How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Adrian on 13 Feb 2010 03:59 BrianW <brianwhitehead(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> > I took up cycling again for medical/health reasons and my driving >> > licence was not pulled. My dislike of motorists is largely due to >> > their behaviour, driving too fast, putting lives at risk, polluting >> > the air we breathe, leaving their machines lying about all over the >> > place, road rage, and worst of all their sheer numbers. I see them as >> > a blight on mankind and the environment. It wouldn't be so bad if >> > there weren't so many of them. >> What damages your credibility is that you only adopted this attitude >> after you stopped driving cars. > Odd, isn't it? Mr Bollen's hatred of cars stems from a childhood > incident in which he was run over whilst attempting to "rescue" a dead > bird. Yet this hatred only manifested itself *after* a lifetime of > driving, including driving a 14 mpg Landrover. I wonder whether there > is a medical term for this curious phenomenon? Chronic hypocrisy.
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 13 Feb 2010 13:56 Doug wrote: > On 11 Feb, 00:34, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: >> Adrian wrote: >>> "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. >> You didn't need to be a driver to know what they were like. My father >> bought an old van that he fitted seats into the back of when I was about >> 5. If you looked down when sitting in the back, you could watch the road >> passing by underneath. A year or so earlier, on a family trip to >> Southend in one of my father's cousins' car, my sandcastle bucket had >> served to catch the oil coming out of the breather, so it could be >> poured back into the engine every so often. >> >> Nevertheless, I have driven a car where the door panels flapped, as the >> bottoms had rusted off, and which needed to be steered to the right >> everytime I braked, as only one front drum worked. In retrospect, it is >> surprising I ever made it through to being a pensioner. >> > You are not alone in that. > > Yes I remember a time before MOTs and driving around on bald tyres. > This must partly account for the decrease in deaths but I think its > mainly due to pedestrians migrating to cars The figures don't support that view. In 1971, there were 14 million registered motor vehicles. In 2000, there were 28.9 million registered vehicles. In 1971, the population was 55.9 million, of whom 26% were under 16. In 2000, the population was 59.8 million, of whom 20% were under 16. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/UK_in_Figs_2002.pdf That means that registered vehicles per 1000 capita of people mostly of driving age (all vehicles, not just cars) rose from 338 in 1971 to 604 in 2000 Other data gives the ownership of cars per 1000 population as just over 200 in 1970 and around 400 in 1998. http://www.trg.soton.ac.uk/rosetta/reports/context_d5/appendix1.htm So, car ownership per capita slightly less than doubled, but pedestrian deaths fell 78% between 1967 and 2007. There simply weren't enough pedestrians becoming motorists to achieve that reduction and the increasing number of cars should have seen higher casualty rates among the remaining pedestrians if there were a causal link. > and the much better > protection afforded for car occupants. Improvements to cars have included significantly better protection for all road users, not just the occupants. Colin Bignell
From: webreader on 13 Feb 2010 15:29 On Feb 13, 6:56 pm, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 11 Feb, 00:34, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > >> Adrian wrote: > >>> "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. > >> You didn't need to be a driver to know what they were like. My father > >> bought an old van that he fitted seats into the back of when I was about > >> 5. If you looked down when sitting in the back, you could watch the road > >> passing by underneath. A year or so earlier, on a family trip to > >> Southend in one of my father's cousins' car, my sandcastle bucket had > >> served to catch the oil coming out of the breather, so it could be > >> poured back into the engine every so often. > > >> Nevertheless, I have driven a car where the door panels flapped, as the > >> bottoms had rusted off, and which needed to be steered to the right > >> everytime I braked, as only one front drum worked. In retrospect, it is > >> surprising I ever made it through to being a pensioner. > > > You are not alone in that. > > > Yes I remember a time before MOTs and driving around on bald tyres. > > This must partly account for the decrease in deaths but I think its > > mainly due to pedestrians migrating to cars > > The figures don't support that view. > > In 1971, there were 14 million registered motor vehicles. > In 2000, there were 28.9 million registered vehicles. > > In 1971, the population was 55.9 million, of whom 26% were under 16. > In 2000, the population was 59.8 million, of whom 20% were under 16. > > http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/UK_in_Figs_200... > > That means that registered vehicles per 1000 capita of people mostly of > driving age (all vehicles, not just cars) rose from 338 in 1971 to 604 > in 2000 > > Other data gives the ownership of cars per 1000 population as just over > 200 in 1970 and around 400 in 1998. > > http://www.trg.soton.ac.uk/rosetta/reports/context_d5/appendix1.htm > > So, car ownership per capita slightly less than doubled, but pedestrian > deaths fell 78% between 1967 and 2007. There simply weren't enough > pedestrians becoming motorists to achieve that reduction and the > increasing number of cars should have seen higher casualty rates among > the remaining pedestrians if there were a causal link. > > > and the much better > > protection afforded for car occupants. > > Improvements to cars have included significantly better protection for > all road users, not just the occupants. > > Colin Bignell Yes, but don't you reliase that Doug will tell you that other reports will give a different story. He wont be able to quote these reports & if you ask about them he will tell you to Google for them, but you can't do that as they do not exist outside of his little blinkered mind. At about this point he will accuse you of not being a real cyclist/ being a cyclist hating motorist. Shortly after he will go quite He will than wait for a few days until he thinks everyone has forgotton. His next post on this thread will have nothing to do with the origional post & will not adress any of the points raised. He may well promiss to report on the subject but this will never happen By the way Doug, where is 'Vince's Report' WSR.
From: The Medway Handyman on 13 Feb 2010 19:31 webreader wrote: > On Feb 13, 6:56 pm, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >>> On 11 Feb, 00:34, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: >>>> Adrian wrote: >>>>> "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. >>>> You didn't need to be a driver to know what they were like. My >>>> father bought an old van that he fitted seats into the back of >>>> when I was about >>>> 5. If you looked down when sitting in the back, you could watch >>>> the road passing by underneath. A year or so earlier, on a family >>>> trip to Southend in one of my father's cousins' car, my sandcastle >>>> bucket had served to catch the oil coming out of the breather, so >>>> it could be poured back into the engine every so often. >> >>>> Nevertheless, I have driven a car where the door panels flapped, >>>> as the bottoms had rusted off, and which needed to be steered to >>>> the right everytime I braked, as only one front drum worked. In >>>> retrospect, it is surprising I ever made it through to being a >>>> pensioner. >> >>> You are not alone in that. >> >>> Yes I remember a time before MOTs and driving around on bald tyres. >>> This must partly account for the decrease in deaths but I think its >>> mainly due to pedestrians migrating to cars >> >> The figures don't support that view. >> >> In 1971, there were 14 million registered motor vehicles. >> In 2000, there were 28.9 million registered vehicles. >> >> In 1971, the population was 55.9 million, of whom 26% were under 16. >> In 2000, the population was 59.8 million, of whom 20% were under 16. >> >> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/UK_in_Figs_200... >> >> That means that registered vehicles per 1000 capita of people mostly >> of driving age (all vehicles, not just cars) rose from 338 in 1971 >> to 604 in 2000 >> >> Other data gives the ownership of cars per 1000 population as just >> over 200 in 1970 and around 400 in 1998. >> >> http://www.trg.soton.ac.uk/rosetta/reports/context_d5/appendix1.htm >> >> So, car ownership per capita slightly less than doubled, but >> pedestrian deaths fell 78% between 1967 and 2007. There simply >> weren't enough pedestrians becoming motorists to achieve that >> reduction and the increasing number of cars should have seen higher >> casualty rates among the remaining pedestrians if there were a >> causal link. >> >>> and the much better >>> protection afforded for car occupants. >> >> Improvements to cars have included significantly better protection >> for all road users, not just the occupants. >> >> Colin Bignell > > Yes, but don't you reliase that Doug will tell you that other reports > will give a different story. And he will 'factor in' other meaningess figures to suport his view. > He wont be able to quote these reports & if you ask about them he will > tell you to Google for them, but you can't do that as they do not > exist outside of his little blinkered mind. > > At about this point he will accuse you of not being a real cyclist/ > being a cyclist hating motorist. And being a killer motorist -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
From: Christopher Bowlas on 13 Feb 2010 22:32
On Feb 14, 12:31 am, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > webreader wrote: > > On Feb 13, 6:56 pm, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > >> Improvements to cars have included significantly better protection > >> for all road users, not just the occupants. > > > Yes, but don't you reliase that Doug will tell you that other reports > > will give a different story. > > And he will 'factor in' other meaningess figures to suport his view. > > > He wont be able to quote these reports & if you ask about them he will > > tell you to Google for them, but you can't do that as they do not > > exist outside of his little blinkered mind. > > > At about this point he will accuse you of not being a real cyclist/ > > being a cyclist hating motorist. > > And being a killer motorist Doug seems to have failed to bluster on the thread he started, entitled "London Protest at SERCO over Yarl's Wood assaults" since I pointed out that the latest protest was about SERCO staff having detained some hunger strikers where they did not have access to food. Is it possible that even Doug might have seen the silliness of that protest? |