How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Christopher Bowlas on 14 Feb 2010 12:09 On Feb 14, 10:20 am, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- pies.co.am> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > What you have overlooked are car passengers and distance/time > > travelled. The average occupancy of a car is 1.6 and if pedestrians > > spend longer in cars there are fewer on foot to be run over by cars. > > Regardless of all that and whatever point you're trying to make, Doug, we've > established, even on your own figures, that you're only likely to be killed > on the roads as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist once every 80,000 years, or > once every 160,000 years if you take more sensible figures. Why do you believe that Doug, who seems to have a propensity for being an accident victim, will live as long as 80,000 years? > > I doubt that an oversized 4x4 affords much > > protection to the vulnerable it strikes. > > Isn't that why bull bars were invented? That's clever - it gives them something to which they can cling rather than fall over.
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 15 Feb 2010 13:14 Tony Dragon wrote: > The Medway Handyman wrote: >> 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 >> >> > > He might even bring 'Global Warming' into the thread. > I suspect he might keep quiet about that, until he thinks we have forgotten about the current news stories about it being based on false data - little things like recording stations positioned next to the outlets of air condition plants or next to an incinerator. Of course, in one way he has been proven right about aircraft contributing to global warming - at Rome airport the measuring equipment is subjected to the exhaust from taxiing jets. Colin Bignell
From: Doug on 18 Feb 2010 02:40 On 14 Feb, 11:58, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 13 Feb, 18:56, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > >> Doug wrote: > ... > >>> 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. > > > What you have overlooked are car passengers and distance/time > > travelled. > > I have ignored vehicle kilometres travelled as that has increased a lot > more than vehicle ownership, but much of the increase is on high speed > roads, where accidents involving pedestrians are extremely rare. It > would distort the figures, but in favour of my arguments, not yours. > > > The average occupancy of a car is 1.6 and if pedestrians > > spend longer in cars there are fewer on foot to be run over by cars. > > OK In 1970 there were 200 cars per 1000 population. With an average > occupancy of 1.6, that leaves 680 pedestrians per 1000 population. In > 1998, there were 400 cars per 1000 population and, with an occupancy of > 1.6, that leaves 360 per 1000 as pedestrians. So, the number of vehicles > has doubled, while the number of pedestrians has dropped by 53%. That > suggests that the accident numbers should have remained roughly static, > not dropped dramatically as they have. > I would hardly call it dramatic in that timescale but the remainder can be accounted for by extra safety measures. > > Of course, not all car owners are motorists all the time. I own a > bicycle, even though my cardiac nurse says not to use it until next > October, I use the bus and I even walk at times. So there are probably > more pedestrians than this crude calculation suggests. > I doubt it. > > >>> 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. > > > I wish that were so. I doubt that an oversized 4x4 affords much > > protection to the vulnerable it strikes. > > While I wouldn't want to be hit by a Land Rover Defender, which is > essentially a 1950s design, with a girder for a front bumper, modern > 4x4s have to meet the same pedestrian protection standards as other > modern cars. > Yeah sure! Windscreens and bonnets are much softer these days. If you look at the rating system... http://www.euroncap.com/latest.aspx You will see that pedestrian safety is generally much lower than driver safety during a crash, as common sense would dictate anyway. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 18 Feb 2010 13:06 Doug wrote: > On 14 Feb, 11:58, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >>> On 13 Feb, 18:56, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: >>>> Doug wrote: >> ... >>>>> 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. >>> What you have overlooked are car passengers and distance/time >>> travelled. >> I have ignored vehicle kilometres travelled as that has increased a lot >> more than vehicle ownership, but much of the increase is on high speed >> roads, where accidents involving pedestrians are extremely rare. It >> would distort the figures, but in favour of my arguments, not yours. >> >>> The average occupancy of a car is 1.6 and if pedestrians >>> spend longer in cars there are fewer on foot to be run over by cars. >> OK In 1970 there were 200 cars per 1000 population. With an average >> occupancy of 1.6, that leaves 680 pedestrians per 1000 population. In >> 1998, there were 400 cars per 1000 population and, with an occupancy of >> 1.6, that leaves 360 per 1000 as pedestrians. So, the number of vehicles >> has doubled, while the number of pedestrians has dropped by 53%. That >> suggests that the accident numbers should have remained roughly static, >> not dropped dramatically as they have. >> > I would hardly call it dramatic in that timescale What would you view as dramatic if not a 78% drop in pedestrian deaths, despite a doubling in car ownership? > but the remainder > can be accounted for by extra safety measures. So, it is not mainly due to pedesrians becoming motorists. >> Of course, not all car owners are motorists all the time. I own a >> bicycle, even though my cardiac nurse says not to use it until next >> October, I use the bus and I even walk at times. So there are probably >> more pedestrians than this crude calculation suggests. >> > I doubt it. Are you saying that motorists are not also pedestrians, or do you think some pedestrians are closet motorists? >>>>> 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. >>> I wish that were so. I doubt that an oversized 4x4 affords much >>> protection to the vulnerable it strikes. >> While I wouldn't want to be hit by a Land Rover Defender, which is >> essentially a 1950s design, with a girder for a front bumper, modern >> 4x4s have to meet the same pedestrian protection standards as other >> modern cars. >> > Yeah sure! Windscreens and bonnets are much softer these days. Is the right answer. Windscreens are now laminated and glued to the bodywork, which means that the plastic core can stretch and absorb energy under impact, instead of shattering or popping out whole, as toughened glass screens used to do. Gone are the rigid struts that used to give stiffness to most bonnets. My Triumph Herald even had a handle down the centre to aid in lifting the bonnet forward. Instead bonnets are quite complex structures, often double skinned, designed to yield progressively under impact. Also gone are wing mirrors, long since replaced by the much safer door mirrors, and windscreen wiper roots are now protected. > If you look at the rating system... > > http://www.euroncap.com/latest.aspx > > You will see that pedestrian safety is generally much lower than > driver safety during a crash, as common sense would dictate anyway. As you say, someone strapped inside the vehicle can be controlled, and therefore protected, far better. However, there have still been massive advances in protection for pedestrians, some of whch I have outlined above. Colin Bignell
From: Doug on 18 Feb 2010 13:18
On 18 Feb, 18:06, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 14 Feb, 11:58, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > >> Doug wrote: > >>> On 13 Feb, 18:56, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > >>>> Doug wrote: > >> ... > >>>>> 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. > >>> What you have overlooked are car passengers and distance/time > >>> travelled. > >> I have ignored vehicle kilometres travelled as that has increased a lot > >> more than vehicle ownership, but much of the increase is on high speed > >> roads, where accidents involving pedestrians are extremely rare. It > >> would distort the figures, but in favour of my arguments, not yours. > > >>> The average occupancy of a car is 1.6 and if pedestrians > >>> spend longer in cars there are fewer on foot to be run over by cars. > >> OK In 1970 there were 200 cars per 1000 population. With an average > >> occupancy of 1.6, that leaves 680 pedestrians per 1000 population. In > >> 1998, there were 400 cars per 1000 population and, with an occupancy of > >> 1.6, that leaves 360 per 1000 as pedestrians. So, the number of vehicles > >> has doubled, while the number of pedestrians has dropped by 53%. That > >> suggests that the accident numbers should have remained roughly static, > >> not dropped dramatically as they have. > > > I would hardly call it dramatic in that timescale > > What would you view as dramatic if not a 78% drop in pedestrian deaths, > despite a doubling in car ownership? > The doubling in car ownership explains the halving in pedestrians so only about 25% are not accounted for and can be explained by more safety measures. > > > but the remainder > > can be accounted for by extra safety measures. > > So, it is not mainly due to pedesrians becoming motorists. > It is 'mainly'. > > >> Of course, not all car owners are motorists all the time. I own a > >> bicycle, even though my cardiac nurse says not to use it until next > >> October, I use the bus and I even walk at times. So there are probably > >> more pedestrians than this crude calculation suggests. > > > I doubt it. > > Are you saying that motorists are not also pedestrians, or do you think > some pedestrians are closet motorists? > No I think a lot of people spend a lot of time in their cars, instead of walking. > >>>>> 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. > >>> I wish that were so. I doubt that an oversized 4x4 affords much > >>> protection to the vulnerable it strikes. > >> While I wouldn't want to be hit by a Land Rover Defender, which is > >> essentially a 1950s design, with a girder for a front bumper, modern > >> 4x4s have to meet the same pedestrian protection standards as other > >> modern cars. > > > Yeah sure! Windscreens and bonnets are much softer these days. > > Is the right answer. Windscreens are now laminated and glued to the > bodywork, which means that the plastic core can stretch and absorb > energy under impact, instead of shattering or popping out whole, as > toughened glass screens used to do. Gone are the rigid struts that used > to give stiffness to most bonnets. My Triumph Herald even had a handle > down the centre to aid in lifting the bonnet forward. Instead bonnets > are quite complex structures, often double skinned, designed to yield > progressively under impact. Also gone are wing mirrors, long since > replaced by the much safer door mirrors, and windscreen wiper roots are > now protected. > > > If you look at the rating system... > > >http://www.euroncap.com/latest.aspx > > > You will see that pedestrian safety is generally much lower than > > driver safety during a crash, as common sense would dictate anyway. > > As you say, someone strapped inside the vehicle can be controlled, and > therefore protected, far better. However, there have still been massive > advances in protection for pedestrians, some of whch I have outlined above. > It is not massive, it is marginal and especially if the ped is struck at high speed. Let me know when they start fitting thick foam and airbags to the FRONT of cars and you might then have a point. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |