New Mexico trip a bust
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Packing an equalizer
Next: nortons
From: S'mee on 4 Nov 2009 09:54 On Nov 4, 5:57 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 4 Nov, 11:50, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > The Older Gentleman wrote: > > > Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> If you step on a domestic airliner, your odds of dying are about 1 > > >> in 10 million. > > > >> Dying of influenza in a given year: about 1 in 5,000. > > > >> Dying from a car accident: also about 1 in 5,000. > > > > I'd be interested in the source of these stats, because with the USA's > > > population of about 300 million, that means 60,000 people die of the > > > flu every year and I think such an epidemic would have come to the > > > notice of the authorities, don't you? > > > > Same goes for road deaths, too, actually. > > > He's not that far off--about 56,000 die of flu every year and 45,000 in > > motor vehicle accidents. > > > More information on this sort of thing than you could possibly want can be > > found at <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf>. > > Thanks for that. That flu data really surprises me, actually. Makes me > wonder why all the fuss about swine flu if 'ordinary' flu is so nasty. > > As for the vehicle deaths - no, he's well out on that. I got a figure > of about 42,000 deaths for 2007, and that (as Olson says) is one in > over 7,000. That's still a horrendous figure. From memory, the UK road > deaths figure is about 3,000 annually, and with a population of about > 62 million, that means one death in 18,000 or so. Not such bad figures percentage wise. Not compared to years post. No great loss to the nation, to families, yeah I suppose. > <Googles> > > Blimey. No, we're even better than that. Deaths in 2008 fell to a > record low of 2,538 (2,943 in 2007) and our population last year was > 61 million, so that gives us a fatality rate of one in 24,000. > > OK, next question: why is the US road death rate about three and a > half times ours? Actually, I think we did this before, and had an > argument about it being due to the UK citizens being closer to > hospitals. I don't think that will wash with a disparity this big..... Now look up how many Km's of road there is in the US then compare it to the UK total Km's of road. We've more miles of unpaved road than the UK and well I the paved FSVOP is even greater. That's on a per capita basis. > What I would be interested to see is a comparison of our two > countries' drunk-driver related deaths because I suspect that the > USA's will be horrendous, compared with ours.- and do you know why? It's easier to kill the fuckers off than keep them around.
From: Vito on 4 Nov 2009 10:26 "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote Shantideva Spirit <macmi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > OK, next question: why is the US road death rate about three and a > > half times ours? > > Lack of public transportation in the States? [ So Americans *deliberately* drink and drive? Idiot. Shanti has a *partial* grip on the problem. Yes, sadly, some American idiots do drive to their 'sports bars', each time telling themselves they won't get as drunk tonight as they have every night in the past. If they only killed themselves I'd cheer it as Darwinism in action but no - they usually survive, killing others in the process. One such drunk rear ended and killed two motorcyclists who had pulled well of the road. Another hit a preacher head on, killing both him and his family. In both cases the drunk survived with minor injury. Both had previously had multiple DUI convictions and were driving on suspended licenses. Both went to jail for a few months ..... I'd say it is a partial answer to your question. There are many other factors.
From: Shantideva Spirit on 4 Nov 2009 13:20 On Nov 4, 6:50 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 4, 7:28 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Lack of public transportation in the States? > > > So Americans *deliberately* drink and drive? Idiot. Yes, Americans definitely do get drunk and drive and it would be much better if there was more public transportation to get the drunks off the road. You are probably totally unaware of the fact that land developers around the Los Angeles area created a system of cheap public transportation that would carry travellers from downtown L.A. to San Bernardino or to Long Beach or San Pedro for a nickel. If people wanted to travel to San Francisco, they could travel by rail or bus for decades. There was no need to own an automobile during WW2, people couldn't get gasoline or tires anyway, due to rationing. There were electric streetcars and busses in downtown Los Angeles until the early 1960's. Then there was a *conspiracy* of the auto manufacturers and the tire companies to get *everybody* to buy a car. And American families abandoned the inner cities and moved to the quieter suburbs, where housing developers were *conspiring* with banks and loan companies and Federal mortgage guaranteers to build and sell "ticky tacky houses, all in a row" for the equivalent of only two years salary for someone with steady employment. Such suburbs are not zoned for establishments that serve alcohol. While you might have a pub next door in Sutton, I would have to walk or drive a mile to get to the nearest dive bar. Then I would have to find my way back home without being stopped for DUI by the local PD... So, if I'm going to drink a beer, I will drink it at home. The daily commute from suburb to city meant that workers were on the road for two to three hours a day. If they wanted to "blow off steam" after a hard day in the office, they had a choice of going to a bar in the inner city for "happy hour" or buying two or three cans of beer and concealing them in a brown paper "freeway bag" and *drinking while they drove*. Many blue collar workers will consume a six pack of beer between the factory and home, and then they will beat their wives and kids when they arrive. The National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (or whatever it is called) gives grant money to local police departments to conduct DUI checkpoints. The local police will stop 2000 cars and arrest around 75 drivers for driving with a suspended license or a warrant, or they will ticket them for various vehicle registration or safety violations. Since the DUI checkpoints have begun, arrests for DUI are decreasing. Sometimes the checkpoints won't catch a single DUI, so they are working. But the checkpoints do inconvenience thousands of drivers who don't drink and aren't violating other laws. In this way, the government is violating the right of the people to be secure in their persons and person and violating their right to move about the country in pursuit of their own business or pleasure.
From: BrianNZ on 4 Nov 2009 14:47 Shantideva Spirit wrote: > On Nov 4, 6:50 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 7:28 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> Lack of public transportation in the States? >>> So Americans *deliberately* drink and drive? Idiot. > > Yes, Americans definitely do get drunk and drive and it would be much > better if there was more public transportation to get the drunks off > the road. > What an absolute cop out! Learn to drink responsibly.
From: Vito on 4 Nov 2009 16:07
"BrianNZ" <brian(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote | What an absolute cop out! Learn to drink responsibly. Most do. But there are 300 million of us. Pot! Kettle! |