Road deaths surge linked to cash cuts

[upsidedown]

Interesting piece in this morning's Metro. There has been a seven percent rise in the never of people killed on the roads in the first six months of this year.
The number killed in the first six months of 2011 rose from 881 to 940.

The number of child pedestrians killed or injured rose three percent to 480.

The number of cyclists hurt rise 5 percent.

Andrew Howard the AA's head of road safety said "I am alarmed about this upward turn. It seems that cuts to road maintenance and road safety budgets and to traffic policing are beginning to bite. "

Now I've never been a fan of the AA's road policy, but not one mention of driving standards, and how are 480 child pedestrians killed or injured because of reduced maintenance and traffic maintenance ?

 

[400bhp]

+1

You can't read too much into a one off increase.

 

[Wankelschrauben]

Figures and statistics can be manipulated so easily.

It could relate to aftermath of a heavy winter leaving pot holes and crumbling road surfaces, combined with the massive road funding cuts, poorly designed light sequences being installed all over the shop and a serious lack of road awareness funding in schools.

 

[Bicycle]

A keen cyclist and motorist, I've been an AA member for 28 years. Their roadside/driveway assistance is wonderful.

Beyond that, they have an agenda which they are not shy to promote. It's not one I agree with.

But... We all vote for politicians who spend their time in parliament blaming the party opposite for everything bad and taking credit for everything good.

Why should a motorists' organisation be any different?

We all manipulate data, generally to support our own ends.

Do we disapprove of them doing it simply because their ends do not coincide with ours?

 

[jdtate101]

Lies, Lies and damn statistics... these figures can point to any number of factors, narrowing it down to just money on road maintenance and policing is just a sign of poor research.

 

[Globalti]

One thing's for sure - speeders can speed with impunity as there have never been fewer Police patrols on the roads.

 

[upsidedown]

It's not so much the rise that bothers me, it's the attitude of the AA in particular, and the country in general that 8-900 deaths in six months is not a big news story and never has been.

Also the fact that 480 child pedestrians were killed or injured by adults driving cars does not seem to ring any alarm bells.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[benb]

We don't even know if the increase was due to any reason. I'd have to look at the raw data, but it could just be normal chance variation.

 

[jugglingphil]

It's not so much the rise that bothers me, it's the attitude of the AA in particular, and the country in general that 8-900 deaths in six months is not a big news story and never has been.

Also the fact that 480 child pedestrians were killed or injured by adults driving cars does not seem to ring any alarm bells.

couldn't agree more.

 

[siadwell]

Meanwhile, drops of 20% and 40% in number of RTCs in Dubai and Abu Dhabi respectively have been reported during the 3 day BlackBerry outage.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/19/blackberry-road-safety-uae

 

[Globalti]

Meanwhile, drops of 20% and 40% in number of RTCs in Dubai and Abu Dhabi respectively have been reported during the 3 day BlackBerry outage.

http://www.wired.co....road-safety-uae

Yebbut.... just before the outage a prominent footballer was killed at the wheel, supposedly while texting. So that ruins that little statistic.

 

[ohnovino]

Misuse of statistics is one of my pet hates, and here's a classic: "The number of child pedestrians killed or injured rose three percent to 480."

Statisticians who put "killed or injured" as one group should be subjected to a punishment which renders them killed or injured - perhaps then they'll learn there is actually a difference between the two.

 

[StuartG]

Statisticians who put "killed or injured" as one group should be subjected to a punishment which renders them killed or injured - perhaps then they'll learn there is actually a difference between the two.

<Step up to plate>A statistician is more likely to use the term KSI. Its importance is that the ratio of killed to seriously injured is usually around 1:10. Hence number killed is rather more lumpy than the much larger KSI group. That is more likely to show a trend that relates to the true risk of death.

Another debate is which is worse: being killed or seriously injured. Answers depend on whether you are taking financial cost, impact on families or just plain suffering (dead people don't suffer ... in this world).

Finally when it comes to road safety then big numbers are thought to have more clout ...

 

[Amanda P]

It's not so much the rise that bothers me, it's the attitude of the AA in particular, and the country in general that 8-900 deaths in six months is not a big news story and never has been.

Also the fact that 480 child pedestrians were killed or injured by adults driving cars does not seem to ring any alarm bells.

This is absolutely right.

If any other single cause had brought about that number of fatalities, we'd doing whatever it took to stop it. Imagine if Al Qaeda had done it, or there'd been a rail crash, or a ferry had sunk or something. There'd be endless headlines and enquiries. Ministers would resign (Ok, maybe they wouldn't. But there'd be calls for them to resign).

But when it's motor vehicle accidents... no bother. In fact, it's OK to cut back roads policing and no-one even murmurs.