🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35a487e6.58298651@news.okc.oklahoma.net>,
   in@the.sig (E. Faubion) wrote:
>Dennis.Jensen@dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>
>>>You didn't give enough information to make that judgement however in
>>>this case there should be an absence of marks on the roadway
>>>indicating driver input.
>
>>But Earl, in that case, what would you attribute a crash to where the driver 
>>used threshold braking, but still crashed and killed him/herself?
>
>I still don't have enough information to make that judgment.  
>
>>Huh, I don't get it. The person was in a car, if they hadn't been, they 
>>probably wouldn't have died, right?
>
>You misunderstand.  I'm talking about a case where the heart attack
>causes the crash, not the other way around.  We still investigate the
>crash but the death is not listed as a traffic fatality.
>

Earl, I posed another part to that question. What happens to others that are 
killed in the crash?

>>Earl, if you have a country where you have 200 cars, and they drive an 
average 
>>of 1000mile pa, and 100 people are killed in car crashes, or you have a 
>>country with 1 million cars, where people drive 10 000miles pa, and there 
are 
>>150 fatalities pa, which countries roads would you prefer to drive? I would 
>>prefer the second, despite the increased fatalities (but vastly lesser 
>>fatality RATE). 
>
>You'd prefer increased fatalities?  I truly hope you never lose a
>loved one lest this come back to haunt you.  Those are real people out
>there, not a bunch of numbers.   
>

Sorry, Earl, but personalising things does nothing to solve the problem-you 
have to look at it analytically. For example, I disagree with the death 
penalty. Many people who agree with it have asked me whether my view would 
change if one of my loved ones was victim. My answer is "hell, yes, I would 
want them dead!" That is why our legal system is not based on this premise.

WRT the example I had posed, let's say that that country that had the higher 
fatality RATE (but lower fatalities) suddenly became very properous. For the 
same number of cars, and the same average distance travelled, you suddenly 
have 5 million people killed on the road, which puts the actual fatality rate 
in a perspective that you will understand. All in all, those roads are a hell 
of a dangerous place to be, and you will be VERY, VERY lucky to live a mere 1 
year. That is why RATES are the only real basis for camparison, and it is the 
reason that "the authorities" are loathe to quote them (in Australia as well 
as the US).

>Here's one of them. 
>
>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/victim.jpg
>
>Take a good long hard look and then tell me all about how her death is
>acceptable to you and then I'll tell you about the day we met.  Just
>another number huh?
>

Earl, a little girl being killed in a car crash is heartrending (I have 2 
daughters, one aged 2 and one aged 4), so I understand exactly how that would 
feel. I also understand how you would feel investigating some of these 
crashes, or having to tell someone that their loved ones have died. That does 
not, however, mean that this should be based on an emotional level. You want 
to reduce the death rate-great, so do I. But let's have a look at the issues 
on how to reduce that death rate. For that, we need to use decent analysis, 
which means good statistical evaluation, rather than just trying to distort 
numbers to suit a pattern.

IOW, you can greatly reduce deaths by reducing the number of miles travelled 
on average. Now, unless you are going to legislate this, and then normalise 
for number of vehicles (or legislate number of vehicles) looking at a number 
of fatalities on its own is meaningless.

For example, lets say that last year you had a total of 1 billion miles 
travelled, and you had 10 fatalities. This year, you installed a radar 
proximity braking device on every car, and you had 15 fatalities but there 
were 2 billion miles travelled. Now assume, for the sake of argument, that 
everything else is constant. Now, you want to evaluate the effectiveness of 
those devices. According to you, the devices are totally ineffective, and 
should be removed, as the number of deaths went up. According to me, they are 
effective, as the fatality RATE went down. If the devices had not been fitted, 
there WOULD HAVE BEEN 20 deaths, due to the increased mileage. That is why it 
is the RATE, and not the mere number, that is important.

Dennis