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?

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?

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?

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

--
Steve Walker

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:08:28 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

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

Indeed, although it does not have to be as long as overnight. When some
careless tawt drove into the back of the Land Rover I was driving some
eight years ago, I was classed as KSI because I complained at the scene
that I felt like throwing up. I was detained in hospital for six hours for
observation, that counted as KSI, I was told.

Steve Firth wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:08:28 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

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

Indeed, although it does not have to be as long as overnight. When some
careless tawt drove into the back of the Land Rover

Are you sure you didn't front end him? You've been a 4x4 junky for
quite some time then.

I was driving some
eight years ago, I was classed as KSI because I complained at the scene
that I felt like throwing up. I was detained in hospital for six hours for
observation, that counted as KSI, I was told.

They probably took one look at you and feared the worst, as many would.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

In message .com,
iiiiDougiiii writes

Steve Firth wrote:
I was driving some
eight years ago, I was classed as KSI because I complained at the scene
that I felt like throwing up. I was detained in hospital for six hours for
observation, that counted as KSI, I was told.

They probably took one look at you and feared the worst, as many would.

Pot! Kettle!


--
Roadhog

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,

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.

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

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

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