Had an accident in my Miata. Selling it on Ebay if anyone is interested.

"Leon van Dommelen" > wrote in message
...
> >The US has an average-to-below-average number of road deaths per
population,
>
> According to your first source, the OECD median is 11, the US is 15.2.
> I would not call that average to below average. The only two higher
> in the table are Poland and Korea. I would not call those two
> fair comparison material, would you?

That was a typo. I mean average-to-above-average.

> If I look at your second data, taking the latest year, 2002, it seems much
> the same. The US at 14.9, the UK at 6.1 deaths, as is the Netherlands,
> BTW. Worse than the US are only Korea, Portugal, Poland, and Greece.

See other reply. UK is a small country with low speed roads, few miles
driven and limited trucking. Their accident rate is therefore pretty bad for
the environment.

> Not exactly what I would call fair comparison material, though I have not
> driven in any of those four countries. However, I did drive in Italy,
> and that the death rate of the timid US drivers would outnumber that
> of the aggressive Italians by 27% is just a joke.

Small countries = low speeds.

-John

"Generic" > wrote in message
m...
> > If I look at your second data, taking the latest year, 2002, it seems
much
> > the same. The US at 14.9, the UK at 6.1 deaths, as is the Netherlands,
> > BTW. Worse than the US are only Korea, Portugal, Poland, and Greece.
>
> See other reply. UK is a small country with low speed roads, few miles
> driven and limited trucking. Their accident rate is therefore pretty bad
for
> the environment.

One other thought, look at it this way.

It takes only a 5 second lapse for a person to get into an accident. More
hours behind the wheel provides more chances for getting tired, distracted
or disoriented. The death per miles driven numbers suggest that may be the
root problem.

-John

When it comes to what car is suitable to do what, I think it boils down to
the fact that some people like to talk about life, analysing every detail,
carrying out risk assessment etc.
Other just like to live life the best they can making do with what they've
got mate.



"Leon van Dommelen" > wrote in message
...
> "gixer" > wrote:
>
>>Never driven in Jakarta
>>But Athens is definitely worse than Rotterdam and Brussels, I have never
>>had
>>any problem in Paris, usually if your on the ring road you at 5kmh or
>>slower
>
> I was more thinking of the city centers, not the highways around them.
> But it has been many years since I was there, maybe it has finally
> frozen up. I still remember the high-speed multiple lane changes
> without looking.
>
>>anyways, Rome is pretty bad, because the climate is warmer like Greece
>>scooters are very popular, they are the main worry from my experiences.
>>I would honestly say that Athens traffic and standard of driving is worse
>>than all, the only one that comes close in my opinion is Rome, but then a
>>fellow worker was over here for the Olympics he hired a car out but only
>>drove it once, scared him half to death, so that clutches it for me,
>>
>>> The most challenging part of driving in SF is apparently the hills.
>>> That is, if you have a manual. We have had at least one SF Miata
>>> owner here whining that a manual Miata was just not possible in SF.
>>> I drove some in SF myself, but did not see anything steeper than
>>> you can find in mountainous Holland.
>>
>>I've been to SF many times, my main office is there, what complete rubbish
>>the hills are not that bad, Lombard is a farce its no steeper than the
>>roads
>>around it, If you can't do a hill start in a manual you shouldn't be
>>driving
>>one in my opinion,
>>In fact with the ability to modulate the clutch I think I would prefer a
>>manual in hilly areas, I find in my Auto on slippy hills it is difficult
>>to
>>get the power down when pulling from a standstill, you have to apply some
>>power before releasing the brake otherwise the car rolls back, but if you
>>apply to much you get wheel spin, a manual is far easier to control.
>
> Can't say I have had much trouble, but then I only drive an automatic
> if I need a rental. Never had much problem taking my foot of the
> brake while giving gas, but maybe I did not have hills steep enough
> or cars underpowered enough.
>
>>Where I live in Athens is up the side of a mountain, there are not as many
>>hilly roads but what hilly roads there are, they are steeper and narrower,
>>only difference is that the road surfaces are that bad here that when it
>>rains not even 4x4's can get up most the steeper hills.
>>My Mrs has a 1.4 Renault Megane, if the AC is on the car does not have
>>enough power to make it up the hill!!!
>>
>>There are a bunch of guys from the local Miata club driving to Finland and
>>back this summer, I thought of all the guys on here saying the Miata was
>>no
>>good for large distance travelling, bought a smile to my face.
>>It's extremely weird how general perceptions differ in different parts of
>>the world, I have never met anyone with a Miata in Europe that would think
>>of taking any other car on a tour, I am sure they are out there just I've
>>never met one.
>
> Pet peeve of mine is Americans constantly telling me how small the
> Miata is. Even while it is a giant compared to the 60's sports
> cars it was supposed to emulate, and a lot bigger than a typical
> 4 seater passenger car in Holland used to be too, I think.
>
> Leon
>
> --
> Leon van Dommelen Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .)
> http://www.dommelen.net/miata
> EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen)

Sorry guys I just have to rant again.

> Small countries = low speeds.
I will take a wild guess that you have not travelled much then mate,

> See other reply. UK is a small country with low speed roads, few miles
> driven and limited trucking. Their accident rate is therefore pretty bad
> for
> the environment.
What complete and utter rubbish, granted the UK has grown more speed camera
infested over the past 5 years or so, but funnily enough even with thousands
more speed cameras the death rates have gone up.
Where the hell do you think up such rubbish from?
How the hell do you judge a countries roads, speed limits and "Low speed
roads" by its size, Germany is even smaller but has many (fewer each year)
speed restriction free Autobahns.
And where did you pluck the assumption that people in the UK drive few
miles?
Limited trucking?

Guys it has been proven time and time again, speed has nothing to do with
accident rates, bad driving does.


Cheers Mark



"Generic" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Leon van Dommelen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >The US has an average-to-below-average number of road deaths per
> population,
>>
>> According to your first source, the OECD median is 11, the US is 15.2.
>> I would not call that average to below average. The only two higher
>> in the table are Poland and Korea. I would not call those two
>> fair comparison material, would you?
>
> That was a typo. I mean average-to-above-average.
>
>> If I look at your second data, taking the latest year, 2002, it seems
>> much
>> the same. The US at 14.9, the UK at 6.1 deaths, as is the Netherlands,
>> BTW. Worse than the US are only Korea, Portugal, Poland, and Greece.
>
> See other reply. UK is a small country with low speed roads, few miles
> driven and limited trucking. Their accident rate is therefore pretty bad
> for
> the environment.
>
>> Not exactly what I would call fair comparison material, though I have not
>> driven in any of those four countries. However, I did drive in Italy,
>> and that the death rate of the timid US drivers would outnumber that
>> of the aggressive Italians by 27% is just a joke.
>
> Small countries = low speeds.
>
> -John
>
>

But then again someone that drives a lot usually becomes a better driver,
just look outside your local school during collection time, all the 4x4's 2
years old with 5k on the clock, yet show me one without a dent.

It is a complete waste of time sitting behind your desk, making sweeping
statements and generalisations, at the end of the day there is no such word
as accident, it is just a word that we tend to use to avoid blame, when
someone is involved in an "accident" then it means someone somewhere was to
blame.

All this talk about hours spent in cars and speed driven and my personal
favourite size of a country is complete and utter rubbish, the url we looked
at had a higher per capita death rate in Portugal and Greece, 2 pretty small
countries in comparison, so where does that leave the argument of small
country=slow speed? India is one of the slowest places I have been, it takes
hours to get only 50 miles, yet it is one of the biggest countries in the
world.

I am all for free speech but at least try to gather some correct information
and hopefully try to get a few facts straight before you press send.


Cheers Mark.



"Generic" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Generic" > wrote in message
> m...
>> > If I look at your second data, taking the latest year, 2002, it seems
> much
>> > the same. The US at 14.9, the UK at 6.1 deaths, as is the Netherlands,
>> > BTW. Worse than the US are only Korea, Portugal, Poland, and Greece.
>>
>> See other reply. UK is a small country with low speed roads, few miles
>> driven and limited trucking. Their accident rate is therefore pretty bad
> for
>> the environment.
>
> One other thought, look at it this way.
>
> It takes only a 5 second lapse for a person to get into an accident. More
> hours behind the wheel provides more chances for getting tired, distracted
> or disoriented. The death per miles driven numbers suggest that may be the
> root problem.
>
> -John
>
>

"Generic" > wrote:

>
>"Leon van Dommelen" > wrote in message
>news
>> >The critical column is 2nd from the right, persons killed per 100 million
>> >vehicle km travelled. The US is tied for the lowest rate (of those
>> >available), and better than France, Germany, Japan or Switzerland.
>>
>> I do not agree. The critical column is deaths per 100,000
>> population. How likely are you to die from a traffic accident
>> is clearly the bottom line.
>
>Not at all!!
>
>Look at it this way. The UK is the size of just one US state, so
>hypothetically driving may be something like this:
>
>UK: Perhaps 200 trips per year to work (and home) over a 5 mile distance.
>
>US: Perhaps 200 trips per year to work (and home) over a 15 mile distance.
>
>The death rate per hour in the car is the same if the UK has 5 deaths per
>population versus 15 in the US.

Seems to make my point exactly. *You* might not mind having three
times the chance of dying before you time, but I and other people do.

Miles driven is not a safety concern. It is a count for time lost
and fun had, if in a Miata, but has nothing to do with me being
concerned about safety.

I can exaggerate the numbers to make this clear. Suppose
in the US I have to drive 100,000 mi a year to work and have a
50% chance of dying doing it. While in the UK I have to drive
10 miles for a 0.005% chance of dying.

Should I be equally concerned, as you suggest, since the deaths
per mile is the same? Few would agree with you. Most would
prefer the 0.005% chance of dying above the 50%.

Suppose the number of dangerous situations encountered in the
10 UK miles is the same as in the 100,000 US miles because of
the 10,000 times greater density of the UK. Should I wonder
about the competency of me as a US driver, if I have a 10,000
times larger chance of killing myself in an dangerous situation
than the driver in the UK? Or should I do as you do and say:
"Not to worry, deaths per mile are the same, so no further
drivers education is needed."?

In short, while as an aerospace engineer, I love to quote
accidents per passenger mile to show aviation is safer than
driving, that does not mean I believe that sort of thing
when my own safety is concerned. For one thing, people
would not drive from NY to Amsterdam if they do not want to
take the plane; they would take a boat.

>Or.
>
>UK: Average driver take 100 trips per year.
>
>US: Average driver goes 300 trips per year.

The greater expanse of the US suggests longer trips, not
more trips for the increased mileage. Nor would more trips
directly imply an increase in challenge on drivers' skills.
There is still the larger available space.

>The death rate is the same: 5 per pop in the UK equals 15 per pop in the US.
>
>Wouldn't you EXPECT truck drivers to have a higher death rate than average
>drivers?
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5312a3.htm
>
>"During 1992--2001, fatal work-related roadway crashes most often involved
>collisions of vehicles (6,593 [49%]), followed by single-vehicle incidents
>that did not involve a collision with another vehicle or with a pedestrian
>(e.g., rollovers) (3,492 [26%]), and collisions between a vehicle and a
>stationary object (2,369 [18%]). Vehicles most commonly occupied by fatally
>injured workers were semi-trucks (3,780 [28%]), cars (3,140 [24%]), other
>and unspecified trucks (2,359 [18%]), and pickup trucks (1,607 [12%]). The
>annual number of deaths of pickup truck occupants increased 96%, and deaths
>of semi-truck occupants increased 49%. Deaths of car occupants decreased 33%
>(Figure).
>
>The transportation, communications, and public utilities industries, which
>include commercial trucking, had the largest number and rate of roadway
>deaths (4,358 deaths; 4.6 per 100,000 FTE workers) (Table 1). The services
>industry accounted for the second highest number of deaths (1,884) but had a
>low fatality rate (0.5). The construction; public administration; wholesale
>trade; agriculture, forestry, and fishing; and mining industries all had
>higher death rates than the overall rate for workers (1.1), ranging from 1.7
>to 3.4 (Table 1).
>
>Occupations in which the largest numbers of roadway deaths occurred were
>transportation and material moving (6,212 deaths; 11.1 per 100,000 FTE
>workers). These occupations accounted for 47% of all work-related roadway
>fatalities (Table 2). Truck drivers, who are classified within
>transportation and material-moving occupations, accounted for 5,375 deaths
>(17.6), the highest number and rate for any single occupation. "

Obviously, it would have been more decisive if you had given us
international comparisons of nonprofessional traffic accidents
only. But you did not, probably since there are no such data
from most countries. I have to draw conclusions on what I
have available, and those indicate that there is a real problem
in the US, possibly with drivers' skills.

The new data above are relatively useless for the issues at hand,
since they are per occupation, not per mile.

>> Persons killed per 100 Gm traveled just reflects the fact that
>> the size of the US is vast and the population spread out, which
>> has the effect of increasing the distances between the points where
>> accidents are likely to happen and probably make them less dangerous
>> and numerous.
>
>Not at all. See above. We have a lot of high speed accidents and rely on
>trucking to move food and goods around. We have a lot more top-heavy pick
>ups that are more likely to be involved in fatal accidents. More time behind
>the wheel = more chances of having an accident.

Presumably, the drivers of semi trucks have more skills, and
certainly more experience, hence a lower accident rate *per mile*.
Hence, if the fraction of professional miles driven in the US is
greater than in the UK as you seem to suggest, it would
decrease accidents per mile, making accidents per mile for
nonprofessional drivers even greater.

Maybe there is an effect of misdesigned pick-up trucks increasing
deaths in the US, but the figure on the referenced web page
shows they are a small part of the accidents anyway. And is driving
dangerous top heavy pick-ups itself not an indication of lack
of drivers education?

>> The US drivers die at a rate of 15.2, while the educated and
>> civil drivers in the UK die at a rate of 6. I would call
>> that a dramatic difference, much more than I expected.
>
>See above. When you look at death per hour of driving (original links) the
>US is very low and this suggests that US drivers are *more* safe in terms of
>hours spent behind the wheel.

In *your* artificial terms of per hours spend or per mile, sure. In real
life terms of how likely they are too die, US drivers are three times
worse as the UK and Holland. I would call a factor 3 a big difference.

And your new data suggesting that much of all those miles driven that
depress the US numbers so much are not just due to greater expanse,
but also due to a greater fraction of miles driven by more competent
and experienced professional drivers, makes the indications that there
is something very wrong with nonprofessional US drivers even stronger.

Leon

>> Based on these numbers, it seems to me that it could make a
>> dramatic difference if the drivers' education was turned from
>> a joke into something serious.
>
>No, just the opposite. See above.
>
>-John
>

--
Leon van Dommelen Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .)
http://www.dommelen.net/miata
EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen)

"gixer" > wrote:

>Sorry guys I just have to rant again.
>
>> Small countries = low speeds.
>I will take a wild guess that you have not travelled much then mate,

Here I have to concur. Especially if he speaks about Italy.

And typical speeds in the Netherlands are a lot higher than in
the US too. When people are driving, that is. And when they
are not, they are not adding much miles, are they? I guess I
should now count Holland as one of those big countries.

Leon

--
Leon van Dommelen Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .)
http://www.dommelen.net/miata
EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen)

"gixer" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry guys I just have to rant again.
>
> > Small countries = low speeds.
> I will take a wild guess that you have not travelled much then mate,

Well yes, I have.

> What complete and utter rubbish, granted the UK has grown more speed
camera
> infested over the past 5 years or so, but funnily enough even with
thousands
> more speed cameras the death rates have gone up.

Then *training* per se is not having much effect???? That say's a 3rd
factor is involved.

> And where did you pluck the assumption that people in the UK drive few
> miles?

FROM THE TABLE THAT PROVIDES THE DEATH RATES PER MILES DRIVEN.

The US has a lot of deaths but a very low deaths per mile driven, therefore
they must drive many more miles to produce the number of deaths.

> Limited trucking?

Large trucks hauling double trailers with sleepy drivers who've been going
for 12 hours on caffeine and pills?

-John

"gixer" > wrote in message
...
> But then again someone that drives a lot usually becomes a better driver,
> just look outside your local school during collection time, all the 4x4's
2
> years old with 5k on the clock, yet show me one without a dent.

Joe E drives 3 blocks to the market and gets home without a scratch.
Joe A drives 300 miles and gets into an accident.

That's what deaths per miles driven says.

-John

"Leon van Dommelen" > wrote in message
...
>> >The death rate per hour in the car is the same if the UK has 5 deaths
per
> >population versus 15 in the US.
>
> Seems to make my point exactly. *You* might not mind having three
> times the chance of dying before you time, but I and other people do.

As I said in another reply.

Driver E goes 3 blocks.
Driver A goes 300 miles.

If Driver A lives a lifestyle where he goes 3 blocks then his personal
lifetime risk will be lower.

> I can exaggerate the numbers to make this clear. Suppose
> in the US I have to drive 100,000 mi a year to work and have a
> 50% chance of dying doing it. While in the UK I have to drive
> 10 miles for a 0.005% chance of dying.

> Should I be equally concerned, as you suggest, since the deaths
> per mile is the same? Few would agree with you. Most would
> prefer the 0.005% chance of dying above the 50%.

Well, that's the reality of the situation, isn't it? Every minute in motion
presents a risk greater than zero. Driving less is safer in all countries
and at all times.

Put it this way.

Driver 1 in the UK drives 100 miles per year at 0.005% risk.
Driver 2 in the UK drives 10,000 miles per year at 0.005% risk.

Driver 2 is quite obviously more likely to die from driving.

> Suppose the number of dangerous situations encountered in the
> 10 UK miles is the same as in the 100,000 US miles because of
> the 10,000 times greater density of the UK.

Most people in the US live in fairly dense urban areas.

>Should I wonder
> about the competency of me as a US driver, if I have a 10,000
> times larger chance of killing myself in an dangerous situation
> than the driver in the UK? Or should I do as you do and say:
> "Not to worry, deaths per mile are the same, so no further
> drivers education is needed."?

Well yes, you shouldn't worry more about it.

> In short, while as an aerospace engineer, I love to quote
> accidents per passenger mile to show aviation is safer than
> driving, that does not mean I believe that sort of thing
> when my own safety is concerned.

But there's no difference in principle!

> The greater expanse of the US suggests longer trips, not
> more trips for the increased mileage. Nor would more trips
> directly imply an increase in challenge on drivers' skills.
> There is still the larger available space.

There are many, many interacting factors. Most people in the US live in
urban areas. From what I recall (memory) the most fatally dangerous
locations are rural intersections with stop signs.

> >Wouldn't you EXPECT truck drivers to have a higher death rate than
average
> >drivers?

> Obviously, it would have been more decisive if you had given us
> international comparisons of nonprofessional traffic accidents
> only. But you did not, probably since there are no such data
> from most countries. I have to draw conclusions on what I
> have available, and those indicate that there is a real problem
> in the US, possibly with drivers' skills.

So you'll not research it for yourself?

> The new data above are relatively useless for the issues at hand,
> since they are per occupation, not per mile.

Transportation workers, who spend the greatest amount of time on the road,
get killed the most. Deaths per miles driven is a central issue. The
expansive size of the US requires more time one the road.

> Presumably, the drivers of semi trucks have more skills, and
> certainly more experience, hence a lower accident rate *per mile*.

Not necessarily. They are known to work double shifts, they are known to
take drugs to work longer hours. They can be very aggressive trying to make
a deadline.

> Hence, if the fraction of professional miles driven in the US is
> greater than in the UK as you seem to suggest, it would
> decrease accidents per mile, making accidents per mile for
> nonprofessional drivers even greater.

Not at all. Amateurs may stop driving before they tire out. They may not get
as cocky. There's no reason to presume your view is correct.

> shows they are a small part of the accidents anyway. And is driving
> dangerous top heavy pick-ups itself not an indication of lack
> of drivers education?

Well...is it the driver or the tools? Classic Jeeps were known for tipping
over but they are built to go down narrow dirt roads. Same with the
near-recall of the Ford Bronco II in the 80s. It rolled a lot and rolled
easily, but that's the trade off of having an off-road capable vehicle.

> >See above. When you look at death per hour of driving (original links)
the
> >US is very low and this suggests that US drivers are *more* safe in terms
of
> >hours spent behind the wheel.
>
> In *your* artificial terms of per hours spend or per mile, sure. In real
> life terms of how likely they are too die, US drivers are three times
> worse as the UK and Holland. I would call a factor 3 a big difference.

See above. Driver one in Holland travels 1,000 miles by car in his lifetime.
Driver two in Holland travels 1,000,000 miles by car in his lifetime. Which
one will be more likey to die in a traffic accident?

Deaths per mile driven is the central issue.

> And your new data suggesting that much of all those miles driven that
> depress the US numbers so much are not just due to greater expanse,
> but also due to a greater fraction of miles driven by more competent
> and experienced professional drivers, makes the indications that there
> is something very wrong with nonprofessional US drivers even stronger.

No. There are a million alternative explanations for that. See above. The
least complicated interpretation is that more time driving = more accidents.

-John