The second most dangerous form of transport...?

Spook_ie

Actually it would be car according to http://www.cityam.com/215834/one-chart-showing-safest-ways-travel





Which would surely mean that you are safer on your own than with passengers?:eek:

Cookie_Monster

devnull wrote: »

Titanic?

statistically very safe, no one has died on it in over 100 years!

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

statistically very safe, no one has died on it in over 100 years!

But very unsafe given the number who died per mile.

If you were to use the time as a factor then space travel would likely be the safest at the moment closely followed by segways etc.

jimmycrackcorm

gimli2112 wrote:

a motorcycle without a motor

Thankfully no one suggested a bicycle.

DeadHand

Plague cart.

chicorytip

Killarney Jaunting Car.

jace_da_face

Quad

jace_da_face

Isambard wrote: »

35% of accidents are caused by drunk drivers....



65% caused by sober drivers? what does that tell you?

1.5% of all car journeys are made by drunk drivers. What does that tell you?

Mr.H

jace_da_face wrote:

1.5% of all car journeys are made by drunk drivers. What does that tell you?

Link?

punisher5112

Submarine....

jace_da_face

Mr.H wrote: »

Link?

Sorry Mr.H, I don’t have a link. That’s based on an article I read a long time ago, and was very specific to some random breath testing stats in the Goldcoast Queensland on a weekend night.

rossmores

In thailand atm 7 deadly days 44% alcohol related, death toll is counted only by those who die at the scene of accident.
THE road death toll has reached 248, with 2,557 injured in 2,449 accidents during the first four days of the so-called seven dangerous Songkran days, the Road Safety Centre announced yesterday.
The figures marked an across-the-board increase over the same period last year, which saw 226 deaths, 2,457 injured and 2,385 road accidents.
Sorry for going off topic and i dont want to trivialize this horrible tragedy.

Nomis21

wiz569 wrote: »

Walking?

RIGHT!

After Motorcycles, walking accounts for the most accidents.

Nomis21

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually it would be car according to http://www.cityam.com/215834/one-chart-showing-safest-ways-travel





Which would surely mean that you are safer on your own than with passengers?:eek:

These statistics are only for vehicles.

Nomis21

jace_da_face wrote: »

1.5% of all car journeys are made by drunk drivers. What does that tell you?

It tells me that a drunk driver is 23 more times as likely to have an accident than a sober one.

L1011

BailMeOut wrote: »

The Space Shuttle or the Concorde?

Concorde had one fatal crash in 30 years service, even at 100 passengers a flight it built up plenty of passengers during that time

Plus the crash was caused by a bit failing off a DC10!

Lumen

Nomis21 wrote: »

RIGHT! After Motorcycles, walking accounts for the most accidents.

Right, but walking isn't intrinsically dangerous, it's only made dangerous by vehicles.

punisher5112

Lumen wrote: »

Right, but walking isn't intrinsically dangerous, it's only made dangerous by vehicles.

Not only vehicles though as technology has improved people are getting dumber as they look at their phones or tablets as they walk along.

They needs a good slap.

Isambard

the statistics for pedestrian accidents are almost entirely included in the road vehicle statistics. i.e. a pedestrian killed by a car will be there as a car accident. Pedestrians rarely kill cars.

magicbastarder

punisher5112 wrote: »

Not only vehicles though as technology has improved people are getting dumber as they look at their phones or tablets as they walk along.

on the other hand, 85 pedestrians were killed in 2000, and 29 in 2012. so if there was an increase due to people looking at smartphones, it's being buried in an overall downward trend.

Nomis21

The correct answer is walking based on Worldwide accident data. Pedestrians do not damage cars but more people die by walking accidents than in any vehicle.

magicbastarder

Nomis21 wrote: »

more people die by walking accidents than in any vehicle.

a pedestrian being killed by a car/truck etc. is not 'a walking accident'.

Nomis21

magicbastarder wrote: »

Nomis21 wrote: »

more people die by walking accidents than in any vehicle.

a pedestrian being killed by a car/truck etc. is not 'a walking accident'.

Yes but the pedestrian was killed while walking. Regardless of who caused the accident.

magicbastarder

they died due to being hit by a car.
if a car kills me while i am eating a chocolate bar, we do not call that 'an eating accident'.

i don't have an issue with the terminology if a pedestrian slips off a kerb and hits their head, resulting in death.

anyway, it's getting away from the premise of the thread. as at least one other poster has commented, this does not make walking the second most dangerous form of transport, as the inherent danger comes from motor vehicles. in most pedestrian fatalities, the 'danger' should be attributed to the motor vehicle that struck them, not to pedestrianism.

K.Flyer

The second most dangerous form of transport...?

A drunken jockyback on the way to get a kebab, the nightmare of the A&E department.

Spook_ie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTPxZ1n4M-M

Perhaps OP wants to highlight the dangers of distracted walking, which may or may not involve vehicle accidents?

Alkers

magicbastarder wrote: »

they died due to being hit by a car.
if a car kills me while i am eating a chocolate bar, we do not call that 'an eating accident'.

i don't have an issue with the terminology if a pedestrian slips off a kerb and hits their head, resulting in death.

anyway, it's getting away from the premise of the thread. as at least one other poster has commented, this does not make walking the second most dangerous form of transport, as the inherent danger comes from motor vehicles. in most pedestrian fatalities, the 'danger' should be attributed to the motor vehicle that struck them, not to pedestrianism.

You could apply that logic to a significant proportion of motorcycle and bicycle injuries so the OP's point is valid.

sbsquarepants

Collie D wrote: »

Statistically you're more likely die walking while drunk than driving.

Don't think it factors in innocent lives though.

Anyway, less click bait, more answer from OP

I was involved in a high speed drunk walking accident once, ploughed an innocent pedestrian out of it while texting some quare one, built like a Volvo they were (the innocent pedestrian, not the quare one) I came of the worst of it if I remember correctly - which I probably don't:D

Anyway OP my guess is the human cannon, sure it's fast - but it doesn't handle corners at all well.

magicbastarder

Simona1986 wrote: »

You could apply that logic

be my guest. i will be curious to hear why it's different for cyclists?

most KSIs related to cycling (in any of the studies i've seen) have been attributable to the actions of the motorist.

i don't know much about the stats relating to motorcyclists, but if you have them, feel free to share them.

magicbastarder

to clarify - if a cyclist loses control and crashes into a wall on a bend - cycling accident.
if a motorist crashes into a cyclist - generally, would be a motoring accident.