CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

RISK- "Is driving more dangerous than flying through ash?"

(12 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    CB Posted on another thread

    "Quite an interesting article on the Beeb today:

    Is driving more dangerous than flying through ash?"

    INDEED -

    "For instance, 30mph speed limits on motorways would increase road safety, but almost no-one is advocating them. Lord Adonis, the transport minister, would sound callous if he said slowing cars down is too high a price to pay to save a few hundred lives per year, but that is precisely the rationale for the policy.
    In this respect, governments are only behaving as we all do.

    We take risks all the time, and safety is never allowed to trump all other concerns. The under 30s could eliminate one of their single biggest risks of death at a stroke if they never got into a car, but virtually all consider the inconvenience too high a price to pay.

    The problem is that people are generally terrible at making rational decisions about risk."

    Posted 14 years ago #

  2. steveo
    Member

    One of the differences between the risk posed by the ash and from driving is that people on the ground did not choose to run the risk of a plane dropping on their head, every one on the motor way chooses to be there one way or another.

    If the worst happens its not only the poor b*s on the plane that are affected especially near densely populated areas ie where most of the UK airports are.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  3. Kirst
    Member

    Also, the chances of being in a plane crash are tiny, but if you are in a plane crash, the chance of you dying is huge. The chance of you being in a car accident is pretty big, but there's also a good chance you wouldn't die of it.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  4. Kim
    Member

    Then again

    "We take risks all the time, and safety is never allowed to trump all other concerns. The under 30s could eliminate one of their single biggest risks of death at a stroke if they never got into a car, but virtually all consider the inconvenience too high a price to pay.

    The problem is that people are generally terrible at making rational decisions about risk."

    Posted 14 years ago #

  5. steveo
    Member

    I know and understand that motorway driving is dangerous but i'm willing to accept that risk since its quicker than all other options bar flying. If i had my way motor way speeds would be increased, tighter restrictions would be placed on them and city roads would be blanket 20's. But then i'll never get to powar!!! insert evil theme tune here.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  6. Kim
    Member

    Aye but here is the rub, the motorways actually have the lowest fatality rate per mile of our road network.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  7. steveo
    Member

    Lies, damn lies and statistics ;).

    The lower number is that total of fatalities or just car occupant fatalities? If its just occupants i'd be surprised tbh, I expect the number of fatalities on 'normal' roads has a lot to do with people who are not protected by modern car designs.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  8. Kirst
    Member

    "Aye but here is the rub, the motorways actually have the lowest fatality rate per mile of our road network."

    But isn't that because the different carriageways are separated, junctions are kept to a minimum etc. If motorways were laid out like urban roads, with crossroads and t-junctions and easy access to the opposite carriageway, they'd be carnage.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  9. Kim
    Member

    Kirst has it right and there is also the near absence of "vulnerable" road users.

    Steveo you really should learn a bit more about stats. I am talking about the use of statistics and data as in science, not politics. Statistics are actually a very useful tool for understanding the data collected in the real world, they should be used for illumination, and not like a drunk using a lamp post...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  10. wee folding bike
    Member

    You also get a different picture if you analyse by time spent on the road rather than distance travelled.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  11. steveo
    Member

    @Kim, indeed they can and should be however even in science statistics can be interpreted even subconsciously to ones own agenda. Lets see your source and I bet I can interpret them to show that driving is safer than riding a bike :).

    I spent too long doing data analysis at uni to take statistics posted by any one any where at face value, I'm immediately suspicious when no sources are quoted for ones perusal, its an occupational hazard.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  12. Kim
    Member

    Here you go, take you pick, or have a play with these ;-)

    Posted 14 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin