David wrote:

Richard wrote in message ...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Even if it were attributed, this statistic is meaningless unless you can
show that there is a causal connection between pedestrians being drunk
and being involved in an accident with a vehicle. And don't appeal to
"common sense", please - "common sense" tells us that the introduction
of compulsory front seat belts saved lives, when in fact it increased
the death rate: see eg Adams, "Risk", UCL Press; and Harvey and Durbin,
RSSJ 149(3), 1986.


Hmm. I find that very hard to believe. However, 'scientific' studies
produced by lobby groups can always find some statsitical data to show
why smoking makes you healthy etc etc.

Yes, that well-known lobby group the peer-reviewed Royal Statistical
Society Journal. Why not actually read the references before jumping to
conclusions? In fact they show that UK death rates increased by ~8% for
pedestrians and ~13% for cyclists with the introduction of seatbelts in
cars, far outweighing the net reduction in DR for drivers & front seat
passengers.


I can't readily access this paper myself, but isn't this all about
'risk compensation' - the theory that if a driver is strapped in he
feels safer, and therefore more able and likely to drive more
dangerously (which he duly does, to the detriment of pedestrians and
cyclists)?

Somebody somewhere once wrote that best way to promote safe driving
and reduce RTA casualties would be to ban seatbelts and airbags, and
introduce the compulsory fitting of a large metal spike to the
steering wheel, pointing at the driver's chest. Think about it.


There is a certaon Darwinian aptness to that.




David