84 yr old wrong way on motorway

iolanthe07

My driving test in 1963 was an absolute farce. It lasted less than 20 minutes and I have a feeling that I only passed because the examiner wanted dropping off at the library and I had to be legal to drive back to the test centre on my own. I think those of us who passed so long ago might benefit from some sort of assessment.

Richard53

A._Badger wrote: »

Would you care to expand on that, please? Read one way it implies that you have misunderstood the point I was making.

Reading your responses to others, I realise I did take it the wrong way - I thought you were blaming motorcyclists for being the victim of too many accidents.


I think what you are driving at is that banning bikes would remove the group who is statistically most likely to be in a serious of fatal accident, and thus reduce the accident figures more than by removing any other group. However, I don't think that is right either. Worldwide, 23% of road deaths occur to motorcyclists, whereas 31% are car occupants:


http://www.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78256/1/9789241564564_eng.pdf


So, if you want to reduce the number of deaths quickly, ban cars.

arcon5

sacsquacco wrote: »

I wouldn`t be surprised if this old lad was taking a prescription pain killer such as "Lyrica " real name Pregabalin . Its a common pain killer initially developed for epilepsy control but now used as a pain killer alongside morphine.
Pregabalin side effects are confusion . My partner now takes it a lot and she is away with the fairies after taking 200mg ! Its worse than morphine !

LOL
This has gotta be the strangest post I've ever seen around here. We're now taking guesses at what tablets the man may be taking :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Car_54

Richard53 wrote: »

Reading your responses to others, I realise I did take it the wrong way - I thought you were blaming motorcyclists for being the victim of too many accidents.


I think what you are driving at is that banning bikes would remove the group who is statistically most likely to be in a serious of fatal accident, and thus reduce the accident figures more than by removing any other group. However, I don't think that is right either. Worldwide, 23% of road deaths occur to motorcyclists, whereas 31% are car occupants:


http://www.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78256/1/9789241564564_eng.pdf


So, if you want to reduce the number of deaths quickly, ban cars.

Banning cars wouldn't necessarily reduce the number of deaths: it would depend upon what we replaced them with. Motorbikes?

Although AFAIK there are no reliable stats, the accident rates in the days of horse-drawn transport were probably no better than now.

Stuart107

Car_54 wrote: »

Although AFAIK there are no reliable stats, the accident rates in the days of horse-drawn transport were probably no better than now.

This http://www.uctc.net/access/30/Access%2030%20-%2002%20-%20Horse%20Power.pdf PDF suggests that for New York and Chicago, at least, the fatality rates were considerably worse. The other effects and consequences of all those horses doesn't make for pleasant reading, either!

Richard53

Car_54 wrote: »

Banning cars wouldn't necessarily reduce the number of deaths: it would depend upon what we replaced them with. Motorbikes?

Absolutely. I only said that to point out that I thought Mr Badger's point was over-simplistic. If you banned motorcycles overnight, then all those people would revert to other forms of transport, mostly cars. That would massively increase congestion, which would likely increase the accident rate.

Car_54

Richard53 wrote: »

Absolutely. I only said that to point out that I thought Mr Badger's point was over-simplistic. If you banned motorcycles overnight, then all those people would revert to other forms of transport, mostly cars. That would massively increase congestion, which would likely increase the accident rate.

If they each bought a car it would increase the (non motorbike) vehicle parc by 3.6% - hardly massive.