H_Hounds Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 Could you define "safe" then? Are you trolling? http://dictionary.reference.com/ a good website to use if you are unsure of a definition to a word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Are you trolling? http://dictionary.reference.com/ a good website to use if you are unsure of a definition to a word Not trolling at all...if fewer acccidents doesn't make a road safe then I just wondered what you thought did.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I was just pointing out that 'statistics' can often be misleading, pointless or used to benefit the point that you want to make, by using the example of labs. Not if you use statistics correctly. That most dog bites come from labradors would be a very poor use of statistics. The 'number of bites/1000 dogs of given breed' would be a much more useful statistic when determining which dogs are most likely to bite, and equally the accidents/vehicle mile is a good statistic to determine which roads are the most dangerous. It just so happens that motorways are the safest roads in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The number of accidents may be due to lots of reasons, like motorways are better controlled eg they have the flash up signs etc. it doesnt mean that they are safer just because there are less accidents on them. I don't know what safer does mean if it doesn't mean that. if you did have an accident on a motorway it would be a lot more severe/fatal than if you did on a housing estate in a 30 zone. That's true, but the fact remains that motorways are safer. I'm just saying that the 'statistic' that was quoted was irrelevant and inconclusive. I haven't commented on whether or not I think the motorways are dangerous. Someone else did, and they were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The number of accidents may be due to lots of reasons, like motorways are better controlled eg they have the flash up signs etc. it doesnt mean that they are safer just because there are less accidents on them.The fact that there are less accidents is a statistical measure (amongst others) of their (greater-) safety relative to other types of roads. The core reasons why there are less accidents on motorways, is because all the traffic moves in the same direction (risk of head-on or lateral collision is about nil), across a bounded expanse (width and horizon) easily assessed with normal vision, with limited relative speeds between vehicles (except perhaps on steeper hills). Everything after that (signs, o/head lights, cats eyes, vibrating lines, etc.) will improve safety to a further extent, but nowhere near as much as the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 So are you saying that motorways are the most dangerous roads? The number of accidents says that they aren't.. Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA, says motorways are "our safest roads by a long, long way". But road safety charity Brake says although there are fewer crashes on motorways per mile travelled than on other roads, when they do happen they are more likely to lead to death because of the high speeds involved. In the UK, 2% of motorway crashes are fatal, compared with 1.4% of all crashes, according to the charity. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15608217 Like H_Hounds says, its all how that data is interpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15608217 Like H_Hounds says, its all how that data is interpreted. From here.. http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm Motorways 2 deaths per billion vehicle kilometers "A" roads 6.2 deaths per billion vehicle kilometers.. Seems to be a like for like comparison..can't find any later data.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15608217 Like H_Hounds says, its all how that data is interpreted. Not really, taking into account the severity of motorway accidents they are still safer than other roads. You can't interpret it any other way, if you are going to drive from A to B, the safest way to do it is on the motorway (ie the lowest chance of you dying or of being injured). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_Hounds Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 Not if you use statistics correctly. That most dog bites come from labradors would be a very poor use of statistics. The 'number of bites/1000 dogs of given breed' would be a much more useful statistic when determining which dogs are most likely to bite, and equally the accidents/vehicle mile is a good statistic to determine which roads are the most dangerous. It just so happens that motorways are the safest roads in the country. I actually heard this on the radio, last year, and it stuck in my head because I am a dog lover & work with dogs, and I thought it was a useless piece of info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The number of accidents may be due to lots of reasons, like motorways are better controlled eg they have the flash up signs etc. it doesnt mean that they are safer just because there are less accidents on them. if you did have an accident on a motorway it would be a lot more severe/fatal than if you did on a housing estate in a 30 zone. I'm just saying that the 'statistic' that was quoted was irrelevant and inconclusive. I haven't commented on whether or not I think the motorways are dangerous. "lot more severe/fatal" is just not true for most m/w crashes. Only 6% of road deaths happen on m/w's. Most crashes involve relatively low speed on impact - we all generally travel in the same direction and the impact can generally be a nose-to-tail, linear shunt at, say, 10-15 mph. This is very dramatic when it involves a car breaking from 65 in the morning rush-hour to 40-45 and being hit at 50-55-60 AND it hurts AND it wrecks the car (not to be recommended, therefore). But with a fair wind and with seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones and head restraints this sort of crash is eminently survivable (ralge crosses fingers and toes for you folks). It makes a mess of the traffic flow and we all get to hear about the traffic jam but it doesn't generally end up as life-threatening. In town, by contrast, in 30/40 zones, 70+% injury collisions generate 34% of the road deaths. Between a fifth and a quarter of road deaths are pedestrians, mostly in built-up areas, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.