Brian Smith

"slider" <daroy@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:WOEIc.24992$vO1.136965@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Brian...
> Noticed your "signature: on this post and it rang a bell.I recognize it
from
> Hfx. newsgroups.
> I myself just bought a 2001 Accord ex and thought I would check to see if
> there are any NG's covering Hondas,and as you can see I found one.So far I
> love it,especially the leather!
>
> See you in Hfx. newsgroups!

Welcome. Catch you at home <g>.

--
Brian

www.cakesbydarlene.ca

www.accesswave.ca/~orion

Nate

>Insurance data says otherwise: Women are safer drivers, and hence their rates
>tend to be lower.

There is an obvious reason for this. In most families, even if the
wife and the husband are each registered to their own vehicle,
whenever both of them go anywhere together, who is going to drive? The
man is over 80% of the time certainly, and my gut says over 90%. This
is also when they are going to talk to each other, creating the same
issues as the cell-phone-to-the-ear syndrome. Same thing on long
trips, the man will drive most of the time. While mileage-wise, most
accidents occur close to home, almost all of the major accidents in my
extended family have occurred on long trips away from home. Also, take
Florida as an example. Studies have borne out in Florida that while
older people do not have any increase in accidents that are _legally_
their fault, they have a MUCH higher incidence of having themselves
rearended, both at intersections and on the interstate. So are old
people safer? Only in the monetary sense for their own insurance
company. For their actual physical safety and the safety of others,
absolutely not. Same goes for women drivers. While this certainly does
no apply to all women, I see a lot more non-signalled abrupt lane
changes at speeds much lower than the prevailing speed of traffic.
This obviously leads to many more rear-end collisions which could be
construed to be the other person's fault. I'm not going to say what
you should or shouldn't believe, I'm just going to say that yes,
statistics sometimes DO lie.

Nate

Nate

>Insurance data says otherwise: Women are safer drivers, and hence their rates
>tend to be lower.

There is an obvious reason for this. In most families, even if the
wife and the husband are each registered to their own vehicle,
whenever both of them go anywhere together, who is going to drive? The
man is over 80% of the time certainly, and my gut says over 90%. This
is also when they are going to talk to each other, creating the same
issues as the cell-phone-to-the-ear syndrome. Same thing on long
trips, the man will drive most of the time. While mileage-wise, most
accidents occur close to home, almost all of the major accidents in my
extended family have occurred on long trips away from home. Also, take
Florida as an example. Studies have borne out in Florida that while
older people do not have any increase in accidents that are _legally_
their fault, they have a MUCH higher incidence of having themselves
rearended, both at intersections and on the interstate. So are old
people safer? Only in the monetary sense for their own insurance
company. For their actual physical safety and the safety of others,
absolutely not. Same goes for women drivers. While this certainly does
no apply to all women, I see a lot more non-signalled abrupt lane
changes at speeds much lower than the prevailing speed of traffic.
This obviously leads to many more rear-end collisions which could be
construed to be the other person's fault. I'm not going to say what
you should or shouldn't believe, I'm just going to say that yes,
statistics sometimes DO lie.

Nate

Caroline

"Nate" <nhzero@removeifnotspam.yahoo.com> wrote
C wrote
> >Insurance data says otherwise: Women are safer drivers, and hence their rates
> >tend to be lower.
>
> There is an obvious reason for this. In most families, even if the
> wife and the husband are each registered to their own vehicle,
> whenever both of them go anywhere together, who is going to drive?

The rule applies to teenage boys and girls, too.

But--
1.
IIRC, the gender insurance rate disparity goes down as age rises.

2.
Also, IIRC the disparity between teenage boys and girls has been decreasing in
the last decade or so. Girls are taking more risks on the road (and off,
arguably). Kinda like they're probably achieving more sports injuries than a few
decades ago. (Hmm)

You are claiming, in large part, that people who drive more miles per year will
have higher insurance rates. Of course. I have no dispute with this.

But I am claiming that, for the same miles per year and same ages for Woman X
and Man Y, on average the woman will pay less. (I presume married couples where
the man does most of the driving report that he does most of the driving.)

You're also arguing that the accident rate varies depending on whether its
"around town" driving or long trip/vacation driving. I'd be guessing as to which
results in more accidents per mile. I thought it was "around town," but I could
be wrong. One can probably google and nail this little statistic.

I see you complaining about how women drive, with exceptions (fair enough).
We're just exchanging anecdotes here, so I'll toss in my own: The most dangerous
drivers in any area in which I have lived have by far been young men. Leaping
from stoplights with a squeal. Speeding. Abrupt stops from high speed. Hanging
out the car windows and yelling nonsense.

Then there is, IMO, a nature or nurture conditioning of men to be more
aggressive. Not all men. But on average. I do suspect this translates to higher
car accident rates. The greater aggression has its pros, too. E.g. if there's
another genocide, I want the strongest, most aggressive people fighting on my
behalf. Or, if some guy were harassing me, I'd want a big old linebacker husband
without a soft touch to put him in his place (within the law).

So you have your data collection. I have mine. When I see a car weaving,
speeding, etc. on the road, I put some distance between him and me. And it is
almost always a he.

Also, I see you claiming that people who are rear-ended should carry more blame
than the law currently provides. I can't believe the courts or insurers are that
messed up.

> The
> man is over 80% of the time certainly, and my gut says over 90%. This
> is also when they are going to talk to each other, creating the same
> issues as the cell-phone-to-the-ear syndrome. Same thing on long
> trips, the man will drive most of the time. While mileage-wise, most
> accidents occur close to home, almost all of the major accidents in my
> extended family have occurred on long trips away from home. Also, take
> Florida as an example. Studies have borne out in Florida that while
> older people do not have any increase in accidents that are _legally_
> their fault, they have a MUCH higher incidence of having themselves
> rearended, both at intersections and on the interstate. So are old
> people safer? Only in the monetary sense for their own insurance
> company. For their actual physical safety and the safety of others,
> absolutely not. Same goes for women drivers. While this certainly does
> no apply to all women, I see a lot more non-signalled abrupt lane
> changes at speeds much lower than the prevailing speed of traffic.
> This obviously leads to many more rear-end collisions which could be
> construed to be the other person's fault. I'm not going to say what
> you should or shouldn't believe, I'm just going to say that yes,
> statistics sometimes DO lie.

We mostly disagree.

Caroline

"Nate" <nhzero@removeifnotspam.yahoo.com> wrote
C wrote
> >Insurance data says otherwise: Women are safer drivers, and hence their rates
> >tend to be lower.
>
> There is an obvious reason for this. In most families, even if the
> wife and the husband are each registered to their own vehicle,
> whenever both of them go anywhere together, who is going to drive?

The rule applies to teenage boys and girls, too.

But--
1.
IIRC, the gender insurance rate disparity goes down as age rises.

2.
Also, IIRC the disparity between teenage boys and girls has been decreasing in
the last decade or so. Girls are taking more risks on the road (and off,
arguably). Kinda like they're probably achieving more sports injuries than a few
decades ago. (Hmm)

You are claiming, in large part, that people who drive more miles per year will
have higher insurance rates. Of course. I have no dispute with this.

But I am claiming that, for the same miles per year and same ages for Woman X
and Man Y, on average the woman will pay less. (I presume married couples where
the man does most of the driving report that he does most of the driving.)

You're also arguing that the accident rate varies depending on whether its
"around town" driving or long trip/vacation driving. I'd be guessing as to which
results in more accidents per mile. I thought it was "around town," but I could
be wrong. One can probably google and nail this little statistic.

I see you complaining about how women drive, with exceptions (fair enough).
We're just exchanging anecdotes here, so I'll toss in my own: The most dangerous
drivers in any area in which I have lived have by far been young men. Leaping
from stoplights with a squeal. Speeding. Abrupt stops from high speed. Hanging
out the car windows and yelling nonsense.

Then there is, IMO, a nature or nurture conditioning of men to be more
aggressive. Not all men. But on average. I do suspect this translates to higher
car accident rates. The greater aggression has its pros, too. E.g. if there's
another genocide, I want the strongest, most aggressive people fighting on my
behalf. Or, if some guy were harassing me, I'd want a big old linebacker husband
without a soft touch to put him in his place (within the law).

So you have your data collection. I have mine. When I see a car weaving,
speeding, etc. on the road, I put some distance between him and me. And it is
almost always a he.

Also, I see you claiming that people who are rear-ended should carry more blame
than the law currently provides. I can't believe the courts or insurers are that
messed up.

> The
> man is over 80% of the time certainly, and my gut says over 90%. This
> is also when they are going to talk to each other, creating the same
> issues as the cell-phone-to-the-ear syndrome. Same thing on long
> trips, the man will drive most of the time. While mileage-wise, most
> accidents occur close to home, almost all of the major accidents in my
> extended family have occurred on long trips away from home. Also, take
> Florida as an example. Studies have borne out in Florida that while
> older people do not have any increase in accidents that are _legally_
> their fault, they have a MUCH higher incidence of having themselves
> rearended, both at intersections and on the interstate. So are old
> people safer? Only in the monetary sense for their own insurance
> company. For their actual physical safety and the safety of others,
> absolutely not. Same goes for women drivers. While this certainly does
> no apply to all women, I see a lot more non-signalled abrupt lane
> changes at speeds much lower than the prevailing speed of traffic.
> This obviously leads to many more rear-end collisions which could be
> construed to be the other person's fault. I'm not going to say what
> you should or shouldn't believe, I'm just going to say that yes,
> statistics sometimes DO lie.

We mostly disagree.

Fred Smith

Nice try Nate. I totally agree that statistics can be misleading but don't
you think that insurance companies have enough smarts to understand
statistics way better than either you or I could even imagine? That's their
business.

Fred


"Nate" <nhzero@removeifnotspam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7oc7h01tfcdv2s6pqnkj27nl8rkbmnlrg9@4ax.com...
> >Insurance data says otherwise: Women are safer drivers, and hence their
rates
> >tend to be lower.
>
> There is an obvious reason for this. In most families, even if the
> wife and the husband are each registered to their own vehicle,
> whenever both of them go anywhere together, who is going to drive? The
> man is over 80% of the time certainly, and my gut says over 90%. This
> is also when they are going to talk to each other, creating the same
> issues as the cell-phone-to-the-ear syndrome. Same thing on long
> trips, the man will drive most of the time. While mileage-wise, most
> accidents occur close to home, almost all of the major accidents in my
> extended family have occurred on long trips away from home. Also, take
> Florida as an example. Studies have borne out in Florida that while
> older people do not have any increase in accidents that are _legally_
> their fault, they have a MUCH higher incidence of having themselves
> rearended, both at intersections and on the interstate. So are old
> people safer? Only in the monetary sense for their own insurance
> company. For their actual physical safety and the safety of others,
> absolutely not. Same goes for women drivers. While this certainly does
> no apply to all women, I see a lot more non-signalled abrupt lane
> changes at speeds much lower than the prevailing speed of traffic.
> This obviously leads to many more rear-end collisions which could be
> construed to be the other person's fault. I'm not going to say what
> you should or shouldn't believe, I'm just going to say that yes,
> statistics sometimes DO lie.
>
> Nate

Fred Smith

Nice try Nate. I totally agree that statistics can be misleading but don't
you think that insurance companies have enough smarts to understand
statistics way better than either you or I could even imagine? That's their
business.

Fred


"Nate" <nhzero@removeifnotspam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7oc7h01tfcdv2s6pqnkj27nl8rkbmnlrg9@4ax.com...
> >Insurance data says otherwise: Women are safer drivers, and hence their
rates
> >tend to be lower.
>
> There is an obvious reason for this. In most families, even if the
> wife and the husband are each registered to their own vehicle,
> whenever both of them go anywhere together, who is going to drive? The
> man is over 80% of the time certainly, and my gut says over 90%. This
> is also when they are going to talk to each other, creating the same
> issues as the cell-phone-to-the-ear syndrome. Same thing on long
> trips, the man will drive most of the time. While mileage-wise, most
> accidents occur close to home, almost all of the major accidents in my
> extended family have occurred on long trips away from home. Also, take
> Florida as an example. Studies have borne out in Florida that while
> older people do not have any increase in accidents that are _legally_
> their fault, they have a MUCH higher incidence of having themselves
> rearended, both at intersections and on the interstate. So are old
> people safer? Only in the monetary sense for their own insurance
> company. For their actual physical safety and the safety of others,
> absolutely not. Same goes for women drivers. While this certainly does
> no apply to all women, I see a lot more non-signalled abrupt lane
> changes at speeds much lower than the prevailing speed of traffic.
> This obviously leads to many more rear-end collisions which could be
> construed to be the other person's fault. I'm not going to say what
> you should or shouldn't believe, I'm just going to say that yes,
> statistics sometimes DO lie.
>
> Nate

Steve Bigelow

"Nate" <nhzero@removeifnotspam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7oc7h01tfcdv2s6pqnkj27nl8rkbmnlrg9@4ax.com...
Studies have borne out in Florida that while
> older people do not have any increase in accidents that are _legally_
> their fault, they have a MUCH higher incidence of having themselves
> rearended, both at intersections and on the interstate.

"Having themselves rearended"?.....I've never heard that term before.

Steve Bigelow

"Nate" <nhzero@removeifnotspam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7oc7h01tfcdv2s6pqnkj27nl8rkbmnlrg9@4ax.com...
Studies have borne out in Florida that while
> older people do not have any increase in accidents that are _legally_
> their fault, they have a MUCH higher incidence of having themselves
> rearended, both at intersections and on the interstate.

"Having themselves rearended"?.....I've never heard that term before.

Harry Cox

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 16:36:13 GMT, Nate
<nhzero@removeifnotspam.yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Insurance data says otherwise: Women are safer drivers, and hence their rates
>>tend to be lower.
>
>There is an obvious reason for this. In most families, even if the
>wife and the husband are each registered to their own vehicle,
>whenever both of them go anywhere together, who is going to drive? The
>man is over 80% of the time certainly, and my gut says over 90%. This
>is also when they are going to talk to each other, creating the same
>issues as the cell-phone-to-the-ear syndrome. Same thing on long
>trips, the man will drive most of the time. While mileage-wise, most
>accidents occur close to home, almost all of the major accidents in my
>extended family have occurred on long trips away from home. Also, take
>Florida as an example. Studies have borne out in Florida that while
>older people do not have any increase in accidents that are _legally_
>their fault, they have a MUCH higher incidence of having themselves
>rearended, both at intersections and on the interstate. So are old
>people safer? Only in the monetary sense for their own insurance
>company. For their actual physical safety and the safety of others,
>absolutely not. Same goes for women drivers. While this certainly does
>no apply to all women, I see a lot more non-signalled abrupt lane
>changes at speeds much lower than the prevailing speed of traffic.
>This obviously leads to many more rear-end collisions which could be
>construed to be the other person's fault. I'm not going to say what
>you should or shouldn't believe, I'm just going to say that yes,
>statistics sometimes DO lie.

Rear-end collisions are caused by tailgating. Tailgating is rampant.
Many drivers are impatient, always want to go faster. They don't care
about the risk.

At work, everybody is a paragon of safety. They are fussy about the
company following safety rules and indignant if slight dangers appear
that could be blamed on the company. On the road, the same people are
cutthroats, ignoring speed limits, amber lights, and following
distance.

The cops don't care. They say, let the insurance sort it out.

Too bad for you, though, if you are one of the folks who obeys the
speed limit or might find yourself in an unfamiliar situation and slow
down to figure it out, and you get rear-ended by some type A idiot.

Harry Cox

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 16:36:13 GMT, Nate
<nhzero@removeifnotspam.yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Insurance data says otherwise: Women are safer drivers, and hence their rates
>>tend to be lower.
>
>There is an obvious reason for this. In most families, even if the
>wife and the husband are each registered to their own vehicle,
>whenever both of them go anywhere together, who is going to drive? The
>man is over 80% of the time certainly, and my gut says over 90%. This
>is also when they are going to talk to each other, creating the same
>issues as the cell-phone-to-the-ear syndrome. Same thing on long
>trips, the man will drive most of the time. While mileage-wise, most
>accidents occur close to home, almost all of the major accidents in my
>extended family have occurred on long trips away from home. Also, take
>Florida as an example. Studies have borne out in Florida that while
>older people do not have any increase in accidents that are _legally_
>their fault, they have a MUCH higher incidence of having themselves
>rearended, both at intersections and on the interstate. So are old
>people safer? Only in the monetary sense for their own insurance
>company. For their actual physical safety and the safety of others,
>absolutely not. Same goes for women drivers. While this certainly does
>no apply to all women, I see a lot more non-signalled abrupt lane
>changes at speeds much lower than the prevailing speed of traffic.
>This obviously leads to many more rear-end collisions which could be
>construed to be the other person's fault. I'm not going to say what
>you should or shouldn't believe, I'm just going to say that yes,
>statistics sometimes DO lie.

Rear-end collisions are caused by tailgating. Tailgating is rampant.
Many drivers are impatient, always want to go faster. They don't care
about the risk.

At work, everybody is a paragon of safety. They are fussy about the
company following safety rules and indignant if slight dangers appear
that could be blamed on the company. On the road, the same people are
cutthroats, ignoring speed limits, amber lights, and following
distance.

The cops don't care. They say, let the insurance sort it out.

Too bad for you, though, if you are one of the folks who obeys the
speed limit or might find yourself in an unfamiliar situation and slow
down to figure it out, and you get rear-ended by some type A idiot.

Chris Bradley

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:20:24 GMT, Harry *** <***@SomeDomain.com> sayeth:

>Rear-end collisions are caused by tailgating. Tailgating is rampant.
>Many drivers are impatient, always want to go faster. They don't care
>about the risk.

Valid point. Tailgating is _extremely_ dangerous, especially on
highways. I am nervous to be a passenger with anyone who drives
constantly on someone's rear bumper.

However, there are things everyone can do to ease road-rage.

1. The left lane on highways is a passing lane. Stay out of it.
Some states are even passing laws that will give a $100.00+
ticket if you drive over a mile in the left lane. If you are
driving in the left lane, and you aren't moving quickly to pass,
then you are a danger to everyone and are enticing anger in those
around you, which makes the roads unsafe for everyone.

2. Use your signal, even when switching lanes on the highway. People
get angry (and rightly so) when people dont use their signals.

3. Don't cut people off and then drive slow. If you move out in
fast moving traffic, accelerate as hard as you can to get up
to the speed of the people that you may have just cut off.

There are a handful of others, of course, but most of these cause
people to become angry, which only makes things worse for the careful
drivers out there.

In summary, a safe driver is one who is courteous enough to prevent
others from being angered and possibly dangerous themselves.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com

Chris Bradley

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:20:24 GMT, Harry *** <***@SomeDomain.com> sayeth:

>Rear-end collisions are caused by tailgating. Tailgating is rampant.
>Many drivers are impatient, always want to go faster. They don't care
>about the risk.

Valid point. Tailgating is _extremely_ dangerous, especially on
highways. I am nervous to be a passenger with anyone who drives
constantly on someone's rear bumper.

However, there are things everyone can do to ease road-rage.

1. The left lane on highways is a passing lane. Stay out of it.
Some states are even passing laws that will give a $100.00+
ticket if you drive over a mile in the left lane. If you are
driving in the left lane, and you aren't moving quickly to pass,
then you are a danger to everyone and are enticing anger in those
around you, which makes the roads unsafe for everyone.

2. Use your signal, even when switching lanes on the highway. People
get angry (and rightly so) when people dont use their signals.

3. Don't cut people off and then drive slow. If you move out in
fast moving traffic, accelerate as hard as you can to get up
to the speed of the people that you may have just cut off.

There are a handful of others, of course, but most of these cause
people to become angry, which only makes things worse for the careful
drivers out there.

In summary, a safe driver is one who is courteous enough to prevent
others from being angered and possibly dangerous themselves.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com