helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Tony Raven on 22 May 2010 07:59 Derek C wrote: You originally said: > This was shown and was quite badly damaged at the front but now you are saying: > > It was slightly dented at the front Which is it? -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Derek C on 22 May 2010 08:05 On 22 May, 12:27, Tony Raven <tra...(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > Adrian wrote: > > Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like > > they were saying: > > >> I understand that the UK blood alcohol limit for driving is relatively > >> high compared with many other comparable countries. We have a limit of > >> 80mg/100ml BAC compared with 50mg/100ml or even zero in other EC > >> countries. > > > I've yet to see any figures to suggest how many KSIs are due to people > > driving with BAC between 50 & 80. > > There is good evidence from the US that the reduction from 100 to 80 led > to a significant reduction in deaths [1] and a study of blood alcohol > levels of drivers in hospital found that 13% of those who tested > positive were below 80 [2] > > [1] Shults RA, Elder RW, Sleet DA, et al. Reviews of evidence regarding > interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. American Journal of > Preventive Medicine 2001;21(4S):6688. > [2] Walsh JM et al, Drug and alcohol use among drivers admitted to a > Level-1 trauma center, Accident Analysis & Prevention 37(5) September > 2005, Pages 894-901 > > Recent drugs use also featured significantly (51% tested positive) with > marijuana and cocaine being the most prevalent followed by amphetamines. > At present there is no drugged driving law or testing. > > -- > Tony > The fact that an 'over the limit' driver is involved in an accident may not necessarily be due to his blood alcohol content. It may have been an accident that would have occured anyway due to a combination of circumstances, or it may have been caused by a sober driver who was at fault. Derek Copeland "If 10% of accidents are caused by drunken drivers, then please protect me from sober drivers who cause 90% of the accidents."
From: Derek C on 22 May 2010 08:08 On 22 May, 12:59, Tony Raven <tra...(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > Derek C wrote: > > You originally said: > > > This was shown and was quite badly damaged at the front > > but now you are saying: > > > > > It was slightly dented at the front > > Which is it? > > -- It hadn't split or totally failed in any way. Damage as described, and it was a write-off for further use. Derek C
From: Tony Raven on 22 May 2010 08:18 Derek C wrote: > On 22 May, 12:59, Tony Raven <tra...(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: >> Derek C wrote: >> >> You originally said: >> >> > This was shown and was quite badly damaged at the front >> >> but now you are saying: >> >> > >> > It was slightly dented at the front >> >> Which is it? >> >> -- > It hadn't split or totally failed in any way. Damage as described, and > it was a write-off for further use. > But was it badly damaged or slightly dented? -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Steve Firth on 22 May 2010 08:19
Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > I work in a large medical school. You're an IT officer, it says so in your .sig, so don't go trying to pretend more than that. What you know about cranial trauma could be written on the back of a stamp. Trying to claim expertise just because you happen to be physically located in the same building as someone else is laughable. As I've pointed out to you in the past, on that basis I'm an expert nuclear engineer. But I wouldn't let me design or comment on any nuclear installation. I take your pronouncements on medical events the same way, or TBH moe sceptically since you obviously have had no medical training, don't seem to have taken any studies in biology even as far as "A" level and certainly don't seem to understand concepts of scientific proof, epidemiology or even the precautionary principle. You are in the same category as those loons who insist that smoking never hurt anyone. |