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

Zog The Undeniable wrote in message news:41289bec.0@entanet...
David Hansen wrote:

It is perhaps perfectly reasonable, if one ignores the 3500 odd
people who are killed violently on the roads.

IIRC motor vehicles have killed more people in the time since their
invention than all wars.

I find that stat hard to believe. UK deaths in the first world war
alone were 703,000 according to
http://europeanhistory.about.com/lib...w1castable.htm.
At current road traffic casualty rates it would take about 200 years
to reach that figure. Road deaths were higher a few decades ago but on
the other hand until the 1940s there were very few cars on the roads
and deaths road accident deaths from motor cars must have been less.
Iain

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.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:31:06 +0100, David Martin
wrote in message
:

Over 90% of motorists speed. I'm pretty sure it's not the ones who don't
speed who are having all the crashes.

True. On the other hand, the ones who are /caught/ speeding have a
higher than average crash involvement, mileage adjusted. So it is
likely there is some link. My view is that it is down to common
causes, namely impatience and aggression.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Eiron wrote in message ...

Wrote
You seem to be suggesting that bicycle crime is not 'real' crime.

Not at all. I am all for prosecuting offenders as along as the law is
applied without favour or prejudice and the relevant guidelines are
followed. For example, doing 71 Mph on the motorway is an offence, but
I would not call for anyone to be prosecuted for doing this unless
there were other factors involved such as driving at 71 Mph in thick
fog.

(Of course there would be an outcry if a police force DID decide to
enforce 'the letter of the law', to disregard the '10% plus 2 Mph'
ACPO guidelines and started fining drivers for going 1Mph over the
limit).


Similarly, Home Office guidelines say that anyone riding on the
pavement out of a fear of 'the traffic' and who show due consideration
to cyclists when doing so should not be prosecuted. Those who do not
show consideration to pedestrians should be given a FPN and I am all
for that. It is criminal behaviour as much as passing a cyclist too
closely or overtaking a cyclist and then immediately turning left
across their path is.

(Of course, many forces completely ignore the Home Office guidelines
on the use of FPN regarding pavement cycling. Humberside Police are
currently giving FPN's out like confetti (in the past they have even
targeted OAP's) whilst at the same time completely failing to address
the problems that force cyclists off the road in the first place, such
as speeding and inconsiderate driving).

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:41:35 +0100, "dwb"
wrote (more or less):

Nick Kew wrote:
In article ,
(Howard) writes:

Hi folks,

Ho!

Speeding motorists kill more people in the UK than all other
criminals combined. Case closed?

What about smoking then - Shall we have a little jihad about that?

Let me know when smokers kill 3,000 people a year other than
themselves.

(IIRC, being around a smoker is equivalent about 1/10 of a smoker's
worth.)
--
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

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:12:24 +0100, "dwb"
wrote (more or less):

David Martin wrote:
On 22/8/04 2:22 pm, in article , "dwb"
wrote:

Howard wrote:
Speeding alone, one of the most
common driving crimes, claiming about 1200 lives a year and being
implicated in many more deaths and injuries.

Got a source for that statistic? Speed specifically causing 1200
deaths per year?

Over 90% of motorists speed. I'm pretty sure it's not the ones who
don't speed who are having all the crashes.

I didn't ask what you think though - I asked for the study that proves that
1200 people die specifically because of speeding.

70% of 'accidents' would not have occured, had the vehicle speed been
lower.

There were over 3,700 road deaths in the UK last year.

I'm still waiting for it obviously.

BTW - you'd be surprised - I was hit from behind by a vehicle going well
below the speed limit. I *think* ( but won't claim this to be fact) that
most of the statistics are actually the other way round - excessive speed is
not often a factor, it's usually driver error within the speed limit.

ie. you can hit a tree at 29mph.


--
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

dwb wrote:
Howard wrote:
Speeding alone, one of the most
common driving crimes, claiming about 1200 lives a year and being
implicated in many more deaths and injuries.

Got a source for that statistic? Speed specifically causing 1200 deaths per
year?
Mr Darling announced, a ouple of months ago, an average 40% drop in
casualties at speed camera sites. Annual road deaths are 3500, 40% of
that is 1400, so about 1400 deaths a year could be saved by universal
observance of speed limits. 1200 is an under-estimate!

I don't know how anyone in the Transport Department can sleep at night
knowing that they could save this many deaths and aren't doing it.

Colin McKenzie


--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:41:35 +0100, "dwb"
wrote in message :

What about smoking then - Shall we have a little jihad about that?

Speaking as an asthmatic allergic to tobacco smoke, yes please. If
the selfish *******s could bring themselves to wait until they are out
of the station before lighitng up, that would be nice, but I have
known them spark up as the train stops, sharing the full benefit of
that all-important first drag with everybody else in the vestibule.
Amd even to light up when the train is in a station, standing in the
train doorway and throwing the half-smoked butt out as the doors shut.

On Friday night for the first time in ages I had to ask a restaurant
to re-seat us because a group had lit up on the next table. There
being no ashtrays and a note in the menu not to light up pipes or
cigars, we had assumed it was a no smoking section.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Colin McKenzie wrote:


Mr Darling announced, a ouple of months ago, an average 40% drop in
casualties at speed camera sites.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
You gullible folk can cling to your fallacies.

On 22/8/04 11:31 pm, in article , "Eiron"
wrote:

Colin McKenzie wrote:


Mr Darling announced, a ouple of months ago, an average 40% drop in
casualties at speed camera sites.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
You gullible folk can cling to your fallacies.

Well, one would hope they compared the camera sites with similar control
sites that didn't have a camera. In which case it would appear that there is
a strong correlation.

Or do I smell the scent of a True Believer (tm) in the ability of little
yellow boxes to magically cause accidents miles away from their location?


...d