How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Mortimer on 18 Feb 2010 13:21 "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message news:RfadnRX7uL0MHODWnZ2dnUVZ8sWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> 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. > > 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. I wonder if, given that levels of traffic are greater, pedestrians are also better educated in the risks associated with crossing the road and are taking more care rather than walking into the path of a car without looking properly. It would be interesting to see if is the total number of pedestrian-versus-vehicle collisions that has reduced or the number of *survivable* collisions which has reduced. Another factor may be that speed limits tend to be more rigidly enforced nowadays by speed cameras and by speed humps and chicaines, in places where pedestrians may be crossing the road.
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 18 Feb 2010 21:01 Mortimer wrote: > "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message > news:RfadnRX7uL0MHODWnZ2dnUVZ8sWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> 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. >> >> 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. > > I wonder if, given that levels of traffic are greater, pedestrians are > also better educated in the risks associated with crossing the road and > are taking more care rather than walking into the path of a car without > looking properly. It would be interesting to see if is the total number > of pedestrian-versus-vehicle collisions that has reduced or the number > of *survivable* collisions which has reduced. I would have thought the opposite more likely - that familiarity breeds contempt. As a kid in London I used to play in the road, as it was normally empty. If a car came around the corner, which was several hundred yards away, we would all move onto the pavement and wait until it either left the other end of the road, or parked and the driver got out. > Another factor may be that speed limits tend to be more rigidly enforced > nowadays by speed cameras and by speed humps and chicaines, in places > where pedestrians may be crossing the road. Again, my early memories were that most of the traffic went fairly slowly. ISTR that lorries were limited to 20mph, which did not seem to cause any problems. A friend of mine had a sit up and beg Ford Popular in which doing 30mph, when you eventually got there, seemed more than fast enough. Colin Bignell
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 18 Feb 2010 21:36 Doug wrote: > 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. As I said ealrier, doubling the danger to half the number of people should mean that the accident numbers remain roughly the same, so the you need to explain the entire 78% reduction. >>> but the remainder >>> can be accounted for by extra safety measures. >> So, it is not mainly due to pedesrians becoming motorists. >> > It is 'mainly'. As I have explained, I think it is almost entirely due to other factors. All the towns I go shopping in, for example, now have fully pedestrianised shopping streets, where there would have been a constant stream of traffic 40 years ago. >>>> 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. I think you are making an assumption to support your preconceptions. When I go shopping in one of the nearby towns, parking tends to be charged for and of limited availability or free but time restricted, so I usually park outside the parking control zones, which can involve a half-hour walk to the shops. That usually means I take as long walking to the shopping area as it takes me to drive to the town. The number of cars parked in the outer areas when the shops are open suggests that I am not alone in doing this. >>>>>>> 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 You would have to say that, but the fact is that modern cars are very much less likely to injure a pedestrian at town speeds than ones from 40 years ago. > and especially if the ped is struck > at high speed. Playing on motorways was never a good idea. > Let me know when they start fitting thick foam and > airbags to the FRONT of cars and you might then have a point. Neither would be an improvement. Cars already have carefully designed deformable structures that are more effective than foam. By bending and staying bent, they absorbe more energy and don't try to throw the pedestrian off in a random direction, as a resiliant foam might. Air bags are effective inside a car because they inflate before the occupants hit the internal structure, which they do by detecting an unusually high deceleration. It would probably be impossible to design a method of deployment that would work for pedestrians, but not go off while braking hard or when parking. However, even if that were possible, the effect would be to push the pedestrian over, where they are vulnerable to being run over, rather than rolling them over the bonnet and out of the way of the wheels, as modern cars are designed to do. Colin Bignell
From: Doug on 19 Feb 2010 02:00 On 19 Feb, 02:36, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > 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. > > As I said ealrier, doubling the danger to half the number of people > should mean that the accident numbers remain roughly the same, so the > you need to explain the entire 78% reduction. > According to your own numbers there are almost 30 million vehicles and if you use an average occupancy of 1.6 that is 48million, about the same as the entire adult population. > > >>> but the remainder > >>> can be accounted for by extra safety measures. > >> So, it is not mainly due to pedesrians becoming motorists. > > > It is 'mainly'. > > As I have explained, I think it is almost entirely due to other factors. > All the towns I go shopping in, for example, now have fully > pedestrianised shopping streets, where there would have been a constant > stream of traffic 40 years ago. > The extra safety measures which accounts for the remaining 25% > > >>>> 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. > > I think you are making an assumption to support your preconceptions. > When I go shopping in one of the nearby towns, parking tends to be > charged for and of limited availability or free but time restricted, so > I usually park outside the parking control zones, which can involve a > half-hour walk to the shops. That usually means I take as long walking > to the shopping area as it takes me to drive to the town. The number of > cars parked in the outer areas when the shops are open suggests that I > am not alone in doing this. > Anecdotal. > > > >>>>>>> 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 > > You would have to say that, but the fact is that modern cars are very > much less likely to injure a pedestrian at town speeds than ones from 40 > years ago. > Speculative. > > > and especially if the ped is struck > > at high speed. > > Playing on motorways was never a good idea. > Motorways, with its discrimination against pedestrians and cyclists, is another safety factor accounting for that 25%. > > > Let me know when they start fitting thick foam and > > airbags to the FRONT of cars and you might then have a point. > > Neither would be an improvement. Cars already have carefully designed > deformable structures that are more effective than foam. By bending and > staying bent, they absorbe more energy and don't try to throw the > pedestrian off in a random direction, as a resiliant foam might. > Then why are their pedestrian ratings so low? > > Air bags are effective inside a car because they inflate before the > occupants hit the internal structure, which they do by detecting an > unusually high deceleration. It would probably be impossible to design a > method of deployment that would work for pedestrians, but not go off > while braking hard or when parking. However, even if that were possible, > the effect would be to push the pedestrian over, where they are > vulnerable to being run over, rather than rolling them over the bonnet > and out of the way of the wheels, as modern cars are designed to do. > If the airbag was placed low it would roll them over the bonnet and avoid breaking the legs. It would be deployed whenever the large foam bumper encountered an obstacle. It wouldn't look very cool and wouldn't sell cars but would be much safer., assuming anyone cares, which give the Toyota situation is very unlikely. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 20 Feb 2010 13:59
Doug wrote: > On 19 Feb, 02:36, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: .... >> As I said ealrier, doubling the danger to half the number of people >> should mean that the accident numbers remain roughly the same, so the >> you need to explain the entire 78% reduction. >> > According to your own numbers there are almost 30 million vehicles and > if you use an average occupancy of 1.6 that is 48million, about the > same as the entire adult population. According to my numbers, there are 400 cars owned per 1000 population. With an estimated 65 million population, that is 26 million cars owned. The DVAL figure is 26,208,000. However, cars owned is not the same as the number of cars in use at any one time. If you assume that the percentage of cars in use remain roughly constant, then the number of cars owned is a rough guide to the relative risk levels. However, it won't work as the basis for working out how many people are travelling in cars compared to those not. For that, you have to use the numer of cars in use which, on a busy bank holiday, is around 10 million. Using your 1.6 occupants per car, that would give 16 million people in car and 49 million not in cars, almost exactly the reverse of your figures. Of course, on a normal day, the numbers of cars on the road will be lower than on a buy bank holiday. Also, you cannot assume that the 0.6 passenger is someone who would otherwise be a pedestrian. I live in a predomiantly rural area, so nobody I know does not own a car, from which it follows that anyone travelling with me is a car owner who is, temporarily not using their own car. .... >> I think you are making an assumption to support your preconceptions. >> When I go shopping in one of the nearby towns, parking tends to be >> charged for and of limited availability or free but time restricted, so >> I usually park outside the parking control zones, which can involve a >> half-hour walk to the shops. That usually means I take as long walking >> to the shopping area as it takes me to drive to the town. The number of >> cars parked in the outer areas when the shops are open suggests that I >> am not alone in doing this. >> > Anecdotal. OK. I'll put it terms you can understand. Remember all those cars parked on the roads that you complain about? Every one represents a car owner who is not being a motorist at the time. .... >> You would have to say that, but the fact is that modern cars are very >> much less likely to injure a pedestrian at town speeds than ones from 40 >> years ago. >> > Speculative. Proven engineering fact. .... >>> Let me know when they start fitting thick foam and >>> airbags to the FRONT of cars and you might then have a point. >> Neither would be an improvement. Cars already have carefully designed >> deformable structures that are more effective than foam. By bending and >> staying bent, they absorbe more energy and don't try to throw the >> pedestrian off in a random direction, as a resiliant foam might. >> > Then why are their pedestrian ratings so low? Because of the inherent difficulties of protecting someone in an uncontrolled environment. The occupants of the car are strapped inside a controlled environment, the behaviour of which can be very accurately determined during an accident. Interactions outside that environment cannot be predicted in the same way, which means that the same levels of protection cannot be achieved, even in theory. >> Air bags are effective inside a car because they inflate before the >> occupants hit the internal structure, which they do by detecting an >> unusually high deceleration. It would probably be impossible to design a >> method of deployment that would work for pedestrians, but not go off >> while braking hard or when parking. However, even if that were possible, >> the effect would be to push the pedestrian over, where they are >> vulnerable to being run over, rather than rolling them over the bonnet >> and out of the way of the wheels, as modern cars are designed to do. >> > If the airbag was placed low it would roll them over the bonnet and > avoid breaking the legs. It would be deployed whenever the large foam > bumper encountered an obstacle. Which will usually be when parking. As I said, there are serious practical problems with your suggestions. Colin Bignell |