What is an acceptable level of death?
What is an acceptable level of death?
Author
Discussion

AJS-

Original Poster:

15,366 posts

267 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
A car is a ton of metal and glass, usually moving around at upto 80mph or so, and a lot faster at times. Every one of them is a potentially lethal weapon that. There are millions of them moving around the relatively confined space of the UK road network.

So it is entirely inevitable that they will occasionally crash. Isn't it? And it seems to be inevitable that some of these crashes will result in serious injury or death. Or am I over pessimistic? We obviously each accept the risk of death that driving brings for the benefits to our quality of life that it brings.

So what is an acceptable level of death from road accidents as a society? Must it be lower year on year? Should it be zero? Or do we accept a certain level of carnage that is the price of the benefits cars bring?

oldsoak

5,618 posts

233 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
Acceptable level of death?
Does death have various levels then?
If so I'll go for the 'apparently dead but only kidding' levelsilly

edit seriously though...No deaths at the hands of road traffic would be a preference...but hardly attainable.

Edited by oldsoak on Thursday 18th October 16:30

FiveStar

760 posts

235 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
Ideally zero! Just because something CAN kill does not mean it WILL kill so it it has to be zero.

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

248 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
The number of road fatalities has been steady for a while. I think improvements come as much from vehicle technology as they do from road engineering and law enforcement.

There has to come a point where, as the OP says, you have to accept that 1 ton projectiles interfacing with each other and pedestrians, are going to produce casualty figures.

As far as I'm aware about 0.005% of the population are killed on the road each year, which isn't too bad in my opinion.

mark69sheer

3,906 posts

233 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
I believe hospital aquired deaths seem to be far more acceptable than road related.

maybe hospitals need filth cameras to fine any nurse or doctor who doesn't wash their hands.

AJS-

Original Poster:

15,366 posts

267 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
The trouble I see with saying zero is that you are forever failing, and by continually striving for improvement you run the risk of stifling the thing altogether. We do to some extent deal with this question on an individual level every time we use the roads, knowing that there is a risk of death.

oldsoak

5,618 posts

233 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
Shouldn't we be looking at this from another angle?
It isn't cars that kill it is the people that are in control (or not) said cars that are at fault.
Improve driving skills, educate to remove the 'lemming mindset' of today's rush everywhere motorist foster a better level of compliance with road traffic laws and regulations and we may just be onto something.

mark69sheer

3,906 posts

233 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
Of course we do.

The trouble is that unlike deciding to eat dodgy prawns or climbing up a ladder when pissed while you could die from both you will not affect anyone else.

Thats why i am all for road safety as opposed to arbitary rules and everyone taking driving seriously.

Some women see a car journey as a social experience , time to speak to their mates or play with their makeup.
Some guys are just knackered and falling asleep at the wheel but refusing to stop and rest out of bravado or ego.

Its not so much that Joe bloggs killed himself falling off the road. The answer to that would be silly Joe Bloggs.
But when Joe Bloggs kills himself and three innocent victims then you can see why the emphasis will remain.

Having said that the hospitals kill innocent victims everyday.

iaha

345 posts

264 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
Do we think it is possible that if road safety refereeing managed to maintain driver attitudes to risk (responsibility) at the same level, we could have a fatality chart tending towards zero at almost the same percentage reduction year on year, due to steady road/vehicle/medical improvements?

In my mind it should be entirely possible.

The big problem is a negative seachange in driver attitude and driver responsibility which could completely dwarf all that good work. That is the biggy...

Bing o

15,184 posts

250 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
oldsoak said:
Shouldn't we be looking at this from another angle?
It isn't cars that kill it is the people that are in control (or not) said cars that are at fault.
Improve driving skills, educate to remove the 'lemming mindset' of today's rush everywhere motorist foster a better level of compliance with road traffic laws and regulations and we may just be onto something.
The only answer to achieve 0 percent is to remove the human factor altogether (though even then you could have mechanical failure as a lethal factor).

mark69sheer

3,906 posts

233 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
I shouldn't jinx myself here but in 40 years on the road from kid playing on the street to cycling motorcycling and driving I have managed to keep myself to myself and never hit another car or pedestrian so why can't zero deaths be possible.

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

248 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
The problem is, as much as vehicles are machines, people are not.

When in control of a car people will still make irrational, ill judged, ill informed and emotional decisions which can ultimately end in collisions.

It's not just drivers, either. Pedestrians and cyclists can be injured and killed by motor vehicles by their own actions aside from those of the driver.



Eliminator

762 posts

286 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
The simple answer for society as a whole comes from economics.

The cost of road death and the cost to the economy of the measures taken to reduce road death are factors in the equation.

If, on the other hand, it's a personal matter - say a member of your family - then economics no longer matter to you. You might fixate on stopping all road deaths no matter what the cost to society.

You might even form a pressure group to push your own personal agenda!

Or is that going too far?

peterperkins

3,449 posts

273 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
Bing o said:
oldsoak said:
Shouldn't we be looking at this from another angle?
It isn't cars that kill it is the people that are in control (or not) said cars that are at fault.
Improve driving skills, educate to remove the 'lemming mindset' of today's rush everywhere motorist foster a better level of compliance with road traffic laws and regulations and we may just be onto something.
The only answer to achieve 0 percent is to remove the human factor altogether (though even then you could have mechanical failure as a lethal factor).
Bingo! Hit nail on head, inexorably this is where we are heading, computer controlled transport pods (Cars to you and me). In 50 years time we will probably hardly recognise them. Removing the human fuc* up factor should see a major lowering in road deaths. It's Inevitable as we march along the highway of progress. Our cars in 50 years will all be museum pieces that only come out on closed roads twice a year at major events, (They won't be allowed out with a human at the controls any other time).

Thinking about it logically if you or I could get into our transport pod and arrive some minutes later in computer controlled high speed cheap electric comfort at our destination wouldn't that be the sensible thing to do?



Image from Woody Allen's film 'Sleeper' where he wakes up two hundred years in the future.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

292 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
But you also have to consider the (probably far higher) rate of road deaths before cars were invented. No to mention the lives saved by improved access to medical treatment.

tigger1

8,478 posts

252 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all

"He says he's not dead"

jezzaaa

1,951 posts

290 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
I agree with some of the comments about the relatively small number of deaths. Obviously, if it happens to you or someone you're close to it's horrendous. But the 3500 people that are apparently killed in traffic related incidents...compared with the number of cars and pedestrians/cyclists etc making journies every year....it's statistically tiny. And as has been said, there are many other "Govt sponsored" deaths which make the road traffic ones seem miniscule. Iraq. Dirty Hospitals. Smoking Related. I think they're concentrating on the wrong things.

henrycrun

2,473 posts

271 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
In addition, the number of seriously injured people is far too high for a civilised society

TPS

1,860 posts

244 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
AJS- said:
A car is a ton of metal and glass, usually moving around at upto 80mph or so, and a lot faster at times. Every one of them is a potentially lethal weapon that. There are millions of them moving around the relatively confined space of the UK road network.

So it is entirely inevitable that they will occasionally crash. Isn't it? And it seems to be inevitable that some of these crashes will result in serious injury or death. Or am I over pessimistic? We obviously each accept the risk of death that driving brings for the benefits to our quality of life that it brings.

So what is an acceptable level of death from road accidents as a society? Must it be lower year on year? Should it be zero? Or do we accept a certain level of carnage that is the price of the benefits cars bring?
It is zero.
The thing is that a crash is almost always the result of someone making a mistake so someone is to blame.
Therefore if everyone drove safely and properly there would be no death or injury.
Now if this is realistic or not,probably not as people will always make mistakes or drive badly.This could be due to drink driving,drugs,tiredness,inappropriate speed etc etc etc.

Richard C

1,685 posts

288 months

Thursday 18th October 2007
quotequote all
oldsoak said:
Shouldn't we be looking at this from another angle?
Improve driving skills, ......motorist foster a better level of compliance with road traffic laws and regulations and we may just be onto something.
Not sure what the correlation between these is nowadays. Agree fully with your first comment.