ADUK Archive

So with the road casualty rates plateauing in the UK are there any quick wins (or low-lying fruit) left or can we expect it to be increasingly difficult to improve road safety?

At what point do we lesson the effort/time/expense and move onto something else like drugs, mental health or whatever?

martine wrote:So with the road casualty rates plateauing in the UK are there any quick wins (or low-lying fruit) left or can we expect it to be increasingly difficult to improve road safety?

At what point do we lesson the effort/time/expense and move onto something else like drugs, mental health or whatever?

We've already reached the point. It is here and it's been here for a while.

Has it not recently been announced that the NHS - presumably on cost grounds - is to curtail the supply of certain cancer treatment drugs? With the finances of the NHS under such strain that they have to do that, it's high time the government mounted a meaningful attack on another problem area, namely the functioning of the food industry in general and the fast food sector in particular.

We don't need any studies, surveys and statistics to show us that obesity, and all the health problems that can follow from it, now represent a major problem. Going back 40 or 50 years we didn't see many people that were seriously overweight, but now we're surrounded by them; and many of them are young people too, which is particularly disturbing. On the other hand, and it's an awful thing to contemplate, I suppose a fair few of them will not live long enough to draw their pension for very long, or even at all.

If we go on like this, the NHS will never have enough money. We've simply got to stop placing demands on it that it should not have to face.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

One of my pet hates is when, in news interviews, medicos proudly say how many "lives they have saved" by their new intervention. Uh-oh, no. They just die of something else, later.

However, road crash rate. It may be partially out of our control. Read about Smeed on Wikipedia.

Also, many people wonder about L4 (highest) of GDE; something worth reading about is the effect that things like ADHD have on crash involvement - even as pedestrians!

Also out of our control is the lead factor. That's lead as (used to be in) petrol and paint. There seems to be a link between the removal of lead from petrol and a reduction in crime. It may be - and I've never seen it mentioned or discussed - that there might be an improvement in the road crash rate too.

Final, random, thought: do people 'need' risk? If so, will road fatalities 'saved' move to mountain biking, surfing, even DIY?

Horse wrote:Final, random, thought: do people 'need' risk? If so, will road fatalities 'saved' move to mountain biking, surfing, even DIY?

I remember reading some government accident / A&E stats some years ago (early 2000s) - two biggest causes of A&E visits were ladders and trousers
Alasdair

TripleS wrote:
We've already reached the point. It is here and it's been here for a while.

Has it not recently been announced that the NHS - presumably on cost grounds - is to curtail the supply of certain cancer treatment drugs? With the finances of the NHS under such strain that they have to do that ...

If we go on like this, the NHS will never have enough money...

Yes, you heard correctly. People will die as a result. The drugs are horrendously expensive, but they keep people alive.

The NHS never will have enough money. As our population grows older, more of our GDP will have to be spent on healthcare. The numbers of people involved are many orders of magnitude greater than road casualties. At the same time, if we can continue to invest in research, we may continue to discover new cures. But as Horse rather callously, if realistically observes, we will all just die later, of something else. I'll try to be encouraged by that thought.

martine wrote:So with the road casualty rates plateauing in the UK are there any quick wins (or low-lying fruit) left or can we expect it to be increasingly difficult to improve road safety?

At what point do we lesson the effort/time/expense and move onto something else like drugs, mental health or whatever?

The big win will come from self driving cars. But we (or our children) have a while to wait.

Sweden has very ambitious targets for casualty reduction. It will be interesting to see how they get on.

waremark wrote:The big win will come from self driving cars. But we (or our children) have a while to wait.
.

So some moron walk out in front of a self driving car without looking. The car stops dead. The moronic pedestrian does not eve notice and carries on walking, but the 4 passengers in the car are all injured from the massive braking forces.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:But as Horse rather callously, if realistically observes, we will all just die later, of something else. I'll try to be encouraged by that thought.

Sorry about that, but the 'lives saved' statements really annoy me

I think it's a combination of several things over the last couple of years which have made me a bit morose about such things.

However, back OT: to stop casualties it will be necessary to stop crashes happening. That might seem a statement straight from the Dept of Stating the Fuggin Obvious, but it's the implications that come from those two simple words 'stop crashes' which become the devil in the detail.

Stop *how many* casualties? All? As many as possible? What's possible? etc etc.

If the Vision Zero target is adopted, then any possible means might be implemented. So how might that be done? One way is by affordability, backed by legislation. An example might be ABS; it's affordable, so mandate it.

Another way is 'data driven' decisions. Many serious crashes occur during overtaking, so build a barrier down the centre of a two lane road. Sorted.

But But But . . . People should make good decisions etc. 'Training' will save us, etc.

Nope, lowest common denominator engineering will probably do more for most people*

* This section ignores the aspects of risk being transferred to vulnerable toad users, such as tge 'seatbelts' suggestions.

exportmanuk wrote:

waremark wrote:The big win will come from self driving cars. But we (or our children) have a while to wait.
.

So some moron walk out in front of a self driving car without looking. The car stops dead. The moronic pedestrian does not eve notice and carries on walking, but the 4 passengers in the car are all injured from the massive braking forces.

How's that any different from a moron walking in front of an advanced driver?

Horse wrote:One of my pet hates is when, in news interviews, medicos proudly say how many "lives they have saved" by their new intervention. Uh-oh, no. They just die of something else, later.

Saving a life doesn't mean making someone immortal. I think you have missed the point. The fact that we are mortal doesn't negate the benefit of saving life as and when it is possible.

MGF wrote:

Horse wrote:One of my pet hates is when, in news interviews, medicos proudly say how many "lives they have saved" by their new intervention. Uh-oh, no. They just die of something else, later.

Saving a life doesn't mean making someone immortal. I think you have missed the point. The fact that we are mortal doesn't negate the benefit of saving life as and when it is possible.

Only if it's 0 cost to save that particular life in that particular place. Otherwise, as we don't have limitless money, there is a downside for somebody, somewhere else.

MGF wrote:

Horse wrote:One of my pet hates is when, in news interviews, medicos proudly say how many "lives they have saved" by their new intervention. Uh-oh, no. They just die of something else, later.

Saving a life doesn't mean making someone immortal. I think you have missed the point. The fact that we are mortal doesn't negate the benefit of saving life as and when it is possible.

It's not saved, the event is delayed and that person is given the opportunity to have a different fate.

Horse wrote:

exportmanuk wrote:

waremark wrote:The big win will come from self driving cars. But we (or our children) have a while to wait.
.

So some moron walk out in front of a self driving car without looking. The car stops dead. The moronic pedestrian does not eve notice and carries on walking, but the 4 passengers in the car are all injured from the massive braking forces.

How's that any different from a moron walking in front of an advanced driver?

An advance driver would plan to hit him at a reduced speed with just enough force to smash his iplayer, Passengers only lightly bruised by the seat belts. That is until the following vehicle hits them as the driver of that was texting whilst driving.

I think zero road accidents will never happen unless we never go out. Then home accidents will be the largest cause of death instead. You don't remove it you just move it

As humans we expect to balance risk in everything we do. Unfortunately we are now several generations down the line of humans who are not taught to respect the roads and as such have reduced risk skills in that environment. I am afraid the KSI for pedestrians is going to increase.

Horse wrote:....random, thought: do people 'need' risk? If so, will road fatalities 'saved' move to mountain biking, surfing, even DIY?

I think we can forget about DIY. The way things are heading we shall be able to do sweet FA in terms of working on our own homes unless we're trained and confirmed as being properly competent, with a certificate to prove it.

As for do we 'need' risk, I certainly don't want to face excessive risk, and nor do I wish to be creating it for others, but on the other hand I do not want my freedoms to be increasingly curtailed. We lose our freedom a bit at a time, and of course it's always claimed to be for good reason, the common good etc., and many people will accept that, but I think we accept it too readily.

It's not easy to explain the feeling in a rational way, and maybe I'm not managing it, but to me it's almost as if life itself is being taken away from us, and a dull grey existence is replacing it.

So, to those of you who can still derive considerable pleasure from, for example, the ownership and spirited use of expensive high performance cars, I say get on with it, enjoy them while you can, and balls to the killjoys.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:The NHS never will have enough money. As our population grows older, more of our GDP will have to be spent on healthcare. The numbers of people involved are many orders of magnitude greater than road casualties. At the same time, if we can continue to invest in research, we may continue to discover new cures.

It sounds like a dreadfful thing to say, but progress in medical research is part of the problem. What I mean is that every time a new treatment or drug is developed and becomes available, a new queue of people forms and wants to benefit from it, and this immediately creates a new and additional demand for cash.

I appreciate that people sometimes complain bitterly about the NHS, but in my experience it has functioned very well indeed, and overall it truly is a splendid facility. To my mind the problem is that whereas it started out by seeking to provide relatively simple cures for ailments, and at modest cost, as technology has progressed it has become possible treat many more problems, and some of these treatments are seriously expensive.

Separately from all that, it seems wrong to me that the NHS is now increasingly being burdened by having to deal with people whose problems are largely self-inflicted: poor diet, lack of exercise and generally poor lifstyle etc. This is not to advocate that we should all be fanatical health freaks etc., but a simple policy of looking after ourselves and not inviting ailments etc., as many people seem to be doing, would go at least some way to relieving the burden on the NHS.