Tom Thumb wrote:
Never argue with a pedant. Why do I always forget that advice.
We are discussing risk and factors than affect risk levels.
So we should have equal result.
It has to be injured in both cases or not injured in both cases.
The basic fact is you claimed I was wrong with regard to danger on rural roads compared to motorways. I have proved, with evidence from Brake, Britain's leading road safety charity that only one in seventeen deaths are caused on motorways.
If you go off at a tangent Tom and put your own interpretation on something I never said, then I'll try and make a point of setting the record straight.
I never claimed you were wrong it was you who claimed I was wrong. I merely said I disagreed with your assumption that drivers were more likely to be hurt in a road accident than suffer an attack by a passenger or passengers? You then said drivers were a hundred times more likely to be hurt in a road accident than be attacked. Your words not mine Tom.
You don't seem to realise that what I was talking about was "speed" and I wasn't trying to determine where the most fatal accidents occurred or how many vehicles travelled on motorways compared to rural and urban roads?
You say you proved most fatalities occur on urban roads But what you didn't prove was that more fatalities were caused by drivers driving at 35 miles an hour on urban roads, or how many of these fatalities were to drivers themselves travelling at 35 miles per hour? I made it quite clear that travelling at 70 mph is a greater risk than travelling at half that speed which is 35 mph. That is what i said.
I didn't mention that more people were killed on motorways compared to any other roads, I only mentioned the fact that travelling at 70 mph was a greater risk than travelling at 35 miles per hour. It was you who brought Motorway and urban fatalities into the equation
What I said was this
I think the reason why Sussex belts up on the Motorway is probably because of the speed he is travelling at.
Being involved in a collision at 70mph is far more likely to prove fatal than travelling at half that speed in an urban or even rural area.
You said
I was wrong.
I think the figure is about 75% of fatalities occur on single carriageway rural roads.
I wondered what 75% of fatalities had to do with my statement that
"travelling at 70 mph is more likely to prove fatal than travelling at 35 miles an hour on a rural or urban road"?
It is obvious You are saying that travelling at 35 miles per hour is far more likely to prove fatal than travelling at 70 mph, that’s fine if you have the figures to back up your assumption but you don't.
Perhaps if you read what I wrote there would be no need to remind you of what I said.
You might wish to reflect back and concentrate your mind on what I said and address the point I raised, which was this.
"Being involved in a collision at 70mph is far more likely to prove fatal than being involved in a collision travelling at half that speed in an urban or even rural area".
Perhaps you can set the record straight and tell me,
“is being involved in a collision at 70 mph likely to prove more fatal than being in a collision travelling at 35 mph"?
It was a simple observation really which shouldn't have been misconstrued by anyone as meaning anything other than what it states.
Regards
JD
Login
Register
FAQ
