[Closed] Angry commuter - justified??

speed does kill.

Point of order, it's rapid deceleration that kills 😉

so does no speed. In fact it is more commonly the transition from speed to no speed which is the killiest

Point of order, it's rapid deceleration that kills

and rapid acceleration too

we could get very pedantic on this one

Just for a change 🙂

One man's pedantry is another man's essential detail....

we could get very pedantic on this one

see, you say that, but I think, in reality, you lack the skillz

the motivation, but nice goad.

ok, one more try...

the motivation, but nice goad.

Thanks, you can be a go[s]n[/s]ad too.

There is actually some decent research on the stress. Car commuters are more stressed than cycle or public transport commuter - significantly so.

How was this quantified? Were people who drove generally in higher paid, more stressful jobs with greater responsibility? Just a thought....

Anyway, I'd say I was least stressed when I drive to work compared to riding or public transport, and here's why:

1) Nice warm (or cool, as required) car, radio, leave when I want, return when I want.

2) Public transport now impossible as the bus has been rerouted. If I wanted to get to work by public transport I'd now be very stressed, as I wouldn't get there

3) By bike, usually fine, but occasionally one near death experience (they make trucks VERY big down here), and usual fights for space at traffic islands. Also, to avoid the main roads I'm left with two crossings across main roads, which at commuting time take about 5 minutes of standing watching traffic. In the car, I can use the main road without fear of being squashed by a road train.

So despite the fact I usually cycle to work, I'm definitely less stressed when I drive. As for public transport, unilateral changes to routing and timetabling make reliance on it a somewhat tedious exercise.

I might start a workhouse for non-drivers in my barn. Give them a bit of porridge and stuff, let them clean and wax my motors every day. Might chuck in a bail of straw to sleep on.

Gissa job Mista!

Peyote <non-car owner>

Errr, the keyword 'breakdown'. That links to a five line xls table that has summary costs in it. I want to know:

Well you have the same Google I do - if the official Dept of Transport figures aren't good enough then feel free to dig deeper and I'm sure you'll find more detailed breakdowns from the DfT and the Audit Office.

Or show me some figures that say it is actually much cheaper than that.

1. What the net costs are (i.e. after netting off the benefits)

I'm not sure there are any "benefits" in a fatal RTA??

2. What the incremental costs are (not the theroetical maxiums pretending services need to be purchased for every incident when in fact they are sunk costs)

They would only be "sunk costs" because experience determines the overall level of emergency cover they require. Just because they are paid for up front doesn't mean they wouldn't be substantially cheaper if there were no RTAs.

(i.e. an area may have 100 ambulances covering it. But that doesn't mean that calling an ambulance to an RTA is free, because without any RTAs they might only need 70 ambulances for that area).

What tyres for crossing narrow bridges and avoiding angry elderly ladies?

GrahamS - Member

Errr, the keyword 'breakdown'. That links to a five line xls table that has summary costs in it. I want to know:

Well you have the same Google I do - if the official Dept of Transport figures aren't good enough then feel free to dig deeper and I'm sure you'll find more detailed breakdowns from the DfT and the Audit Office.

Or show me some figures that say it is actually much cheaper than that.

Errr, shant. If you blithely quote, you substantiate. I'm not saying they are lower or higher, I just don't believe they are not largely made up. 'Official' cuts no ice. The 'official' dossier on WMD's strike a chord?

1. What the net costs are (i.e. after netting off the benefits)

I'm not sure there are any "benefits" in a fatal RTA??

🙂 I think that was the direct/indirect benefits of the transport industry not the RTA.

2. What the incremental costs are (not the theroetical maxiums pretending services need to be purchased for every incident when in fact they are sunk costs)

They would only be "sunk costs" because experience determines the overall level of emergency cover they require. Just because they are paid for up front doesn't mean they wouldn't be substantially cheaper if there were no RTAs.

(i.e. an area may have 100 ambulances covering it. But that doesn't mean that calling an ambulance to an RTA is free, because without any RTAs they might only need 70 ambulances for that area).

No it doesn't and it also doesn't mean total service provision costs/number of RTA's. We don't know what costs are included in the numbers (incremental, direct, totals etc) as we don't have a breakdown hence the fabled £1m is largely made up though officially so that's alright.

Best not quote numbers if you're not too sure of them. The 'it must be true cos so and so says so' defence is a bit lame even in Primary school 🙂

Errr, shant. If you blithely quote, you substantiate... Best not quote numbers if you're not too sure of them.

I'm sure those are the numbers published by the Department Of Transport and that seems like pretty good substantiation to me.

The table I linked was just the figures, the full thing is Article 2 of this document, which explains a little more summary detail about the figures and cites the methodology used:
[url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2009articles.pdf ]Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2009: Articles 1-7 (PDF 672 kb)[/url]

Feel free to go as deep into that rabbit hole as you like.

Can all the non-drivers please stop posting and report to the workhouse?
Jeeez. These chickens aren't going to muck themselves out.

GrahamS - Member

Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2009: Articles 1-7 (PDF 672 kb)

Feel free to go as deep into that rabbit hole as you like.

Thanks, not very deep as it happens. And I found:

"estimated to be"
"a number of assumptions have been made"
"a broad illustrative figure"

And no offset against any benefits at all. So, made up bollox then.

Incidently, scary stats on bike deaths. 100 people died cycling in 2009, 80% male.

I found

Well done, you found that the estimated average overall cost of an RTA fatality was an estimate. There was me thinking they'd have a precise number. 🙄

not very deep as it happens.

Well if you've already read the cited methodology in [i]Road Accidents Great Britain 1994 (Kate McMahon, Road Safety Division, Department for Transport)[/i] and the cited guidance in [i]Transport Analysis Guidance Unit 3.4.1, The Accident Sub-Objective[/i] and you still have doubts/questions then I suggest you get in contact with a member of the Integrated Transport Economics and Appraisal division at the numbers they give in that article.

And no offset against any benefits at all.

WTF????? It's an estimated figure for the cost of a fatality. You asked where TJ got his £1m+ per RTA death figure from - and that's where.

There are NO BENEFITS to consider offsetting it against. Or are you seriously suggesting we should be saying "Hmmm... those 2,222 deaths and 200,000 injuries cost us X per year, but people having cars generated Y and Y > X so we're all good"???

when GrahamS has a spreadsheet you are bound to loose here speaketh the voice of experience 😳

Graham if he has found that an estimate makes assumption and still insists on wanting a "benefit" to death I fear it may take you longer with them than with me
Good luck

Don't be silly Dear.

There are benefits to society of having a modern road based transport system not least of which are employment, wealth, distribution of goods, availability of food, mobility of the population etc.

The 'value' of these benefits needs to be offset against the 'cost' of providing the 'service'. One of the 'costs' is the people that need scraping up. I.e. your made up £1m per body 'stat'.

Looking at this through a one sided telescope (eh?) does not result in a balanced view. Which is my point.

The numbers have been created by the Govt to illustrate a point. They are based on estimates, assumptions and are broadly illustative. THEY ARE NOT FACTS. So stop trotting them out as if they are. Please.

BTW, I actually asked for a breakdown of that £1m. I know the number, it's been trotted out for years (since 1997, that's how accurate it is) and TJ actually quoted it as the cost of 'premature deaths' not RTA's. Incidently, your references cites the cost varying from £0.75m - £1.25m in 1997. They chose the mid point (why?) and then apparently adjusted to reflect 2009 prices. That's how accurate the 'facts' are.

There are benefits to society of having a modern road based transport system not least of which are employment, wealth, distribution of goods, mobility of the population etc.

Of course. I don't recall saying otherwise.

The 'value' of these benefits needs to be offset against the 'cost' of providing the 'service'. One of the 'costs' is the people that need scraping up. I.e. your made up £1m per body 'stat'.

**** me! So you [u]are[/u] actually saying that if the financial costs of deaths and injuries is less than the profit then it's all okay?

Jeeeebus, I'm not sure I have an answer for that one!

In what other UK industry would it be acceptable to kill or seriously injure 26,912 people in one year, 2,671 of which are children, as long as you turned a decent profit?

*Coughs*

If we vented this torrent internet rage at the Department of Transport for failing to reduce the cost of public transport so as to make it a viable alternative to driving for those of us who live in rural areas then maybe folks wouldn't use their cars so often?

Just sayin'...

No rage here, just discussion.

Graham. No, I'm not saying it's OK. I'm not even discussing the death/injury point. Of course it's pi$$ poor that even 1 person dies on the road but they aren't helped by people trotting out falsehoods.

I'm saying the value of the benefits affects the nominal cost of an RTA.

Unfortunately, it's not correct to debit the downside without crediting the upside. That's what the £1m esitmate is doing and is both made up (being a broad illustration) and logically flawed. People keep repeating it as if it's as reliable as the sticker on a tin of peas in Sainsbury's. I'm afraid, it's not.

they aren't helped by people trotting out falsehoods

You've offered no evidence that it is a falsehood, only that it is an estimate. If you can offer better estimate or methodology I'm sure the DfT would like to hear it. And so would I.

In the breakdown they give in that spreadsheet I'd say "Human Costs" is probably the most hand-wavey point. The others they give (Lost output, Medical/Ambulance. Police, Insurance and Admin, Damage to Property) are probably a bit easier to get hard figures for. So you could start there.

Unfortunately, it's not correct to debit the downside without crediting the upside.

I'm not trying to make a "balance of costs" argument here.
I'm just explaining the background behind the figure, which you and others were questioning.

The "balance of costs" stuff comes from much earlier in the thread where TJ asserted that if you consider indirect costs (like the cost of RTAs) then motorists don't cover all their own costs through VED and Fuel Duty and thus they are effectively subsidised by the non-motorists.

That's his argument though - take it up with him.

I'm sorry Graham, we're getting nowhere with this.

The number you are quoting is fundamentally flawed if you insist on quoting the downside and ignoring the upside. It's not the net cost which is what it is generally being portrayed as though now you are qualifying your position on that in this debate.

Why anyone would want to just consider the cost (dubious and falacious as it is) of something without considering the income side beats me and is just plain wrong.

Ask an accountant to explain credits and debits and you'll get a grasp of why this is so wide of the mark.

On the topic of are any deaths acceptable in an economic argument... If they're not they why calculate it?

As for industries killing children.....chimney sweeping, coal mining, cotton weaving. All popular career choices for the under 14's round my way.

Why anyone would want to just consider the cost (dubious and falacious as it is) of something without considering the income side beats me and is just plain wrong.

As I said the original reason that number was raised was because we were debating whether the income from VED + Fuel Duty covered all the costs or whether non-motorists subsidised motorists.

I've simply tried to move the debate forward by giving figures for the annual income from VED and Fuel Duty, costs for annual road expenditure and by clarifying where the £1.6m per RTA death figure came from.

I'd welcome further figures if that's where you want to take the debate (accurate figures of course - no estimates 😉 )

On the topic of are any deaths acceptable in an economic argument... If they're not they why calculate it?

I believe the calculation is actually made to justify spending on Road Safety campaigns (i.e. spend [i]this[/i] much, we reduce deaths by [i]this[/i] much, so overall it doesn't [i]really[/i] cost us anything).

GrahamS - Member

As I said the original reason that number was raised was because we were debating whether the income from VED + Fuel Duty covered all the costs or whether non-motorists subsidised motorists.

I've simply tried to move the debate forward by giving figures for the annual income from VED and Fuel Duty, costs for annual road expenditure and by clarifying where the £1.6m per RTA death figure came from.

Naaah, that's great thanks. Good to have 7 pages based on spurious data.

Bit pointless really if the base costs are wrong. What sort of conclusions can be drawn if the data is questionable?

To be fair, my main gripe is the figure being floated as fact (well it is 'generally accepted' dontchaknow) when it's nothing more than a badly constructed guess.

I'm slightly amused you can dismiss an educated estimate based on research as "spurious", but can hand-wavingly talk about the income generated by cars without any figures at all to back it up.

To be fair, my main gripe is the figure being floated as fact (well it is 'generally accepted' dontchaknow) when it's nothing more than a badly constructed guess.

It IS generally accepted though - have a Google - I didn't see any of the motoring lobby groups disputing this figure.

Even if you halve that slightly vague "Human Costs" figure, you're still left with over £1.1m per RTA fatality.

I could do it for less. Cheap car, sweep up the mess, run over / drive into a doley and take their lifeless corpse to the hospital myself.

I reckon if I hit them in the soft bits I could creep in below my insurance excess, never mind £1.1m.

Some people today just want gold-plated everything. Including RTA's.

The number you are quoting is fundamentally flawed if you insist on quoting the downside and ignoring the upside. It's not the net cost which is what it is generally being portrayed as though now you are qualifying your position on that in this debate. Why anyone would want to just consider the cost (dubious and falacious as it is) of something without considering the income side beats me and is just plain wrong.

<sigh> But they are not real, incremental costs... They are 'broad illustrations' based on 'assumptions' and 'estimates'. They don't recognise that a large proportion of the support infrastructure would exist regardless of how many 999 calls there are. If they are 'real', who gets sent the bill for the £1m?

I'm not claiming the numbers are high or low. I don't know what they are but I'm not presenting them as 'generally accepted' facts which is what has happened earlier in this thread.

I couldn't care less if they are 'generally accepted', it doesn't make them right does it? I'll cite my WMD dossier example. That was 'generally accepted' as correct and proved to be total cobblers.

hey don't recognise that a large proportion of the support infrastructure would exist regardless of how many 999 calls there are. If they are 'real', who gets sent the bill for the £1m?

Did you actually look at the breakdown in that spreadsheet? The Medical, Ambulance and Police costs only accounted for £11 million of the £3,680 million pa for RTA fatalities.

The main contributors were Lost Output: £1,230 million and Human Costs: £2,420 million - neither of which would "exist regardless".

Complaining that an estimate is an estimate is just silly if you object come up with a better one with a well researched base.

Ok, here's a better one, it's much like the one before, but I don't put a financial value on the distress it causes family members. Already the figure is lower and less spurious

Lost Output: £1,230 million and Human Costs: £2,420 million

Can you explain those categories? how does a death result in a loss of 1.23 million output? Also, what are Human Costs?

Can you explain those categories?

I can try but you might be better off reading [url= http://www2.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2009articles.pdf ]the article they came from[/url].

how does a death result in a loss of 1.23 million output?

It doesn't. That's the estimated loss of output from all 2,222 RTA deaths that year, where the article defines [i]"Loss of output due to injury. This is calculated as the present value of the expected loss of earnings, plus non-wage payments made by employers."[/i]

Also, what are Human Costs?

The article says [i]"The human costs of casualties. These are based on willingness to pay to avoid pain, grief and suffering to the casualty, relatives and friends, as well as intrinsic loss of enjoyment of life in the case of fatalities."[/i]

As I said this one seems a little woolly and I'd like to see a clearer definition.

So 'wooly' = made up then? 🙂

Half it and and you still end up with £1m+ per death.

This is calculated as the present value of the expected loss of earnings, plus non-wage payments made by employers.

Ahhh, the 'TJ lets half the number we made up' approach 🙂 Niiiice.

Tell you what, let's keep halfing it to see how low we can go.

I can try but you might be better off reading the article they came from.

Why is that? Are you unclear about them?

These are based on willingness to pay to avoid pain, grief and suffering to the casualty, relatives and friends, as well as intrinsic loss of enjoyment of life in the case of fatalities."

So, these are just imaginary costs, there is no actual loss to the economy, no actual money.

Come on Tim! Oooh errrr 😳

That's the estimated loss of output from all 2,222 RTA deaths that year, where the article defines "Loss of output due to injury. This is calculated as the present value of the expected loss of earnings, plus non-wage payments made by employers.

and here you've conflated death and injury

Motorcyclists have the highest fatality rate of any road user group. In 2009, 145
motorcyclists were killed per billion vehicle miles. However, this is 6 per cent lower than
in 2008 and 25 per cent below the 1994-98 average

Does this mean we can blame chaps like this one?

Still - I only have hundreds of thousands of miles over decades on motorcycles - what do I know.