Yet another dangerous car model.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Mike Ross on 15 Apr 2010 12:38 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:19:22 +0100, Djornsk <djornsk(a)gmail.com> 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. Hah. I was in a Pajero for the first time a couple of weeks ago. A very tuned Pajero, with huge oversized tires, being driven up a glacier to the eruption in Iceland. Driver had been the Icelandic group N rally champion 4 years running in the 1980s, and he hadn't lost his touch. Fuckin huge great enormous grin on me all the way up!!!!! Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
From: Norman Wells on 15 Apr 2010 17:20 Phil W Lee wrote: > "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-throat(a)dibblers-pies.co.am> considered Thu, > 15 Apr 2010 09:29:50 +0100 the perfect time to write: >> 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%. > Also, note that these stats are collected almost entirely by traffic > police, who will almost always choose between the two options you > mention above based on whether they have sufficient evidence for a > prosecution. They are statistics from the Department for Transport. If you have any that are more authoritative than that, let's have them, with their source. >>> 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. > > You clearly don't know the subject very well if you don't recognise > the common abbreviation of "Vulnerable Road User" Nonsense. It's just something you and your mates use. >>> 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: Dylan Smith on 16 Apr 2010 06:06 On 2010-04-15, Mike Ross <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote: > Hah. I was in a Pajero for the first time a couple of weeks ago. A very tuned > Pajero Since I speak Spanish I know why the Pajero is called the Shogun anywhere where it's likely that there are Spanish speakers :-)
From: Norman Wells on 17 Apr 2010 03:46 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. 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.
From: Brimstone on 17 Apr 2010 07:10
"The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:8Jeyn.3672$Za.2407(a)newsfe13.ams2... > Doug wrote: > >>> >>> <WRIGGLE ALERT><WRIGGLE ALERT><WRIGGLE ALERT><WRIGGLE ALERT> > >>> 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. > > You expect the police to arrive by push bike then idiot? http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2009/06/18/police-on-mass-bicycle-patrol-in-birmingham-crime-crackdown-97319-23903036/ |