|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: David from OzDavid from Oz Date: Sep 30, 2006 01:13
Some good news for a change. Recent statistics that UK road injuries
and deaths fell last year continuing year on year falls. Although
there are concerns about the exact accuracy of the figures the overall
trend is good.
Car-occupant protection and road design were a major factor in the fall
in deaths and serious injuries. In terms of fatal crash cause, the
following is the cause breakdown:
Losing control 35%%
Going too fast for conditions 17%%
Failing to look properly 17%%
Turning or maneouvring poorly 12%%
Exceeding speed limit 12%%
I guess on these groups we more often read about bad driving
experiences, which perhaps give an overall impression of poor driving
and safety standards, but surveys like this put things into
perspective. The report does not specifically say if Britain still has
the safest roads in Europe but given the downward trends in deaths and
injuries, I imagine this is the case.
Keep up the safe driving guys!
|
| Show full article (0.96Kb) |
|
| | 54 Comments |
|
|
|
Author: David from OzDavid from Oz Date: Sep 30, 2006 01:14
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: JerryJerry Date: Sep 30, 2006 04:29
Inuries and deaths (combined) have been falling (slowly) for decades.
It's interesting to note that since the proliferation of speed cameras and
the "speed kills" mantra, that the rate of decline has slowed.
See Safe Speed's website for details.
"David from Oz" yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1159603992.145754.321760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...> Some good news for a change. Recent statistics that UK road injuries
> and...
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DaytonaDaytona Date: Sep 30, 2006 04:27
On 30 Sep 2006 01:13:12 -0700, "David from Oz"
yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>The report does not specifically say if Britain still has
>the safest roads in Europe but given the downward trends in deaths and
>injuries, I imagine this is the case.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ibib Date: Sep 30, 2006 06:39
> Some good news for a change. Recent statistics that UK road injuries
> and deaths fell last year continuing year on year falls. Although
> there are concerns about the exact accuracy of the figures the overall
> trend is good.
>
> Car-occupant protection and road design were a major factor in the fall
> in deaths and serious injuries. In terms of fatal crash cause, the
> following is the cause breakdown:
>
> Losing control 35%%
> Going too fast for conditions 17%%
> Failing to look properly 17%%
> Turning or maneouvring poorly 12%%
> Exceeding speed limit 12%%
>
> I guess on these groups we more often read about bad driving
> experiences, which perhaps give an overall impression of poor driving
> and safety standards, but surveys like this put things into ...
|
| Show full article (1.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: allan tracyallan tracy Date: Sep 30, 2006 07:28
>>
>> Losing control 35%%
>> Going too fast for conditions 17%%
>> Failing to look properly 17%%
>> Turning or maneouvring poorly 12%%
>> Exceeding speed limit 12%%
>>
>
> How on earth can exceeding the speed limit cause a death? All the other
> reasons obviously can.
Simple - running over a child above the speed limit can kill them
rather than injure them.
Not all kids can be relied upon to use roads safely, that's why we call
them kids, and speed limits help to ensure that when they do something
silly and unexpected (definition of a kid) the consequences are
hopefully limited.
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: allan tracyallan tracy Date: Sep 30, 2006 08:41
>
> A classic example of "speed kills" bollocks, used with the pathetic
> emotional blackmail of "won't someone please think of the children".
>
OK then hitting a kid at forty is no worse (for the kid) than hitting
them at thirty - now whose talking bollocks?
Emotional blackmail has nothing to do with it; I simple stated the fact
that in urban areas kids (in fact all pedestrians) are also road users,
as well as drivers. This may be inconvenient for you but it is a fact
none the less.
I've noticed that, on this issue, all too many here find it very easy
to state what they're against rather than what they're for and
rarely propose alternatives.
So precisely what is your answer for specifying the urban motoring
environment?
|
| |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: allan tracyallan tracy Date: Sep 30, 2006 09:07
>
> Who said that?
>
> You said that "...running over a child above the speed limit can kill them
> rather than injure them..."
>
> So, at 29 you're OK, but 31 not?
> 39 OK, 41 not?
> 49 OK, 50 not?
> etc.
>
How about at 29 you're OK but 39 not?
The circumstances you describe are splitting hairs and would never go
down in the accident stats as death caused by breaking the speed limit,
not least because no investigation could ever establish this. Even the
cameras allow a 3-4 mph leaway.
|
| Show full article (1.29Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: Ian DalzielIan Dalziel Date: Sep 30, 2006 09:42
On 30 Sep 2006 08:41:25 -0700, "allan tracy"
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A classic example of "speed kills" bollocks, used with the pathetic
>> emotional blackmail of "won't someone please think of the children".
>>
>
>OK then hitting a kid at forty is no worse (for the kid) than hitting
>them at thirty - now whose talking bollocks?
You are. HTH.
What speed do you think a car would have been travelling at if it hit
a kid even at 30, far less 40?
Clue - braking slows cars down! Even if a car can't stop in time it is
NOT going to hit a pedestrian at undiminished speed. Unless the driver
wasn't looking at all.
|
| Show full article (1.53Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ElderElder Date: Sep 30, 2006 10:53
>OK then hitting a kid at forty is no worse (for the kid) than hitting
>them at thirty - now whose talking bollocks?
>
You. 30 may be too fast. What were the conditions.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
