How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 9 Feb 2010 02:19 Mortimer wrote: > "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message > news:-bOdnQm7TeeeG-3WnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> Doug wrote: >>> On 5 Feb, 20:25, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- >>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Doug wrote: >>>>> Fatal injuries are recorded up to 30 days following a crash but how >>>>> many die later from their injuries and are unrecorded? >> >> Thirty days after an incident has been chosen in several areas of >> medicine, as a result of long exerience, as the point at which death >> has a very low probability of being linked to it. Where studies have >> been carried out, they support that choice. A good example is sudden >> cardiac death following a heart attack. The probability of death >> within the first 30 days is about the same as during the entire >> following year, when it is lower than the average for the general >> population. >> >> >>>>> http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/faqukcasualties/1914 >>>>> "In 2007 (the latest year for which statistics are available) 2,946 >>>>> people were killed on Britain�s roads [1]. >>>> Hmmm. 0.00491% of the population. Statistically irrelevant. >>>> >>>> Heart disease - 20.2% >>>> Cerebrovascular diseases - 7.9% >>>> Lung cancer - 6.9% >>>> Chronic lower respiratory disease - 5.6% >>>> Flu/pneumonia - 5% >>>> Prostate cancer - 3.7% >>>> Colon cancer - 3.1% >>>> Lymph cancers - 2.3% >>>> Alzheimer's disease/dementia - 2.1% >>>> Aortic aneurysm - 2% >>>> >>> Very few of which are directly caused by other people, unlike road >>> deaths. >> >> Nevertheless, most are preventable or treatable. Are you saying we >> should divert money from trying to prevent deaths from some of the >> major killers in society to a very minor one? > > Sadly, I think Duhg has got such a bee in his bonnet about road deaths > due to his favourite bugbear, powered vehicles, that he probably *does* > think that a disproportionate amount of money should be spent preventing > them, compared with preventing deaths due to heart disease or various > forms of cancer. He has a simple, cheap, if completely unrealistic, solution - remove all motor cars from the roads. > It's interesting to see that stats you mention above. Not mine - The Medway Handyman's > I'd no idea that > flu and pneumonia were such big killers. It is slightly misleading to group those two together, as pneumonia is the primary killer. In 2005, of 31,487 deaths in that group, 44 were due to influenza. However, that is the way the statistics are collected, no doubt for good historical reasons. In the 1918 flu pandemic, for example, it would probably have been difficult to decide which of the two had killed the victims. > It's interesting also that you > mention a cut-off time of 30 days. I believe that in legal cases of > death following assault, a there is/was a period of a year and a day, > beyond which death is not deemed to be a result of being attacked. That would appear to be a difference between legal and medical definitions. The first has to do with obtaining justice, while the second has to do with assessing the risk to a patient. Colin Bignell
From: Doug on 9 Feb 2010 02:22 On 8 Feb, 21:45, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 5 Feb, 20:25, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> Doug wrote: > >>> Fatal injuries are recorded up to 30 days following a crash but how > >>> many die later from their injuries and are unrecorded? > > Thirty days after an incident has been chosen in several areas of > medicine, as a result of long exerience, as the point at which death has > a very low probability of being linked to it. Where studies have been > carried out, they support that choice. A good example is sudden cardiac > death following a heart attack. The probability of death within the > first 30 days is about the same as during the entire following year, > when it is lower than the average for the general population. > > > > >>>http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/faqukcasualties/1914 > >>> "In 2007 (the latest year for which statistics are available) 2,946 > >>> people were killed on Britains roads [1]. > >> Hmmm. 0.00491% of the population. Statistically irrelevant. > > >> Heart disease - 20.2% > >> Cerebrovascular diseases - 7.9% > >> Lung cancer - 6.9% > >> Chronic lower respiratory disease - 5.6% > >> Flu/pneumonia - 5% > >> Prostate cancer - 3.7% > >> Colon cancer - 3.1% > >> Lymph cancers - 2.3% > >> Alzheimer's disease/dementia - 2.1% > >> Aortic aneurysm - 2% > > > Very few of which are directly caused by other people, unlike road > > deaths. > > Nevertheless, most are preventable or treatable. Are you saying we > should divert money from try to prevent deaths from some of the major > killers in society to a very minor one? > Killing people is not minor. It is very serious indeed, though for some obscure reason it is not treated as such when it happens on a road and such deaths seem to be regarded very casually indeed on newsgroups such as this, by drivers of course. What about, say, damage to the spine and paralysis of the lower body which can have a serious effect on long-term health? Anything which permanently affects quality of life can shorten life. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Brimstone on 9 Feb 2010 02:31 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:a7349974-4c11-4050-a7c9-be94f41cf72f(a)f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > Killing people is not minor. It is very serious indeed, though for > some obscure reason it is not treated as such when it happens on a > road and such deaths seem to be regarded very casually indeed on > newsgroups such as this, by drivers of course. > > What about, say, damage to the spine and paralysis of the lower body > which can have a serious effect on long-term health? Anything which > permanently affects quality of life can shorten life. > The number of times that you've been hit by cars seems to disprove that theory Doug, otherwise you wouldn't still be breathing and bashing out the same tired old messages.
From: Doug on 9 Feb 2010 02:33 On 8 Feb, 21:59, "Mortimer" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message > > news:-bOdnQm7TeeeG-3WnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > > > > Doug wrote: > >> On 5 Feb, 20:25, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > >> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Doug wrote: > >>>> Fatal injuries are recorded up to 30 days following a crash but how > >>>> many die later from their injuries and are unrecorded? > > > Thirty days after an incident has been chosen in several areas of > > medicine, as a result of long exerience, as the point at which death has a > > very low probability of being linked to it. Where studies have been > > carried out, they support that choice. A good example is sudden cardiac > > death following a heart attack. The probability of death within the first > > 30 days is about the same as during the entire following year, when it is > > lower than the average for the general population. > > >>>>http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/faqukcasualties/1914 > >>>> "In 2007 (the latest year for which statistics are available) 2,946 > >>>> people were killed on Britains roads [1]. > >>> Hmmm. 0.00491% of the population. Statistically irrelevant. > > >>> Heart disease - 20.2% > >>> Cerebrovascular diseases - 7.9% > >>> Lung cancer - 6.9% > >>> Chronic lower respiratory disease - 5.6% > >>> Flu/pneumonia - 5% > >>> Prostate cancer - 3.7% > >>> Colon cancer - 3.1% > >>> Lymph cancers - 2.3% > >>> Alzheimer's disease/dementia - 2.1% > >>> Aortic aneurysm - 2% > > >> Very few of which are directly caused by other people, unlike road > >> deaths. > > > Nevertheless, most are preventable or treatable. Are you saying we should > > divert money from trying to prevent deaths from some of the major killers > > in society to a very minor one? > > Sadly, I think Duhg has got such a bee in his bonnet about road deaths due > to his favourite bugbear, powered vehicles, that he probably *does* think > that a disproportionate amount of money should be spent preventing them, > compared with preventing deaths due to heart disease or various forms of > cancer. > > It's interesting to see that stats you mention above. I'd no idea that flu > and pneumonia were such big killers. It's interesting also that you mention > a cut-off time of 30 days. I believe that in legal cases of death following > assault, a there is/was a period of a year and a day, beyond which death is > not deemed to be a result of being attacked. > Interesting point which if true demonstrates the lenient double standard applied specifically to road deaths. 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. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.html -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Adrian on 9 Feb 2010 02:41
Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > 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. > > http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.html Actually, I think you'll find that that proves the point that - in the UK - they are relatively insignificant. If you want to address the subject in other countries, please - feel free. ca.driving - Canada alt.autos - US rec.autos.driving - US aus.cars - Australia Please don't cross-post, though. Thanks. |