SPEEDOS or PEDOs - Should officials face the rap?

[anonymous-user]

OTBC said:

jaf01uk said:

I'm not entirely sure you are reading your own stats very well, nowhere in that RAC Foundation report could I find what you are quoting above?
RAC Foundation said
"It is clear that the UK has underperformed on road death improvement in comparison with much of the rest of Europe.However, in absolute terms, the UK, along with Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark, remained the four safest EU countries for road use (see Table 3) They are joined by Norway in having a level of road mortality lower than 40 deaths per million inhabitants. The UK, as well as Latvia, Spain, Portugal, Lithuania, Ireland, Slovenia, France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Germany, have also achieved better-than-average yearly reductions in both road deaths and serious injuries"

Hmmm

Take another. More carefully. Then apologise.

You seem to have a disproportionate focus on diverting this thread away from the awful subject of paedophilia. Why is that?

[OTBC]

Because poor driving, as the police concede, is a much, much greater danger to children than predators are. It's about saving children, right? Why don't you want to help reduce the danger to children?

[WinstonWolf]

OTBC said:

Because poor driving, as the police concede, is a much, much greater danger to children than predators are. It's about saving children, right? Why don't you want to help reduce the danger to children?

Ooh look, a squirrel...

Your diversionary tactic actually has a name, it's called whataboutism.

[Smiler.]

OTBC said:

Because poor driving, as the police concede, is a much, much greater danger to children than predators are. It's about saving children, right? Why don't you want to help reduce the danger to children?

Are you actually foaming at the mouth as you type?

You seem to be missing a rather salient point in that abuse of children might not result in death on the outside but possibly condemn them to a living hell. Far worse for them I'd suggest.

Part of the problem in dealing with & resolving issues such as child abobuse is the lack of empathy you seem to display, sacrificed to ensure you get your vested point to the top.

I wonder what that might be?

[OTBC]

I'm comparing death rates. If you want to compare the long-term affects among those lucky enough not to die then there are still a massively larger number of child survivors of RTCS, condemned to a life of partial mobility, lingering discomfort and pain and a reduced quality of life. Why don't you think they count?

[fatjon]

"Their priorities are all wrong. There's no money to made from protecting kids from being raped is there?"

^ this

It's not about death rates, relative risks, outcomes or some greater good. It's about money.

[singlecoil]

fatjon said:

"Their priorities are all wrong. There's no money to made from protecting kids from being raped is there?"

^ this

It's not about death rates, relative risks, outcomes or some greater good. It's about money.

If it is about money (which I don't for a moment concede) then the only people who have to pay it are the ones who are daft enough to speed here enforcement is operating.

[Moonhawk]

OTBC said:

I'm comparing death rates. If you want to compare the long-term affects among those lucky enough not to die then there are still a massively larger number of child survivors of RTCS, condemned to a life of partial mobility, lingering discomfort and pain and a reduced quality of life. Why don't you think they count?

According to these stats from 2008 - there were just under 22,000 deaths or injuries from RTCs involving kids under 16.

The figures for accidents excluding RTCs (i.e. in the home or at leisure) was estimated to be a little under 2 million (90 times higher).

http://www.rospa.com/resources/info/child_accident...

In 2011 - 60 children were killed on the roads in the UK (not all of these will have been down to poor driving). This is comparable to the number of kids killed by their parents (about 1 per week).

Given how pervasive our road network is, coupled with the population density of our country - i'd say that the number of casualties on UKs roads is remarkably low. By any measure (per capita, per unit distance travelled, per road vehicle) - the UKs roads are some of the safest in the world.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 30th October 11:40

[OTBC]

Those would be excellent points if they were relevant and true. Unfortunately they're neither. Children in the UK are more likely to be killed by drivers than anything else, globally motor traffic is the leading cause of premature death among children, an epidemic of deaths. We compare extremely poorly with Europe with regard to child casualties on the roads, a child is three times more likely to be killed on the roads in the UK than in Italy, cycling is ten times safer in Denmark than the UK, and in most cycling fatalities it's the driver who is at fault.

Britain's child pedestrian safety record is worse than the average for Europe,


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casua...

A road casualty in the UK is more likely to be a pedestrian than ANY of our Western European neighbours

http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/UsefulReports/Evi...

That's a shameful record, we are the worst among our immediate neighbours.

[Moonhawk]

OTBC said:

Those would be excellent points if they were relevant and true. Unfortunately they're neither. Children in the UK are more likely to be killed by drivers than anything else, globally motor traffic is the leading cause of premature death among children, an epidemic of deaths. We compare extremely poorly with Europe with regard to child casualties on the roads, a child is three times more likely to be killed on the roads in the UK than in Italy, cycling is ten times safer in Denmark than the UK, and in most cycling fatalities it's the driver who is at fault.

Why have you switched from making a statement about global child deaths - to then go on to compare the UK individually with other countries in Europe. Why not compare the UK to the global average if you are going to quite global figures (does it not suit your argument?).

I'd also like to know what part of my post wasn't true. Do you dispute the figures I posted? Do you dispute that the overall casualty rate per capita on the UK's roads is lower than pretty much anywhere else in the world (at 3.5 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants - we are better than most European countries - Belgium for example has a death rate double that of ours).

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 30th October 12:17

[OTBC]

Because you are not comparing like with like. Pretty much all the advances in road safety are designed to protect the vehicle occupant. Vulnerable road users like children, the subject of the thread, are therefore the victims of transferred risk. The subject of the thread is the risk to children, not the occupants of cars. Do you understand? Speeding drivers accrue all the benefits of driving fast. Vulnerable road users, like children, the thread subject, accrue all the risk, the danger is transposed OUTSIDE the vehicle. Try to focus on the subject of the thread.

[Moonhawk]

OTBC said:

Because you are not comparing like with like. Pretty much all the advances in road safety are designed to protect the vehicle occupant. Vulnerable road users like children, the subject of the thread, are therefore the victims of transferred risk. The subject of the thread is the risk to children, not the occupants of cars. Do you understand? Speeding drivers accrue all the benefits of driving fast. Vulnerable road users, like children, the thread subject, accrue all the risk, the danger is transposed OUTSIDE the vehicle. Try to focus on the subject of the thread.

Yes I understand - so why pick up on my UK road safety comment and compare the UK's road safety record with other countries then and quoting global risks to kids?

Surely if you want to stay on topic - why not address the points I raised in relation to the risk of kids being involved in an RTC in this country compared with other risks they may be exposed to in this country (which is what I was doing in my post - comparing RTCs to other accidents or to the risk of being killed by a parent).


But picking up on your point about Italy. The number of pedestrians as a percentage of all RTCs is lower in Italy when compared to the UK (12.6% vs 20.6% based on the link you provided), however the total number of road deaths in Italy is much higher.

This means that in 2012 - Italy had 3753 deaths on their roads compared to the UKs 2175 - so the total number of pedestrians killed in Italy was higher than the UK at around 472 vs 448 in the UK - even though they made up a lower percentage of all accidents.

In relation to Denmark - it's a bit disingenuous to do a one off comparison of cyclist deaths in the UK to a country that has worked for many decades to set up a viable cycle network (and is arguably the world leader), has a much lower population density (around half) and a lower rate of car ownership - and presumably car use.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 30th October 12:35

[carinaman]

Given that the biggest group is those in their late teens and their early twenties shouldn't that group be targeted? So why focus so much on children for them to stand a greater chance of them then dying in a road accident in their late teens and early twenties. Kids aren't behind the driving wheels or behind the handlebars of motorcycles to have accidents that may involve others unlike kids.

They've just reduced the price of provisional licences so it could be argued that they've made becoming a statistic more affordable.

NUDGE younger drivers by waiving the Insurance Premium Tax on motor insurance policies to those that have passed the IAM or RoSPA advanced driving tests.

So CMD, or HM gov., can box tick NUDGE, Tax Cut and Charities.

Plus the roll on, accumulated benefits of youngsters that have been incentivised to take further driving training having less accidents and better accidents in terms of severity and casualities.

If we can make a case for better, advanced drivers polluting less that's four boxes easily ticked.

'We didn't completely ignore and forget about the White Paper into Younger Drivers'. Five boxes ticked.

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 30th October 12:34

[heebeegeetee]

OTBC said:

Because you are not comparing like with like. Pretty much all the advances in road safety are designed to protect the vehicle occupant. Vulnerable road users like children, the subject of the thread, are therefore the victims of transferred risk. The subject of the thread is the risk to children, not the occupants of cars. Do you understand? Speeding drivers accrue all the benefits of driving fast. Vulnerable road users, like children, the thread subject, accrue all the risk, the danger is transposed OUTSIDE the vehicle. Try to focus on the subject of the thread.

You don't half spout some rubbish.

[OTBC]

That's because of the Greatest Con The Speedophiles ever pulled. Aggressive, speeding twunts using public roads as their very own race track depresses walking and cycling rates. Any correspondingly low casualty rate for vulnerable road users is then trumpeted as "proof" that our roads are safe! It's a doozy, it's brilliant, bully people off the roads then claim fewer people getting killed or maimed is a triumph! Take Germany, similar levels of car ownership to the states but massively higher walking and cycling rates, and hence a healthier population. We in the UK ARE BREEDING A GENERATION OF CAR-dependent slugs with an attendant catastrophic increase in obesity, the worst in Europe, with a cost to the NHS of millions, a rise in diabetes and heart disease, a rise in pollution and congestion.

See what I mean?

In the seventies most kids cycled or walked to school, now hardly any do, cos the roads are too dangerous, it's a vicious circle. Pollution is higher inside cars than on the pavement so the children not only lack exercise they get poisoned by the fumes and PM10 particles that nestle in developing
Lungs and cause cancers.


The countries with lower rates of childhood obesity are the ones with a successful policy of encouraging walking and cycling, in the UK, TRAGICALLY, we are going in the opposite direction.

[Moonhawk]

carinaman said:

Given that the biggest group is those in their late teens and their early twenties shouldn't that group be targeted? So why focus so much on children for them to stand a greater chance of them then dying in a road accident in their late teens and early twenties. Kids aren't behind the driving wheels or behind the handlebars of motorcycles to have accidents that may involve others unlike kids.

I still maintain that one of the best things they could do to tackle pedestrian safety is to make the highway code and road use a mandatory subject in schools.

How can we have such a pervasive road network, one that people use from a very early age - yet there is no requirement for formal education or training in order to use it?

Bonkers.

[Moonhawk]

OTBC said:

That's because of the Greatest Con The Speedophiles ever pulled. Aggressive, speeding twunts using public roads as their very own race track depresses walking and cycling rates. Any correspondingly low casualty rate for vulnerable road users is then trumpeted as "proof" that our roads are safe! It's a doozy, it's brilliant, bully people off the roads then claim fewer people getting killed or maimed is a triumph! Take Germany, similar levels of car ownership to the states but massively higher walking and cycling rates, and hence a healthier population. We in the UK ARE BREEDING A GENERATION OF CAR-dependent slugs with an attendant catastrophic increase in obesity, the worst in Europe, with a cost to the NHS of millions, a rise in diabetes and heart disease, a rise in pollution and congestion.

See what I mean?

In the seventies most kids cycled or walked to school, now hardly any do, cos the roads are too dangerous, it's a vicious circle. Pollution is higher inside cars than on the pavement so the children not only lack exercise they get poisoned by the fumes and PM10 particles that nestle in developing
Lungs and cause cancers.


The countries with lower rates of childhood obesity are the ones with a successful policy of encouraging walking and cycling, in the UK, TRAGICALLY, we are going in the opposite direction.

Of course - its the speeding drivers that are at fault.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with:

1. Governments approving plans for massive and isolated out of town housing, retail and industrial developments with few local amenities and often poor public transport links.
2. The massive reduction and corresponding price increases in the public transport network.
3. Companies and public services being consolidated (how many us still have local post offices, doctors surgeries, banks, shops etc that we can walk/cycle to - far fewer than 20-30 years ago I bet).

Your statement about the roads being more dangerous than in the 70s is silly. The number of deaths on the UK's roads in the 1970s was over 10,000 per year - almost 6 times higher than it is now.

Also - are your statements about cycling being depressed really borne out by the figures - e.g.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 30th October 12:50

[Aphex]

7mike said:

I have an interest in cars and driving, hence I'm on PH. I flip around, read and occasionally post on all sorts of different topics. It's pretty obvious who the ones are who have a personal axe to grind coupled with zero interest in cars or driving. I think they are best ignored

Its quite funny to see them prattle on though

[OTBC]

It's statistical innumeracy, comparing death relates on the roads with population levels makes no sense if you ignore death rates PER MILE WALKED OR CYCLED.

Thus if you don't understand the issue you would compare the death rates of vulnerable road users with, say Amsterdam. On the face of it London is tremendously safe! It's brilliant, safer than Amsterdam, that must prove we have safe roads!

Bum gravy.


https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/07/...



So, looking at this graph, you might think that London (in yellow) is fantastically safe! Just look how much lower the number of fatalities there are, compared to Amsterdam, per capita. London had just 1.7 cycling fatalities in 2012 per million population, where Amsterdam had 6.5 – nearly four times higher. Which "proves" what?

That this is an entirely misleading comparison. It doesn’t take into account the fact that, across London, cycling only accounts for around 2% of all trips made, whereas in Amsterdam cycling accounts for nearly 40% of all trips made. There is much, much more cycling in Amsterdam per capita, so comparing cycling fatalities purely on a per capita basis is absurd. It’s like concluding it’s much safer to cycle in London than in Amsterdam if you have a Dutch name, because many more people with Dutch names are killed cycling in Amsterdam than in London. You see?

How much of this is down to stupidity or dishonesty is difficult to say. If nothing else it demonstrates an inability to understand data.

[heebeegeetee]

OTBC said:

That's because of the Greatest Con The Speedophiles ever pulled. Aggressive, speeding twunts using public roads as their very own race track depresses walking and cycling rates. Any correspondingly low casualty rate for vulnerable road users is then trumpeted as "proof" that our roads are safe! It's a doozy, it's brilliant, bully people off the roads then claim fewer people getting killed or maimed is a triumph! Take Germany, similar levels of car ownership to the states but massively higher walking and cycling rates, and hence a healthier population. We in the UK ARE BREEDING A GENERATION OF CAR-dependent slugs with an attendant catastrophic increase in obesity, the worst in Europe, with a cost to the NHS of millions, a rise in diabetes and heart disease, a rise in pollution and congestion.

See what I mean?

In the seventies most kids cycled or walked to school, now hardly any do, cos the roads are too dangerous, it's a vicious circle. Pollution is higher inside cars than on the pavement so the children not only lack exercise they get poisoned by the fumes and PM10 particles that nestle in developing
Lungs and cause cancers.


The countries with lower rates of childhood obesity are the ones with a successful policy of encouraging walking and cycling, in the UK, TRAGICALLY, we are going in the opposite direction.

Oh for fking crying out loud! You are posting so much st that there simply isn't time to respond to it all!

"In the seventies most kids cycled or walked to school, now hardly any do, cos the roads are too dangerous,"

FFS in every single way of measuring the roads are infinitely safer now than they were in the seventies and the air is immeasurably cleaner. I was young in the 70s, we had coal fires, shared space with smokers (our parents, usually, in car and home) cars ran leaded petrol and so on.

Your nonsense is absolutely breath taking! (No pun intended).