Women Drivers

Christian Party

The Los Angeles Times' Headline was "Statistics Support Steering Clear of Driving Stereotypes" and Evan Nossoff of the DMV was quoted as saying "Women tend to get into significantly fewer accidents than men". This statement was supported allegedly by the fact that "6.4% of the male drivers in California are likely to be involved in accidents, compared to 4.5% of the females."

Case closed, right? This is the word from the media, and the media rules, right? Us men are supposed to sit back and accept this edict from the media that bad remarks about "women drivers" are merely stereotypes which unfairly criticize the fair sex, right?

Wrong.

This article proves that the media are mediots, that they are on a destructive agenda, or both. Take a careful look at the numbers behind the numbers, which the LA Times had easily at its disposal and so passionately ignored:

California Drivers	Male	Female	Total	Male:Female Ratio
Percent Drivers in Accidents	6.4%	4.5%		1.42:1
Total Drivers	8,919,394	8,620,952	17,540,346	1.03:1
Drivers/Year in Accidents	570,841	387,943	958,784	1.47:1
Miles/Year Driven	182.2 Billion	81.8 Billion	264 Billion	2.23:1
Accidents/Mile	.000003133	.000004743	.000003632	.66:1
IF ALL MILES DRIVEN BY MALES
Miles/Year Driven	264 Billion	0	264 Billion	~
Accidents/Mile in Only Male Drivers	.000002275	0	.000002275	~
Drivers/Year in Accidents	600,492	0	600,492	~

Reduction in Drivers/Year Involved in Accidents			358,292

What the media either didn't want you to know, didn't know themselves, and/or has been trying everything in the world to obscure for the last 4 decades, is that males are such better drivers than females that women drivers represent a serious health risk. The propensity for females to have accidents creates more problems than just their proportionate share of accidents. If female drivers were running into only other female drivers, then they would not contribute to an increase in the male accident rate. But female drivers are running into male drivers also, which drives up the accident rate for males. The accident rate for males, rather than being .000003133 accidents per mile, would be only .000002275 if female drivers didn't boost up their accident rate.

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 1.51 times that, or 1.51X.

A = male:male accident = X x X = X² = 100,082
B = male:female accident = 1.51X x 1.51X = 2.28X² = 228,187
C = female:female accident = 1.51X x X = 1.51X² = 151,124

A + B + C = 479,392, so X = 316.36

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 100,082 rather than 228,187, or 128,105 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 100,082 rather than 151,127, or 51,045 less. So instead of 479,392 accidents, if drivers B & C had had the same skill as drivers A, there would have been only 300,246 accidents, which is 179,146, or 37.4%, fewer accidents, and 358,292 fewer drivers involved in accidents.

If women didn't drive, though, it is probable that the number of miles driven per year would be reduced by 81.8 Billion miles, or 31%, which would decrease the number of drivers/year involved in accidents by another (600,492 x 31%) 186,152 drivers. This is a total reduction of 544,444 drivers involved in accidents, which is a grand total reduction of 56.8%.

Modified Tuesday, January 18, 2011