How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 10 Feb 2010 07:30 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:791a4a21-6d25-4154-b95d-ada09a0780f1(a)z26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 9 Feb, 13:16, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Doug" <jag...(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? >> > You are wrong again. I do not think all cars should be banned just > that frivolous mass car use should be actively discouraged because of > the widespread harm it causes. Would you care to define "frivolous mass car use"? >> Locking people up after the event >> doesn't prevent accidents so that's not a option either. >> > The basic problem lies with the general casual and uncaring attitude > towards road deaths and a lack of proper punishments for causing such > deaths. I would agree that a small number of people's attitudes towards others needs to be improved, but in general most people have a perfectly reasonable attitude. The fact which you try to ignore is that it is part of the human condition to make honest mistakes and no amount of "attitude adjustment" or legislation can compensate for that. > Mindsets need to be altered, both among drivers and within > government and the justice system. > > Nothing more clearly illustrates this than the thousands of cars with > dangerous faults which are allowed to continue to be driven on our > roads. Presumably if anyone is killed because of such faults the > killer driver will not be blamed and certainly a government which > allows such cars on our roads will not be blamed. > So the annual MoT test doesn't weed out those cars with safety faults?
From: Brimstone on 10 Feb 2010 07:34 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:2fb4b7d1-141a-4b47-b435-92bd954ffd7d(a)q27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > 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. > So, given that you've had more than your fair share of road traffic collisions (some might accuse you of being greedy and seeking them out) you have not yet suffered either serious injury (broken bones, coma or similar) nor death. Perhaps the situation is not as bad as you pretend it to be?
From: colin-reed on 10 Feb 2010 07:35 On 10 Feb, 12:30, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > So the annual MoT test doesn't weed out those cars with safety faults? Well, a current fairly high profile news story seems to suggest that it doesn't! It especially doesn't if safety faults are in a car less than 3 years old. Colin
From: Brimstone on 10 Feb 2010 07:37 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:67881fbf-627a-4de8-9a9a-669f7938422a(a)q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > As one who has been run down twice and had numerous near misses To what degree did you contribute to those collisions by insisting on your right of way when a properly developed sense of self preservation would have decreed that you take avoiding action regardless of who had priority? > I > would rather not be exposed to such risks in order to merely get > around. To which the obvious answer is to stay at home.
From: Brimstone on 10 Feb 2010 07:39
"Christopher Bowlas" <chris.bowlas(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:b222b492-736d-4033-b6fd-4f10a235c8de(a)f15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 9, 7:31 am, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> news:a7349974-4c11-4050-a7c9-be94f41cf72f(a)f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> > What about, say, damage to the spine and paralysis of the lower body >> > which can have a serious effect on long-term health? Anything which >> > permanently affects quality of life can shorten life. >> >> The number of times that you've been hit by cars seems to disprove that >> theory Doug, otherwise you wouldn't still be breathing and bashing out >> the >> same tired old messages. > > Perhaps those collisions only caused brain damage? It seems to be longest lasting effect. |