From: Tony Dragon on 10 Feb 2010 13:01
> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>> they were saying:
>>> 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.
>> Yes, he has.
>> When he was a kid, he was seriously injured and in a coma after running
>> into the road in front of an oncoming car to "rescue" the corpse of a
>> dead bird.
> I didn't recall his injuries being that serious.
>> His pig-headed unwillingness to accept any possible fallibility on his
>> own part is what's led to him extrapolating that incident into "all car
>> drivers are evil murderers"
> Similarly the more recent event where Doug was struck by a car wanting
> to cross his path and his refusal to give way, despite it being the most
> sensible thing to do.
Don't forget that according to Doug, a road user should be able to stop
if something unexpected happens, if they cant do that then they are
travelling to fast. Doug did not manage to stop in time so he was
travelling to fast
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 10 Feb 2010 13:11
> 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.
>> When we had what you say you want - no non-essential motor vehicle traffic.
> And bombs,
A definite additional hazard for pedestrians, although falling shrapnel
from our own AA guns would be just as dangerous, but neither would be
included in the road traffic accident figures.
> wrecked roads
Which would reduce the motor vehicle traffic in the area.
> virtually no lighting,
There was a definite increase in muggings because of the blackout, but
darkness does not make people suddenly become deaf, so they would be
able to hear vehicles coming. In any case, don't you remember just how
poor gas lighting was even when it was on? Most streets were lit to what
would today be Class B - sufficient to walk by but not adequate to drive by.
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
Not all of it, probably not most of it, given the improvements in
vehicle design over the past 40 years that were specifically aimed at
> And what about
> this from the same source?
> "However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over
> the last ten years."
That does not support your claim that motorist fatality rates are
decreasing while pedestrian rates are not either.
>> 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.
> 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.
That is why I have been looking at the long term trends, rather than any
short term variations, as you say elsewhere that we should.
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 10 Feb 2010 13:16
> 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.
Do I take it that you are too young to remember what sort of wrecks were
on our roads before the MOT was introduced?
From: Adrian on 10 Feb 2010 13:31
"Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:
> Do I take it that you are too young to remember what sort of wrecks were
> on our roads before the MOT was introduced?
Umm, Colin... It might be worth you remembering that anybody who was
driving at the time the MOT was introduced would now be rapidly
approaching 80 years old...
It was over a decade before I was born, and I'm closing on 40.
From: Norman Wells on 10 Feb 2010 15:06
> 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.
When there was hardly any petrol, therefore hardly any cars on the roads.
In other years:
This is a clearly rapidly declining trend, against a time when car usage has
increased tremendously. The inverse correlation is undeniable.
>> 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. About 50% of road deaths occur with car
> users. Unfortunately the vulnerable victims of killer motorists show
> no, such decline. As long as car user safety is prioritised at the
> expense of vulnerable road users the figures will seem low.
In 2007, there were just 646 deaths of pedestrians on the roads. We're not
told what they were doing, nor who was responsible. That total represented
22% of all deaths on the roads that year. 49% of deaths were to car users,
whom you obviously don't count since they made their own choices. 20% were
motorcyclists, and the same presumably applies to them. A further 5% (about
146) were pedal cyclists. Again, we're not told what they were doing nor
who was responsible for their demise.
You will say all of the pedestrians and pedal cyclists were killed by
rampaging motorists. That means about 800 vulnerable innocents mown down by
callous drivers. I'd say that a more accurate starting point, given a fair
apportionment of blame, would be half of that number, so about 400.
Even if it's 800, that represents just about 1 in 1000 deaths in Britain.
So, 99.9% of deaths occur through other causes. If you're a pedestrian or a
pedal cyclist, you're therefore likely to be killed on the roads once every
80,000 years on average. If you take my figure, that rises to once every
>>>> 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.
> We are talking about the killing of a quarter of a million people in
> the UK during a lifetime.
Even more if you multiply it by another, higher, meaningless number.
>> Whatever you say, Doug, it's pretty small beer.
> As one who has been run down twice and had numerous near misses I
> would rather not be exposed to such risks in order to merely get
As I say, Doug, we're not told who was to blame in the statistics. Your
record would indicate, however, that you're not wholly innocent. Too many
cases stop being mere coincidence or just bad luck, but become indicative of