How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Albert T Cone on 9 Feb 2010 12:10 Adrian wrote: > 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. Well, possibly, but that sounds like a lot of effort, and I can't help but think society might in any case benefit from some sort of genetic seive.
From: Adrian on 9 Feb 2010 12:21 Albert T Cone <a.k.kirby(a)durham.ac.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> 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. > Well, possibly, but that sounds like a lot of effort <shrug> Would that be a bad thing? Get the terminally indolent and stupid off the roads? > and I can't help but think society might in any case benefit from some > sort of genetic seive. A good point, well made.
From: Norman Wells on 9 Feb 2010 12:35 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. It was actually 2538 in 2008. And you can compare that, if you like, with 8609 in 1940. In fact, if you look at the statistics over the years, Doug, you'll find that the relationship between deaths and car numbers on the roads is actually an inverse one. The greater the number of cars on the road, the fewer fatalities. Why on earth are you not therefore advocating more and more cars rather than fewer? It would save lives. >> 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. Not all of course, but a significant number, well in excess of those that die on the roads, are killed through the negligence or contributory negligence of others, by murder, manslaughter, neglect, or other accidents. >> >> 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. i.e. once in 266 lifetimes. Even if that is right, that still means 99.6% of deaths are from other causes. But it's only right in Dougworld, where life expectancy is apparently 97.74 years. Back in the real world it's considerably lower, at about 80 years. If there's a 1 in 26000 chance of you dying in a road accident in any one year, then on average you'd have to live for 26000 years before you died in one. I think most would take that risk in order to get around, don't you? Whatever you say, Doug, it's pretty small beer.
From: Mortimer on 9 Feb 2010 12:49 "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-throat(a)dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in message news:R1hcn.254433$cU2.68214(a)newsfe22.ams2... > 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. > > It was actually 2538 in 2008. > > And you can compare that, if you like, with 8609 in 1940. Possibly 1940 is not a very sensible year to choose, because the results will be skewed by the fact that drivers and pedestrians will be walking around at night in blackout conditions, and even during the day there will be far fewer cars because of petrol rationing. > In fact, if you look at the statistics over the years, Doug, you'll find > that the relationship between deaths and car numbers on the roads is > actually an inverse one. The greater the number of cars on the road, the > fewer fatalities. Maybe because people take greater care when there is a greater risk. Or maybe because new cars have better brakes and are more pedestrian friendly if they do hit a pedestrian. Or because more car occupants wear seat belts, though that could cause people to feel safer and so take more risks.
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 9 Feb 2010 12:50
Norman Wells wrote: .... > To put all this in perspective, ... This is Doug you are replying to. Colin Bignell |