Planet Visitor II wrote:
> "Michael" wrote in message
> news:JRDWh.17696$M.17510@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> Planet Visitor II wrote:
>>
>>> "B J Foster" wrote in message
>>> news:462a8212$0$16554$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>>> PJ O'Donovan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:21 pm, B J Foster wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> PJ O'Donovan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR200...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>>>>> PJ>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> < Road fatalities in the US are double Australia, NZ, UK and Sweden.
>>>>>
>>>>> BJ>
>>>>>
>>>>> DOUBLE?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety#The_scale_of_the_problem
>>>>>
>>>>> year 2003 KILLED per 1 BILLION Veh·km
>>>>>
>>>>> Australia 8.0
>>>>>
>>>>> New Zealand 12.4
>>>>>
>>>>> United Kingdom 7.6
>>>>>
>>>>> Sweden 8.3
>>>>>
>>>>> The United States 9.4
>>>>>
>>>>> Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy. Japan Austria, Iceland,
>>>>> Belgium, Slovenia, Korea, Greece, Czech Rep, Sovak Rep all have
>>>>> higher
>>>>> rates than the US.
>>>>>
>>>>> source: International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD); all
>>>>> countries listed with overall fatality rates
>>>>>
>>>> Amongst OECD countries, only the US normally uses this benchmark
>>>> probably
>>>> because it is the only benchmark where the US can attain a
>>>> reasonable score.
>>>> It is _not_ widely applicable because the UK and Sweden do not have
>>>> billions
>>>> of km of safe, wide-open spaces travelled by road trains.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ??????????????? I would venture to say that the safety rate per km
>>> is much superior in the European train system compared to the
>>> dilapidated American train infrastructure, which is a national
>>> disgrace.
>>>
>>> While what should be obvious to the most simple mind is that the
>>> rail system in any country cannot be used to compare safety rates
>>> for vehicles. If the rail system were used exclusively for all
>>> travel,
>>> the vehicle safety rate would obviously be zero accidents because
>>> there would be zero vehicle miles driven, but that would say nothing
>>> about the safety of motor vehicle travel in that country, even if
>>> the country
>>> held a population of 20 billion, since they would ALL travel by rail.
>>>
>>>> Fatalities per 100,000 population
>>>> Australia 7.9
>>>> Canada 8.8
>>>> USA 14.9
>>>
>>>
>>> A meaningless statistic. If 100,000 Americans each drive 10,000
>>> miles per
>>> year, and 100,000 Australians each drive 50 miles per year, do you
>>> really argue that the fact that those 100,000 Australians have only
>>> half
>>> the fatalities of those 100,000 Americans is statistically significant?
>>>
>>> While Canada and Australia have a very small advantage when
>>> using the correct statistics, it is not nearly as bleak as you paint
>>> it.
>>> Denmark, New Zealand, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Germany and
>>> France all have higher rates when the OECD uses the correct
>>> statistic of VMT/VKmT Rate (2003). See --
>>> http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm
>>>
>>> The point is -- You cannot use POPULATION figures. You must
>>> use mileage figures. Or you have based your argument upon a false
>>> premise. The premise that the average Australian drives as many miles
>>> per year as the average American. And we know that is not true. Are
>>> you so dense that you cannot understand that the more miles driven
>>> by a particular vehicle, the more there is the possibility of that
>>> vehicle
>>> being in an accident? If it is not driven it obviously cannot be in an
>>> accident.
>>>
>>> The only real criteria to measure vehicle accident rates is through the
>>> use of accidents per some number of miles driven. Generally using
>>> number of accidents per millions of miles (km) driven or even billions
>>> of miles (km) driven. This is not rocket science, B.J.
>>>
>>>> i.e "double"*
>>>> *
>>>> Adopting benchmarks which make you look better whilst ignoring
>>>> benchmarks
>>>> which reflect reality is a dangerous idea.
>>>
>>>
>>> Heh.. creating fantasy statistics is not a good way to argue a point.
>>>
>>>> I trust that the good citizens of the US will take this up with your
>>>> government.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Planet Visitor II
>>> Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
>>> http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
>>>
>> God I hate it when people don't even know what they are talking about,
>
>
> Well, then you should learn to take your foot out of your mouth before
> talking, my son.
>
>> A ROAD TRAIN does not run on rails, it is a train ON THE ROAD, which
>> obviously does make it a little more hazardous for the the other road
>> users,
>> confusing, well that Australia for you lol.
>
>
> While I missed the implication in BJ's argument, I am well aware of
> what a
> "road train" is in respect to the Australian roadways having motor
> vehicles
> that are incredibly long, used to travel on very empty roadways through
> the outback.
ROTFL
Wait for the "but".
Shucks, I snipped it |