Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

see also this:

<url:http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk...adline=kids-in-miracle-escape-name_page.html>

Note how it's a miracle escape when a train hits a van less than 2% of
its weight at 20mph, and how lucky the children are not to be
injured. This took up the first two pages of the newspaper on Monday
evening. Somwhere in the article it briefly mentions how the van
driver was seriously injured.

Definitely gives the impression that trains are dangerous.

A

 

Where can I find figures? I've no idea, have you, of the number of man
hours spent investigating, say a body found on a railway track compared, to,
say, a body found at the side of a road?

Well?

 

There is no evidence for this assumption, though. In the main the causal
slaughter on the roads is accepted as "just another accident". As has been
pointed out, per fatality, deaths on the railways, air travel, in
factories - all attract much more thorough investigation, and much more
determination to find and pin down the guilty party.

Dead cyclist? Slap on the wrist, and try not to do it again, at least until
the six points are off your license, otherwise you'll have to ask nicely to
be allowed to keep driving (but don't worry, they'll probably allow it, even
if you do hit the limit under totting-up).

Except that in most cases the victim was not to blame. And in many of those
where the victim is asserted to be to blame, the only witness is the other
party.

Where do you think the term SMIDSY comes from? Was it made up to describe
an imaginary and unlikely scenario?

[drink-drive bans]

Realistic chance of getting caught, realistic punishment if caught,
realistic deterrence.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

Is there any to the contrary?

When it is, maybe.

Nonsense. They are just more complex scenarios - it is less likely, because
of their nature etc that trains or planes will have "simple" accidents. If
a plane falls apart mid-air they need to know why to ensure others don't do
the same. If a car hits a tree they'll check for brake failure, alcohol
etc. What sort of massive investigation occurs if a train hits a
pedestrian? They bag up the bits and assume suicide.

Maybe, if it _was_ an _accident_, but you show me a case where something
more sinister has happened.

Can you give figures, because I cannot see where you are coming from (I
assume sincerity).

So what can be done? Invent some false evidence? If there's no clues and
no witnesses?

Yes, but in the alcohol case it _isn't_ the punishment, it's the chance of
being caught.

 

For various values of "accident." In my case, I don't count the predictable
results of aggression and carelssness as "accidents" in quite the same way
that some others do.

The HSE still gets involved, AIUI.

Differnet premises, again. We regularly see reports of cyclists "in
collision with" cars; in many (most) cases it subsequantly turns out that
the car driver has committed an illegal act (e.g. pulling out from a side
turning into the path of an oncoming vehicle). When the cyclist survives to
tell the tale, the driver generally appears to agree with theiur version of
events, namely that it was the driver's fault - unless the insurers tell
them otherwise. I have no reason to believe that this will not be the same
for fatalities, except that in those cases the cyclist is no longer around
to give their version of events.

It is undoubtedly true that the going rate for killing a cyclist is six
points and a small fine. And that is in cases where the motorist is clearly
at fault - they have been convicted by the courts.

I see nothing wrong in challenging the fig-leaf of the word "accident" used
to protect our intelectual modesty from the idea that motorists who take
insufficient care, risk causing death.

I am clearly not alone in this view, because the word "accident" is steadily
disappearing from the lexicon of road traffic incident investigation.

There was a study in Oxford whihc found driver fault in 75% of cases.
Oxford is notorious for undisciplined cyclists.

Have meaningful penalties to deter commission of the offences. Six points
and a small fine deters nobody. Twelve months' mandatory disqualification
seems to deter a lot of people. What's wrong with that as a default minimum
penalty for killing through carelessness? I don't see a problem with it.

If the punishment was three points and a small fine, as for speeding, do you
sincerely believe that as many people would be deterred? I think that the
sure and certain knowledge that caught means banned, and no arguments, is a
strong part of the deterrent effect.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

Its entirely true - especially since the introduction of the Road
Deaths Manual - each road death has to be investigated to exactly the
same degree as a murder - in fact they are specifically treated as a
murder until evidence is gathered to show otherwise.

 

Having been heavily involved in both road death investigation as well
as aircraft accident investigation I can assure you that both are
investigated to the same nth degree

 

The same - as much as is required. Although with a single body on the
railway there is far more pressure to release the scene back to the
rail operators than there is for a road death - they are still fully
investigated though. In fact the same techniques are used and often
the same police investigators to reconstruct etc

 

Unfortunately, it is easy to believe that David genuinely doesn't know (or,
at least, doesn't understand) that there are requirements of the law with
respect to the (mis)behaviour of (some)cyclists.

 

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

[ ... ]

That is total crap.

Most drivers did not drink and drive even *before* the 1967 Act was passed.
There was no breathalyser "deterring" them from it - that evice had/has an
affect on a minority only. The majority didn't/don't drink and drive because
they don't think it's a good idea, whether or not there is a law about it,
whether you are talking in terms of now or (say) 1966.

And yes, I *do* remember the limited campaign of opposition to the Bill.
That campaign was certainly not widely supported.

 

He said "possibly". We all saw him say it.

Do you have any evidence that there is no possibility of it?

Oh, wait... it was pure failure (on your part) to comprehend what was
written (as opoposed to what you imagined had been written).

 

I'm sure we'd all love to know of any more dangerous ways of transporting
small children - for avoidance if for no other purpose.

 

Using a giant catapult, or possibly a trebuchet, would be a more
dangerous method.

 

Damn!

Why didn't those methods suggest themselves immediately?

 

Thanks for the timely reminder that my AVG update is overdue. I'm off over
to their site now...

 

Just zis Guy, you know? () gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

Hardly. Nothing takes more time off your journey than having to clean blood
off and repaint the scratches left by some pillock's bike bouncing off the
roof.

 

Thanks JP! You've answered the question admirably.

 

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:59:55 +0100, "JNugent"

But the social acceptability of it was /much/ higher.

I don't know what the drink/drive participatoin rates are now, but all
your contention is that it never went as high as 50% of the driving
population.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk