Road Deaths
-
There is an ever lasting drive to reduce 'Road Deaths', which is universally accepted by all to be 'Unacceptably High' Or, So they say. Nobody is standing up to the view that reductions in those levels affect people's private behaviour. The nanny state is born, safety belts are enforced, and so on, and so forth. Human Life, Human Activity, causes incidents where Humans Die. Who decides what is Acceptable. Who determines the Overal Cost of these measure. The Bottom Line is, No Trafic means No Road Deaths. The more you allow it, the more deaths will occur. I think we have already found a 'Happy Medium' Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High' :)
Bram van Kampen
-
There is an ever lasting drive to reduce 'Road Deaths', which is universally accepted by all to be 'Unacceptably High' Or, So they say. Nobody is standing up to the view that reductions in those levels affect people's private behaviour. The nanny state is born, safety belts are enforced, and so on, and so forth. Human Life, Human Activity, causes incidents where Humans Die. Who decides what is Acceptable. Who determines the Overal Cost of these measure. The Bottom Line is, No Trafic means No Road Deaths. The more you allow it, the more deaths will occur. I think we have already found a 'Happy Medium' Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High' :)
Bram van Kampen
Well, I think as a whole society should be concerned about the (not so) hidden costs of traffic crashes - hospitals, time off work, rehabilitation, reduced work capacity in the long term etc... The advent of seatbelts has saved countless lives - even a relatively low speed crash can be fatal without a seatbelt on... probably not your best choice for an example.
Reminiscing just isn't what it used to be!! Booger Mobile - My bright green 1964 Ford Falcon - check out the blog here!! | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
There is an ever lasting drive to reduce 'Road Deaths', which is universally accepted by all to be 'Unacceptably High' Or, So they say. Nobody is standing up to the view that reductions in those levels affect people's private behaviour. The nanny state is born, safety belts are enforced, and so on, and so forth. Human Life, Human Activity, causes incidents where Humans Die. Who decides what is Acceptable. Who determines the Overal Cost of these measure. The Bottom Line is, No Trafic means No Road Deaths. The more you allow it, the more deaths will occur. I think we have already found a 'Happy Medium' Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High' :)
Bram van Kampen
Traffic accidents obviously have a big negative effect on society; they cause grief, loss of time, and loss of money. While some money is moving from one party to another (insurance companies, car repair shops, social services, hospitals), society as a whole isn't getting any better from them. Counting Road Deaths is an easy measure for the number and severity of traffic accidents, and it appeals to a lot of people. When the numbers are rising, or are higher than in neighboring countries or states, politicians see a need to take action. Which is mostly fine by me; of course there are limits, we wouldn't want them to order pedestrians to wear safety helmets when crossing a road. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
-
Traffic accidents obviously have a big negative effect on society; they cause grief, loss of time, and loss of money. While some money is moving from one party to another (insurance companies, car repair shops, social services, hospitals), society as a whole isn't getting any better from them. Counting Road Deaths is an easy measure for the number and severity of traffic accidents, and it appeals to a lot of people. When the numbers are rising, or are higher than in neighboring countries or states, politicians see a need to take action. Which is mostly fine by me; of course there are limits, we wouldn't want them to order pedestrians to wear safety helmets when crossing a road. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
Luc Pattyn wrote:
we wouldn't want them to order pedestrians to wear safety helmets when crossing a road.
How about running, or cycling - oh wait they already do for that. While I agree with seat belts and almost agree with cycle helmets I do fear western civilisation is becoming a complete PC, nanny state. I'm a great believer in Darwin, you want to go car surfing, go right ahead, as long as it is fatal then I have no problems with that, the collateral damage and expense is a problem though.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
There is an ever lasting drive to reduce 'Road Deaths', which is universally accepted by all to be 'Unacceptably High' Or, So they say. Nobody is standing up to the view that reductions in those levels affect people's private behaviour. The nanny state is born, safety belts are enforced, and so on, and so forth. Human Life, Human Activity, causes incidents where Humans Die. Who decides what is Acceptable. Who determines the Overal Cost of these measure. The Bottom Line is, No Trafic means No Road Deaths. The more you allow it, the more deaths will occur. I think we have already found a 'Happy Medium' Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High' :)
Bram van Kampen
You are right. As long as there is traffic, we'll have road accidents. The best we can all do is minimize the rate of accident to try to approach 0 (knowing we'll never get there). At least that'll give the police something to do... ... ... It's all very well saying things like "We are all civilized grown ups, we can decide for ourselves what the acceptable speed limit is". But I bet the last words you'd be trying to say when you get hit by a car traveling at 100mph on a 30mph road as they run a red light would be "Hell, why isn't the police catching those idiots that travel too fast and jump lights?" On the other hand, if you are the one doing 100mph as you crash into a wall, and you end up thinking to yourself (if that's at all possible at this stage) "Perhaps I should have worn a seat belt" as the paramedics peel you off the windscreen, I'm OK as long as I'm not stood between your car and the wall. (Well, of course this is an extreme example; I wouldn't wish that kind of an accident on anyone.) The world would be a much better place if everyone had common sense... but sadly, not everyone does, and more importantly, "Common" sense depends on who you ask... So unless you can get that sorted, we have to rely on hard written law to minimize grief and inconvenience in our lives whilst trying to maximize freedom and individuality. Personally, I'd put up with the nannying (with a bit of ranting on CP and elsewhere!) as there are far worse things to get annoyed about in the world... like memory leaks and tangled up multi-threads and collaborators that don't adhere to deadlines! ;P
Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike... me...
-
Luc Pattyn wrote:
we wouldn't want them to order pedestrians to wear safety helmets when crossing a road.
How about running, or cycling - oh wait they already do for that. While I agree with seat belts and almost agree with cycle helmets I do fear western civilisation is becoming a complete PC, nanny state. I'm a great believer in Darwin, you want to go car surfing, go right ahead, as long as it is fatal then I have no problems with that, the collateral damage and expense is a problem though.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
you want to go car surfing, go right ahead, as long as it is fatal then I have no problems with that
Hahaha! I'm not sure if I'll be demonised for the fact that that comment appealed to me, but I'm gonna do it anyway! Made me spit coffee, congrats :laugh:
-
Traffic accidents obviously have a big negative effect on society; they cause grief, loss of time, and loss of money. While some money is moving from one party to another (insurance companies, car repair shops, social services, hospitals), society as a whole isn't getting any better from them. Counting Road Deaths is an easy measure for the number and severity of traffic accidents, and it appeals to a lot of people. When the numbers are rising, or are higher than in neighboring countries or states, politicians see a need to take action. Which is mostly fine by me; of course there are limits, we wouldn't want them to order pedestrians to wear safety helmets when crossing a road. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
Luc Pattyn wrote:
society as a whole isn't getting any better from them.
Not necessarily true. While the cost may be high, the value of removing idiots from the gene pool is inestimable. We should probably, if anything, lower the legal driving age to allow nature a few more opportunities to cull the herd before they can breed.
Will Rogers never met me.
-
Luc Pattyn wrote:
society as a whole isn't getting any better from them.
Not necessarily true. While the cost may be high, the value of removing idiots from the gene pool is inestimable. We should probably, if anything, lower the legal driving age to allow nature a few more opportunities to cull the herd before they can breed.
Will Rogers never met me.
We should at least lower the limit of dangerous activities to just below the age a person is capable of breeding. That way, nature has a chance at them before they have a chance and propagating idiocy. :rolleyes:
This is not the age of reason, this is the age of flummery, and the day of the devious approach. Reason’s gone into the backrooms where it works to devise means by which people can be induced to emote in the desired direction.
-
There is an ever lasting drive to reduce 'Road Deaths', which is universally accepted by all to be 'Unacceptably High' Or, So they say. Nobody is standing up to the view that reductions in those levels affect people's private behaviour. The nanny state is born, safety belts are enforced, and so on, and so forth. Human Life, Human Activity, causes incidents where Humans Die. Who decides what is Acceptable. Who determines the Overal Cost of these measure. The Bottom Line is, No Trafic means No Road Deaths. The more you allow it, the more deaths will occur. I think we have already found a 'Happy Medium' Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High' :)
Bram van Kampen
It was interesting, to me at least, that in every month of 2001 more people were killed in road deaths in the US than died in the terrorist attacks of September that year. Is that too high? Imagine a 9/11 occurring every month. Month in - month out. That's the level of road deaths. I reckon its too high.
-
There is an ever lasting drive to reduce 'Road Deaths', which is universally accepted by all to be 'Unacceptably High' Or, So they say. Nobody is standing up to the view that reductions in those levels affect people's private behaviour. The nanny state is born, safety belts are enforced, and so on, and so forth. Human Life, Human Activity, causes incidents where Humans Die. Who decides what is Acceptable. Who determines the Overal Cost of these measure. The Bottom Line is, No Trafic means No Road Deaths. The more you allow it, the more deaths will occur. I think we have already found a 'Happy Medium' Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High' :)
Bram van Kampen
Bram van Kampen wrote:
Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High'
There is a growing segment of our society that believes in the fiction of a risk-free existence, and a great many politicians who are only to happy to feed their fears and promise instant fixes. So long as people continue to elect con men to high office, and continue to watch mainstream news (which thrives on creating fear), the trend will continue. By the way, the only way they were able to pass a seatbelt law in California - the first, I believe - was to promise that it will never become an offense that an officer could stop you for. It was to be enforced only if you were stopped for an unrelated offense, and the cop happened to notice that you weren't wearing a seat belt. That, like all such promises, lasted only long enough for the voters to forget the promise, about two election cycles. Such is the value of all promises to limit such "small restrictions" on liberty. The end goal is to control every aspect of our lives, and the bad guys are going to win in the long run.
Will Rogers never met me.
-
Bram van Kampen wrote:
Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High'
There is a growing segment of our society that believes in the fiction of a risk-free existence, and a great many politicians who are only to happy to feed their fears and promise instant fixes. So long as people continue to elect con men to high office, and continue to watch mainstream news (which thrives on creating fear), the trend will continue. By the way, the only way they were able to pass a seatbelt law in California - the first, I believe - was to promise that it will never become an offense that an officer could stop you for. It was to be enforced only if you were stopped for an unrelated offense, and the cop happened to notice that you weren't wearing a seat belt. That, like all such promises, lasted only long enough for the voters to forget the promise, about two election cycles. Such is the value of all promises to limit such "small restrictions" on liberty. The end goal is to control every aspect of our lives, and the bad guys are going to win in the long run.
Will Rogers never met me.
I would be curious to see statistics on head injuries from motorcycle crashes in the US... it's been an offence to ride without an approved helmet here for as long as I've been riding (probably as long as I've been alive), yet over there it seems to be optional at best...
Reminiscing just isn't what it used to be!! Booger Mobile - My bright green 1964 Ford Falcon - check out the blog here!! | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Luc Pattyn wrote:
society as a whole isn't getting any better from them.
Not necessarily true. While the cost may be high, the value of removing idiots from the gene pool is inestimable. We should probably, if anything, lower the legal driving age to allow nature a few more opportunities to cull the herd before they can breed.
Will Rogers never met me.
That reasoning is OK with me as long as it only matters to the idiots themselves, but as soon as they might remove innocent people from the gene pool in the same crash, we're having a different issue altogether.
-
There is an ever lasting drive to reduce 'Road Deaths', which is universally accepted by all to be 'Unacceptably High' Or, So they say. Nobody is standing up to the view that reductions in those levels affect people's private behaviour. The nanny state is born, safety belts are enforced, and so on, and so forth. Human Life, Human Activity, causes incidents where Humans Die. Who decides what is Acceptable. Who determines the Overal Cost of these measure. The Bottom Line is, No Trafic means No Road Deaths. The more you allow it, the more deaths will occur. I think we have already found a 'Happy Medium' Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High' :)
Bram van Kampen
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
There is an ever lasting drive to reduce 'Road Deaths', which is universally accepted by all to be 'Unacceptably High' Or, So they say. Nobody is standing up to the view that reductions in those levels affect people's private behaviour. The nanny state is born, safety belts are enforced, and so on, and so forth. Human Life, Human Activity, causes incidents where Humans Die. Who decides what is Acceptable. Who determines the Overal Cost of these measure. The Bottom Line is, No Trafic means No Road Deaths. The more you allow it, the more deaths will occur. I think we have already found a 'Happy Medium' Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High' :)
Bram van Kampen
Bram van Kampen Dexter wrote:
I need to kill!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
There is an ever lasting drive to reduce 'Road Deaths', which is universally accepted by all to be 'Unacceptably High' Or, So they say. Nobody is standing up to the view that reductions in those levels affect people's private behaviour. The nanny state is born, safety belts are enforced, and so on, and so forth. Human Life, Human Activity, causes incidents where Humans Die. Who decides what is Acceptable. Who determines the Overal Cost of these measure. The Bottom Line is, No Trafic means No Road Deaths. The more you allow it, the more deaths will occur. I think we have already found a 'Happy Medium' Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High' :)
Bram van Kampen
Despite increased volumes Ireland in 2010 was one the safest year in alomst 50 in terms of numbers killed. That said the 'awareness' campaign does little more than terrorize the parents of young drivers - or at least it terrorizes me as the parent of a young male driver. Then there are suicides. Many of those single vehicle accidents where the lone male occupant is killed have nothing to do with driving and should not be counted among accidental road deaths. The car has merely taken the place of a rope, a river or a gun.
Ger
-
There is an ever lasting drive to reduce 'Road Deaths', which is universally accepted by all to be 'Unacceptably High' Or, So they say. Nobody is standing up to the view that reductions in those levels affect people's private behaviour. The nanny state is born, safety belts are enforced, and so on, and so forth. Human Life, Human Activity, causes incidents where Humans Die. Who decides what is Acceptable. Who determines the Overal Cost of these measure. The Bottom Line is, No Trafic means No Road Deaths. The more you allow it, the more deaths will occur. I think we have already found a 'Happy Medium' Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High' :)
Bram van Kampen
Personally, I would ban driver seatbelts and airbags, and fit a compulsory very sharp six inch knife to the middle of teh steering wheel, pointed right at the driver. Add a big red warning "If you have an accident, YOU will die". After a few months, road deaths will go right down, and driving standards / politeness will improve drastically. Of course, in the first few months, we will loose a quite a few gene-pool-rejects, but think of it as "Evolution in Action"!
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
-
There is an ever lasting drive to reduce 'Road Deaths', which is universally accepted by all to be 'Unacceptably High' Or, So they say. Nobody is standing up to the view that reductions in those levels affect people's private behaviour. The nanny state is born, safety belts are enforced, and so on, and so forth. Human Life, Human Activity, causes incidents where Humans Die. Who decides what is Acceptable. Who determines the Overal Cost of these measure. The Bottom Line is, No Trafic means No Road Deaths. The more you allow it, the more deaths will occur. I think we have already found a 'Happy Medium' Why is it decided that Road Death levels are 'Too High' :)
Bram van Kampen
If there was such a wish in the British govenment then they would not be looking at making the MOT biannual and would set a miniumum standard for road surfaces AND enforce it there is a idea that reducing speed will stop deaths, it will to some degree but the bigger point is that it doesnot have a big impact on the number of accidents it just means that those who would have died may now live as paraplegic/coma victims. the biggest cause of accident is always an driver exceeding his ability, that does not mean speeding as some drivers are very capable of exceeding thier ability well within the speed limits.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
If there was such a wish in the British govenment then they would not be looking at making the MOT biannual and would set a miniumum standard for road surfaces AND enforce it there is a idea that reducing speed will stop deaths, it will to some degree but the bigger point is that it doesnot have a big impact on the number of accidents it just means that those who would have died may now live as paraplegic/coma victims. the biggest cause of accident is always an driver exceeding his ability, that does not mean speeding as some drivers are very capable of exceeding thier ability well within the speed limits.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
as some drivers are very capable of exceeding thier ability before they enter the car
FTFY!
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
-
If there was such a wish in the British govenment then they would not be looking at making the MOT biannual and would set a miniumum standard for road surfaces AND enforce it there is a idea that reducing speed will stop deaths, it will to some degree but the bigger point is that it doesnot have a big impact on the number of accidents it just means that those who would have died may now live as paraplegic/coma victims. the biggest cause of accident is always an driver exceeding his ability, that does not mean speeding as some drivers are very capable of exceeding thier ability well within the speed limits.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Rosemary Smith once told a judge while on a speeding rap that she was safer at 80mph than he was at 40mph. Needless to say it didn't do her defence any good. I am more than 20 years driving accident free, and on occasion take my speed up to an over 100mph, but you will also find me doing 20 Mph's where conditions dictate.
Ger
-
Luc Pattyn wrote:
we wouldn't want them to order pedestrians to wear safety helmets when crossing a road.
How about running, or cycling - oh wait they already do for that. While I agree with seat belts and almost agree with cycle helmets I do fear western civilisation is becoming a complete PC, nanny state. I'm a great believer in Darwin, you want to go car surfing, go right ahead, as long as it is fatal then I have no problems with that, the collateral damage and expense is a problem though.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
The problem isn't the idiots who kill themselves. It's those who kill other people, and those who almost, but not quite, kill themselves and end up severely disabled and living off of my tax dollars for the rest of their lives.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
