h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I should add that this muppet claimed to have been driving illegally for 12 years, since the age of 14.

I'm just catching up with the conversations on this.

Modern thinking is that 'crashes' or 'collisions' is a more accurate way of describing injury incidents. 95% of them are caused by driver error. These include deliberate acts such as speeding, drink/driving, drug/driving, failure to stop for signals etc. and others such as lapses of concentration, misjudgments and poor skills (eg overshooting junctions).

Looked but failed to see it a good description of 'I didn't see him'.

In the UK there are now currently around 3,500 per year. In the 1970s there were over 6,500. Several factors contribute to this, including seatbelt and crash helmet legislation and improved emergency services. There has also been a drop in the percentage of drivers willing to drink and drive, which has now become generally socially unacceptable. The goverment's aim is to make speeding socially unacceptable as well.

Research projects have shown that drivers who deliberately break the law, eg speeding, jumping the lights, close following, drink/driving, etc have a greater accident involvement than those who are merely careless. Older drivers (35-55) are prone to this.

Younger drivers (under 25) have a greater percentage accident involvement than other drivers. The greatest accident involvement is within three years of passing their test. Although their skills may be superior in some cases to older drivers, they do not have developed hazard perception and their reactions are much slower because of this. Improved training and testing requirements would help to remedy this.

There are also distinct differences in the types of accidents that men and women tend to have. On the whole, women are more cautious than men. Men see themselves as much better drivers (although they can be aggressive) and women see themselves as safer drivers and women's involvement in accidents tends to be less serious. I know these are huge generalisations here BTW and that women are becoming more involved in accidents, partly because there are more of them driving now and partly because they are becoming more aggressive in their turn.

I've probably repeated other peoples points here (I know, Captain Kebab - I agree with you) and it's turned into more of a diatribe than I set out to.

Please let me know if you would like statistics (just tell me which)!

Thanks for the info - although I don't think I used the word "accident"

Content updated. Keep making those points! This is not an entry on driving standards, but it will inevitably cover some points about that. Sorry to all those who would like to see more on that - maybe scope for a collaborative entry?

More points - Gatsos are not just speed cameras, they are also red light cameras.

See last comment for numbers of deaths. Although generally speaking targets for year 2000 were met in related to KSI (killed and seriously injured) casualties, the overall number of people went up, which shows in all likelihood that general standards are not going up, although it could be a reflection of the increasing number of motorists on the road.

There's also a debate about encouraging people to use more sustainable methods of transport, ie walking, cycling and public transport, however using the first two tends to bring people into the vulnerable road user category .

I think the entry's looking good.

This entry is looking better, JZG (actually I liked it already) - some of the little tweaks you have added have made a big difference.

Footnote 3 gave me pause for thought. I found myself putting some of my friends into the 3 categories. I hope I'm in none of them.

Hi there,

Just read the recent postings (Great reading. ) and it seems to me there is room there for an entire entry on 'Motroring crashes and collisions' or some such. You'd only need to rejig the posting and it is *already* editable, and I am quite sure there would be plenty more where that came from. Go for it!

I haven't read the updated version of this piece yet (sorry, RL looms large!) but will soon.

Seeya
Spiff

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'The Highway Code'.


This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review Forum because your entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

You can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!

Nice entry.

Seeya
Spiff

I'm pleased it's gone for subbing!

YAY!

(but not before driving )

Stupid time...five hours...USA and UK...I give up.

All right, it, as the message said, has been selected to be entered into the Edited Guide, and will enter the SubEd queue, and the author will recieve an e-mail with the new entry number at the address registered with the BBC.

*Michael Notforyou*
Researcher U113408

Hi folks,

the subbed version of this great entry could be seen at A685235, just in case you're interested.

I've nearly finished subbing, and if you see something you would like to comment upon, please feel free to drop me a note.

Good work!

This article really transformed itself since I saw it last - well done!

I have one rather big concern - please check your Yugoslav War statistic. It's not right at all. My understanding was that a quarter of a million people died in Bosnia alone. The massacre at Srebrenica apparently accounted for a few thousand people in just one day.

Hi Woodpigeon,

thanks for your posting; I would think that the war stats are as ever depending on the author's view - I've done a bit of research in the web and found a figure of approximately 2000 civilian casualties (I hate this word) caused by the allied bombings, thus other war parties' casualties are not counted in these stats. Perhaps this is the figure JZG is referring to.

I'm at the moment tending to drop the whole footnote, because comparing the figures of war deaths with fatal accidents stats are at least a bit controversial, as this conversation has shown. Any objections, anyone?

None from me - a death in war, no matter how it occurs, is as tragic as a car accident death to the families of the bereaved. You can't really slice and dice the stats to prove a point of comparison.

Hmmm. I put it in as useful context. Remember the fuss about Selby and Paddington? More people were killed on the roads before the lines re-opened than in both accidents put together. We all know this, it's a question of bringing home the way that X deaths here are headline news, while >> X deaths on the roads are ignored.

Hi JZG,

I think that this is an important question you raise, and you make your point in saying that more people were killed in accidents than in wars.

But, IMHO, to 'prove' this issue, the footnote isn't really necessary or even counterproductive, as the numbers you quoted are 'discussable'... if you quote statistics that perhaps later prove to be incorrect, then your whole point is nullified. Thus, I'm tending to take the footnote out.