A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Torygraph argues that driving crime is not real crime...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old August 23rd 04, 05:09 PM
Melanie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael MacClancy wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:48:02 +0100, Melanie wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Melanie wrote:

Do we know how many people killed by speeding motorists are not
themselves?

We know it's not a small number, because some hundreds of the dead
were walking or riding bicycles at the time.


Do we assume that none of the peds or cyclists were in any way to
blame themselves?


Why should we do that?


To exagerate the number of victims of criminal motorists?

--
Melanie xxx


Ads
  #72  
Old August 23rd 04, 05:25 PM
davek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Melanie wrote:
Not at all. I'm trying to imagine how many people of the 3500 are the
victim of some sort of "crime". Not many, seems to be the conclusion, so
far.


It depends which crime you're talking about. If you're talking
specifically about the crime of causing death by dangerous driving (I
may be paraphrasing there) as convicted in a court of law then it's
going to be somewhat less than 3,500.

If you are also taking into account other motoring crimes that are in
some way contributory to the death, including speeding, then the figure
is going to be rather higher.

As for your "not many", that seems to be plucked out of nowhere. Unless
you have a breakdown of the figures available then you are in no
position to draw such a conclusion.

d.
  #73  
Old August 23rd 04, 05:32 PM
Michael MacClancy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:08:30 +0100, Melanie wrote:

davek wrote:
Melanie wrote:
Do we assume that none of the peds or cyclists were in any way to
blame themselves?


It's probably safe to assume that some of them were guilty of
contributory negligence, but do we therefore assume that /all/ of them
were /entirely/ responsible for their own demise?


Not at all. I'm trying to imagine how many people of the 3500 are the
victim of some sort of "crime". Not many, seems to be the conclusion, so
far.


How do you work that out?
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." -
Forrest Tucker
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
  #74  
Old August 23rd 04, 06:11 PM
iarocu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On 22 Aug 2004 10:31:16 -0700, (iarocu) wrote in
message :

I find that stat hard to believe. UK deaths in the first world war
alone were 703,000 according to


Since the USA averages over 40,000 deaths annually even now, it would
not take long to reach 700,000 - and most nations have seen an
exponential decline in road fatality rates since the 1950s.


I quoted UK figures. Talking worlwide figures I still think war deaths
will outnumber RTAs.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second

gives a total of approx 50 million deaths for the second world war and
15 million for WW2. I don't believe RTAs worldwide would get anywhere
near that.
Iain
  #75  
Old August 23rd 04, 06:12 PM
Ambrose Nankivell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(iarocu) writes:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On 22 Aug 2004 10:31:16 -0700,
(iarocu) wrote in
message :

I find that stat hard to believe. UK deaths in the first world war
alone were 703,000 according to


Since the USA averages over 40,000 deaths annually even now, it would
not take long to reach 700,000 - and most nations have seen an
exponential decline in road fatality rates since the 1950s.


I quoted UK figures. Talking worlwide figures I still think war deaths
will outnumber RTAs.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second

gives a total of approx 50 million deaths for the second world war and
15 million for WW2. I don't believe RTAs worldwide would get anywhere
near that.


According to the World Service, road deaths are 2 million annually.

I guess war deaths are slightly bigger.

In terms of people on usenet, the risk is almost definitely many times
higher of a road death, though.

A
  #76  
Old August 23rd 04, 06:35 PM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

in message , Melanie ')
wrote:

davek wrote:
Melanie wrote:
Do we assume that none of the peds or cyclists were in any way to
blame themselves?


It's probably safe to assume that some of them were guilty of
contributory negligence, but do we therefore assume that /all/ of
them were /entirely/ responsible for their own demise?


Not at all. I'm trying to imagine how many people of the 3500 are the
victim of some sort of "crime". Not many, seems to be the conclusion,
so far.


Au contraire, all of them were. Driving without due care and attention
is a crime at any speed, and if you do drive with due care and
attention then by definition you will not hit anything. This is
completely independent of whether there was contributory negligence on
the part of other road users. No pedestrian hits a stationary car fast
enough to kill himself.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; 99% of browsers can't run ActiveX controls. Unfortunately
;; 99% of users are using the 1% of browsers that can...
[seen on /. 08:04:02]

  #77  
Old August 23rd 04, 06:58 PM
Gawnsoft
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:16:57 +0100, "dwb"
wrote (more or less):

Simon Brooke wrote:

(i) It is (see 'furious pedalling', passim).
(ii) A bicycle doesn't weigh a ton.


Granted, but it still can cause death and injury though.


Mathematically possible, but much less likely to.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
  #78  
Old August 23rd 04, 07:00 PM
Ian Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 22 Aug 2004 02:53:52 -0700, Howard wrote:
(quoting the torygraph, I believe):

Cars are dangerous, and incidents on the roads kill and injure more
people than any other kind of accident.


.... snippety ...

the Treasury. Officers in the highway patrol would not be paid the
same rate as police officers, or given the same quota of sick-days, or
the same generous pension rights, for the simple reason that they
would not face the same dangers as do officers in the regular police
force.


Curious that, cars being dangerous and killing more people than any
other kind of accident, but the traffic police are not exposed to the
same dangers as "teh regular police".

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
  #79  
Old August 23rd 04, 07:01 PM
Gawnsoft
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:31:29 +0100, "dwb"
wrote (more or less):

Gawnsoft wrote:

okay - as is the answer "to drive slower"

But as pointed out, they don't always work, so what I'm trying to
argue is that if we legislate against one, should we not (to varying
degrees granted) legislate against the other?


Why? Typical cycle speeds are /already/ severely limited by the power
limits on the 'engine'.


But those typical speeds are still more than capable of causing death or
injury.


As long as you count grazed knees as 'death or injury'.

If everyone who drove a car got on a bicycle, do you think the accidents
would disappear?


You mean, do I think that the fatality and serious injury rate would
dwindle down to a fraction of its current level?

Then yes, I do.


And there are already statutory limits on motor assistance for pedal
bikes, both for power output and for speed (15mph).


Lots of occasions where 15mph might be inappropriate.


Of course, many fewer than where 30mph, 40mph, 60mph 70mph or a
grossly illegal speed might be inappropriate.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
  #80  
Old August 23rd 04, 07:06 PM
Ambrose Nankivell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gawnsoft writes:

Of course, many fewer than where 30mph, 40mph, 60mph 70mph or a
grossly illegal speed might be inappropriate.

Personally I prefer a world where aeroplanes are permitted to go over
70mph. I'd consider anything less highly innappropriate behaviour in
flight.

A
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fame at last! [warning: contains 5m*th] Just zis Guy, you know? UK 308 March 29th 04 12:00 AM
Vimw unilaur Unicycling 1 August 16th 03 12:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.