OP
OP
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
It's far from original but it seemed very appropriate for our roads.I'll nick that.
Another HGV death in London (split from original thread)
- Thread starter deptfordmarmoset
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
You're about 100 years too late to solve that particular problem!
[QUOTE 2781094, member: 45"]Well that will be why he wrote "about the same" rather than using the figures then. Using your stats-
Amsterdam 1 death per 83333 trips
London 1 death per 42857 trips
That's 1.94x more deaths in London per journey. I'd say it's virtually twice. Where's the parity in that? If you're discounting whole-country statistics then your journey distance statistic is irrelevant.[/quote]
as srw sez. Journey length. And then (he says for the 1000th time) you have to look at the vehicles that cause the deaths. And then you reckon that if you could tame this relatively small number of vehicles the death per trip (let alone the death per mile) would be the same as Amsterdam's. Without spending nine hundred million quid on cycle ways that people won't use.
Amsterdam 1 death per 83333 trips
London 1 death per 42857 trips
That's 1.94x more deaths in London per journey. I'd say it's virtually twice. Where's the parity in that? If you're discounting whole-country statistics then your journey distance statistic is irrelevant.[/quote]
as srw sez. Journey length. And then (he says for the 1000th time) you have to look at the vehicles that cause the deaths. And then you reckon that if you could tame this relatively small number of vehicles the death per trip (let alone the death per mile) would be the same as Amsterdam's. Without spending nine hundred million quid on cycle ways that people won't use.
ffs. See above.
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
[QUOTE 2787087, member: 45"]
I gave you sufficient numbers for you to work it out yourself, but for ease it's 1.944443148143827 before the calculator runs out of digits. Does that make it more acceptable for you, now that it's even more deaths per journey.[/quote]
Nope.
(a) deaths per journey is irrelevant as a statistic.
(b) 1.9444 is not a good estimate of the ratio. "Somewhere between 2 and 0.5" is a better estimate.
And repeat posting of a link to the same set of out-of-date anecdotes* doesn't really tell anyone anything.
*It's not data. It's full of supposition and subjectivity. It could be turned into data with a lot of hard work.
I gave you sufficient numbers for you to work it out yourself, but for ease it's 1.944443148143827 before the calculator runs out of digits. Does that make it more acceptable for you, now that it's even more deaths per journey.[/quote]
Nope.
(a) deaths per journey is irrelevant as a statistic.
(b) 1.9444 is not a good estimate of the ratio. "Somewhere between 2 and 0.5" is a better estimate.
And repeat posting of a link to the same set of out-of-date anecdotes* doesn't really tell anyone anything.
*It's not data. It's full of supposition and subjectivity. It could be turned into data with a lot of hard work.
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
[QUOTE 2788682, member: 45"]It's not irrelevant. It just shouldn't be taken on face value. As is the case with all stats.[/quote]
I agree it shouldn't be taken on face value. Which is why I'm seriously questioning why anyone (including, apparently, you) is treating it as a serious indication of risk. Because Gilligan isn't.
I agree it shouldn't be taken on face value. Which is why I'm seriously questioning why anyone (including, apparently, you) is treating it as a serious indication of risk. Because Gilligan isn't.
