Not good news, obviously, but is 33 extra a significant percentage of the total? A few weeks extra bad driving conditions or, perish the thought, one bad coach crash could kill 33 people.
|
|
|
This is depite traffic slowing down due to poor changes in roa layout, congestion and lower speed limits, and also despite cars being much much safer, and new road surfaces being higher grip, it is also despite advances in medical care and air ambulances.
It shows that the government have failed catasrophically, and that their oppressive 'safety' programme is counter-productive.
|
The problem is that the scamera partnerships will spin either way. Death down - cameras are working well - deaths up, more cameras needed.
If you really want to reduce deaths, do something to stop under 25s driving, or even being passengers.
|
Come on, chaps - this proves nothing at all. For one thing, 33 is about 1 per cent of the total. I've seen figures of 3,221 in 2004, 3,201 in 2005, so this would give us 3,234 in 2006. For the purpose of statistical analysis, these numbers are effectively THE SAME.
The casualty rate in 2005 is expressed as 55 per 100 million vehicle kilometres; since the trend in vehicle kilometres per year is relentlessly upward, if the number of fatalities is remaining constant, the RATE is falling. So save the whining, self-pitying, any-excuse, statistically illiterate tabloid dribble about 'scameras' for another thread. Please!
|
|
|
If you really want to reduce deaths, do something to stop under 25s driving, or even being passengers.
Curious. I still seem to have a pulse.
What a stupid idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Re "This is depite traffic slowing down due to poor changes in roa layout, congestion and lower speed limits, and also despite cars being much much safer, and new road surfaces being higher grip, it is also despite advances in medical care and air ambulances." - what, all this in a year? BTW, its a change of about 1%: judging by the comments on driving standards, elsewhere on this board, I'm not surprised at an increase, just that its so small!
|
|
Most days we seem to hear about hit and run accidents or police chase accidents involving stolen cars. For accident trend figures to be meaningful these type of accidents should be excluded. I then think we would see a different picture of improving safety.
|
"Most days we seem to hear about hit and run accidents or police chase accidents involving stolen cars. For accident trend figures to be meaningful these type of accidents should be excluded. I then think we would see a different picture of improving safety. "
Er, why? An accident is an accident. If there are more police chase accidents, then these figures are VERY important and should impact on police strategy, surely? I am sure a lot of people would be very pleased to hear that a family member's death was not part of a meaningful trend!
|
|
Because these accident figures are used to justify ever more speed cameras, prosecution of 'normal' motorists for going a couple of mph over the limit, or for arguing for lower drink drive limits etc. Clearly stolen car drivers boost accident figures but are not in any way concerned about speed cameras etc.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll give you that, but hey the government exaggerate them, extrapolate them, and tell plain lies too, it's only when someone looks right into it that the reduction in casulaties they quote is "Compared to expected". What rot.
|
|
Money-where-mouth-is time, Ashok. Examples please, with references.
|
|
saw something the other day that said accident stats will go up....because of the increasingly older population.. and their inability to survive serious accidents because of their age and frailty
|
over twice that number (7000) die in accidents in the home every year.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
As there are more drivers and more cars on the road, surely we should expect a much larger increase in accidents? add on the people driving on foreign licences who are not used to driving on our road system - and I don't just mean lorry drivers!
I would be interested to see the statistics broken down into "illegal drivers" and well as an age breakdown. You certainly won't improve the accident figures among the young while this is not made an issure. A blanket ban on young drivers will not, I suggest, reduce the accident rate if you do not tackle those driving without licence, insurance and/or MOT. They will not come off the road as any age reduction will not concern them - it will just penalise those who have spend a large amount of money and time getting a licence and getting on the road in a legal car, especially those who have no other transport available (our local bus service starts relatively late and finishes at 5!).
The attitude is often the young are the only ones at fault. There were two accidents in reported in our local paper in the past few years, both reported as if the young drivers were at fault. It was only later that it came out that the first car that was written off was actually parked safely and legally when written off by a 'mature' driver cornering too fast, in the second a young man was t-boned by another middle aged driver who had jumped a red. Any one reading the reports would have been shouting for all drivers under 20 to be off the road.
|
|
*age reduction should, of course, read 'raising of age" Sorry
|
|
|
|
over twice that number (7000) die in accidents in the home every year.
and a similar sort of number (to the 7000) from MRSA type infections in hospital.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
