How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 9 Feb 2010 08:16 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:6a620913-2f75-45c3-a041-f4476aacf78c(a)z26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 9 Feb, 09:37, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- > pies.co.am> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >> > Also road deaths are among the top ten causes of death in the world, >> > as a matter of interest for those here who are trying to play them >> > down, at nine and is sixth in middle-income countries.. Now try to say >> > they do not matter. >> >> To put all this in perspective, 830,000 die annually in the UK, 2,500 of >> those from road accidents. >> > Closer to 3,000 plus those who die after 30 days of injury. >> >> Road deaths thus account for just 3 in every 1000 deaths in the UK. >> 99.7% >> of deaths occur because of other causes. >> > But they are not killed by other people. >> >> There is a 1 in 26000 chance of you dying in a road accident in any one >> year. >> > Or about 1 in 266 in a lifetime. >> >> Whatever you say, Doug, it's pretty small beer. >> > I disagree. Being killed by other people is very serious stuff indeed, > which is usually punished severely unless it happens on a road or > pavement. > It is indeed serious Doug. Apart from your usual mantra of banning all cars what do you propose doing about it? Locking people up after the event doesn't prevent accidents so that's not a option either.
From: Mr Benn on 9 Feb 2010 09:19 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:BuidnaVcgpKs_ezWnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > > "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> I disagree. Being killed by other people is very serious stuff indeed, >> which is usually punished severely unless it happens on a road or >> pavement. >> > It is indeed serious Doug. Apart from your usual mantra of banning all > cars what do you propose doing about it? Locking people up after the event > doesn't prevent accidents so that's not a option either. In Dougworld, all motorised vehicles would be banned. People would transport themselves and goods via bicycle, horse & cart. Coal, oil and gas-burning power stations would be closed down. Nuclear power stations would also be closed down. The country's transport infrastructure would collapse. Supermarket shelves would become empty and remain largely empty. Power would be generated by wind, wave and solar power. The massive shortfall in power generation and transport infrastructure would cause industry to become crippled. The UK's economy would collapse. The progress the country has made over the past 200 years would be put into rapid reverse. Doesn't sound that bad does it?
From: Brimstone on 9 Feb 2010 11:00 "Mr Benn" <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:hkrqt8$mkv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:BuidnaVcgpKs_ezWnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> >> "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > >>> I disagree. Being killed by other people is very serious stuff indeed, >>> which is usually punished severely unless it happens on a road or >>> pavement. >>> >> It is indeed serious Doug. Apart from your usual mantra of banning all >> cars what do you propose doing about it? Locking people up after the >> event doesn't prevent accidents so that's not a option either. > > In Dougworld, all motorised vehicles would be banned. > > People would transport themselves and goods via bicycle, horse & cart. > > Coal, oil and gas-burning power stations would be closed down. > > Nuclear power stations would also be closed down. > > The country's transport infrastructure would collapse. Supermarket > shelves would become empty and remain largely empty. > > Power would be generated by wind, wave and solar power. The massive > shortfall in power generation and transport infrastructure would cause > industry to become crippled. The UK's economy would collapse. > > The progress the country has made over the past 200 years would be put > into rapid reverse. > > Doesn't sound that bad does it? > You missed a bit. We should all use the internet more.
From: Albert T Cone on 9 Feb 2010 11:48 Doug wrote: > On 9 Feb, 09:37, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- > pies.co.am> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >>> Also road deaths are among the top ten causes of death in the world, >>> as a matter of interest for those here who are trying to play them >>> down, at nine and is sixth in middle-income countries.. Now try to say >>> they do not matter. >> To put all this in perspective, 830,000 die annually in the UK, 2,500 of >> those from road accidents. >> > Closer to 3,000 plus those who die after 30 days of injury. >> Road deaths thus account for just 3 in every 1000 deaths in the UK. 99.7% >> of deaths occur because of other causes. >> > But they are not killed by other people. >> There is a 1 in 26000 chance of you dying in a road accident in any one >> year. >> > Or about 1 in 266 in a lifetime. Only if you are planning to stay active until you're 100 years old. If you first start using the road at 10 years old and pop your clogs when you are 75, then it's about a 1 in 400 chance *over a lifetime*. That is a very small risk; in fact I think we should increase the average speeds on the roads and improve journey times, reduce congestion and improve the average quality of life. Of course, there will be a tradeoff in accident figures, but we can afford to bump the risk factor quite a lot without endangering population growth. Got to have some sort of natural selection...
From: Adrian on 9 Feb 2010 12:00
Albert T Cone <a.k.kirby(a)durham.ac.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > That is a very small risk; in fact I think we should increase the > average speeds on the roads and improve journey times, reduce congestion > and improve the average quality of life. Of course, there will be a > tradeoff in accident figures Will there? If that increase is accompanied by more stringent training, and regular re-testing, then you may well find that - together with the increase in attention that the increase should also enforce - the rate drops. |