Yet another dangerous car model.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Norman Wells on 19 Apr 2010 04:23 Doug wrote: > On 18 Apr, 09:11, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- > pies.co.am> wrote: >>>> 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. But they are being met, and that's what's really bothering you. The rug's been pulled from beneath you. > 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..." Yes, and let's look also at a quote from the article you referred us to originally, but of course snipped out because it didn't suit your agenda: >>> http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/why-road-casualties-dont-add "And they pointed to the fact that deaths due to accidents on the road, which are unambiguous and almost always show up in police figures". >> 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? Because of the Department for Transport's own figures which I referred you to earlier, giving the source. Why on earth would they want to massage _those_ figures, or lie about them which is what you're really saying? >> 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. Where are they, Doug? Time to put up or shut up. > 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. Well, your personal belief is of course utter nonsense. >>>> 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? It's a figure derived unambiguously by the use of simple mathematics from statistics where in each case I've quoted the exact source on several occasions. If you want to query any of them, give the source of the figures you rely on. So far, we've heard absolutely nothing from you except the usual non-specific whinging and suggestions of conspiracy theories. You'll really have to do better than that. By the way, even if absolutely every pedestrian and cyclist who dies is utterly blameless in any collison with a car, which we all know to be arrant nonsense, you could still expect to die as such, where the vehicle involved is defective, only once every 3,000,000 years. That's still quite a long time, don't you think?. >> 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. I invite you to go back and actually read the posts I've made previously, and the sources to which they refer. Then, you might profitably spend some time understanding simple mathematics, like multiplication, and progress through to a study of easy probability theory. > You could, however, instead present a calculation based on familiar > statistics, if you chose to do so. I have.
From: Steve O on 19 Apr 2010 05:26 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:iiMyn.273563$1j3.262082(a)newsfe10.ams2... > 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: >>> 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! It is not the responsibility of a police officer to decide fault or apportion blame in a road traffic crash- all the officer is required to do is ascertain if any road traffic offences have occurred and prosecute the offender. Fault is decided by the insurance companies, not the police. It's no real surprise that the hospital casualty figures are different from police records. Like you say, laziness is a factor- a non reportable damage only incident does not have to be recorded by the officer when details have been exchanged. Also, some drivers tend to later "discover" they have been injured after the event, or at least after they have checked their insurance policies.
From: Doug on 20 Apr 2010 01:55 On 19 Apr, 09:19, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > 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. > Define 'stupid' and 'accident'. Use of a public road by a VRU is not necessarily stupid, indeed ti should be a common law right, and 'accident' is a familiar euphemism for 'crash'. Anyone in charge of a potentially lethal machine in a public place should be expected to retain full control under virtually all circumstances and drive according to those circumstances. The circumstances should include a VRU exercising their common law right to access a public road. A driver should not drive too fast in the presence of VRUs and should always be able to stop in time to avoid killing them. Drivers kill VRUs but VRUs do not kill drivers. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: MrBitsy on 20 Apr 2010 03:32 On 20/04/2010 06:55, Doug wrote: > A driver should not drive too fast in the > presence of VRUs and should always be able to stop in time to avoid > killing them. Drivers kill VRUs but VRUs do not kill drivers. VRUs are soft, vehicles hard. So not only should drivers show relevant caution, VRUs should act as the party who is going to suffer the worst injuries in a collision. I crossed the road at a crossing in West Hampstead the other day. The woman in front of me crossed when she had a green light. She was almost hit by the cyclist from the right who didn't stop, while I waited for it to pass. Our view to the left was blocked by a bus, so I stopped half way so I could check around the bus - the woman never slowed down or looked left. -- MrBitsy
From: Derek C on 21 Apr 2010 00:58
On 20 Apr, 08:32, MrBitsy <ray.keat...(a)infinity.com> wrote: > On 20/04/2010 06:55, Doug wrote:> A driver should not drive too fast in the > > presence of VRUs and should always be able to stop in time to avoid > > killing them. Drivers kill VRUs but VRUs do not kill drivers. > > VRUs are soft, vehicles hard. So not only should drivers show relevant > caution, VRUs should act as the party who is going to suffer the worst > injuries in a collision. > > I crossed the road at a crossing in West Hampstead the other day. The > woman in front of me crossed when she had a green light. She was almost > hit by the cyclist from the right who didn't stop, while I waited for it > to pass. Our view to the left was blocked by a bus, so I stopped half > way so I could check around the bus - the woman never slowed down or > looked left. > > -- Another hooligan cyclist by the sound of it. What gets me is that 'the powers that be' seem to actually encourage cyclists to jump red lights to improve their journey times! Derek C |