Here's the Dept of Transport report. Motor bike deaths are less than one per day, it seems. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244911/rrcgb2012-00.pdf
[TABLE="width: 746"] [TR] [TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]motorcycle fatalities fell by 9 per cent, [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
Yes, but one per day is such a tiny number statistically that random variations could have a huge effect. The figure could just as easily go up by 10% next year and down by 10% the year after. It is rather like murder stats - you cannot infer valid conclusions from fluctuations in a very small sample.
Stats are fascinating, I find, but only if you get real data. The data that is required here is a graph showing the evolution of fatalities and accidents over say, the last 30 years. Then these figures need to be expressed as a % of the road users of the different types of vehicle. You would also use moving average to show a real trend of one sort or another, assuming there is one. Just having a figure for one year is, as you say, not remotely useful. It's just random "information" - much like if I give you today's spot price for a tonne of sugar. What are you going to be able to do with it? Nothing. The media do nearly all their reporting on this basis, without any analysis. Consequently, it's just noise.
Anyone remember how bad the weather was last year? I expect there were fewer bike hours on the roads than this year. Stay safe
It is a bit like when there is a statistical upward blip in accident rates and a speed camera is installed on the strength of it, then the figures fall to the norm and hey presto the camera has reduced the accident rate.
Is your definition of an "accident" an event where no blame attaches to anyone? Because that is not anybody else's definition.
It's certainly a police definition in Switzerland. If you fall off your bike for whatever reason and the police hear about it - could even be on black ice - you will get done for "perte de maîtrise de véhicule" - "loss of control of the vehicle". At least this is how it is if there is no one else to blame, and even if there is, you sometimes get done for it anyway as in a perfect world, you should have covered off all eventualities. But you're right. Only in Policeland are there no factors of chance or mitigating circumstances. If the police had their way, if you cut yourself peeling an apple, you'd be done for "loss of control of the kitchen knife".
The current logic in industry is that if you investigate an 'accident' you will find a root cause and if a thorough risk assessment had been carried out that root cause would have been identified, mitigated against and the accident prevented. Which is all perfectly OK up to that point. The logic then goes on to say that therefore if we risk assess all jobs correctly we will eliminate all accidents. However this fails to recognise that we are human and part of being human is to make mistakes. So to recognise that all accidents could have been prevented doesn't mean that we can prevent all accidents. But this is not politically acceptable in todays climate.
Have you noticed how climate change no longer melts glaciers, floods pacific islands or drowns polarbears; it now causes human conflict
[h=3][/h][h=1]Accident noun An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury[/h]Oxford Dictionary Better let them know they've accidentally put the wrong definition in the dictionary!
Doesn't exclude blame. I am sorry drove into your child riding their pushbike when they unexpected wobbled in front of me, it certainly was unintentional and very unfortunate.
By a similar argument every crime could have been deterred or prevented, so there should be no crime at all. And if there is any crime, it is the fault of those responsible for failing to deter or prevent it.
Does that make it OK ? Does the driver not have a duty of care in this situation. I believe there is a precedent in law that a cyclist should be expected to wobble and that a driver should make suitable allowances.
That's why RTA's are now called RTC's now.I would expect that this years figures will be worse in some counties.
That's why RTA's are called RTC's now.I would expect that this years figures will be worse in many counties.
