How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Doug on 10 Feb 2010 02:20 On 9 Feb, 19:23, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(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. > There was one more where I was driven off the road while cycling and suffered hospitalising injuries when I struck an earth/stones/bushes bank. Of course there have been a multitude of near misses including a deliberate ramming by a taxi driver recently. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 10 Feb 2010 03:54 Doug wrote: > On 9 Feb, 17:35, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- > pies.co.am> wrote: >> 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. >> > Wartime. When we had what you say you want - no non-essential motor vehicle traffic. >> 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. >> > Utter rubbish. The trend for fewer deaths can easily be explained due > to the increase in car safety. Improving safety for *all* road users is one factor, but the subject is far more complex thaan that, involving changing attitudes, legislation and improved understanding of the effects of road layouts on safety, among others. However, increased traffic levels in towns and cities probably does increase safety, by reducing overall traffic speeds. > About 50% of road deaths occur with car > users. Unfortunately the vulnerable victims of killer motorists show > no, such decline. ... Wrong again Doug. Pedestrian deaths in 1967 were 2,964, compared to 646 in 2007; a reduction of 78%. Allowing for an approximate 250% increase in vehicle kilometres in that period would make the drop 91%. The overall number of deaths, corrected for increasing traffic levels, fell from 199 to 48, a drop of 76%, so pedestrian deaths have been falling at a faster rate than average. They fell at a significantly faster rate if the increase in traffic levels is included, although some of that will be due to increased distances being travelled as well as increased numbers of vehicles on the road, which would not directly affect pedestrian death levels, so probably not as high as 91%, but certainly more than 78% in real terms. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208 Colin Bignell
From: Mr Benn on 10 Feb 2010 05:07 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_LSdnTwv4uIBG-zWnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > > "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. Can you transport food and people over the internet? I thought it was limited to data packets.
From: Doug on 10 Feb 2010 05:23 On 10 Feb, 08:54, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 9 Feb, 17:35, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- > > pies.co.am> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Wartime. > > When we had what you say you want - no non-essential motor vehicle traffic. > And bombs, wrecked roads virtually no lighting, etc. > > >> 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. > > > Utter rubbish. The trend for fewer deaths can easily be explained due > > to the increase in car safety. > > Improving safety for *all* road users is one factor, but the subject is > far more complex thaan that, involving changing attitudes, legislation > and improved understanding of the effects of road layouts on safety, > among others. However, increased traffic levels in towns and cities > probably does increase safety, by reducing overall traffic speeds. > I hope so. The slower the better, except for the pollution of course, which also kills people but has not been included in the stats. There is an estimated 25,000 deaths from air pollution in the UK each year, half of which are from traffic, 3,000 in London alone. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23684480-boris-told-cut-air-pollution-to-save-3000-deaths-a-year.do > > > About 50% of road deaths occur with car > > users. Unfortunately the vulnerable victims of killer motorists show > > no, such decline. ... > > Wrong again Doug. Pedestrian deaths in 1967 were 2,964, compared to 646 > in 2007; a reduction of 78%. Allowing for an approximate 250% increase > in vehicle kilometres in that period would make the drop 91%. The > overall number of deaths, corrected for increasing traffic levels, fell > from 199 to 48, a drop of 76%, so pedestrian deaths have been falling at > a faster rate than average. > Can be explained by many pedestrians migrating to cars. And what about this from the same source? "However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years." > > They fell at a significantly faster rate if the increase in traffic > levels is included, although some of that will be due to increased > distances being travelled as well as increased numbers of vehicles on > the road, which would not directly affect pedestrian death levels, so > probably not as high as 91%, but certainly more than 78% in real terms. > > http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208 > My guess is that the 2008 alleged low number of road deaths and serious injuries is either a temporary blip or is the result of deliberate under reporting to make things look much better than they really are. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Brimstone on 10 Feb 2010 07:25
"Mr Benn" <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:hku0ge$8nf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:_LSdnTwv4uIBG-zWnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> >> "Mr Benn" <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> news:hkrqt8$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. > > Can you transport food and people over the internet? I thought it was > limited to data packets. I think the idea is that people order their goods over the internet and they're delivered by pony and trap. Perhaps Doug will confirm? |