Another Slant On Road Accidents

[Lonan3]

Link To Article

 

Researchers examining coroners' reports from Sussex between 1485 and 1688 found 30 per cent of deaths were a result of injury involving travelling on land.

Accidents included falling into ditches and being hit by a horse and cart.

The study found 413 of around 1,000 adult inquests involved unintentional injuries, with 124 from land travel.

Of those, eight died when falling from horses and carts, while 43 were the result of falling from farm wagons.

Despite centuries of advances in road safety, the research indicates the proportion of road travel accidents has stayed consistent.

Figures from the World Health Organisation show that a quarter of injury deaths in 2000 were as a result of road crashes.

In 2007, there were 182,115 road accidents involving personal injury. Of these, 27,036 involved death or serious injury.

While travel may have been slower back in the times of Elizabeth I, poor health, unsafe roads and badly-made carts contributed to constant road-related problems.

Professor Elizabeth Towner, from the University of the West of England, who conducted the research, told the Daily Mail: "One continuity is the hazardous nature of travel.

"Movement across the landscape has always exposed humans to injury risk, and changing forms of transport do not seem to have altered that basic fact: just the type of risk."

 

So, this appears to be saying that, no matter what improvements we make to our vehicles and roads, no matter what restrictions we impose and no matter what safety features we introduce, the best that can be hoped for is a drop of a tiny percentage in terms of accidents, injuries and fatalities.

Also, despite the almost incalculable increase in traffic and an equal increase in the speed of such travel things are, perhaps, no worse than they ever were.

[Chinahand]

Isn't the point that 400 odd years ago transport was a trivial part of life. Most people never left their villages, few goods moved far from where they where made, cottage industries provided to their own locale.

 

Nowadays people have massive mobility, goods rumble all over the country and the world. Journeys which would have been a huge expedition 400 years ago are now a quick trip upto the big smoke or whatever.

 

Even with this huge increase in the movement of both people and goods the dangers involved haven't really changed. In other word there has been a massive increase in safety per journey or per mile travelled or whatever.

 

I'm slightly surprised that there hasn't been a bigger increase - people and/or the authorities tend to attempt to mitigate risks to what they see as an acceptable level - 400 years ago death rates were much much higher than today - people had to accept much higher risks in life.

 

Death rates which would have been acceptable then are not acceptable now - so having an approximately constant proportion of deaths would seem to show that people's tolerance of risk hasn't decreased particularly.

 

Some people go on about instead of air bags, the carmakers should fit big spikes onto car steering wheels. They seem to think that would make people be more careful. I think that's bull - I'd bet death rates would be about the same, but that people would drive much slower, not undertake as much travel - the same number of deaths would occur, but in a much more limited transport world.

 

What Lonan3 has put up seems to confirm that. When we have more opportunities we take them and use those advantages to expand our environment. Risks still exist and deaths do occur, but we are able to do so much more for those sacrifices.

 

For me that is what progress is!

[LQQ]

The only problem I have with this is the lack of real comparison and the missing data.

 

These are no figures from 1688 – 2000

The figures from 1485-1688 cover West Sussex whilst the 2000 & 2007 figures cover an unspecified area.

 

The historical data shows that from ‘around’ 1,000 inquests 413 were the result of injury and 124 from land travel.

The figure from 2007 shows that there were 182,115 road accidents of which 27,036 resulted in death - it doesn’t say out of how many total deaths or how many deaths as a result of injury were involved.

There are no figures given from the year 2000 just that the WHO said 25% of deaths relate to Road Accidents.

[manshimajin]

So, this appears to be saying that, no matter what improvements we make to our vehicles and roads, no matter what restrictions we impose and no matter what safety features we introduce, the best that can be hoped for is a drop of a tiny percentage in terms of accidents, injuries and fatalities.

Also, despite the almost incalculable increase in traffic and an equal increase in the speed of such travel things are, perhaps, no worse than they ever were.

In fact there is some evidence that 'improvements' sometimes have the reverse effect and make things more dangerous. I read in a book on road safety about an experiment in the UK. When the centre white lines on crowded roads were removed they found that people drove with much more care - obvious in a way.

[Sebrof]

So, this appears to be saying that, no matter what improvements we make to our vehicles and roads, no matter what restrictions we impose and no matter what safety features we introduce, the best that can be hoped for is a drop of a tiny percentage in terms of accidents, injuries and fatalities.

Also, despite the almost incalculable increase in traffic and an equal increase in the speed of such travel things are, perhaps, no worse than they ever were.

In fact there is some evidence that 'improvements' sometimes have the reverse effect and make things more dangerous. I read in a book on road safety about an experiment in the UK. When the centre white lines on crowded roads were removed they found that people drove with much more care - obvious in a way.

 

People also drive faster when wearing a seatbelt, apparently, thus increasing the risk to others while mitigating their own.

 

Road deaths in the UK were well over 10,000 a year when I was a lad. So there's been a massive improvement there (the figure was nearer 3,000 in 2007).

 

S

[manshimajin]

So, this appears to be saying that, no matter what improvements we make to our vehicles and roads, no matter what restrictions we impose and no matter what safety features we introduce, the best that can be hoped for is a drop of a tiny percentage in terms of accidents, injuries and fatalities.

Also, despite the almost incalculable increase in traffic and an equal increase in the speed of such travel things are, perhaps, no worse than they ever were.

In fact there is some evidence that 'improvements' sometimes have the reverse effect and make things more dangerous. I read in a book on road safety about an experiment in the UK. When the centre white lines on crowded roads were removed they found that people drove with much more care - obvious in a way.

 

People also drive faster when wearing a seatbelt, apparently, thus increasing the risk to others while mitigating their own.

 

Road deaths in the UK were well over 10,000 a year when I was a lad. So there's been a massive improvement there (the figure was nearer 3,000 in 2007).

 

S

No doubt about that. I guess that the reality is there is no 'silver bullet'. Seat belts front and back by keeping occupants inside the car in an accident are probably the single most effective safety feature in my lifetime. But it was interesting that the research indicated that people drove better in more challenging situations because, presumably, they took more care. Northern Ireland which has the least crowded roads has the highest pro rata level of fatalities and injuries in the UK - maybe the increasing gridlock on 'mainland' UK roads helps?