Who are the worst drivers - men or women?

BoardinBob

DonDaddyD wrote:

I have every right to be offended by it and to express this fact.

Give it a rest. All you're doing is coming across as a veiny throbber.

Slow Downcp

biondino wrote:

So while the bald statement, taken out of context, could be seen as bigoted, in context I think it's absolutely fine as long as it comes with an explanation. Which it did.

I have hair!!! :shock:

Thanks for your support and understanding though

DonDaddyD

Biondino, do people PM you and inform you of the debates I’m having in the hope that you will set me straight? It just seems that most debates I have on this site, you’ll be there at some point to argue for the opposing side.

I don’t mind, I’m just curious.

“Its an endless waltz we’ve embarked upon” So let’s dance.

DDD, I am going to attemtp to explain what a generalisation is because you're repeatedly not getting it.

Contrary to popular belief I am, in fact, educated to the degree level and versed in a number of topics.

TV, Film and marketing is full of generalisations bought upon by noticeable similarities between groups of people. Making a generalisation is how we as humans and animals in nature identify. I’ve said this previously. I know this not to be wrong; Richard Dyer in the book ‘White’ (where he argues, amongst other things, that White people in TV represent the Human race whereas all other ethnicities only represent their respective race) supports this claim as do others learned in the subject of psychology, media and the moving Image phenomenon.

I know what a generalisation is.

A generalisation by its very nature encompasses the whole based on someone’s previous experience that is far less than the sum total of the whole they are trying to identify.

Let's say poster X thought 20% of men and 30% of women were bad drivers, in their own personal, limited and anecdotal experience, and taking into account any conscious and unconscious prejudices they may have. This person is NOT saying all women are bad drivers - indeed he's saying 70% of women AREN'T bad drivers - but he is generalising that women are worse drivers than men.

This is not wrong. It’s also in my opinion a blinkered generalisation to make.

What if I said

“The worst sluts are White women”. Firstly that is a generalisation.

Also, If I don’t say just the ones I’ve met (which could be all of three white women), then without that clarification anyone reading what I’ve written or listening to me saying it is going to think I’m talking about all white women.

So how is the above any different from:

The worst drivers are those of ethnic origin.

How is that not offensive?

It doesn’t suggest the ones he has enocunters, it doesn’t consider nothing except ethnicity and that is extremely prejudice IMO.

rhext

biondino wrote:

fave new poster sarajoy!

Seconded!!! The reference to Godwin's law alone would get my vote.

rhext

Sewinman wrote:

By definition no generalisations are true, they are true in general.

....are you sure.....? I mean, surely this is a generalisation. Which means it's also a paradox!

artaxerxes

The worst drivers are old people and those of ethnic origin.

Is no one standing up for the 'old people'?

Sewinman

rhext wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

By definition no generalisations are true, they are true in general.

....are you sure.....? I mean, surely this is a generalisation. Which means it's also a paradox!

If a generalisation was true in every case it would not be a generalisation but a fact..no??

DonDaddyD

sarajoy wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sarajoy, I don’t have to be female to find what others are saying is wrong. That’s like saying that a person doesn’t need to do or say anything if they see someone being racially abused because it’s not their race. In History if we buried our heads in the sand then most (not I and unless you have blond and blue eyes not you) would be speaking German, voting Nazi party, Biondino, Greg66, GregT et al would be working for the Gestapo and SCR would be part of Hitler’s SS.

What a wonderful example of Godwin's Law! Thank you!

Wit to deter from the valid point I made. I like it.

sarajoy wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

How about the fact that they are mini cab drivers and the nature of their job and its pressures make them a bad driver? This has nothing to do with their race. Fact is mini cab drivers are bad drivers not Asians in general.

Well that's exactly what I said, isn't it? I don't know which way round it is.

I’m sorry but you’d have to be a monumental idiot to come to the conclusion that ethnicity determines how well a person can drive a car.

The nature of the job the pressure it puts a person under is more likely to affect their driving ability than the colour of their skin (lets bring it down to its base level).

sarajoy wrote:

It is true though, that I may have passed unending numbers of Asian commuters driving beautifully and never noticed. So I concede that my reasoning here is flawed.

I’m glad you’re not a monumental idiot.

sarajoy wrote:

Indeed. It seems you live in a wonderful bubble of equality! Must be lovely. But the rest of us experience a lot of stereotypes.

You cannot imagine how ironic reading that is for me.

sarajoy wrote:

I don't know ANY men who have stayed home to raise a family while the mother works. I know some families (including my own) where dad does the usual 9-5, as does mum, but it is still she doing most of the child-duties.

Try living in London, apparently we are at least 20yrs ahead in social development….

sarajoy wrote:

BUT while not being "fair" to claim these things, because things /aren't/ equal - we still /can/ claim them and not be wrong. They might not be nice things to say, but they aren't wrong.



ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, we should not generalise.
But things AREN'T equal, so we do

Nope, there is a disproportionate amount of black people that are diagnosed with a mental health illness. That doesn’t mean that black people as a whole are more susceptible to mental illness than white people in general – trust me one this – there are many attributing factors.

There is a disproportionate amount of black people who go on to Uni or who fail at the GCSE level. This doesn’t mean black people aren’t as academic as other ethnicities – there are many attributing factors.

sarajoy wrote:

I'm not saying anything about race, genetics, physical make-up, I think nigh on all the differences are of social construction. But they're still there, and the social constructs are pretty strong.

Social constructs, social. This transcends gender or ethnicity. A cab driver is a bad driver because of the nature of his job – that is a social construct. Not because of his ethnicity – that isn’t a social construct. That is my point to you.

Bikerbaboon

Im going for women drivers from my experiance....been put in hospital 2 times by differing woman drivers. ( in a one year period) and was rear once by a man driver ( again same year)

that said i think all divers are bad at a time. If you are honest with your self there are times when you are not 100% consentrating on driving hte car, wether you are on the phone... eating a pie, plucking your eyebrows or getting a slap from the passenger seat or even just thinking about all the stuf you have to do when you get home from work.

all driver need to KNOW that they are in 1 tonne weapons. and they need to have a few clear objectives to do on every trip. and they are in decending importance.

Not to kill any one
to get where you are going
to get where you are going on time
anything else can wait till you get where you are going or you can stop to deal with it and continue your travels once its sorted.


safe traveling out there.

laughingboy

DonDaddyD wrote:

Biondino, do people PM you and inform you of the debates I’m having in the hope that you will set me straight? It just seems that most debates I have on this site, you’ll be there at some point to argue for the opposing side.

I don’t mind, I’m just curious.

I think that this is selective perception on your part, DDD. From my experience lurking and posting here, it seems to me that Biondino is generally interested in all the 'ethical' questions that come up in the hurly burly of words that is this forum. But that is only my perception. As for whether he argues the opposite of you, I really couldn't say; but he seems consistent and reasonable in the positions he takes.

That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with him, of course...

As for the general thrust of this thread, I can quite understand why you reacted like you did. There is a thin line between a generalisation and a prejudice, after all. And in the written word - in the absence of tone of voice, etc. - it is difficult to tell one from the other.

robmanic1

I think French men are the worst, as I was knocked off my bike by one once

biondino

DDD - I'm not actually opposing you on this as a lot of your points are a) right and b) deserve to be said in this kind of discussion. But I do feel sometimes you let yourself get carried away at a perceived injustice that's either out of context, or a misunderstanding, or a tangent, and then you get frustrated when people try and either explain themselves, or put things back into context or back onto point.

That's why I thought it was worth clarifying what a generalisation means in the context of the thread. "Black people are better athletes than white people" doesn't mean to anyone "all black people are better athletes than all white people", but rather "a higher proportion of black people are strong elite-level athletes compared to white people". Similarly, some people are suggesting that "a higher proportion of women show lower driving competence", not "all women are bad drivers".

You can, of course, disagree with these assertions too, but it's the opposite of helpful to assume that anyone here is saying, say, "all BMW drivers are c0cks" (well, actually, that one MIGHT be true )

Finally, something useful I have learned the hard way, since I essentially have the same "quick to jump in with extreme righteousness" attitude that you have - if someone says something that could be read negatively, take a moment to check that they haven't just phrased something badly or you haven't just interpreted it in a different sense. This is a nice internet forum, and pretty much everyone is a decent person. If you perceive injustice, make sure your perception is correct before jumping in with both fists flying. And I'm saying this just as much to me as I am to you.

p.s. I must mention to my old tutor Richard Dyer that he's being used in internet arguments!

biondino

Bikerbaboon wrote:

Ithat said i think all divers are bad at a time.

I know - the buggers think they can drive with those heavy leaden boots and enormous helmets (which must screw up their peripheral vision something chronic) and they're always fiddling with their flashy watches.

Coriander

DonDaddyD wrote:

Biondino, do people PM you and inform you of the debates I’m having in the hope that you will set me straight? It just seems that most debates I have on this site, you’ll be there at some point to argue for the opposing side.

No, he just has the energy, the patience and the intelligence to correct you.

rhext

Anyway back to the OP. My vote has to go for women I'm afraid, because one almost knocked me off last week, and I haven't been almost hit by a bloke for ages. So it's obvious that women are the worst.

robmanic1

+1 for women, my wife's a woman and she's rubbish!

tailwindhome

Anyone interested in cycling?

biondino

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Anyone interested in cycling?

Cycling through the various philosophical arguments? You betcha!

rhext

Sewinman wrote:

rhext wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

By definition no generalisations are true, they are true in general.

....are you sure.....? I mean, surely this is a generalisation. Which means it's also a paradox!

If a generalisation was true in every case it would not be a generalisation but a fact..no??

Generalisation is the process of making inferences about a whole population on the basis of a limited number of samples. Whether the inference is factually correct or not is irrelevant. So unless you've reviewed all generalisations and found each one to be false, then the above statement is a generalisation.

And I think that's relevant to a lot of the traffic on this thread. You have to be very careful about the conclusions you draw from the data. For example:

There seems to be a general acceptance of the fact that insurance companies charge women less than men. So assuming they've done their homework correctly, that would imply that in general women are actually better drivers than men. But to make a statement 'women are better drivers than men' is not particularly helpful when it comes to relating generalities to specifics. It might be better to say 'a woman is more likely to be a better driver than a man'.

But that's no fun in debate, so I stand by my generalisation drawn from a sample of 1. They're all useless!

sarajoy

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lots of things.

1) I used 'Asian' because it has been used before in this thread to group people. As I agree with you that it's ALL about attributing factors and social constructs, if a white/black/yellow/turquoise boy was brought up in an Asian family, I'd expect him to drive in the same way (whatever that way is), and possibly even consider a career in cab-driving! I am NOT lumping them together because of their genetic make up, but because of the cultural heritage, I suppose.

Also, a funny thing - my boyfriend's Indian colleague Chet's parents actually /do/ own and run a corner-shop. Now, because it's SUCH a common stereotype, we're actually surprised it's true! We find it amusing, because we sort of assumed that to be a really old-fashioned idea. Times they are a-changing folks. I think racism and unequal opportunities will face a swift death in a generation or two.

2) I have lived in Sweden, FAR more equal than this country, also Hertfordshire (London commuter-belt) and have friends everywhere - local, national, international, in many swathes of society and from every level of education (I am also degree-educated). Maybe in London things are a little different, however 20 years ahead sounds a little extreme - and also it's hardly representative of the populace. And we're talking about the UK as a whole, aren't we? Or even Europe/further afield? Not just London.


My main argument here is that said social constructs and soft boundaries felt by people in varying communities - which often congregate based on shared heritage, which tends to go hand-in-hand with skin-colour too - are incredibly strong, and have a big enough influence that we CAN generalise.

I'm not judging on skin colour. Every cultural group behaves in different ways.

I admit defeat that I can't actually argue is any cultural group has better or worse drivers - I don't personally know. BUT I bet there is a trend. Some will be worse or better than others. And it'll be down to their situation, NOT their physiology.

tailwindhome

biondino wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Anyone interested in cycling?

Recycling through the various philosophical arguments? You betcha!

Fixed that for you

No thanks required

Sewinman

rhext wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

rhext wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

By definition no generalisations are true, they are true in general.

....are you sure.....? I mean, surely this is a generalisation. Which means it's also a paradox!

If a generalisation was true in every case it would not be a generalisation but a fact..no??

Generalisation is the process of making inferences about a whole population on the basis of a limited number of samples. Whether the inference is factually correct or not is irrelevant. So unless you've reviewed all generalisations and found each one to be false, then the above statement is a generalisation.

DDD asked whether the poster had asked every person in the country, and if not, how could they make such a statement (a generalisation)...my point was that to survey the entire country would not be a generalisation as it would not be based on limited data and involve no assumptions as one would have perfect knowledge.

By definition a generalisation based on absolute knowledge can not be a generalisation and therefore it is not a generalisation to say so.

robmanic1

How 'bout that Maureen from the telly, she was rubbish! And that Stig was a fella!

You honour, case closed!

gtvlusso

I don't drive the car much now (so, who am I to talk) - however, I will always say that my wife is a menace on the road and scares the living crap outta me and many others.

All, I am gonna say is that she:

1, Beeps at people for no real reason.
2, Cannot park an estate car in gaps you could land a Jumbo in (we even have parking sensors!)
3, Has an accident/breakdown every 2 months in either car (bear in mind both cars are actually mine and have served me well for 10 years or so with no issues...until we got married!)
4, Has been through 2 clutches in 50,000 miles and the current clutch feels dodgy
5, Ran into the back of a stationary Audi last month
6, Ran into the back of our own second car, Audi, that was parked outside the house
7, Will not go through gaps that a bus would fit through
8, does not look more than 20 yards ahead and never uses the left hand wing mirror - drives to the back of the car in front.
9, Drives to fast for her actual abilities - has points to prove it.

Get this: My wife came home and claimed the steering had "gone funny" on the Audi - I take it out and find no issue, bear in mind that this is a wet day. So, My wife takes me out, goes belting around a sharp corner in the wet, loses the back end and then says "See, the steering has gone funny".........

However, this is just one woman and certainly not a reflection on all women. I am not one to talk as I only drive when we go abroad or very occasionally in the UK nowadays.

I have done far more mileage on motorbikes to be honest......I have the points and scars to prove it. Although, I did do a 3 year stint as a service engineer and did about 50k to 70k per year...Thats was harsh. But I have only had one car accident, when a woman drove into the back of me at a junction.

So in my personal view - It depends on what is being driven than by who!

robmanic1

I guess it all boils down the the nut on the steering wheel eh?

DonDaddyD

laughingboy wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Biondino, do people PM you and inform you of the debates I’m having in the hope that you will set me straight? It just seems that most debates I have on this site, you’ll be there at some point to argue for the opposing side.

I don’t mind, I’m just curious.

I think that this is selective perception on your part, DDD. From my experience lurking and posting here, it seems to me that Biondino is generally interested in all the 'ethical' questions that come up in the hurly burly of words that is this forum. But that is only my perception. As for whether he argues the opposite of you, I really couldn't say; but he seems consistent and reasonable in the positions he takes.

That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with him, of course...

As for the general thrust of this thread, I can quite understand why you reacted like you did. There is a thin line between a generalisation and a prejudice, after all. And in the written word - in the absence of tone of voice, etc. - it is difficult to tell one from the other.

One of the most measured, thought out and well presented posts I've read on this site, ever.

Chapeau.

+1

DonDaddyD

Corriander wrote:

No, he just has the energy, the patience and the intelligence to correct you.

This supposes that I am incorrect..

Nice choice of words :roll:

biondino wrote:

Finally, something useful I have learned the hard way, since I essentially have the same "quick to jump in with extreme righteousness" attitude that you have - if someone says something that could be read negatively, take a moment to check that they haven't just phrased something badly or you haven't just interpreted it in a different sense.

We have something in common I guess. Our belief in our convictions.

Also, I did read what the person wrote stepped away from the PC came back read it again and it pissed me off. But then the whole context of the thread doesn't sit right with me.

p.s. I must mention to my old tutor Richard Dyer that he's being used in internet arguments!

I knew THAT should resonate with you (given your profession, another thing we may have a mutual interest in). I didn't actually think he was your tutor :shock: . Lucky guy!

biondino

The thread is a silly one, though. It's a kind of pub conversation rather than an academic discourse, and I *think* (can't be sure, obviously) that everyone is taking in that context, except you. I'm sure slowdowncp isn't going to go out and count the number of bad drivers he sees, work out how many are asian, how that measures up to demographic info, etc. so there's no real defence for his assertion - it only works on a pub-chat level.

greg66_tri_v2.0

biondino wrote:

The thread is a silly one, though. It's a kind of pub conversation rather than an academic discourse

And that differentiates it how from the other threads here?

DonDaddyD

biondino wrote:

The thread is a silly one, though. It's a kind of pub conversation rather than an academic discourse, and I *think* (can't be sure, obviously) that everyone is taking in that context, except you. I'm sure slowdowncp isn't going to go out and count the number of bad drivers he sees, work out how many are asian, how that measures up to demographic info, etc. so there's no real defence for his assertion - it only works on a pub-chat level.

Which is why I don't go into certain pubs or listen into other peoples conversation.

Nothing and nothing should excuse this:

"The worst drivers are old people and those of ethnic origin"

I'm not seeing how that isn't offensive. If someone said during the Mopeth drinks "the worst cyclists are those of ethnic orign" How is that not offensive? If I said "White girls are sluts" or "White guys can't dance" or "White guys have small members" or "White people are the most racist out of any race" then regardless of what I might mean how is what I'm actually saying/typing not offensive regardless of the context of the discussion?

It's not me who interoperated it wrong, the phrase is offensive and I can accept Slowdowncp may not have meant it to be. It doesn't mean that it is not offensive to me.

AND if I'm expected to tolerate something so directly personal then you and other's should be more tolerant to me saying "I had sex today" as THAT isn't directed to anyone whereas this is.