Yet another dangerous car model.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Doug on 18 Apr 2010 02:24 On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- pies.co.am> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 15 Apr, 21:00, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> Highly experienced traffic police with an in depth knowledge of the > >> law are unable to collect accurate data then? > > > Given that most of the police arrive by car and are motorists > > themselves I would expect them to be naturally biased. Also, there is > > always a discrepancy between police and hospital statistics, with the > > latter recording the most. > > The statistics I quoted were from the Department for Transport, who ought to > know a thing or two about our roads. If you have any other reliable > statistics you'd like to quote to draw any other conclusion, please do so, > and quote the source. > It is natural for the government to want to play down a lack of road safety, especially when compared to other countries. "Why road casualties don't add up This week the Statistics Authority published a critical assessment of road casualty statistics. If things didnt improve, they said, these figures would have to be renamed Police-recorded road casualty statistics with the pretty clear implication that what the police recorded was some way from the full picture. So whats going on? The Department for Transport has known for some time that police figures undercount road casualties. But as long as the level of undercounting remained stable, it seemed reasonable to keep using them to monitor trends. Things changed in 2006 when a group of three public- health experts, led by Michael Gill of the Public Health Group of the Government Office for the South East, published a paper in the British Medical Journal, in which they claimed that the undercount is getting worse..." More: http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/why-road-casualties-dont-add > In the meantime, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you can > expect to die as a pedestrian or cyclist on the road in an accident where > the vehicle is defective, and where the accident is the fault of the > motorist, just once in about 12,000,000 years. Prove that wrong if you can. > Source? Of course it is a totally different statistic for those who are actually killed by a car fault and their relatives. We are back with your numbers game again, i.e. below a certain number killings don't matter a jot. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Norman Wells on 18 Apr 2010 04:11 Doug wrote: > On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- > pies.co.am> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >>> On 15 Apr, 21:00, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- >>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Highly experienced traffic police with an in depth knowledge of the >>>> law are unable to collect accurate data then? >> >>> Given that most of the police arrive by car and are motorists >>> themselves I would expect them to be naturally biased. Also, there >>> is always a discrepancy between police and hospital statistics, >>> with the latter recording the most. >> >> The statistics I quoted were from the Department for Transport, who >> ought to know a thing or two about our roads. If you have any other >> reliable statistics you'd like to quote to draw any other >> conclusion, please do so, and quote the source. >> > It is natural for the government to want to play down a lack of road > safety, especially when compared to other countries. So, it's all a big conspiracy. Nevertheless, what we were arguing about was the _proportion_ of road fatalities of pedestrians and cyclists that are their own silly fault rather than the motorist's, over which there is no reason why anyone should want to conspire. > "Why road casualties don't add up > > This week the Statistics Authority published a critical assessment of > road casualty statistics. If things didn�t improve, they said, these > figures would have to be renamed �Police-recorded road casualty > statistics� � with the pretty clear implication that what the police > recorded was some way from the full picture. So what�s going on? > > The Department for Transport has known for some time that police > figures undercount road casualties. But as long as the level of > undercounting remained stable, it seemed reasonable to keep using them > to monitor trends. Things changed in 2006 when a group of three > public- health experts, led by Michael Gill of the Public Health > Group of the Government Office for the South East, published a paper > in the British Medical Journal, in which they claimed that the > undercount is getting worse..." > > More: > http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/why-road-casualties-dont-add So, you can't quote any statistics at all that support your contention that 75% of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are caused by the motorist, and you can't quote any that contradict the Department for Transport's figures I quoted showing 75% of them are actually the fault of the pedestrian or cyclist himself. Thank you for confirming that. >> In the meantime, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you >> can expect to die as a pedestrian or cyclist on the road in an >> accident where the vehicle is defective, and where the accident is >> the fault of the motorist, just once in about 12,000,000 years. >> Prove that wrong if you can. >> > Source? You can read my previous posts on the subject. Perhaps you should. > Of course it is a totally different statistic for those who are > actually killed by a car fault and their relatives. We are back with > your numbers game again, i.e. below a certain number killings don't > matter a jot. It's a matter of the ratio of risk to benefit. There's scarcely anything you do that doesn't involve a risk to life and limb. Whether you do it depends on the perceived benefit of doing it. Most people, I think, would have little hesitation in walking along a pavement when the risk that they will be killed by a marauding, out of control, mechanically defective vehicle is just once every 12,000,000 years. Don't you?
From: The Medway Handyman on 18 Apr 2010 19:09 Phil W Lee wrote: > "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-throat(a)dibblers-pies.co.am> considered Sun, > 18 Apr 2010 09:11:42 +0100 the perfect time to write: > >> Doug wrote: >>> On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- >>> pies.co.am> wrote: >>>> Doug wrote: >>>>> On 15 Apr, 21:00, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- >>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Highly experienced traffic police with an in depth knowledge of >>>>>> the law are unable to collect accurate data then? >>>> >>>>> Given that most of the police arrive by car and are motorists >>>>> themselves I would expect them to be naturally biased. Also, there >>>>> is always a discrepancy between police and hospital statistics, >>>>> with the latter recording the most. >>>> >>>> The statistics I quoted were from the Department for Transport, who >>>> ought to know a thing or two about our roads. If you have any other >>>> reliable statistics you'd like to quote to draw any other >>>> conclusion, please do so, and quote the source. >>>> >>> It is natural for the government to want to play down a lack of road >>> safety, especially when compared to other countries. >> >> So, it's all a big conspiracy. Nevertheless, what we were arguing >> about was the _proportion_ of road fatalities of pedestrians and >> cyclists that are their own silly fault rather than the motorist's, >> over which there is no reason why anyone should want to conspire. >> > Why attribute to conspiracy that which can be perfectly adequately > explained by incompetence or laziness? > It is far easier for an attending police officer to mark the form > "pedestrian fault" than to mark it "motorist fault" and then justify > why a prosecution didn't take place. > It also reduces pressure on budgets, as the requirement for detailed > investigation is much lower. Ze plane! Ze plane! -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
From: Doug on 19 Apr 2010 02:32 On 18 Apr, 09:11, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- pies.co.am> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- > > pies.co.am> wrote: > >> Doug wrote: > >>> On 15 Apr, 21:00, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > >>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> Highly experienced traffic police with an in depth knowledge of the > >>>> law are unable to collect accurate data then? > > >>> Given that most of the police arrive by car and are motorists > >>> themselves I would expect them to be naturally biased. Also, there > >>> is always a discrepancy between police and hospital statistics, > >>> with the latter recording the most. > > >> The statistics I quoted were from the Department for Transport, who > >> ought to know a thing or two about our roads. If you have any other > >> reliable statistics you'd like to quote to draw any other > >> conclusion, please do so, and quote the source. > > > It is natural for the government to want to play down a lack of road > > safety, especially when compared to other countries. > > So, it's all a big conspiracy. > No, the government set itself a target to reduce road deaths and given the circumstances it is unlikely that the target will be met. Here is another quote of mine. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5387568.stm "...Although the figures for deaths and serious injuries showed a slight fall, the Statistics Commission is concerned police figures, on which government statistics are based, tend to be lower than hospital figures. If these hospital figures were used, targets would not be met, the commission said. The commission has written to the DfT to express its concern..." > > Nevertheless, what we were arguing about was > the _proportion_ of road fatalities of pedestrians and cyclists that are > their own silly fault rather than the motorist's, over which there is no > reason why anyone should want to conspire. > How do you know it was their own fault and especially if the figures are know to be massaged? > > > > "Why road casualties don't add up > > > This week the Statistics Authority published a critical assessment of > > road casualty statistics. If things didnt improve, they said, these > > figures would have to be renamed Police-recorded road casualty > > statistics with the pretty clear implication that what the police > > recorded was some way from the full picture. So whats going on? > > > The Department for Transport has known for some time that police > > figures undercount road casualties. But as long as the level of > > undercounting remained stable, it seemed reasonable to keep using them > > to monitor trends. Things changed in 2006 when a group of three > > public- health experts, led by Michael Gill of the Public Health > > Group of the Government Office for the South East, published a paper > > in the British Medical Journal, in which they claimed that the > > undercount is getting worse..." > > > More: > >http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/why-road-casualties-dont-add > > So, you can't quote any statistics at all that support your contention that > 75% of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are caused by the motorist, and you > can't quote any that contradict the Department for Transport's figures I > quoted showing 75% of them are actually the fault of the pedestrian or > cyclist himself. > > Thank you for confirming that. > You are wrong again. I personally believe that there should be a presumption that when a driver kills a vulnerable road user the driver is automatically at fault. Bear in mind that due to the protection they have it is virtually impossible for a driver to be killed by a vulnerable road user. > > >> In the meantime, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you > >> can expect to die as a pedestrian or cyclist on the road in an > >> accident where the vehicle is defective, and where the accident is > >> the fault of the motorist, just once in about 12,000,000 years. > >> Prove that wrong if you can. > > > Source? > > You can read my previous posts on the subject. Perhaps you should. > So no source then, as usual? > > > Of course it is a totally different statistic for those who are > > actually killed by a car fault and their relatives. We are back with > > your numbers game again, i.e. below a certain number killings don't > > matter a jot. > > It's a matter of the ratio of risk to benefit. There's scarcely anything > you do that doesn't involve a risk to life and limb. Whether you do it > depends on the perceived benefit of doing it. Most people, I think, would > have little hesitation in walking along a pavement when the risk that they > will be killed by a marauding, out of control, mechanically defective > vehicle is just once every 12,000,000 years. Don't you? > As you have no source, or are unwilling to present one, I question the accuracy of your figures. You could, however, instead present a calculation based on familiar statistics, if you chose to do so. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Derek C on 19 Apr 2010 04:19
On 19 Apr, 07:32, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 18 Apr, 09:11, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- > > > > pies.co.am> wrote: > > Doug wrote: > > > On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- > > > pies.co.am> wrote: > > >> Doug wrote: > > >>> On 15 Apr, 21:00, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > > >>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>> Highly experienced traffic police with an in depth knowledge of the > > >>>> law are unable to collect accurate data then? > > > >>> Given that most of the police arrive by car and are motorists > > >>> themselves I would expect them to be naturally biased. Also, there > > >>> is always a discrepancy between police and hospital statistics, > > >>> with the latter recording the most. > > > >> The statistics I quoted were from the Department for Transport, who > > >> ought to know a thing or two about our roads. If you have any other > > >> reliable statistics you'd like to quote to draw any other > > >> conclusion, please do so, and quote the source. > > > > It is natural for the government to want to play down a lack of road > > > safety, especially when compared to other countries. > > > So, it's all a big conspiracy. > > No, the government set itself a target to reduce road deaths and given > the circumstances it is unlikely that the target will be met. > > Here is another quote of mine. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5387568.stm > > "...Although the figures for deaths and serious injuries showed a > slight fall, the Statistics Commission is concerned police figures, on > which government statistics are based, tend to be lower than hospital > figures. > > If these hospital figures were used, targets would not be met, the > commission said. The commission has written to the DfT to express its > concern..." > > > > > Nevertheless, what we were arguing about was > > the _proportion_ of road fatalities of pedestrians and cyclists that are > > their own silly fault rather than the motorist's, over which there is no > > reason why anyone should want to conspire. > > How do you know it was their own fault and especially if the figures > are know to be massaged? > > > > > > > > "Why road casualties don't add up > > > > This week the Statistics Authority published a critical assessment of > > > road casualty statistics. If things didnt improve, they said, these > > > figures would have to be renamed Police-recorded road casualty > > > statistics with the pretty clear implication that what the police > > > recorded was some way from the full picture. So whats going on? > > > > The Department for Transport has known for some time that police > > > figures undercount road casualties. But as long as the level of > > > undercounting remained stable, it seemed reasonable to keep using them > > > to monitor trends. Things changed in 2006 when a group of three > > > public- health experts, led by Michael Gill of the Public Health > > > Group of the Government Office for the South East, published a paper > > > in the British Medical Journal, in which they claimed that the > > > undercount is getting worse..." > > > > More: > > >http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/why-road-casualties-dont-add > > > So, you can't quote any statistics at all that support your contention that > > 75% of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are caused by the motorist, and you > > can't quote any that contradict the Department for Transport's figures I > > quoted showing 75% of them are actually the fault of the pedestrian or > > cyclist himself. > > > Thank you for confirming that. > > You are wrong again. I personally believe that there should be a > presumption that when a driver kills a vulnerable road user the driver > is automatically at fault. Bear in mind that due to the protection > they have it is virtually impossible for a driver to be killed by a > vulnerable road user. > > > >> In the meantime, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you > > >> can expect to die as a pedestrian or cyclist on the road in an > > >> accident where the vehicle is defective, and where the accident is > > >> the fault of the motorist, just once in about 12,000,000 years. > > >> Prove that wrong if you can. > > > > Source? > > > You can read my previous posts on the subject. Perhaps you should. > > So no source then, as usual? > > > > Of course it is a totally different statistic for those who are > > > actually killed by a car fault and their relatives. We are back with > > > your numbers game again, i.e. below a certain number killings don't > > > matter a jot. > > > It's a matter of the ratio of risk to benefit. There's scarcely anything > > you do that doesn't involve a risk to life and limb. Whether you do it > > depends on the perceived benefit of doing it. Most people, I think, would > > have little hesitation in walking along a pavement when the risk that they > > will be killed by a marauding, out of control, mechanically defective > > vehicle is just once every 12,000,000 years. Don't you? > > As you have no source, or are unwilling to present one, I question the > accuracy of your figures. > > You could, however, instead present a calculation based on familiar > statistics, if you chose to do so. > > -- If a Vulnerable Road User (VRU) does something stupid and causes an accident, that is their fault, not the driver's. Derek C |