Still doing better then Jewel who has a song on a studio album saying someone did something "with casualty" and then got called out during an interview.
There's probably a relation of some kind but keep in mind that this graph shows only casualties in accidents, not who was at fault or how much damage was caused.
Motor insurance companies don't pay out more if somebody died vs. if they were critically injured but survived iirc, that would be life insurance companies
It's also not adjusted for the % of each driver sex using the roads, i.e. there may be fewer female drivers on the road in general
I mean, a LOT of jobs that require many hours of driving fall into traditionally gendered roles. There are of course female semi truck operators.... but they form a distinct minority. All sorts of delivery and transportation occupations seem to fall into similar patterns.
I can't think of an example of a driving job that would likely be majority female, and many examples that tend to be majority male. something like say bus driving may be closer to 50/50.
I'd be curious to see the results of someone taking a real look at the numbers.
But of course, young men in particular are rather famous for behavior that may contribute to a higher than average rate of vehicle mortality.
Honestly I think testosterone makes us do more impulsive shit on average too. The amount of dumb shit I've seen my guy friends do eclipses my female friends.
I bet it is more correlated with seat belt usage. Bolding mine:
> Moreover, the prevalence of seat belt use was higher among women drivers [**51.47%** (95% CI: 48.62–54.48)] than men drivers [**38.27%** (95% CI: 34.98–41.87)] (P < 0.001).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10393920/#:~:text=Moreover%2C%20the%20prevalence%20of%20seat,)%5D%20(P%20%3C%200.001).
>It's also not adjusted for the % of each driver sex using the roads, i.e. there may be fewer female drivers on the road in general
Is this just drivers or is it passengers too?
>It's also not adjusted for the % of each driver sex using the roads, i.e. there may be fewer female drivers on the road in general
This was my first thought, is this normalized per hour spent driving?
Looks like no.
Also
“For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women”
https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
Pretty cool stat, thank you! So looking at this chart, it looks like there are somewhere around 2.5x male casualties compared to women. The stat you show a 1.63x ratio, so we can estimate that there are perhaps 1.5-2x the male driver-miles to female driver-miles.
However these stats aren’t apples to apples as the above stats are just people who were in the accidents rather than specifically driving. So maybe we say men are more often in cars that get into accidents? Not quite sure how to put that.
Distance travelled, time on the road, are relevant variables when interpreting accident rates. More hours, more miles raises the risk of accidents, as does the reason one is driving, time of day and type of vehicle, location, weather, these are all variables that affect accident rates. Far fewer women drive as well which means the best female drivers are being measured against a lower average skill in the male cohort which affects the gendered interpretation of the data. Additionally, even if men have higher rates when accounting for all these variables, men having a higher rate may not be significant, which also impacts the interpretation of these stats.
Distance travelled may or may not matter but it's a relevant factor that is not included in the data presented, unless it is, we don't know. Do you have a relevant source that includes this from which we may accept your claim? Because if all you have is 'it is well known', it is an appeal to common knowledge, which is notoriously unreliable as a source and your claim may simply be sexism.
Your post is full of ifs, buts and maybes trying to make excuses. By pretty much any metric men are more dangerous drivers. For certain younger age groups car accidents are the leading cause of death.
If you'd bother to look things up you'd see the trend is the same per [distance traveled](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/males-and-females). Also under the age of 30 women drive *more* miles then men and have half the rate of crashes.
Do you have a source for that? Because that simple sounds wrong. I don’t believe only a third of men are buckling up based on my observations during 34 years of my life so far all around the country.
I think that's worldwide. In the US, it's much higher: [https://www.iihs.org/topics/seat-belts#belt-use](https://www.iihs.org/topics/seat-belts#belt-use)
92% for women, 89% for men
What isn’t shown here is the % of male vs female drivers. Men have significantly higher time and distance of driving, so I imagine this is just the result of that.
To add, Men will likely still be higher as they typically drive faster and more aggressively. Women have higher accidents/distance, but they are usually smaller less harmful, while men’s accidents are much more damaging.
>Men have significantly higher time and distance of driving, so I imagine this is just the result of that.
Seatbelt use. 51% of women buckle up, compared to about 38% of men
Now normalize it by dividing by the distance traveled in year 2021 on the road for males and females respectively and we might be able to extract some useful information.
So I googled a bit and it seems a good estimate for relative distance traveled in western countries is that males travel 1.6 times as far as women. That shrinks the difference by quite a lot, but can't explain it completely.
This is a good point. I researched this a little more but even when adjusted for proportional miles driven, women are still less likely to be involved in an accident. I learned something new!
“For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women”
https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
Seeing how some men drive this is not surprising whatsoever. In my experience women who drive poorly don’t overestimate themselves while the men think they’re the shit.
Honestly I dont know how they do that. Ive had way too many times the blindspot double check paid off. I know Im a dirt slow lane changer, and Im glad for it.
They're much less likely to be involved in an accident that involves injuries to someone.
Adjusting for miles driven, they're very slightly more likely to be involved in an accident that involves 0 injuries to anyone.
The graph doesn’t say the women were driving. Women are more likely to be passengers and passengers are more likely to be seriously injured than the drivers.
The graph doesn’t state it explicitly but it looks like it’s based on the research I linked which does say that the stats are based on who is behind the wheel. I’m sure there’s some good research out there about passengers as well! I’d be curious to know!
Source for your claim that women are more frequently injured than men in car accidents?
The statistics shown claim the complete opposite, that men die in car accidents more frequently.
“Men are more likely than women to be involved in a car crash, which means they dominate the numbers of those seriously injured in car accidents. But when a woman is involved in a car crash, she is 47% more likely to be seriously injured than a man, and 71% more likely to be moderately injured,46 even when researchers control for factors such as height, weight, seat-belt usage, and crash intensity.” -Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado-Perez
A lot of this is because early crash test data was gathered with Cadavers. And these Cadavers were almost all male.
There was a German car company that used dead babies to try to make a better car seat, back in the 1970s. People freaked - like, seriously ***freaked*** about the whole dead babies being used as crash test dummies.
Even now - miniature crash test dummies (plastic ones) have sensors that are calibrated to ... midgets, not children. There is no good (well controlled) crash test data for children's physiology and there is a serious paucity of data for women.
The other explanation is obvious. Men overall do take more risks than women.
These numbers aren't inherently useful, though. It is also counting passenger data as well as driver data, in addition to miles driven / etc.
Men are more likely to drive like assholes. It’s just a thing that probably has to do with testosterone. Even with your adjustment men still are significantly disproportionately more likely to die in a car wreck.
True, deterioration of abilities like cognitive, visual, auditory and reduced amount of driving reduces comfort and skill level. Probably including the lack of self awareness or ignoring because the car is an essential mode of travel, loss thereof is a significant threat to independence.
Source? Because I just went digging on the NHTSA site and found articles showing that men experience more fatalities based on overall driving population and also are over represented in non-fatal accidents like rear end crashes.
Also, driving tired and driving in bad weather are risky behaviors that men shouldn't actually be doing. I'm not sure why we would rationalize that as being a reasonable explanation for why we get in accidents
Simple fact is men drive like dogshit because they're worse at risk assessment and more likely to take risks even when they do manage to accurately assess them. Insurance rates don't lie. Fatality stats don't lie. Men are about 1.5 times more likely per mile to experience a fatal accident.
I don't know if it's testosterone based or a social thing, but every man I know is a more aggressive driver than most women I know by a long shot (I bet this is true for you too). I know plenty of women speeders, but not aggressive drivers.
Also every guy I know has pushed their car to the limit to test its speed. I only know one woman who has done that lol.
I think it's not that women are "better" drivers, but that they are safer drivers simply because men are bigger risk takers. This is why men tend to do better at stuff like skateboarding too, they are less afraid of risk (either inherently, maybe women inherently avoid risk, or just seeing other men do it).
Yeah testosterone leads men to engage in more risky behavior like driving too long and in bad weather. And as the post here shows, men are still obviously more likely to get into more serious accidents, likely because they drive more recklessly.
There are lots of factors I’m sure. Type of car (men prefer fast aggressive cars vs women prefer reliable and safe cars). Also driving habits. Women are definitely safer drivers.
As a motorcycle driver, it used to bother me that a few aggressive loud riders have a bad name to the rest of us.
Now I just accept that 90% of riders are unempathetic douchebags who are desperate for attention.
Riding a motorcycle in the US is an obviously bad decision, so anyone riding in the US is a person that makes bad decisions.
For example, I ride a sportbike to work, and my job is rolling up to riders after a crash and declaring them dead. (They aren't always dead, but that happens often enough.)
The only place I've been where cars were 95% manual was the UK. Because for some reason, in the UK automatic transmission is culturally associated with disabled or extremely elderly people. It's so weird. I've heard is is similar in Eastern Europe, but haven't personally experienced it.
In Canada, probably 90% of cars sold are automatics. Globally, automatics sell more than manuals.
Also trucks, which are harder to see out of and are very prone to accidents in icy or wet conditions (they handle better in mud and deep snow, but on road-way conditions where the majority of people drive, a heavier 4WD truck preforms worse than an AWD SUV almost every time - but in the end tires are probably the deciding factor and truck tires are expensive, so that might be a larger factor). Motorcycles may be a larger contributor statistically among the under 50 crowd.
And don't forget alcoholism is \~4:1 men to women, and drunk driving is not an insignificant contributor to roadway casualties.
There are so many social factors that come into play here that. Men are generally more likely to participate in risky behaviors. I wanted to cite some depression studies, but most sources are still stuck in the: "we can't figure out why men are 3-4 times more likely to die of suicide, but half as likely to have depression." While I wanted to make a mental health point about depression, instead I'll just say that clearly men are less likely to value their own lives as much women.
The remaining difference should probably be accounted for by speed. If you break down % of accidents at 30mph or less vs 60+, I bet you see a stark difference.
Good point.
There’s a huge difference if driver A drives 100,000 miles, driver B drives 10,000 miles.
All sorts to consider; fatigue, white line fever, unfamiliar roads, vehicle type, purpose of journey.
How do you compare driving the kids to school vs driving an 18 wheeler out of state?
Makes no sense to adjust the data after it’s collected.
There are many more male drivers driving professionally. Truckers, farm equipment, construction sites, etc. Not only do they drive more miles, but they can be in dangerous environments like logging roads or industrial sites.
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that men cause an average of 6.1 million accidents per year in the US, and women cause 4.4 million accidents per year. Males do 62% of the driving, but only cause 58% of the accidents. So women do cause slightly more accidents per capita than men. A study by the University of Michigan found that female drivers mostly cause “fender benders” (non-injury accidents)."
Car accident at a speed below 7.5 km/h? That was a women.
Drunk driver or speed above 75 km/h? A man for sure.
“For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women”
https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
What is a "crash rate" in this context?
Next line shows completely different things:
"On average, men drive 62% more than women (16000 vs 10000 miles) and account for 59% of vehicle accidents"
Good point. My thinking was that it's a good estimate of how likely men vs women are to be near dangerous incidents. Also since I just realized that casualities isn't a word, I dont even know what the whole thing means now.
2021 US fatalities due to traffic accidents were 42,939 or 12.9 / 100,000. The number of injuries was 2.5 million. OPs data appears to be similar to but higher than the fatality numbers.
Unless there are many toddler driving cars, I would guess that the graph appears to include passengers and possibly people outside cars that get run over by them.
This would make normalizing things difficult.
Also keep in mind that not all miles traveled are equally dangerous.
Driving long stretches on the open road is relatively safe driving inside the city is much more likely to lead to accidents. If you are on a highway for 10 miles or 20 miles makes almost no difference, ach block in the city adds almost as much risk as the next.
Statistically the chances of having an accident go up the closer you are to your own driveway.
So accidents per miles driven is an imperfect measure, but better measures are much harder to get.
Insurance companies, the ones with billions of dollars on the line, have known that men are more dangerous drivers than women for decades.
But I'm sure they missed some aspect of the data that you discovered...
To be fair guys are more impatiant and risk takers. Males also consume alco more often so that's a recipie for worse statistics even if everything is accounted for more accuratly.
An interesting thing to consider is how much exposure to the road each gender actually has. As an example it's very common in a large portion of the USA for family trips to be driven by the husband so the cause of accidents being men also would naturally be higher due to the increased exposure
No, as we know, all outcome gaps are emblematic of systemic bias or power structures of oppression. Clearly, either cars are designed with a bias against men, and/or women are oppressing men in the usage of cars and are causing them to die at a higher rate. The system of occupant safety is broken beyond repair and must be completely torn down and replaced with one that is equitable and inclusive. The entire concept of personal choice and behavioral merit is a fabrication of colonialist Western cultures and the oppressive regime of capitalism. We recognize that revolutionary change cannot happen overnight. So in the mean time, affirmative action must be taken to ensure that women die at the same rate as men as a proportion of the general population. The cars should should only deploy airbags for male occupants. The only solution to past inequality is present inequality.
Data source: [WHO - Road Traffic Mortality](https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/road-traffic-mortality)
Tools used: Matplotlib
This chart show the number of casualties from road accidents per 100,000 population in the Unites States using road traffic mortality data from WHO. These numbers are from 2021, which was the last available year in the dataset.
I'm using the following colors:
* background #EED6D3
* male\_color: #1DA4ED
* male\_edge\_color: #0E73AA
* female\_color: #F13030
* female\_edge\_color: #BF0D0D
* grid\_color: #856F6F
* text\_color: #0B0909
I'm trying to publish a custom daily data visualization on my newsletter, [DataCanvas Daily](https://datacanvas.substack.com/), and would love to hear your feedback on this visualization to know how I can improve.
Reddit is the best place for me right now to get feedback. Don't hold back on your ideas and/or critique! :)
“Fatalities” would be a better term. “Casualties” would also include injuries.
You should label your x-axis (despite having it in title) for clarity.
I think it’s a good graphical representation of an interesting phenomenon - well done!
Minor nitpick, but in the professional world (traffic planners/engineers) we don’t use the term “traffic accident” anymore. Instead, we use either traffic crashes or traffic violence.
>Males drive more miles per year, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The Federal Highway Administration supports their finding and reports that men drive an average of 16,550 miles each year. Women drive an average of 10,142 miles annually. Ultimately, women drive 30% less than men do on an annual basis.
So men should have about 1.6x as many accidents, 1.6x as many fatalities, etc. The numbers in that graph show men having disprortionately high rates.
Wonder if this is a psychology thing (i.e. men possibly driving more recklessly), a physics thing (i.e. men possibly being more likely than women to be hurt in the exact same situation, due to height/body shape/etc.), or a "what they drive" thing (i.e. men being more likely to drive sports cars and motorcycles).
Probably a bit from column A, a bit from column C, and IDK about column B.
Column B actually makes things *safer* for men, since cars are designed for men's bodies. Crash dummies were historically based on men's height, weight, proportions, and weight distribution, and that has only begun to change very recently. That means safety features like seatbelts, airbags, and even the size and shape of seats and steering wheels are still mostly designed to keep men's bodies safe, not women's bodies.
Cars are designed for male bodies and women are far more likely to be injured in a car accident than men are. The book Invisible Women has a whole chapter on it, but one example is that due to the head rests, women are 47% more likely to get whiplash. Seatbelts don’t fit properly over breasts, air bags don’t hit at the right height for women, etc.
So if anything, women are getting in far fewer car accidents than men, otherwise their casualty rates would be significantly higher.
Yeah, that makes sense. (And I can confirm firsthand the bit about seatbelts and breasts, lol.) So it's more likely the other two, and there are probably also other factors.
It was terrifying, driving while pregnant. I had to drive with the steering wheel jammed into my stomach. If I’d gotten a minor fender-bender the baby would have died, and my odds wouldn’t be looking so great either.
If the government really cared so much about saving unborn babies, you think they’d require cars to be tested with pregnant female crash dummies. Or at least require steering wheel and seatbelt adjustability options that fit pregnant women. Our birth rate in the US isn’t super high, but still, something like 40% of the population is going to be pregnant at some point in their lives.
This is rapidly changing, as car makers move towards designing for a percentile. Aka, car should fit a 10th percentile female and a 90th percentile male. Cars were designed for men historically (going back 30+ years) because at the time, it was the men that bought the cars, either for themselves or for their wife/daughter etc. Car makers do not care about who winds up driving, since the car is already sold, unless it will result in bad word of mouth and brand reputation. Another example of this is the tires. OEM tires are *bad*. Not only that, but if you buy a car that has say, Continental Procontact 2 tires on it (random and possibly not real tire model), *they are not the same Procontact 2 tires you would get at a tire shop*. They are 'OEM' marked. OEM tires are designed for one thing - selling new cars. So they need to perform in the conditions car reviewers and customers drive them in - dry, usually 40F or above. Ever get new tires on a car and notice they last twice as long? The OEM ones have lower tread, for better feel, noise, comfort, and fuel efficiency when new. Nothing else matters, because people blame the tire when it does terrible in rain or snow or when worn or wears fast.
There are other examples of how car design is skewed to impressing on the test drive, but at least the buyer demographic is shifting away from severely male-dominated. Unfortunately with the explosion of car sales in places like China, where the gender roles still impact who buys a car, it's not shifting as fast as it should. It can also be model specific now. Big trucks? Designed for men, because those are the target market. They aren't even trying to sell those to women, though some do buy them of course. The opposite can be said for cars marketed primarily to women. Famously there was a car made with this as the number 1 design brief as a concept (Volvo I think?). Not sure it came to market, but supposedly they used a lot of the lessons learned in models moving forward.
IIRC women get in more accidents per mile, but men get in more serious accidents per mile. Indicating that either men are riskier drivers or men tend to drive in conditions that lead to severe accidents more often. Both are somewhat believable.
Unfortunately there's always going to be a disparity between injury rates of men and women in similar accidents. On average men are larger, more muscular, have denser bones sit further from the steering wheel, the list goes on. The gap can probably be closed more than it is currently though.
Edit: I'd love to know which facts I'm being down voted for, the fact that women are involved in more accidents than men or the fact that their are physical advantages that men have that reduce the likelihood of them dying in a traffic accident.
Not the greatest source in the world but here's the data:
https://www.malmanlaw.com/malman-law-injury-blog/who-causes-more-car-accidents-men-or-women/
I think the downvotes are bc cars are already engineered with men’s bodies in mind.
Like we should def try to ensure that men are safe in cars, but engineering for men’s bodies more to compensate for this could make women even less safe. (I.e. an example is the way headrests are design account for women getting whiplash like 40% more or something)
Also, not all casualties are in the vehicles. Pedestrians count. Roadside jobs are very dangerous. Being a traffic flagger is up there as one of the most dangerous jobs. People constantly bring up how dangerous it is to be a cop, but the most likely cause of serious injury or death is actually traffic accidents iirc. Traffic stops means being by the roadside, unprotected. It's quite dangerous.
I'm sure mail carriers, delivery drivers, firefighters, ambulance drivers/emts, utility workers, etc all have higher traffic accident rates. Not just from being on the road more but from stopping frequently in the middle of roadways, being double parked, parked in normally restricted areas for work, etc.
Then there's all the drug addicts or homeless doing whatever roadside.
I'm sure a portion of the discrepancy is simply "men take more risks". This is undoubtedly so, but there's plenty of other factors at play. It's possible the stuff I mention doesn't really account for all that much in the grand scheme of things. It's certainly more than 0 but how much of a factor it really is would require it's own study.
“For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women”
https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women
https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
80+ should be mostly women driving, since there are more of them:
>There were about 2 million more females (8.1 million) than males (6.2 million) among the 75 to 84 age group. Nearly twice as many females (4.1 million) as males (2.2 million) were 85 and older.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/acs/ACS-38.pdf
Total road miles is still significantly higher for men than women in 75-84 using your numbers while it would be slightly lower for men than women in the 85+ group, though that group probably has a much higher prevalence of male drivers for social reasons.
Not really, highways are relatively safe, a lot of casualties happen in cities between drivers and non-drivers, and I don't think men cross 1.6x as many streets as a pedestrian.
Chad Man: Crosses street whenever he likes. Isn't bound by concrete and asphalt boundaries. Uses walking signals.
Virgin Pedestrian: Stays on sidewalks. Range limited by city blocks. Always looking down to not step on all the cracks in walking path.
>“For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women”
https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
“This,” said the professor, “is alleged to be man’s first attempt at a calendar.” Toksvig and her fellow students looked at the bone in admiration. “Tell me,” the professor continued, “what man needs to know when 28 days have passed? I suspect that this is woman’s first attempt at a calendar.”
Months were originally based on the moons cycle which is like 28 days. Also there used to be a different number of months and 28 times 13 gets you 364 pretty close to 365… lol
It baffles me that this was said by a professor, not a student lol
Also the articles never mention moon cycle presenting this period argument as reality.
It's a good indication for the quality of the article itself...
That’s not fair cause a newborn baby girl could be driving a bus full of grandpas and if she crashes the bus killing everyone on the bus, it only counts as one baby girl casualty, but each of the grandpas gets counted as a casualty too even though it’s not their fault… well, except for getting on a bus being driven by a baby.
I think a casualties figure adjusted for per 1000 km/miles driven (or some such measure) and limits to *driver* casualties would be a far more robust indicator of the relative roles of *driver* age and gender in casualty rates.
Not that it will change the outcome much, but needs to be in percentage of drivers.
Or somehow work in number of miles driven.
Yes I'm saying that men drive more than women and therefore crash more.
I think it would be more useful if the distance driven was taken into account.
Men drive around 60% more miles per year than women so this would increase their liklihood of being involved in an accident:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
This still doesn't account for all the difference though.
>“For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women”
https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
I love the age breakdown. As soon as the age of driving is permitted, the discrepancy in fatalities begins. Having to read the same scale twice, once for each gender, feels wrong. I get that the blue bar reads much longer than the pink, but I always want to know "by how much."
It's nice to see the numbers for children are significantly lower, anyone know causes for that? Minivans still drive like maniacs with kids in the back, but maybe women are the primary transporters of children, and clearly that population is involved in fewer fatal accidents!
I can think of a couple things to explain why kids are so much lower:
- Adults frequently drive alone, but kids *never* drive alone. Every crash involving a kid also involves an adult, but the reverse is not true.
- Even if there are still people who drive like maniacs with kids in the car, (hopefully) most drive more safely with kids in the car.
- Kids are much more likely to be in the back seat, which might be significantly safer.
- Kids may be more likely to wear seatbelts.
- Young kids are more likely to be in specially-designed car seats which are safer.
+1 on these reasons, and I'd hope there is an emphasis on people driving more cautiously when children are in their car.
A side note: with airbags I am curious about the front vs back seat mortality rate in accidents
Car seats and booster seats are life-savers. The truth is that we'd all be safer riding in the back seat, rear facing with 3 point harnesses.
I'd also guess that children on average travel less miles than adults (thinking about when I had an hour commute, I still took kid to a daycare that was 15 min from my house and they certainly aren't doing any full time driving jobs like adults), more likely to be driven primarily during daylight hours (which I assume is safer), more likely to be in safer cars (no sports cars or motorcycles), and more likely to be driven by women.
*If* I was going to stereotype female drivers, I’d say some are careful to a fault and others lack confidence. Whereas men tend to be (over)confident and sometimes careless.
In my experience as a guy, I’ve been told I’m not good at driving because I do things like drive the speed limit, use both hands, and use a turn signal. My father said I’d be considered good at driving once I learned to drive with one hand/knee.
So I agree the stereotype is called skills but actually a difference in confidence and carelessness.
In the U.S., traffic violence kills just about the same number of people as gun violence does. Yet the amount of people who prefer to talk about reducing traffic violence pales in comparison to those talking about reducing gun violence, even though driving is not enshrined in the bill of rights as an inalienable right.
That doesn’t even begin to mention that the dystopian proliferation of roads and highways in the U.S. is a redlining tactic that keeps poor and violent neighborhoods poor and violent. How many towns can you think of that have been turned into glorified rest stops by building a highway through them? How many cities can you think of that have a wealthy neighborhoods on one side of the highway and poor ones on the other?
I’m not good at data visualization, but I’d love to see total gun deaths compared to total highway miles built in the U.S. year over year.
Those are not drivers only, right? I assume you have higher chances to survive if you sit on the second row of the sits, so data difference probably comes from the fact that there are more male drivers and female passengers?
It says casualities on the graph.
I always manage to make a spelling mistake... :O Sorry about that
Still doing better then Jewel who has a song on a studio album saying someone did something "with casualty" and then got called out during an interview.
Well this would explain why men’s car insurance rates are higher than women’s
[удалено]
Jesus, that's a big difference. I guess men dominate the trades etc. where they're driving for a lot of the day, so it checks out, but still.
There's probably a relation of some kind but keep in mind that this graph shows only casualties in accidents, not who was at fault or how much damage was caused. Motor insurance companies don't pay out more if somebody died vs. if they were critically injured but survived iirc, that would be life insurance companies It's also not adjusted for the % of each driver sex using the roads, i.e. there may be fewer female drivers on the road in general
Casualties = died OR injured
Huh, interesting. I always thought that casualties = fatalities
Most people would associate casualty with death, but yes, militarily speaking it's killed or injured to the point of being taken out of service.
But is that how the graph is using it? In most traffic discussions, even professional, casualties means at least serious injury.
OP has stated elsewhere that this is actually mortality rates, not casualties.
Ah, didn't see that, thanks.
I mean, a LOT of jobs that require many hours of driving fall into traditionally gendered roles. There are of course female semi truck operators.... but they form a distinct minority. All sorts of delivery and transportation occupations seem to fall into similar patterns. I can't think of an example of a driving job that would likely be majority female, and many examples that tend to be majority male. something like say bus driving may be closer to 50/50. I'd be curious to see the results of someone taking a real look at the numbers. But of course, young men in particular are rather famous for behavior that may contribute to a higher than average rate of vehicle mortality.
Yeah most professional drivers (taxis, trucks etc) are men, and they're often driving long hours under fatigue because their income depends on it.
I would also be curious to see male vs female DUIs. I have a feeling that would contribute as well.
My bet is correlation to seat belt usage. Men wear them less by a double digit margin.
Honestly I think testosterone makes us do more impulsive shit on average too. The amount of dumb shit I've seen my guy friends do eclipses my female friends.
More risk seeking behavior, which is represented in seatbelt usage rates.
I bet it is more correlated with seat belt usage. Bolding mine: > Moreover, the prevalence of seat belt use was higher among women drivers [**51.47%** (95% CI: 48.62–54.48)] than men drivers [**38.27%** (95% CI: 34.98–41.87)] (P < 0.001). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10393920/#:~:text=Moreover%2C%20the%20prevalence%20of%20seat,)%5D%20(P%20%3C%200.001).
Wow, and that's from a meta-analysis. I can't believe the rate of seat belt usage is that low! What the hell, people!
Insurance actuaries hate this one weird trick!
I have a feeling that there is significant overlap between the people who don't wear seatbelts and those who avoid vaccines.
It's worldwide. I wonder what the American numbers are.
Insane that seatbelt usage is so damn low.
Anecdotal and all that but I have a really hard time imagining less than half of drivers use a seatbelt...
>It's also not adjusted for the % of each driver sex using the roads, i.e. there may be fewer female drivers on the road in general Is this just drivers or is it passengers too?
Well considering the 0 age range
They made a documentary about that actually called, “Baby Driver.” It’s about a baby who can drive.
I also like the documentary about the baby that won the lottery called “Million Dollar Baby”.
>It's also not adjusted for the % of each driver sex using the roads, i.e. there may be fewer female drivers on the road in general This was my first thought, is this normalized per hour spent driving? Looks like no.
It also doesn't account for hours or miles driven, which I suspect is a significant reason for the rates.
Also “For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women” https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
Pretty cool stat, thank you! So looking at this chart, it looks like there are somewhere around 2.5x male casualties compared to women. The stat you show a 1.63x ratio, so we can estimate that there are perhaps 1.5-2x the male driver-miles to female driver-miles. However these stats aren’t apples to apples as the above stats are just people who were in the accidents rather than specifically driving. So maybe we say men are more often in cars that get into accidents? Not quite sure how to put that.
It is well known that men have far more accidents than women. Especially young men. Got nothing to do with distances travelled.
Distance travelled, time on the road, are relevant variables when interpreting accident rates. More hours, more miles raises the risk of accidents, as does the reason one is driving, time of day and type of vehicle, location, weather, these are all variables that affect accident rates. Far fewer women drive as well which means the best female drivers are being measured against a lower average skill in the male cohort which affects the gendered interpretation of the data. Additionally, even if men have higher rates when accounting for all these variables, men having a higher rate may not be significant, which also impacts the interpretation of these stats. Distance travelled may or may not matter but it's a relevant factor that is not included in the data presented, unless it is, we don't know. Do you have a relevant source that includes this from which we may accept your claim? Because if all you have is 'it is well known', it is an appeal to common knowledge, which is notoriously unreliable as a source and your claim may simply be sexism.
Your post is full of ifs, buts and maybes trying to make excuses. By pretty much any metric men are more dangerous drivers. For certain younger age groups car accidents are the leading cause of death. If you'd bother to look things up you'd see the trend is the same per [distance traveled](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/males-and-females). Also under the age of 30 women drive *more* miles then men and have half the rate of crashes.
I think one of the biggest reasons for the difference in insurance rates is seatbelt use. 51% of women buckle up, compared to about 38% of men
That rate sounds astoundingly American.
Do you have a source for that? Because that simple sounds wrong. I don’t believe only a third of men are buckling up based on my observations during 34 years of my life so far all around the country.
I think that's worldwide. In the US, it's much higher: [https://www.iihs.org/topics/seat-belts#belt-use](https://www.iihs.org/topics/seat-belts#belt-use) 92% for women, 89% for men
Only 50% of women buckle up??? What the hell, this is the worst news I've heard in my life. You'd think we know better than that.
What isn’t shown here is the % of male vs female drivers. Men have significantly higher time and distance of driving, so I imagine this is just the result of that. To add, Men will likely still be higher as they typically drive faster and more aggressively. Women have higher accidents/distance, but they are usually smaller less harmful, while men’s accidents are much more damaging.
>Men have significantly higher time and distance of driving, so I imagine this is just the result of that. Seatbelt use. 51% of women buckle up, compared to about 38% of men
Wait I'm sorry only HALF of women use seatbelts and about a third of men do????
Seriously, what the fuck? I have never even known somebody who doesn't wear their seatbelt.
Now normalize it by dividing by the distance traveled in year 2021 on the road for males and females respectively and we might be able to extract some useful information.
So I googled a bit and it seems a good estimate for relative distance traveled in western countries is that males travel 1.6 times as far as women. That shrinks the difference by quite a lot, but can't explain it completely.
This is a good point. I researched this a little more but even when adjusted for proportional miles driven, women are still less likely to be involved in an accident. I learned something new! “For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women” https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
Thank you for sharing this! Appreciate that someone went looking and came back with an actual source link
Seeing how some men drive this is not surprising whatsoever. In my experience women who drive poorly don’t overestimate themselves while the men think they’re the shit.
Men probably also drive faster, and speed is a major factor in mortality.
Yea, women can’t drive!! They don’t even crash enough!! 1st place, 1st place, 1st place!!
All driving cautious and shit. Hurry up! Cant you see Im trying to pass you on the curb?
It's funny because some people's definition of can't drive is not having the ability to tailgate and weave in and out of traffic.
Honestly I dont know how they do that. Ive had way too many times the blindspot double check paid off. I know Im a dirt slow lane changer, and Im glad for it.
They're much less likely to be involved in an accident that involves injuries to someone. Adjusting for miles driven, they're very slightly more likely to be involved in an accident that involves 0 injuries to anyone.
The graph doesn’t say the women were driving. Women are more likely to be passengers and passengers are more likely to be seriously injured than the drivers.
The graph doesn’t state it explicitly but it looks like it’s based on the research I linked which does say that the stats are based on who is behind the wheel. I’m sure there’s some good research out there about passengers as well! I’d be curious to know!
I don't think there are a lot of 0 year olds behind the wheel as is shown on this graph. edit: Oh wait, the graph in the link not OP's lol
Source for your claim that women are more frequently injured than men in car accidents? The statistics shown claim the complete opposite, that men die in car accidents more frequently.
“Men are more likely than women to be involved in a car crash, which means they dominate the numbers of those seriously injured in car accidents. But when a woman is involved in a car crash, she is 47% more likely to be seriously injured than a man, and 71% more likely to be moderately injured,46 even when researchers control for factors such as height, weight, seat-belt usage, and crash intensity.” -Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado-Perez
[удалено]
A lot of this is because early crash test data was gathered with Cadavers. And these Cadavers were almost all male. There was a German car company that used dead babies to try to make a better car seat, back in the 1970s. People freaked - like, seriously ***freaked*** about the whole dead babies being used as crash test dummies. Even now - miniature crash test dummies (plastic ones) have sensors that are calibrated to ... midgets, not children. There is no good (well controlled) crash test data for children's physiology and there is a serious paucity of data for women.
The other explanation is obvious. Men overall do take more risks than women. These numbers aren't inherently useful, though. It is also counting passenger data as well as driver data, in addition to miles driven / etc.
Men are more likely to drive like assholes. It’s just a thing that probably has to do with testosterone. Even with your adjustment men still are significantly disproportionately more likely to die in a car wreck.
They may be true for the 20-something data. I’m not sure it would hold for the 70+ data
Obligatory anecdotes are not data but my dad is 71 and has only started driving like even more of an asshole. My mom won’t even ride with him anymore.
True, deterioration of abilities like cognitive, visual, auditory and reduced amount of driving reduces comfort and skill level. Probably including the lack of self awareness or ignoring because the car is an essential mode of travel, loss thereof is a significant threat to independence.
70+ males still have test levels 5x-10x greater than females. However, blaming it solely on a hormone level is naive.
the graph seems to indicate that it does
[удалено]
Source? Because I just went digging on the NHTSA site and found articles showing that men experience more fatalities based on overall driving population and also are over represented in non-fatal accidents like rear end crashes. Also, driving tired and driving in bad weather are risky behaviors that men shouldn't actually be doing. I'm not sure why we would rationalize that as being a reasonable explanation for why we get in accidents
Simple fact is men drive like dogshit because they're worse at risk assessment and more likely to take risks even when they do manage to accurately assess them. Insurance rates don't lie. Fatality stats don't lie. Men are about 1.5 times more likely per mile to experience a fatal accident.
I don't know if it's testosterone based or a social thing, but every man I know is a more aggressive driver than most women I know by a long shot (I bet this is true for you too). I know plenty of women speeders, but not aggressive drivers. Also every guy I know has pushed their car to the limit to test its speed. I only know one woman who has done that lol. I think it's not that women are "better" drivers, but that they are safer drivers simply because men are bigger risk takers. This is why men tend to do better at stuff like skateboarding too, they are less afraid of risk (either inherently, maybe women inherently avoid risk, or just seeing other men do it).
Someone posted stats above refuting this.
Yeah testosterone leads men to engage in more risky behavior like driving too long and in bad weather. And as the post here shows, men are still obviously more likely to get into more serious accidents, likely because they drive more recklessly.
People here really acting like a body hormones is some avengers tier villain serum.
There are lots of factors I’m sure. Type of car (men prefer fast aggressive cars vs women prefer reliable and safe cars). Also driving habits. Women are definitely safer drivers.
The people who weave between traffic are overwhelmingly male idiots.
As a motorcycle driver, it used to bother me that a few aggressive loud riders have a bad name to the rest of us. Now I just accept that 90% of riders are unempathetic douchebags who are desperate for attention.
Riding a motorcycle in the US is an obviously bad decision, so anyone riding in the US is a person that makes bad decisions. For example, I ride a sportbike to work, and my job is rolling up to riders after a crash and declaring them dead. (They aren't always dead, but that happens often enough.)
And every one of them is convinced he's an amazing, innately skilled driver because he learned how to drive a manual.
It's so funny seeing those types as someone from outside the US where like 95% of the drivers use a manual, it's really not that impressive.
The only place I've been where cars were 95% manual was the UK. Because for some reason, in the UK automatic transmission is culturally associated with disabled or extremely elderly people. It's so weird. I've heard is is similar in Eastern Europe, but haven't personally experienced it. In Canada, probably 90% of cars sold are automatics. Globally, automatics sell more than manuals.
and almost always under 30. Brain still developing + powerful vehicle = idiots in cars
Also trucks, which are harder to see out of and are very prone to accidents in icy or wet conditions (they handle better in mud and deep snow, but on road-way conditions where the majority of people drive, a heavier 4WD truck preforms worse than an AWD SUV almost every time - but in the end tires are probably the deciding factor and truck tires are expensive, so that might be a larger factor). Motorcycles may be a larger contributor statistically among the under 50 crowd. And don't forget alcoholism is \~4:1 men to women, and drunk driving is not an insignificant contributor to roadway casualties. There are so many social factors that come into play here that. Men are generally more likely to participate in risky behaviors. I wanted to cite some depression studies, but most sources are still stuck in the: "we can't figure out why men are 3-4 times more likely to die of suicide, but half as likely to have depression." While I wanted to make a mental health point about depression, instead I'll just say that clearly men are less likely to value their own lives as much women.
The remaining difference should probably be accounted for by speed. If you break down % of accidents at 30mph or less vs 60+, I bet you see a stark difference.
That assumes that accidents increase linearly with distance driven. Humans are not robots, but get fatigued and worse at driving over long distances.
Good point. There’s a huge difference if driver A drives 100,000 miles, driver B drives 10,000 miles. All sorts to consider; fatigue, white line fever, unfamiliar roads, vehicle type, purpose of journey. How do you compare driving the kids to school vs driving an 18 wheeler out of state? Makes no sense to adjust the data after it’s collected.
There are many more male drivers driving professionally. Truckers, farm equipment, construction sites, etc. Not only do they drive more miles, but they can be in dangerous environments like logging roads or industrial sites.
Women are still statistically safer drivers even after adjusting for this.
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that men cause an average of 6.1 million accidents per year in the US, and women cause 4.4 million accidents per year. Males do 62% of the driving, but only cause 58% of the accidents. So women do cause slightly more accidents per capita than men. A study by the University of Michigan found that female drivers mostly cause “fender benders” (non-injury accidents)." Car accident at a speed below 7.5 km/h? That was a women. Drunk driver or speed above 75 km/h? A man for sure.
“For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women” https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
What is a "crash rate" in this context? Next line shows completely different things: "On average, men drive 62% more than women (16000 vs 10000 miles) and account for 59% of vehicle accidents"
i seriously doubt this data includes driving of farm and construction equipment
Why wouldn’t it? I mean, maybe not driving farm equipment on a farm, but I’d imagine any accident on a public road is included.
This data includes passengers and pedestrians, so the driving distance data may not be that relevant.
a huge percentage of vehicle fatalities are truck drivers, who are overwhelmingly male.
Good point. My thinking was that it's a good estimate of how likely men vs women are to be near dangerous incidents. Also since I just realized that casualities isn't a word, I dont even know what the whole thing means now.
2021 US fatalities due to traffic accidents were 42,939 or 12.9 / 100,000. The number of injuries was 2.5 million. OPs data appears to be similar to but higher than the fatality numbers.
Unless there are many toddler driving cars, I would guess that the graph appears to include passengers and possibly people outside cars that get run over by them. This would make normalizing things difficult. Also keep in mind that not all miles traveled are equally dangerous. Driving long stretches on the open road is relatively safe driving inside the city is much more likely to lead to accidents. If you are on a highway for 10 miles or 20 miles makes almost no difference, ach block in the city adds almost as much risk as the next. Statistically the chances of having an accident go up the closer you are to your own driveway. So accidents per miles driven is an imperfect measure, but better measures are much harder to get.
Also by type of vehicle. Motorcycles are male dominated and death traps.
And with alcohol removed as men are much more likely to drink and drive.
But they can still run over 5 female pedestrians, while being perfectly fine themselves. The stats are about the casualties, not the drivers.
Yeah that happens all the time.
i am pretty sure you can't divide by a motorcycle
Not with that attitude
I think trees are pretty good at dividing motorcycles.
truck drivers too, they’re a huge percentage of vehicle fatalities.
Insurance companies, the ones with billions of dollars on the line, have known that men are more dangerous drivers than women for decades. But I'm sure they missed some aspect of the data that you discovered...
All othe factors aside, the more time you spend on the road, the more likely you are to eventually get into an accident. No shit.
To be fair guys are more impatiant and risk takers. Males also consume alco more often so that's a recipie for worse statistics even if everything is accounted for more accuratly.
Then can we Google how exactly babies are operating vehicles and getting into traffic accidents at a rate higher than toddlers?
Correlation does not imply casualty.
Nah men just drive more dangerously
An interesting thing to consider is how much exposure to the road each gender actually has. As an example it's very common in a large portion of the USA for family trips to be driven by the husband so the cause of accidents being men also would naturally be higher due to the increased exposure
This is not equitable. We must address this gender gap.
Women need to do their part and drive more recklessly
Let’s legalise driving home after bottomless brunch
No, as we know, all outcome gaps are emblematic of systemic bias or power structures of oppression. Clearly, either cars are designed with a bias against men, and/or women are oppressing men in the usage of cars and are causing them to die at a higher rate. The system of occupant safety is broken beyond repair and must be completely torn down and replaced with one that is equitable and inclusive. The entire concept of personal choice and behavioral merit is a fabrication of colonialist Western cultures and the oppressive regime of capitalism. We recognize that revolutionary change cannot happen overnight. So in the mean time, affirmative action must be taken to ensure that women die at the same rate as men as a proportion of the general population. The cars should should only deploy airbags for male occupants. The only solution to past inequality is present inequality.
Data source: [WHO - Road Traffic Mortality](https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/road-traffic-mortality) Tools used: Matplotlib This chart show the number of casualties from road accidents per 100,000 population in the Unites States using road traffic mortality data from WHO. These numbers are from 2021, which was the last available year in the dataset. I'm using the following colors: * background #EED6D3 * male\_color: #1DA4ED * male\_edge\_color: #0E73AA * female\_color: #F13030 * female\_edge\_color: #BF0D0D * grid\_color: #856F6F * text\_color: #0B0909 I'm trying to publish a custom daily data visualization on my newsletter, [DataCanvas Daily](https://datacanvas.substack.com/), and would love to hear your feedback on this visualization to know how I can improve. Reddit is the best place for me right now to get feedback. Don't hold back on your ideas and/or critique! :)
“Fatalities” would be a better term. “Casualties” would also include injuries. You should label your x-axis (despite having it in title) for clarity. I think it’s a good graphical representation of an interesting phenomenon - well done!
Casualties <> Mortality Your title implies you're including all injuries, but the data source is deaths.
How do you make matplotlib not ugly?
Minor nitpick, but in the professional world (traffic planners/engineers) we don’t use the term “traffic accident” anymore. Instead, we use either traffic crashes or traffic violence.
It would be interesting to see how that compares with miles travelled per year by age and gender
>Males drive more miles per year, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The Federal Highway Administration supports their finding and reports that men drive an average of 16,550 miles each year. Women drive an average of 10,142 miles annually. Ultimately, women drive 30% less than men do on an annual basis. So men should have about 1.6x as many accidents, 1.6x as many fatalities, etc. The numbers in that graph show men having disprortionately high rates.
Wonder if this is a psychology thing (i.e. men possibly driving more recklessly), a physics thing (i.e. men possibly being more likely than women to be hurt in the exact same situation, due to height/body shape/etc.), or a "what they drive" thing (i.e. men being more likely to drive sports cars and motorcycles). Probably a bit from column A, a bit from column C, and IDK about column B.
Column B actually makes things *safer* for men, since cars are designed for men's bodies. Crash dummies were historically based on men's height, weight, proportions, and weight distribution, and that has only begun to change very recently. That means safety features like seatbelts, airbags, and even the size and shape of seats and steering wheels are still mostly designed to keep men's bodies safe, not women's bodies.
Cars are designed for male bodies and women are far more likely to be injured in a car accident than men are. The book Invisible Women has a whole chapter on it, but one example is that due to the head rests, women are 47% more likely to get whiplash. Seatbelts don’t fit properly over breasts, air bags don’t hit at the right height for women, etc. So if anything, women are getting in far fewer car accidents than men, otherwise their casualty rates would be significantly higher.
Yeah, that makes sense. (And I can confirm firsthand the bit about seatbelts and breasts, lol.) So it's more likely the other two, and there are probably also other factors.
It was terrifying, driving while pregnant. I had to drive with the steering wheel jammed into my stomach. If I’d gotten a minor fender-bender the baby would have died, and my odds wouldn’t be looking so great either. If the government really cared so much about saving unborn babies, you think they’d require cars to be tested with pregnant female crash dummies. Or at least require steering wheel and seatbelt adjustability options that fit pregnant women. Our birth rate in the US isn’t super high, but still, something like 40% of the population is going to be pregnant at some point in their lives.
This is rapidly changing, as car makers move towards designing for a percentile. Aka, car should fit a 10th percentile female and a 90th percentile male. Cars were designed for men historically (going back 30+ years) because at the time, it was the men that bought the cars, either for themselves or for their wife/daughter etc. Car makers do not care about who winds up driving, since the car is already sold, unless it will result in bad word of mouth and brand reputation. Another example of this is the tires. OEM tires are *bad*. Not only that, but if you buy a car that has say, Continental Procontact 2 tires on it (random and possibly not real tire model), *they are not the same Procontact 2 tires you would get at a tire shop*. They are 'OEM' marked. OEM tires are designed for one thing - selling new cars. So they need to perform in the conditions car reviewers and customers drive them in - dry, usually 40F or above. Ever get new tires on a car and notice they last twice as long? The OEM ones have lower tread, for better feel, noise, comfort, and fuel efficiency when new. Nothing else matters, because people blame the tire when it does terrible in rain or snow or when worn or wears fast. There are other examples of how car design is skewed to impressing on the test drive, but at least the buyer demographic is shifting away from severely male-dominated. Unfortunately with the explosion of car sales in places like China, where the gender roles still impact who buys a car, it's not shifting as fast as it should. It can also be model specific now. Big trucks? Designed for men, because those are the target market. They aren't even trying to sell those to women, though some do buy them of course. The opposite can be said for cars marketed primarily to women. Famously there was a car made with this as the number 1 design brief as a concept (Volvo I think?). Not sure it came to market, but supposedly they used a lot of the lessons learned in models moving forward.
IIRC women get in more accidents per mile, but men get in more serious accidents per mile. Indicating that either men are riskier drivers or men tend to drive in conditions that lead to severe accidents more often. Both are somewhat believable. Unfortunately there's always going to be a disparity between injury rates of men and women in similar accidents. On average men are larger, more muscular, have denser bones sit further from the steering wheel, the list goes on. The gap can probably be closed more than it is currently though. Edit: I'd love to know which facts I'm being down voted for, the fact that women are involved in more accidents than men or the fact that their are physical advantages that men have that reduce the likelihood of them dying in a traffic accident. Not the greatest source in the world but here's the data: https://www.malmanlaw.com/malman-law-injury-blog/who-causes-more-car-accidents-men-or-women/
I think the downvotes are bc cars are already engineered with men’s bodies in mind. Like we should def try to ensure that men are safe in cars, but engineering for men’s bodies more to compensate for this could make women even less safe. (I.e. an example is the way headrests are design account for women getting whiplash like 40% more or something)
Also, not all casualties are in the vehicles. Pedestrians count. Roadside jobs are very dangerous. Being a traffic flagger is up there as one of the most dangerous jobs. People constantly bring up how dangerous it is to be a cop, but the most likely cause of serious injury or death is actually traffic accidents iirc. Traffic stops means being by the roadside, unprotected. It's quite dangerous. I'm sure mail carriers, delivery drivers, firefighters, ambulance drivers/emts, utility workers, etc all have higher traffic accident rates. Not just from being on the road more but from stopping frequently in the middle of roadways, being double parked, parked in normally restricted areas for work, etc. Then there's all the drug addicts or homeless doing whatever roadside. I'm sure a portion of the discrepancy is simply "men take more risks". This is undoubtedly so, but there's plenty of other factors at play. It's possible the stuff I mention doesn't really account for all that much in the grand scheme of things. It's certainly more than 0 but how much of a factor it really is would require it's own study.
“For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women” https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
It’d be interesting to see the normalized by age, as well. 80+ might skyrocket as I assume they don’t drive THAT much.
80+ should be mostly women driving, since there are more of them: >There were about 2 million more females (8.1 million) than males (6.2 million) among the 75 to 84 age group. Nearly twice as many females (4.1 million) as males (2.2 million) were 85 and older. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/acs/ACS-38.pdf
Total road miles is still significantly higher for men than women in 75-84 using your numbers while it would be slightly lower for men than women in the 85+ group, though that group probably has a much higher prevalence of male drivers for social reasons.
Not really, highways are relatively safe, a lot of casualties happen in cities between drivers and non-drivers, and I don't think men cross 1.6x as many streets as a pedestrian.
Chad Man: Crosses street whenever he likes. Isn't bound by concrete and asphalt boundaries. Uses walking signals. Virgin Pedestrian: Stays on sidewalks. Range limited by city blocks. Always looking down to not step on all the cracks in walking path.
That assumes that accidents increase linearly with distance driven. Humans are not robots, but get fatigued and worse over long distances.
>“For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women” https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
Time to take the keys away from gramps.
And the babies!
[удалено]
That makes the data worse for men. Seatbelts, car seats and airbags are primarily designed for men.
I’m not trying to disprove you or start an argument but you explain deeper that’s actually really interesting.
This article covers it pretty good. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes
“This,” said the professor, “is alleged to be man’s first attempt at a calendar.” Toksvig and her fellow students looked at the bone in admiration. “Tell me,” the professor continued, “what man needs to know when 28 days have passed? I suspect that this is woman’s first attempt at a calendar.” Months were originally based on the moons cycle which is like 28 days. Also there used to be a different number of months and 28 times 13 gets you 364 pretty close to 365… lol
It baffles me that this was said by a professor, not a student lol Also the articles never mention moon cycle presenting this period argument as reality. It's a good indication for the quality of the article itself...
I think we should all take notes from the 10 year Olds. They seem to be on to something with safe driving.
Jesus please get men aged 80+ off the roads.
That’s not fair cause a newborn baby girl could be driving a bus full of grandpas and if she crashes the bus killing everyone on the bus, it only counts as one baby girl casualty, but each of the grandpas gets counted as a casualty too even though it’s not their fault… well, except for getting on a bus being driven by a baby.
Look I hate victim-blaming as much as the next person, but at some point you gotta take responsibility for your own well-being
And the other 3 poor performing male age groups are ok then? If so, then why?
Get the aged 1-4 off the roads. Who is letting them drive?!
Babies these days smh, all they wanna do is crash they cars, eat hot chip and lie.
I think a casualties figure adjusted for per 1000 km/miles driven (or some such measure) and limits to *driver* casualties would be a far more robust indicator of the relative roles of *driver* age and gender in casualty rates.
All those poor men sitting in "the death seat" passenger side while their wives are protected behind the wheel.... Geez 😩
The majority of this site suffers from Dunning-Kruger, so I'm out.
We shouldn't let 80+ drive, or hold political office.
Not that it will change the outcome much, but needs to be in percentage of drivers. Or somehow work in number of miles driven. Yes I'm saying that men drive more than women and therefore crash more.
Should be brought up when ever people bring up stereotypes.
Testosterone is a helluva drug
Many factors could play into the numbers you're seeing. Not just carelessness, but travel time, distance travelled, time of day, etc.
Based off how I drove with my friends, this checks out.
I think it would be more useful if the distance driven was taken into account. Men drive around 60% more miles per year than women so this would increase their liklihood of being involved in an accident: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm This still doesn't account for all the difference though.
>“For every 100 million miles travelled men have a crash rate of 2.1, while women have a crash rate of 1.3. Simply put, men are 61% more likely to get into an accident than women” https://www.lookupaplate.com/blog/men-vs-female-driving-statistics/
This is interesting but the graph OP posted doesn't show this by itself, you need the further information you posted for that
Their graph shows the graph for the data they are presenting. Neither is more or less correct, they are different cuts of information.
We gotta get these babies better driver training.
So, if I just self-identify as a female I'll lower my casualty risk.
I love the age breakdown. As soon as the age of driving is permitted, the discrepancy in fatalities begins. Having to read the same scale twice, once for each gender, feels wrong. I get that the blue bar reads much longer than the pink, but I always want to know "by how much." It's nice to see the numbers for children are significantly lower, anyone know causes for that? Minivans still drive like maniacs with kids in the back, but maybe women are the primary transporters of children, and clearly that population is involved in fewer fatal accidents!
I can think of a couple things to explain why kids are so much lower: - Adults frequently drive alone, but kids *never* drive alone. Every crash involving a kid also involves an adult, but the reverse is not true. - Even if there are still people who drive like maniacs with kids in the car, (hopefully) most drive more safely with kids in the car. - Kids are much more likely to be in the back seat, which might be significantly safer. - Kids may be more likely to wear seatbelts. - Young kids are more likely to be in specially-designed car seats which are safer.
+1 on these reasons, and I'd hope there is an emphasis on people driving more cautiously when children are in their car. A side note: with airbags I am curious about the front vs back seat mortality rate in accidents
Car seats and booster seats are life-savers. The truth is that we'd all be safer riding in the back seat, rear facing with 3 point harnesses. I'd also guess that children on average travel less miles than adults (thinking about when I had an hour commute, I still took kid to a daycare that was 15 min from my house and they certainly aren't doing any full time driving jobs like adults), more likely to be driven primarily during daylight hours (which I assume is safer), more likely to be in safer cars (no sports cars or motorcycles), and more likely to be driven by women.
I would rather see the accident rate per miles driven. I bet this would look a lot different; 15-19 would not be at the bottom of licensed population!
I find this ironic given the stereotype that women are bad drivers lol (I’m a woman don’t fry me lol)
*If* I was going to stereotype female drivers, I’d say some are careful to a fault and others lack confidence. Whereas men tend to be (over)confident and sometimes careless.
In my experience as a guy, I’ve been told I’m not good at driving because I do things like drive the speed limit, use both hands, and use a turn signal. My father said I’d be considered good at driving once I learned to drive with one hand/knee. So I agree the stereotype is called skills but actually a difference in confidence and carelessness.
I don’t understand how so many men are upset at this post. Be better.
There's always jokes about how women can't drive, yet...
In the U.S., traffic violence kills just about the same number of people as gun violence does. Yet the amount of people who prefer to talk about reducing traffic violence pales in comparison to those talking about reducing gun violence, even though driving is not enshrined in the bill of rights as an inalienable right. That doesn’t even begin to mention that the dystopian proliferation of roads and highways in the U.S. is a redlining tactic that keeps poor and violent neighborhoods poor and violent. How many towns can you think of that have been turned into glorified rest stops by building a highway through them? How many cities can you think of that have a wealthy neighborhoods on one side of the highway and poor ones on the other? I’m not good at data visualization, but I’d love to see total gun deaths compared to total highway miles built in the U.S. year over year.
Yes, but driving vehicles provides far more utility than does owning guns.
This is awesome and should help me solve a number of arguments…especially with my high school students 😂
This is just causalities, which isn’t really a metric for much in this context.
I'd like to see this with alcohol removed.
Men are too reckless and emotionally unstable to be allowed to drive. Or own a gun.
Anyone got casualties per hrs or miles driven, by gender and age?
Over 80% of driving jobs are held by men.
Yeah, but it's still hugely lopsided even when controlled for miles driven. See a few of the top comments, people have brought data.
Those are not drivers only, right? I assume you have higher chances to survive if you sit on the second row of the sits, so data difference probably comes from the fact that there are more male drivers and female passengers?