Discussion Main / WomenDrivers

I see a major potential problem with the statistics that supposedly show that, per mile driven, women are more likely to cause minor accidents but men are more likely to cause severe accidents: this data almost always comes from the police, which means that you would expect it to be vulnerable to the same biases that exist in, for example, crime statistics.

When criminologists compare crime rates across different places or times, they usually do so by comparing the homicide rate. The reasoning is that while one demographic may be less likely to report assaults or petty theft than another, dead bodies with knife wounds tend to draw a lot of attention everywhere.

It seems very plausible that something similar could be at work here. A lot of minor car accidents go unreported. In even more accidents, commonly referred to as "hit and runs," the identity of the driver at fault is unknown because they fled the scene (in the case of scraping another car in a parking lot, this can be as easy as not leaving a note). So when you have statistics indicating that a demographic is, per mile driven, over-represented in the types of accident that are almost certain to be reported to the police but under-represented in the types of accident that are less likely to be reported, I really think we should consider the possibility that that demographic is more likely to get in accidents in general but more likely to avoid reporting an accident if they can avoid it.

Personally, I find that a lot easier to believe than the idea that men are more reckless drivers in a *very specific* way that *only* increases their risk of causing serious accidents.

The caption for the picture invokes a bit of logical fallacy, at least I believe so. While this is obviously a ridiculous stereotype, you don't disprove blanket statements with single contradictions. A minor quibble for something clearly intended as a joke, but a logical fallacy kind of pops when it's at the top of a page referring to a common, stupid, mistake.

Truth in Television as far as This Troper is concerned:

1) Sitting on my motorcycle at a red light, rear-ended by a high-school girl distracted by a car full of yammering friends.

2) Doing 5 mph along with a few other cars in a ground blizzard / whiteout on a 2-lane highway in Colorado, no shoulder or breakdown lane to wait out the storm, rear-ended by a mom in a minivan doing 65 in damn near zero visibility. Destroyed my Crown Vic from the rear end all the way up to the B-pillar and her Sienna from the front bumper back to the C-pillar, and caused a 21-car chain reaction that took out the entire highway.

3) Passing a young woman who was doing 15 in a 35, she in the right lane, me in the left, she decided that she needed to pull an emergency U-turn just as I reached her 9 o'clock. Destroyed my car's entire right doors and rear fender and her car's left-front quadrant.

Leave it to Beaver entry:

• There was an episode of Leave It To Beaver where Ward was teaching June how to drive; the trope was referenced but not invoked, but it shows an example of learning to drive relatively late in life.
  • This never happened in Leave It To Beaver. Must be thinking of some other show.

Extensive Googling failed to uncover such an episode. Wikipedia mentions that June did drive the car for errands.

However, I'm not 100% sure whether there was such an episode or not.

Can anyone with more knowledge on the subject help?

I didn't know this trope existed up till recently. The whole "Women are terrible drivers" thing is all news to me - it's usually male drivers who feel the need to cut my mom off on the highway and reach the red light before she does...for whatever reason.

EDIT: And after reading the main article about there being some truth to this, I had to laugh; a woman is more likely to ding or scratch your paint, men are more likely to speed through a red light and ram head-on into your fender. The irony here is simply marvelous.