In article <MPG.21b40d484d1306ab989956@news.nildram.co.uk>, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.invalid> writes: |> |> To quote a certain unreliable source called Tony Raven: |> |> "For pedestrians and cyclists the reality is even more stark. At-the- |> scene investigations of collisions involving pedestrians and cars or=20 |> car-derived vans found that 85%% of fatalities

In article <MPG.21b3f9654d617cee989955@news.nildram.co.uk>, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.invalid> writes: |> |> |> So which do you think is the original source they are all copying and |> |> what do you find flawed about it? |> |> Oh, for heaven's sake, stop trolling and grow up! |> |> You yourself quoted the source, so you obviously know what it is. |> |> I quoted a source

In article <fiche4$1il$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk says... Typical Whitehall abuse of statistics. Without knowing how many accidents happened in those speed ranges, let alone how many conflicts (i.e. circumstances that could lead to accidents), those figures are useless. I should hope that the former figures are in Ashton and Mackay, though I doubt that

In article <4748cc10$0$13938$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, none@all says... And most admit to regularly breaking the speed limit. That's a gross generalisation, even if it's true. How can it be a "gross generalisation" when most drivers admit to speeding every day even to the pro-motoring RAC? And what you're forgetting is that most KSI accidents in 30mph areas (and

On 19 Nov 2007 18:44:04 GMT, Nick Maclaren put finger to keyboard and typed: In article <fhsl69$omr$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, "J. Chisholm" <jc235@cam.ac.uk> writes: |> John Taylor wrote: |> > |> > "Impact speed and severity of injury to pedestrians |> > Ashton and Mackay (1979) calculated impact speed distributions from |> > at-the-scene pedestrian accidents for car and car