How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Norman Wells on 9 Feb 2010 12:56 Mortimer wrote: > "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-throat(a)dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in > message news:R1hcn.254433$cU2.68214(a)newsfe22.ams2... >> Doug wrote: >>> On 9 Feb, 09:37, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- >>> pies.co.am> wrote: >>>> Doug wrote: >>>>> Also road deaths are among the top ten causes of death in the >>>>> world, as a matter of interest for those here who are trying to >>>>> play them down, at nine and is sixth in middle-income countries.. >>>>> Now try to say they do not matter. >>>> >>>> To put all this in perspective, 830,000 die annually in the UK, >>>> 2,500 of those from road accidents. >>>> >>> Closer to 3,000 plus those who die after 30 days of injury. >> >> It was actually 2538 in 2008. >> >> And you can compare that, if you like, with 8609 in 1940. > > Possibly 1940 is not a very sensible year to choose, because the > results will be skewed by the fact that drivers and pedestrians will > be walking around at night in blackout conditions, and even during > the day there will be far fewer cars because of petrol rationing. Well, you can have: 1970 7499 1980 5953 1990 5267 2000 3409 2008 2538 which is why I said: >> In fact, if you look at the statistics over the years, Doug, you'll >> find that the relationship between deaths and car numbers on the >> roads is actually an inverse one. The greater the number of cars on >> the road, the fewer fatalities. > > Maybe because people take greater care when there is a greater risk. > Or maybe because new cars have better brakes and are more pedestrian > friendly if they do hit a pedestrian. Or because more car occupants > wear seat belts, though that could cause people to feel safer and so > take more risks. Whatever the reasons, the correlation is clear. If Doug wants to reduce the numbers killed on the roads, he should be arguing for more and more cars, not fewer.
From: Roger Thorpe on 9 Feb 2010 13:04 Norman Wells wrote: > Mortimer wrote: >> "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-throat(a)dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in >> message news:R1hcn.254433$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. > > Well, you can have: > > 1970 7499 > 1980 5953 > 1990 5267 > 2000 3409 > 2008 2538 > > which is why I said: > >>> 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. > > Whatever the reasons, the correlation is clear. If Doug wants to reduce > the numbers killed on the roads, he should be arguing for more and more > cars, not fewer. > > correlation does not equal causality. -- Roger Thorpe ....Wait a minute, It's stopped raining/ Guys are swimming, guys are sailing.....
From: Adrian on 9 Feb 2010 13:49 "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-throat(a)dibblers-pies.co.am> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > It was actually 2538 in 2008. >> 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. And, of course, many of those 2,538 weren't killed by "other people". They were killed by their own actions.
From: Brimstone on 9 Feb 2010 14:23 "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. > > 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. > Another interesting aspect is that the majority of people are never injured in a road traffic collision in their lives and yet Doug manages at least two, possibly more.
From: Brimstone on 9 Feb 2010 14:25
"Roger Thorpe" <myinitial.mysurname(a)warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message news:hks83e$4a8$2(a)corncockle-nntp.csv.warwick.ac.uk... > Norman Wells wrote: >> Mortimer wrote: >>> "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-throat(a)dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in >>> message news:R1hcn.254433$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. >> >> Well, you can have: >> >> 1970 7499 >> 1980 5953 >> 1990 5267 >> 2000 3409 >> 2008 2538 >> >> which is why I said: >> >>>> 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. >> >> Whatever the reasons, the correlation is clear. If Doug wants to reduce >> the numbers killed on the roads, he should be arguing for more and more >> cars, not fewer. >> >> > correlation does not equal causality. > In this instance there is perhaps some causality in that more cars on the road reduce speeds leading to lower speed collisions leading to less serious injuries leading to fewer deaths and serious injuries. |