Newcastle Crash

On Dec 14, 12:12 pm, Terryc wrote:
But in the big scheme of things, death from car accident whether roasted
alive, crush by the wheel of a big rig, or tossed around until your neck
is broken or slashed blood vessels causing you to bleed to death or
whatever, is still death by car accident.

Was that really necessary? I feel a little queasy...

brucef wrote:

Was that really necessary? I feel a little queasy...

You are being to condition to adversely react to motor cars {:-). Woof.

"Terryc" wrote in message
...
Resound wrote:

So, according to that table, you're about three times safer in a car if
it's on fire. Not as compelling a set of figures as it might be...

Can you explain how you arrived at that apparently ludicrous conclusion?

Yes, your chances of dieing specifically from fire in a car crash might
be 1/3 of the chance of just dieing in a car crash from any means.
Personally I would have thought it was a lot less than 1/3, but that is
only based tv reported car deaths and images of burnt cars to non-burnt
cars. .

But in the big scheme of things, death from car accident whether roasted
alive, crush by the wheel of a big rig, or tossed around until your neck
is broken or slashed blood vessels causing you to bleed to death or
whatever, is still death by car accident.

Oops, as John pointed out I missed the extra decimal point. At .47
casualties per million hours, being in a car generally appears to be about
30 times more dangerous that being in a burning car which has just crashed
at .017 casualties per million hours. This was not meant to be a serious
conclusion, more an exercise in pointing out the sort of conclusions that
can be reached when you're sifting data for the answer you want rather than
the answer which best represents the truth of the matter.