snailracer
Über Member
IMO driving standards are strongly linked to policing, maybe the AA spokesman thinks so as well.
Road deaths surge linked to cash cuts
- Thread starter upsidedown
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
Other equally efficient breakdown services are available more cheaply, and many use the same contractors as the AA.
If you don't agree with the AA agenda, why continue to help finance it's publicity machine?
A very good question.
I bank with a bank whose ethics are iffy (most of us do).
I shop at a supermarket who screw suppliers (most of us do).
I live in a three-car family when there are people dying not half a planet away from me for want of clean drinking water. (I am not uncommon in this regard).
My house has empty bedrooms while there are homeless people on our streets.
I vote for politicians who stiff their parliamentary expenses. (Many of us do).
And... (last but not least) the AA provides quite remarkable service. It has since I joined in 1984. When I lived in London you could request a Hamrax van (do they still exist?) and it would show up in the blink of an eye with the right part for your motorcycle.
Once they sent someone to start a classic whose battery I'd allowed to run down... they said it was cool since I hadn't called them for years.
They have never let me down.
They bang on about motorists' rights in a lofty way, but I switch off when they do so.
Matthew_T
"Young and Ex-whippet"
- Location
- Prestatyn, North Wales
I agree. An increase in deaths this small is neither good for the country or bad. There are 7 billion people on earth and we are getting concerned about 900? Something seems wrong there. We should be more concerned about moderating the amount of children born than the amount of children dying.
Scilly Suffolk
Über Member
With respect to the OP, the Metro is published by Associated Newspapers, who also publish the Daily Mail.
Does Broccoli cause or cure Cancer? I really can't remember...
Does Broccoli cause or cure Cancer? I really can't remember...
But it isn't a single cause, no one road crash kills that number of people, it is the cumulative sum of many individual incidents. You can't really compare a lot of small isolated incidents to one rail crash in any meaningful way.
In a similar way, there are as many deaths in the home annually as on the roads, and that doesn't get a mention either.
If there were dozens of people killed simultaneously in a road accident, then it would make the national news.
No it isn't, drivers are not a uniform group, they are a collection of individuals. Yes in an ideal world everyone would always be 100% alert and never make mistakes but we don't live in an ideal world and the unfortunate fact is that people are fallable, people do make mistakes and errors of judgement, and the laws of probability will mean sometimes that will end in tragedy. Please note that I am not saying that any road death is acceptable but I am trying to look at this from a realistic viewpoint.
I honestly think that there is little other than fully automated driverless vehicles that will make the sort of reduction in road casualties that you state.
Sadly, and rather coincidentally, this has just happened. As I said if a particular incident is bad enough it will make the national news.
We need more speed cameras then!
barongreenback
Über Member
- Location
- Warwickshire
Across all areas of government, the press are talking as if the cuts have already started. Far from it. The April 2012 settlements will start to show the real effects of government cuts. Very misleading of the AA.
both. For the full story go to the Express. Broccoli cures cancer on Tuesdays, but causes it on Wednesdays. I blame the BeeBeeCee.
The AA would be better employed asking why there are 2700 deaths a year on our roads, and how that might be reduced dramatically. It's not difficult - except, of course, any mention of a reduction in car numbers and vehicle speeds is met by shrieks of pain from, among others, the AA
That is a perfectly reasonable point, but the AA may not see it as a task that falls to them.
The Auto Industry (tugged by glacial legislative change and to an extent public opinion and the market) has made some effort in protecting people hit by cars as well as the occupants.
We are a Lightyear from the perfectly justifiable rage of Nader. I'd rather not be hit at all by a car, but better today's cars than the spiky, steel-bumpered, ornament-adorned beasties of yesteryear.
Today it is harder to get a driving license than it was 20 or 30 years ago. That is a good thing.
Today's cars are heavier (bad thing) but they are designed with safety more in mind than they were 20, 30 and 40 years ago.
Roads are still more dangerous than they ought to be, but as shared-use environments they are conceived with some thought to pedestrians and cyclists. They are not perfect, but better.
The AA, SMMT et al have an agenda in conflict (or at least not in harmony) with that of many cyclists.
Casualty figures for UK roads are not great. But they are seen by most adults as somehow acceptable. I doubt there is anyone alive who hasn't lost a friend or relative in a driving or riding incident. Some will have lost quite a few. It is a beastly business.
Nonetheless, the figures are spread out over a wide geographical area and a long time period. Somehow we (collectively) have made the decision that we can live with these losses.
A media campaign highlighting comparisons with losses in an aircrash/hurrican/ terrorist attack would garner interest for a day or two. Then a Panda would be born in Berlin Zoo and we'd be off again.
Regrettable or not, that's how it is.
WHy has nobody mentioned the 'sample size'? (I know that isnt really the correct term but bear with me....)
If the stats were 881 killed (H1 2010) out of 10,000 cyclists in total compared to 940 killed (H1 2011) out of the now massive increase in numbers of total cyclists - say now up to 30,000? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Let us assume that the infamous 'cuts' have made a difference; I, for one, certainly think it has put a lot more bods on bikes! Loads more - if some of the reports are true, there is a massive boom in cycling. This surely (in the AA/Daily Mail school of logic means.... wait fo it.....)
"Well targeted Government campaign leads to massive reduction in cycling deaths and serious incidents - a 64% reduction in deaths was recorded - Ken Livingston and Ed Milliband tried to claim that the campaign was one that they would have followed if still in power"
(Ok this is using made up stats and nos of cyclists but you get what I mean....)In truth, my guess is that the number of cyclists on the road increased by more than 6.7% over the similar period - and didnt we have a nightmare winter this time around.....
The numbers are too many anyway and need to be looked at but this really is s stupid stat used for someone's own agenda! No more, no less....
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
The headline from the official statistical publication is:
(My emphasis)
http://assets.dft.go...tes-q2-2011.pdf
One very good reason for looking at KSI rather than just deaths is that the margin between a death and a serious injury is absolutely minute. Once something happens that causes serious injury it's essentially luck whether the victim lives or dies.
