Yet another dangerous car model.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Norman Wells on 15 Apr 2010 04:29 Phil W Lee wrote: > "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-throat(a)dibblers-pies.co.am> considered Wed, > 14 Apr 2010 21:39:54 +0100 the perfect time to write: >>>> >>>>> Its only since the Toyota debacle was given so much attention by >>>>> the media that the full horror of so many unsafe cars on our >>>>> roads has really come to light. Obviously there is a long history >>>>> of faulty cars being allowed on our roads to kill people. >>>> >>>> Time to 'do the math' again then, Doug. >>>> >>>> 2500 people die on the roads each year out of 750,000 or so deaths >>>> from all causes annually. That means you have just a 1 in 300 >>>> chance of dying on the roads. >>>> >>>> However only 3% of all deaths are in accidents where the vehicle is >>>> defective, so that means you have just a 1 in 10,000 chance of >>>> dying on the roads where the vehicle is defective. >>>> >>>> However, 75% of all accidents on the roads involving pedestrians or >>>> cyclists are caused by the pedestrian or cyclist himself. Only 25% >>>> are the fault of the motorist. >>> >>> According to every statistic I've ever seen on the subject, you have >>> that reversed. 75% are the fault of the motorist. >> >> Then you'll never be able to say that again. See: >> http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/contributoryfactorstoroadacc.pdf >> >> Table 1. > > That is "precipitating factor", not fault. It does nevertheless say: "It is interesting that the precipitating factor pedestrian entered carriageway without due care was coded in a significantly higher percentage of cases than failed to avoid pedestrian (pedestrian not to blame)." The respective percentages for each of those are 4% and 11%. So, I'll accept it's not 75%, just 73.3%. Anyway, define precisely the difference between 'precipitating factor' and 'fault'. > And it doesn't even say which of those accidents are motor vehicle vs > VRU, so it's completely impossible to calculate a percentage of those, > from that. I've no idea what a VRU is. If it's a pedestrian or cyclist, the figures I've quoted above are all those that are relevant. > So I can still safely say I've never seen stats that support your > assertion, and if that is the best you can come up with to support it, > I doubt I ever will, since you are clearly misreading them. I think not. >>>> Since you will live on average for about 80 years, that means you >>>> can reasonably expect to die on the roads as a pedestrian or >>>> cyclist where the vehicle is defective and where the accident is >>>> not your own fault, just once in 3,200,000 years. >>>> >>>> I think most would take the risk. >>> >>> You can't multiply both fault and vehicle defect into the >>> probability. It is either caused by one or the other >> >> Yes you can if you read what I said.. >> > I think we can all see how much you know about statistics. Well, I do have an apology to make actually about the statistics I've used, because one of them is completely false. Where I started off with 2500 deaths a year on the roads, I made a mistake, because these are deaths of all road users not just pedestrians and cyclists, who account for just 27% of that figure, ie about 675. Putting that figure instead into my calculations, it means that you can reasonably expect to die on the roads as a pedestrian or cyclist where the vehicle is defective and where the accident is not your own fault, just once in nearly 12,000,000 years. That more than compensates for any trifling inaccuracies you may feel there are in who's to blame. I still feel that most people would take the risk.
From: Norman Wells on 15 Apr 2010 04:39 Doug wrote: > On 15 Apr, 07:57, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: >> Djornsk wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> We have a the related Pajero "Snow Athlete" which presumably is >>> designed to do acrobatics when you drive carelessly in winter. >>> Superb and affordable vehicles but to state the obvious they need >>> to be driven within their limits. The lock on them is not >>> particularly good so one occasionally has to keep a look out for >>> pedestrians when mounting pavements to corner or perform a three >>> point turns &c. >> >> Are they worth extra points if you get them on the pavement? >> > Another example of pavement motoring? Is it not enough that these cars > are fundamentally dangerous without using them on pavements too? They're only dangerous to you once every 12,000,000 years or so, Doug, as I've shown. So, don't worry, be happy.
From: Mike Ross on 15 Apr 2010 12:24 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote: >On 14 Apr, 10:40, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip> >> It's a bloody great big lardy top-heavy 4x4. Like a Land-Rover, Duhg. You >> know how easily that style of vehicle can roll if driven inappropriately >> by a fuckwit, don't you? >> >So you admit there are very many more of such dangerous cars on our >roads too? The present situation here in the UK is beginning to look >more and more horrific! Oh bloody hell. A bike or motorbike is far more unstable - hell, they allow those to be sold and they won't even stand up on their own, they fall over as soon as you take your hand off them! And you can hardly see them they're so small - especially bicycles at night, they are obviously dangerously defective in light output. But as Adrian said, it's all a matter of fuckwits and driving inappropriately; that has far more to with the cause of accidents than the type of vehicle involved. Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
From: Mike Ross on 15 Apr 2010 12:29 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:36:56 -0700 (PDT), Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote: >Makes you wonder how many of these dangerous cars are currently still >allowed to be in use in the UK, along with all the others with serious >faults, doesn't it? > >"Toyota suspends US sales of Lexus GX 460.. None. They're not sold here. And if they ever are, I would expect them to be sold with firmer suspension, tailored to European tastes, rather than the American setup - Americans notoriously prefer a soft wallowy ride over decent handling. Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
From: Maria on 15 Apr 2010 12:35
Doug wrote: > On 15 Apr, 07:57, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: >> Djornsk wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> We have a the related Pajero "Snow Athlete" which presumably is designed >>> to do acrobatics when you drive carelessly in winter. Superb and >>> affordable vehicles but to state the obvious they need to be driven >>> within their limits. The lock on them is not particularly good so one >>> occasionally has to keep a look out for pedestrians when mounting >>> pavements to corner or perform a three point turns &c. >> Are they worth extra points if you get them on the pavement? >> > Another example of pavement motoring? Is it not enough that these cars > are fundamentally dangerous without using them on pavements too? > How can they be 'fundamentally dangerous'? Without a human involved, they just sit there and don't move. |