the main N86 Ennis to Kilrush road.

The pregnant woman was travelling in a black Ford S-max with her mother, thought to be in her late 50s, when they collided with a grey Toyota Corolla which was being driven by a 19-year-old woman. The teenager, who was also injured but not seriously, had to be cut from her car by fire personnel using specialist cutting equipment. It is understood that the mother and daughter are from Clarecastle near Ennis while the 19-year-old is from west Clare.

The collision occurred on a hill near Knockalough Cross. The 26-year-old woman, who is 26-weeks pregnant, was the driver of the black Ford and sustained serious head injuries. She was treated at the scene before being brought by ambulance to the Mid-Western Regional Hospital in Limerick. The woman’s mother was not seriously injured.

Three ambulances from Kilrush and Ennis were sent to the scene along with a rapid response advanced paramedic unit. Two units of the fire brigade from Kilrush also attended. All three patients were triaged at the scene before being taken to the Regional Hospital in Limerick. Patients usually bypass Ennis General Hospital and taken directly to Limerick following the introduction of a “major trauma bypass protocol” introduced last year.

The Toyota swung around at a 90 degree angle following the impact with both vehicles coming to a stop in the ditches.

Garda forensic crash investigators examined the scene before both cars were removed to Kilrush Garda station for further tests.

Gardaí at Kilrush are investigating the collision and have appealed to anyone who may have witnessed the crash to contact them at 065-9080550.

On Saturday, a 25-year-old woman was killed instantly when the car she was driving went out of control and crashed on the Athenry to Galway road on Saturday. The crash happened at Gort na hAbhann late on Saturday night and the driver was named locally as Saffron Richie, who lives locally. Her older sister, who was travelling in the front passenger seat, received minor injuries.