|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |