Re: New Electrical Regulations

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ah. Don't have time to read EVERY reference sadly.

That seems not inconsistent with common sense. However it still does not prove. let alone imply, a causal connection.

It could be that it coincided with an unusually hot summer, and a world cup victory, with more drink pedestrians and cyclists staggering around (than usual).

I always like the old question 'how can the incidence of drawn test matches affect the size of tree ring growth' It turns out they are both likely due to unusually wet summers.

An interesting statistic, that sadly,proves nothing. What, for example, is the standard deviation on pedestrian and cyclist death in the years prior to and subsequent of this survey?

If anything, it might show that motorists who feel secure (i.e. by adhering slavishly to speed limits) are more likley to mow down pedestrians.

There. I can spin it as well as any BBC reporter or government communications officer.

I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT DOSSIER!!!

[The Natural Philosopher]

There is a certaon Darwinian aptness to that.

[Simon Gardner]

Yup. It's why I don't wear a seatbelt when driving.

Refs: "Target Risk" by Prof Gerald J.S. Wilde [PDE Publications, 1994] "Risk" by Dr John Adams [Taylor and Francis, 1995]

[Rod Hewitt]

The Natural Philosopher wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@b.c:

And I read - > I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT DOSSER!!!

Ho hum

Rod

[David Hearn]

Just as long as you also put a notice on your car to paramedics/Police etc to not waste the additional NHS resources on patching you up after an accident. Though - that's assuming you survive any crash... ;)

Oh, and make sure you turn off any air-bag that you may have fitted. Airbags are only safe if you're using a seatbelt. Not having a seatbelt may well blow/burn your face off in even of an accident happening and you being thrown forward onto the wheel.

Personally, I would be less reckless and just drive safer and more carefully. If you need to not wear a seatbelt just so that you drive more carefully, then you're a bad driver. There's plenty of good drivers out there who wear a belt, and also watch out for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.

Generally, as a whole, maybe people will drive more less carefully after wearing belts - but that shouldn't mean that individuals who are aware of this fact, and also try to drive safely, can't buck that trend.

You may also find that if they re-did the research now, things may be different. Initially, maybe people did drive more dangerously after seatbelts were required - but now, seatbelts are as much a part of driving as checking the car's out of gear before starting or adjusting your mirrors.

Incidentally, the only people I see around here who don't wear seatbelts are the boy racers zooming up and down the highstreet/main roads at significantly above the speed limit. I must admit though, I have little concern about them not wearing their belts - karma comes to mind... ;) Though of course - that's a wrong attitude to take and it'll be people like my wife and her friends who will have to patch them up after any accidents.

D

[Simon Gardner]

Th point is I am reducing the probability of having an accident in the first place and thus reducing the probability of others being injured.

Unfortunately, it's not under your control. I suggest you look at either of the references I gave you.

Everyone behaves the same. It's got nothing to do with whether I'm a "bad driver" or not.

Indeed. And if they aren't wearing one, they are even more cautious. It's innate.

No. That's the point. They don't. They drive less carefully.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what it means.

Nope. cf recent identical effect demonstrated with German taxi drives and abs.

The point is, your wife and her friends are going to see anyone because of me precisely because I don't wear a belt when driving.

Can I once again suggest you look up either of the references I gave above since at the moment you seem to have a very shakey and inadequate understanding of what's involved?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well said. Safety is as mich an attidude of extreme alterness introduced nby sheer terror as anything else. However I have been driving long enough to be suitably terrified every time I get behind teh wheel, seatbelt or not.

AND having been a fairly keen motor racing spectator in the past, as well as seeing the effect on un-belted pasengres in accidents, I would never ever embark on a trip without getting the belts on, apart from the

300 yard one to the corner shop, where I have to admit the occasional lapse. Which even I admit is stupid.

[Simon Gardner]

You will no doubt have noticed that your two statements are mutually contradictory.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No. they are not.

My experience is such that even the addition of a seat belt does not affect the terror.

:-)

[Simon Gardner]

In article , "David Hearn" wrote

Then you haven't looked properly.

Where did you think that I said that?

Correct. Whatever such individual driver "consciously" tries, the fact remains that she will drive less carefully because of the aforesaid "risk compensation" - generally known as the risk homeostasis effect.

Thus by not wearing a seat belt, I am increasing the probability of serious injury or death to myself. BUT, I am reducing the probability of having an accident in the first place and thus both decreasing the likelihood of ever being involved in an accident and thus I am reducing the risk to other road users.

[Simon Gardner]

You reduce your terror by putting on a seat belt thus you reduce safety (to others).

[David Hearn]

At the end of your last post! Quoting the end of this/your post:

"BUT, I am reducing the probability of having an accident in the first place"

Anyway - I dispute the fact that you claim that a driver, by putting on a seat belt, cannot drive as well as he would have done had he not worn a seatbelt - *even if he consciously tries to*

I could agree with everything you said had it not been for you not accepting that a driver can consciously drive carefully whilst wearing a seatbelt.

Maybe its best to agree to disagree... ;)

D

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, *I* don't.

You may. Thatsd down to your inability to affect your emotional and conscious state when driving.

[Richard]

"stop you having an accident" (which is what you said) is not the same as "reducing the probability of having an accident" (which is what he said).

R.

[Fishter]

I don't think anyone is able to perform their best when terrified. I'd rather be driving on the roads with lots of relaxed, yet alert, people than a dozen terrified nervous twitchers.

[Simon Gardner]

Very Good. Why do you think that says not what it says but instead "not wearing a seatbelt will stop you from having an accident in the first place?" It doesn't say that it says: "reducing the probability of having an accident in the first place" not lowering that probability to zero. It doesn't "stop you having an accident". It merely reduces the probability of you having one.

Jeez.

[Simon Gardner]

Oh yes you do.

[Simon Gardner]

Thank you. It was beginning to feel like addressing an insane person.

[David]

You ARE kidding? You mean you are aware of risk compensation, yet still you drive more dangerously when wearing a seatbelt?

I thought the reason airbags were developed was due to the refusal of American drivers to wear seatbelts; ie airbags were intended really an alternative to seatbelts rather than an adjuct. (Could be wrong!)

David

[Paul Coyne]

I seem to have missed Richards reply to this.. However, the mention of common sense came froma rply by someone called Richard to Laurence Paynes post. and I was merely pointing out that it was bollox. The pedestrian stat was from The Speedtrap bible <

referring to the TRL report 323:

"Incidence of commonest precipitating factors, by type of accident. This is perhaps a more telling chunk of information which aims to show the most common factors involved in different types of accident, such as vehicle-pedestrian, single-vehicle etc. Excessive speed doesn't feature directly in this information because it is considered to be a subcategory of "loss of control" (see above). The government and road safety campaigners will always tell us that pedestrians are killed because of speeding motorists. This simply is not the case. Would you believe a staggering 84% of pedestrians involved in accidents are killed or seriously injured due to their own incompetance? In the TRL report, the prime factors involved in pedestrian fatalities are listed as: a.. Pedestrian entered carriageway without due care (84%) b.. Vehicle unable to avoid pedestrian in carriageway (12%) c.. "Other" (4%)

So in the real world, it's not motorists tearing up and down town centre roads at speed that is to blame for pedestrian fatalities, but pedestrians stepping in front of moving vehicles without bothering to look where they're going. An amusing little sub-note for you here - another report further subcategorises "entering the carriageway without due care", and shows that after dark, 77% of all adult pedestrian fatalities are caused when the pedestrian is above the legal drink-drive limit - ie. is technically classified as drunk - and staggered into the path of an oncoming vehicle."

So it was a mere 77%. The point was that speeding is blamed for the deaths of lots of peds when the reality is that they die because they don't look where they are going.

Not sure, I just jumped in at the tail end. I suspect it was certain peoples venting about reckless speeders tailgating and driving like maniacs that provoked it. I was merely attempting to point out that there are many things far worse than speeding form a causing accidents perspective that don't get addressed because it's difficult to police and there isn't as much revenue to be gained...

Which, depending on the final state of the victim, may not have been a bad thing.

Paul