Camera cost
 

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
In message , Huge
writes

The KSI figures from Northants make intersting reading. According to the
Beeb, the number of people speeding has "fallen significantly" and
the number of KSI's has nearly doubled. So much for GATSOs.

Quite.

In any case, the grouping of "killed or seriously injured" always strikes
me as spin.

It is. It's used because the seriously injured component was decreasing
anyway; before the current glut of cameras.
By combining "K" and "SI" it looks like the cameras are having an effect,
when it's actually improvements in vehicle design and hospital treatment
that are reducing the "SI" part year on year. And, if I recall correctly
(figures not to hand) the reduction actually slowed when the SCP's started
their "work".

There have been dozens of incidents in my kitchen in
which someone has been killed or superficially burned.

--
Steve Walker

Camera cost
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Steve Walker wrote:

In message , Tom Anderson
writes
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Steve Walker wrote:

In message , Huge
writes

In any case, the grouping of "killed or seriously injured" always
strikes me as spin. There have been dozens of incidents in my kitchen
in which someone has been killed or superficially burned.

A strikingly nonsensical argument.

Would you rather I listed the number of people who have been decapitated
or slightly scratched by my cats? Or the number of golden eagles and
voles they have killed this year? The number of pigeons and elephants
which have flown into my second floor windows?

Not really.

Do you not see the error inherent in grouping two sets of statistics
where the less severe event is one or two orders of magnitude more
common than the more severe?

Presumably, you'd also object to including, say, broken ribs in the total,
since they also account for less than 10% of the total number of serious
injuries. Ditto burned shoulders, crushed kidneys, or any other individual
type of injury. This logic leads to a much reduced count of injuries, i
have to concede.

I don't see what's wrong with the KSI grouping; yes, being killed is
worse than being seriously injured, but being seriously injured is
still pretty bad. If ten people are put in wheelchairs by accidents on
some given road, but nobody dies, are we to consider it safe?

You really don't know what the definition of seriously injured is, do you?

Yes, actually, i do - basically, hospitalised. Are you by any chance
related to Evel Knievel? You seem to be very good at jumping to
conclusions.

http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/d...annex_2(1).pdf

"An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an inpatient,
or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in
hospital; fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns,
severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical
treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident"

So, by dint of my (unhospitalised) burns, by the definition used for
road accidents there have been serious injury accidents in my kitchen.

I would imagine, or rather hope, that the working definition is slightly
more nuanced than the one you quote. It would clearly be nonsensical to
count minor burns as serious injuries. I can't find any detailed
information about how it's done, though.

Similarly, anyone who has been kept in overnight as a precaution is
recorded as seriously injured.

Okay, that is silly.

So anyway, if KSI is duff, what do you suggest we count?

tom

--
natural disasters, unexplained phenomena, chaos, chance, tattooing,

Camera cost
 

Tom Anderson ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/d...annex_2(1).pdf

"An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an
inpatient, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are
detained in hospital; fractures, concussion, internal injuries,
crushings, burns, severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock
requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more
days after the accident"

So, by dint of my (unhospitalised) burns, by the definition used for
road accidents there have been serious injury accidents in my
kitchen.

I would imagine, or rather hope, that the working definition is
slightly more nuanced than the one you quote.

How "nuanced" would you like it to be, bearing in mind this has to be a
consistent definition across the entire country and across years, even
decades, for any useful information to be gained from it?

It would clearly be nonsensical to count minor burns as serious injuries.
I can't find any detailed information about how it's done, though.

Look up a little bit. That's a Highways Agency URL. What would you like as
a more authoritative source?

The next category down is Slight Injury - "An injury of a minor character
such as a sprain, bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or
slight shock requiring roadside attention. This definition include injuries
not requiring medical treatment"

"Severity - Of an accident; the severity of the most severely injured
casualty (fatal, serious or slight). Of a casualty: killed, seriously
injured or slightly injured"

Oh, and you don't even have to meet any of those criteria - all it needs is
for the incident report filed by the plod at the scene to report that you
might.

Camera cost
 

tim(yet another new home) wrote:
"allan tracy" wrote in message
oups.com...

furnessvale wrote:
ALL SNIPPED
No he didn't write that.

Camera cost
 

In message , Tom
Anderson writes


So anyway, if KSI is duff, what do you suggest we count?

I'd be happy if they just quoted the numbers separately. 2 deaths and
143 serious injuries, rather than 145 KSI.

The definition of seriously injured is crap, in the sense that it
doesn't mean what one would reasonably assume it to mean, but it's hard
to see how they could now alter it without it looking like an attempt to
fiddle the figures (they've already been accused of that).

--
Steve Walker

Camera cost
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Adrian wrote:

Tom Anderson ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/d...annex_2(1).pdf

"An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an inpatient,
or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in
hospital; fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns,
severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical
treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the
accident"

So, by dint of my (unhospitalised) burns, by the definition used for
road accidents there have been serious injury accidents in my kitchen.

I would imagine, or rather hope, that the working definition is
slightly more nuanced than the one you quote.

How "nuanced" would you like it to be, bearing in mind this has to be a
consistent definition across the entire country and across years, even
decades, for any useful information to be gained from it?

Sufficiently so.

'Nuanced' was perhaps a poor choice of word. I mean that rather than
simply 'burns', it could be something like "first degree burns over more
than 50% of the body, second degree burns over more than 10%, or any third
degree burns". I don't see that there would be any trouble coming up with
a standard like that which would be applicable across the whole of the
country and a significant period of time.

It would clearly be nonsensical to count minor burns as serious injuries.
I can't find any detailed information about how it's done, though.

Look up a little bit. That's a Highways Agency URL. What would you like as
a more authoritative source?

A document other than a glossary. Glossaries are brief summaries, not
normative definitions. There must (i assume) be a policy document
somewhere which lays down exactly what counts.

tom

--
Pave the world

Camera cost
 

In article . 170,
Adrian says...
allan tracy ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

All Allan needs to do is to look at how little the road casualty
figures have gone down over the course of a decade during which the
primary safety - crash survivability - of cars has rocketed.

Hit the back of a combine harvester or a hay truck at thirty and let's
see what your crash survivability does for you.

Hit a stationary truck at 30 in a '70s car.
Hit a stationary truck at 30 in a modern car.

Look where the **** you're going, and DON'T hit a stationary truck at
all...

The one thing about my Capri is that the steering wheel sticks a LONG
way out of the dashboard and the centre of the boss is exactly at chest
height thus meaning that any serious accident is likely to result in me
being impaled on it.

That and crap 1970's brakes makes you leave a lot more room.


--
Conor

Religion, ****ing people over for millennia.

Camera cost
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Adrian wrote:
Look up a little bit. That's a Highways Agency URL. What would you like
as a more authoritative source?
A document other than a glossary. Glossaries are brief summaries, not
normative definitions. There must (i assume) be a policy document
somewhere which lays down exactly what counts.

http://www.trauma.org/scores/iss.html

HTH

Camera cost
 

In article . 170,
Adrian says...
allan tracy ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

It's funny but where I work the company car drivers, that we all knew
had been driving like pratts for years (as the insurance claims
showed), are the same people that seem to be picking up the points from
the cameras.

Perhaps it's also because they're the people who do the most miles...?

Flawed logic.


--
Conor

Religion, ****ing people over for millennia.

Camera cost
 

On 22 Nov 2006 09:03:49 -0800, "furnessvale"
wrote:


tim(yet another new home) wrote:
"allan tracy" wrote in message
oups.com...

furnessvale wrote:
ALL SNIPPED
No he didn't write that.

Yes, he did.