How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Tony Dragon on 7 Feb 2010 05:12 Doug wrote: > On 7 Feb, 08:56, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> Brimstone wrote: >> >>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >>> news:baeb5a4e-d64d-455f-89c6-f3f070bd652f(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>>> On 5 Feb, 19:14, BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5 Feb, 08:57, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: >>>>>> Fatal injuries are recorded up to 30 days following a crash but how >>>>>> many die later from their injuries and are unrecorded? >>>>> Dunno - going to tell us, Doug? >>>> That's what I am trying to find out but as usual the responses here >>>> are useless. There should be some way to estimate how many die later. >>> If your knowledge of the subject was as vast as you claim you would know >>> where to get the information without having to ask on a newsgroup. >> Especially as you would not believe any figures that were quoted by >> people on this NG. >> > Silly me! I had forgotten for a moment that you never have quotable > sources for your information. > Indeed you are silly, as that comment proves. > As deaths after 30 days of road crash injuries are not recorded as > such I was hoping for something like a guesstimate formula or ratio > based on some research sampling. > > -- > UK Radical Campaigns > www.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill. > And you could not find this info yourself? -- Tony Dragon
From: Doug on 7 Feb 2010 13:02 On 7 Feb, 09:58, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- pies.co.am> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 7 Feb, 08:56, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> Brimstone wrote: > >>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > >>>news:baeb5a4e-d64d-455f-89c6-f3f070bd652f(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.... > >>>> On 5 Feb, 19:14, BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 5 Feb, 08:57, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > >>>>>> Fatal injuries are recorded up to 30 days following a crash but > >>>>>> how many die later from their injuries and are unrecorded? > > >>>>> Dunno - going to tell us, Doug? > > >>>> That's what I am trying to find out but as usual the responses here > >>>> are useless. There should be some way to estimate how many die > >>>> later. > > As deaths after 30 days of road crash injuries are not recorded as > > such I was hoping for something like a guesstimate formula or ratio > > based on some research sampling. > > I think I can give you at least one thoroughly reliable statistic, Doug. > 100% of people involved in a crash die later. There's an irrefutable 1:1 > correlation. > > Just goes to show how dangerous they are, and how they ought to be banned.. > > I'm sure I also saw a headline in the Daily Mail a few months ago "Do > crashes cause cancer?". As an avid reader, you probably remember it. So, > you're right, we should abandon this silly 30-days thing altogether. You > can die a lot later after a crash. > It is more a case of dying later from a specific injury caused in a crash. Presumably each type of injury has its prognosis? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Brimstone on 7 Feb 2010 13:15 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:57a27bea-b69e-4390-925d-88de021b80a6(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Feb, 09:58, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- > pies.co.am> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >> > On 7 Feb, 08:56, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> Brimstone wrote: >> >>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >>>news:baeb5a4e-d64d-455f-89c6-f3f070bd652f(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >>>> On 5 Feb, 19:14, BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> On 5 Feb, 08:57, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> Fatal injuries are recorded up to 30 days following a crash but >> >>>>>> how many die later from their injuries and are unrecorded? >> >> >>>>> Dunno - going to tell us, Doug? >> >> >>>> That's what I am trying to find out but as usual the responses here >> >>>> are useless. There should be some way to estimate how many die >> >>>> later. >> > As deaths after 30 days of road crash injuries are not recorded as >> > such I was hoping for something like a guesstimate formula or ratio >> > based on some research sampling. >> >> I think I can give you at least one thoroughly reliable statistic, Doug. >> 100% of people involved in a crash die later. There's an irrefutable 1:1 >> correlation. >> >> Just goes to show how dangerous they are, and how they ought to be >> banned. >> >> I'm sure I also saw a headline in the Daily Mail a few months ago "Do >> crashes cause cancer?". As an avid reader, you probably remember it. >> So, >> you're right, we should abandon this silly 30-days thing altogether. You >> can die a lot later after a crash. >> > It is more a case of dying later from a specific injury caused in a > crash. Presumably each type of injury has its prognosis? > All injuries have exactly the same prognosis, either they heal or they don't.
From: Doug on 8 Feb 2010 02:26 On 7 Feb, 18:15, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > news:57a27bea-b69e-4390-925d-88de021b80a6(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > On 7 Feb, 09:58, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- > > pies.co.am> wrote: > >> Doug wrote: > >> > On 7 Feb, 08:56, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >> Brimstone wrote: > >> >>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > >> >>>news:baeb5a4e-d64d-455f-89c6-f3f070bd652f(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >> >>>> On 5 Feb, 19:14, BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> On 5 Feb, 08:57, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > >> >>>>>> Fatal injuries are recorded up to 30 days following a crash but > >> >>>>>> how many die later from their injuries and are unrecorded? > > >> >>>>> Dunno - going to tell us, Doug? > > >> >>>> That's what I am trying to find out but as usual the responses here > >> >>>> are useless. There should be some way to estimate how many die > >> >>>> later. > >> > As deaths after 30 days of road crash injuries are not recorded as > >> > such I was hoping for something like a guesstimate formula or ratio > >> > based on some research sampling. > > >> I think I can give you at least one thoroughly reliable statistic, Doug. > >> 100% of people involved in a crash die later. There's an irrefutable 1:1 > >> correlation. > > >> Just goes to show how dangerous they are, and how they ought to be > >> banned. > > >> I'm sure I also saw a headline in the Daily Mail a few months ago "Do > >> crashes cause cancer?". As an avid reader, you probably remember it.. > >> So, > >> you're right, we should abandon this silly 30-days thing altogether. You > >> can die a lot later after a crash. > > > It is more a case of dying later from a specific injury caused in a > > crash. Presumably each type of injury has its prognosis? > > All injuries have exactly the same prognosis, either they heal or they > don't. > You over simplify. What about the effect of stress on the body? Also, some injuries are more life-threatening than others. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Norman Wells on 8 Feb 2010 03:37
Doug wrote: > You over simplify. What about the effect of stress on the body? Also, > some injuries are more life-threatening than others. Being alive is a death sentence. |