5 ms·
>“The numbers indicate that women more often drive smaller, lighter cars and that they’re more likely than men to be driving the struck vehicle in side-impact a
by throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>“The numbers indicate that women more often drive smaller, lighter cars and that they’re more likely than men to be driving the struck vehicle in side-impact and front-into-rear crashes,” says Jermakian. “Once you account for that, the difference in the odds of most injuries narrows dramatically.”
Seems like science is confirming some readily observable vehicle/life choice preferences and stereotyped driving habits.
The fact that they restricted the research to tow away crashes likely enlarged the percentages they reported.
- gwd 6y agoI can see why women on the whole might drive smaller, lighter cars. But why would the following be true? > they’re more likely than men to be driving the struck vehicle in side-impact and front-into-rear crashes
- Allower 6y agoBecause they are worse drivers on average :)
- sparrish 6y agoI suppose smaller cars are harder to see at intersections (side-impact) and when in traffic, smaller cars can't see past the larger vehicles in front of them to see the traffic stopping so braking response is slower.
- phjesusthatguy3 6y agoYou appear to be blaming the person being run into, which is almost always wrong (at least in Michigan) ITYM people in larger cars can't see what's going on in front of them (side-impact) and when in traffic, larger vehicles can't stop in time.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoThere's a few lifetimes worth of dashcam video on youtube that clearly show (metaphorically speaking, a lot of them are 480p after all) it's often not that simple.
- phjesusthatguy3 6y agoWhat is the "it" you are referring to?
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoAttributing fault for an accident. Plenty of cases where someone gets hit from behind because they pulled into traffic with too little room to spare or did something other traffic participants could not have reasonably forseen. Yeah there are plenty of people who text message their way into stopped traffic but there's enough edge cases that the generalization falls down.
- phjesusthatguy3 6y agoI would also be interested in data showing that people being run into were mostly at fault. That's not how things happen in MI.
- sparrish 6y agoMy comment didn't put culpability on anyone. The comment I was replying to wondered why those two categories were worse. I supposed there's a connection between the size of the vehicle and the visibility (being seen and not being able to see).
- phjesusthatguy3 6y agosparrish> I suppose smaller cars are harder to see at intersections (side-impact) and when in traffic, smaller cars can't see past the larger vehicles in front of them to see the traffic stopping so braking response is slower. phjesusthatguy3> You appear to be blaming the person being run into, which is almost always wrong (at least in Michigan) ITYM people in larger cars can't see what's going on in front of them (side-impact) and when in traffic, larger vehicles can't stop in time. To make it clear: I'm blaming the vehicle that runs into the other vehicle. You appear to be saying "if the vehicle that got run into was more visible, it wouldn't have gotten run into"