Acceptable Collateral Damage

[Origamist]

There's rarely much logic to safety priorities - it's all driven by public pressure. The public are concerned about knife crime, an extremely rare way to die, so lots of attention is focused on it.

Same thing with road deaths. It's a big number, but more people are killed by hospital-acquired MRSA than die in road accidents, and of course heart disease caused by inactivity is a far, far bigger killer.

Ben

First para - total agreement.

Second para - it's C difficile that is the real killer. Hospital aquired MRSA does not outstrip road deaths in the UK - C dif does however.

Sorry for the OT.

 

[Mr Pig]

Did you click on the map at the different age ranges...

And..what's the point? Older people have more experience, less stupidity, so crash and walk in front of cars less? What has this got to do with regulation? Although I will concede that the roads would be safer if young people were not allowed to use them! ;0)

 

[PBancroft]

Yes, it does seem to be acceptable.

No idea why. Probably because it would be political suicide to in some way attempt to reduce the number of vehicles on the motorways. We all saw the outcry at M6 Toll - and that is a non-compulsory alternative to an existing route.

 

[CopperBrompton]

As motorways are the safest type of roads, it would make no sense at all to reduce the proportion of traffic using them.

 

[Origamist]

And..what's the point? Older people have more experience, less stupidity, so crash and walk in front of cars less? What has this got to do with regulation? Although I will concede that the roads would be safer if young people were not allowed to use them! ;0)

Don't worry Mr P, it's easy to miss more nuanced points. I'll leave you to mull this one over at your leisure. However, here's a clue: do you think as a society we do enough to emphasise the dangers of the UK's roads to the most vulnerable users and, regulate accordingly?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Yes, it does seem to be acceptable.

No idea why. Probably because it would be political suicide to in some way attempt to reduce the number of vehicles on the motorways. We all saw the outcry at M6 Toll - and that is a non-compulsory alternative to an existing route.

The reason for the outcry at the M6 Toll was that it was built on the understanding that the tolls would be significantly lower than they actually are in order to relieve some of the burden on the elevated section of the M6. (According to an article in last week's "Private Eye".)

 

[jonesy]

The reason for the outcry at the M6 Toll was that it was built on the understanding that the tolls would be significantly lower than they actually are in order to relieve some of the burden on the elevated section of the M6. (According to an article in last week's "Private Eye".)

I went to the planning inquiry representing one of the campaigning groups that objected to it. Even at the time the Highways Agencies own traffic models were only forecasting a ~5% reduction in traffic on the existing M6, a reduction that they admitted would not be noticeable to most road users. But even then the politicians were proclaiming it as a 'jam buster.' We also said that the operator wouldn't want lorries to use it because the maintenance costs would be vastly lower if they didn't, and that the tolls would therefore be set at a level that would discourage them. We were pompously pooh-poohd by the HA's barrister and told we were talking nonsense...

 

[PBancroft]

I went to the planning inquiry representing one of the campaigning groups that objected to it. Even at the time the Highways Agencies own traffic models were only forecasting a ~5% reduction in traffic on the existing M6, a reduction that they admitted would not be noticeable to most road users. But even then the politicians were proclaiming it as a 'jam buster.' We also said that the operator wouldn't want lorries to use it because the maintenance costs would be vastly lower if they didn't, and that the tolls would therefore be set at a level that would discourage them. We were pompously pooh-poohd by the HA's barrister and told we were talking nonsense...

Quite.

In other words, nobody gives a crap about the infrastructure required to ships goods around the country. They're more worried about enabling individuals in cars traveling across the country to see their grannies.

The car rules supreme.

 

[Mr Pig]

Don't worry Mr P, it's easy to miss more nuanced points.

Sorry, you'll have to forgive me. I'm a bit thick. Is nuance another way to spell irrelevance? Or does it mean 'slight and contrived relevance'? Fair enough if you'd just said 'it's slightly off topic but it's interesting' ;0)

 

[Origamist]

Sorry, you'll have to forgive me. I'm a bit thick. Is nuance another way to spell irrelevance? Or does it mean 'slight and contrived relevance'? Fair enough if you'd just said 'it's slightly off topic but it's interesting' ;0)

I am afraid I don't have the time to spoon feed every forum member who lacks the imagination to join some pretty elementary dots. Sorry.

But just this once - the "acceptable collateral damage" on our roads: young people.

 

[freakhatz]

It could be said that older people have more chance of being carried off by illness before that road accident gets them. After all, youth does have the benefit of being less susceptible to natural causes and therefore early death is more likely to be violent and unnatural.

OTOH, young drivers are usually crap at driving and think the reverse..