The article demonstrates how statistics CAN be used to lie.  Take a careful look at the numbers behind the numbers.  Men drive 2 1/2 times as many miles as women, a fact which the CHP had readily at its disposal but so passionately ignored. Either they didn't want you to know, didn't know themselves, and/or have been trying everything in the book to obscure for the last 4 decades that per mile driven, males are much better drivers than females.  The accident rate for males is higher than it would be if it were not for the higher accident rate of females.  If female drivers were having accidents with only other female drivers, then they would not contribute to an increase in the male accident rate.  But female drivers have accidents with male drivers also, which drives up the accident rate for males.  The total accident rate for each mile driven by a male, rather than being .000003133 accidents per mile as it now is, would be only .000002010 if female drivers had the same safety record as male drivers.
 
This is 2 1/2 times fewer accidents per mile than female drivers.

The article also noted that "even though [truckers] drive about 21% of the registered vehicles on the road, [they] were involved in only 3% of the state's fatal accidents".  CHP spokeswoman Pat Ryan, a former trucker "Our general experience has been that commercial drivers are safer drivers.  They have to be; it's their livelihood".  This is a bit misleading because it fails to note two important data points:

1. Males, who are already safer drivers than females by a demonstrable 2.5 times, are 89% of the nation's truckers (per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3,454K male and 428K female).
2. The percent of registered vehicles which are trucks is not nearly as important as the fact that truckers drive 32.9% of the nation's miles (per the US Statistical Abstract, they drive 786.3 Billion of the total 2,388.3 Billion miles driven each year).

If in addition the number of miles driven per year could be reduced by 76.6 Billion miles, or 29%, this would decrease the number of drivers/year involved in accidents by another (530,640 x 29%) or 153,886 drivers.  This is a total reduction of 581,974 drivers involved in accidents, or  a grand total reduction of 60.7%, before taking into account the benefits of lower congestion.

There are 43,900 traffic fatalities per year in the US.  A reduction of 60.7% would save a remarkable 26,647 lives per year.  This is more lives than are saved every year from all the child abuse laws, the Violence Against Women's Act, the Gun Control laws, Cancer Research funding, AIDs funding, and OSHA combined.  It is the equivalent of 133 jumbo jet crashes per year, 157 Oklahoma City Bombings per year, 333 Wacos per year, or 436 Northridge Earthquakes per year.  Per the National Safety Council, the loss to motor vehicle accidents each year is $170.6 Billion, so a 60.7% reduction in the accident rate would save the economy $103.5 Billion per year, or 1.5% of GDP.

If all-male drivers have the potential to save the nation 1.5% of GDP and 26,647 lives per year, then how much could be saved with an all-male military?  What do you think can or should be done?  How much are we as taxpayers willing to spend to give women super rights when we as taxpayers cannot find any benefits from this, and particularly when it is so costly in both dollars and lives?
 
 

CALCULATIONS
Some accidents involve only one driver and some involve 3 or more, a rough average of 2 drivers per accident, giving us (958,784 accidents divided by 2 drivers/accident, or ) 479,392 accidents per year.  The probability of a male having an accident is X, and the probability of a female having an accident as noted above is 1.66 times that, or 1.66X.
A = male:male accident = X x X = X² = 88,448
B = male:female accident = 1.66X x 1.66X = 2.76X² = 244,116
C = female:female accident = 1.51X x X = 1.66X² = 146,824
A + B + C =  479,392, so X = 297.4
If all of the B drivers had the same probability of having an accident as the A drivers did, then the number of B accidents would have been 88,448 rather than 244,116, or 155,668  less. If all the C drivers had the same probability of having an accident as the A drivers did, then the number of C accidents would have been 88,448 rather than 146,824, or 58,376 less.  Instead of 479,392 accidents, if drivers B & C had had the same skill as drivers A, there would have been only 265,348 accidents, which is 214,044, or 44.7%, fewer accidents, and 428,088 fewer drivers involved in accidents.
 

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party