Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears is stronger than it was
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Would the British be so sanguine after a massacre at the Albert Hall, gunning down the staff of Private Eye, and a few trucks ploughing into groups of tourists on Brighton seafront and the like, and a priest being murdered in his church in Oxford ?
"Any good fake news post would be nothing without a shocking image to go alongside it: here, a policeman kneeling on the ground with blood all over his face. Except the photo wasn't even taken in France, but in Morocco, on July 9, 2015. "
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears is stronger than it was
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Would the British be so sanguine after a massacre at the Albert Hall, gunning down the staff of Private Eye, and a few trucks ploughing into groups of tourists on Brighton seafront and the like, and a priest being murdered in his church in Oxford ?
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
Not convinced myself. Le Pen on the day. Another populist shock is coming.
I disagree, largely because the FN is polling well below its 2015 levels, when it manifestly failed to make any impact in the Departmental or Provincial elections.
I don't think the FN ever reached 44% in runoff polls in 2015?
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears stronger than it was
If the FN did gain power you may find your Point 1 is moot. There are things you have to say and do to win. Once you have, it does not matter anymore. I would not want to be a dark-skinned UK citizen travelling in France if the FN were in charge.
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears is stronger than it was
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Would the British be so sanguine after a massacre at the Albert Hall, gunning down the staff of Private Eye, and a few trucks ploughing into groups of tourists on Brighton seafront and the like, and a priest being murdered in his church in Oxford ?
I'm not saying we'd be sanguine. I'm just pointing out that we are very illogical when we think about relative risk, and it distorts our decisions. We choose to throw massive resources at something which is highly unlikely to kill us.
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
Not convinced myself. Le Pen on the day. Another populist shock is coming.
I disagree, largely because the FN is polling well below its 2015 levels, when it manifestly failed to make any impact in the Departmental or Provincial elections.
I don't think the FN ever reached 44% in runoff polls in 2015?
They did not. The FN is doing much better in run-off polls now, than then.
Nevertheless, they were polling much better in first round polls, and underperformed those polls dramatically.
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears stronger than it was
If the FN did gain power you may find your Point 1 is moot. There are things you have to say and do to win. Once you have, it does not matter anymore. I would not want to be a dark-skinned UK citizen travelling in France if the FN were in charge.
From what I've heard about the French Police, I'd suggest that's true now.
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this before, but Geert Wilder's PVV has fallen back quite dramatically in the Netherlands. I&O Research had a poll out this week that had them on just 20 seats (out of the 150 seat parliament), 4 behind the ruling VVD, and equal with the fanatically pro-EU D66.
While this may be an outlier, almost all the polls have the PVV down sharply from the beginning of the year. Below are the latest scores (by pollster) compared to where they had the party two months ago:
Now End Dec Change Ipsos 27 29 -2 I&O 20 33 -13 De Stemming 26 29 -3 TNS Nipo 27 36 -9 Peil 30 35 -5
The Trump effect?
The VVD are trying hard to win PVV voters.
It's the association with Trump, rather than the policies.
Yet the PVV still lead in all but 1 poll
There will be a minority in all countries in the EU that think Trump is great. There will be more in every European country that think he is appalling. This will not help parties and leaders associated with Trump to gain power.
Trump is personally not popular in Europe no but the forces which drove Trump and Brexit ie anti immigration and anti globalisation, are the forces driving populism in Europe too
Yep, that is largely true. It is about perceived injustice in the current system. Populism, though, does not have any of the solutions.
Emigration, EUDivvie. That's the problem in SNP occupied Scotland, not immigration.
Michael Gray @GrayInGlasgow Not unanimous: but a clear 37% difference in positions. There's way more isolationist nationalism on the UK side that the indyScot side.
Are Scot Nats even self aware at all.
Oh gawd, not the internationalist bucaneering Brexiteers trading with the world* bollox again.
*Only English speakers need apply.
well yeah you should speak English if you want a job in er England.
"Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
The Government should get on with implementing the result of the referendum to take Britain out of the EU and in doing so take back control of our borders, laws money and trade."
That is highly leading and why haven't the other findings been released.
A fact people are not factoring in, is that Le Pen is hardly an outsider. There has been a Le Pen on the ballot every election bar one since 1974! She is very Establishment.
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this before, but Geert Wilder's PVV has fallen back quite dramatically in the Netherlands. I&O Research had a poll out this week that had them on just 20 seats (out of the 150 seat parliament), 4 behind the ruling VVD, and equal with the fanatically pro-EU D66.
While this may be an outlier, almost all the polls have the PVV down sharply from the beginning of the year. Below are the latest scores (by pollster) compared to where they had the party two months ago:
Now End Dec Change Ipsos 27 29 -2 I&O 20 33 -13 De Stemming 26 29 -3 TNS Nipo 27 36 -9 Peil 30 35 -5
The Trump effect?
The VVD are trying hard to win PVV voters.
It's the association with Trump, rather than the policies.
Yet the PVV still lead in all but 1 poll
There will be a minority in all countries in the EU that think Trump is great. There will be more in every European country that think he is appalling. This will not help parties and leaders associated with Trump to gain power.
Trump is personally not popular in Europe no but the forces which drove Trump and Brexit ie anti immigration and anti globalisation, are the forces driving populism in Europe too
Yep, that is largely true. It is about perceived injustice in the current system. Populism, though, does not have any of the solutions.
It is a means of lashing out at the system and the metropolitan elite certainly , especially from the white working class
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
Not convinced myself. Le Pen on the day. Another populist shock is coming.
I disagree, largely because the FN is polling well below its 2015 levels, when it manifestly failed to make any impact in the Departmental or Provincial elections.
I don't think the FN ever reached 44% in runoff polls in 2015?
They did not. The FN is doing much better in run-off polls now, than then.
Nevertheless, they were polling much better in first round polls, and underperformed those polls dramatically.
We will see in April, though the FN still got 25% in 2015 which would likely see Le Pen through to the runoff
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
I agree that it looks likely that Fillon is going to recover enough to edge past Macron into round two. (what is keeping Macron favourite?)
However I do fear that Le Pen will win against Fillon or that it will be even tighter than latest head to head polls suggest.
After promising three weeks ago to stand down if he is indicted following the fraud investigation, he has suddenly decided to stick it out, come what may, presumably because he knows that the President is immune from prosecution. If it is Le Pen versus an indicted Fillon, he could well be in trouble.
I'm not saying we'd be sanguine. I'm just pointing out that we are very illogical when we think about relative risk, and it distorts our decisions. We choose to throw massive resources at something which is highly unlikely to kill us.
Your chance of being killed in a commercial air accident is basically zero, how concerned are people about flying. Whereas your chance of being killed crossing the road is surprisingly high, but people do that all the time without much show of concern. The perceived risk is a much more reliable indicator of money spent that the real risk on all sorts of everyday activities, just look at all the security theatre we have at airline checkins these days which make basically no difference to anything.
Mr. Smithson, that question is leading, but I have a vague memory of a similar question a month or two ago being equally leading, but in the other direction.
Emigration, EUDivvie. That's the problem in SNP occupied Scotland, not immigration.
It’s all those b@%%£y English moving into Scotland.
Nativist Monica believes that the movement of 'indigenous' people from England to Scotland isn't really immigration, it's just the foreigners that count. Like so many Kippery folk, living in mainland EU gives her the requiste distance to see this clearly.
My sister and brother-in-law moved to Scotland .... edge of the Highlands.....over 50 years ago, and brought up their family there. All their children were born there. However, my nieces were, apparently, always known at school as ‘The English Girls’, although even the two who moved to England after Uni have definite Scots accents.
Only two escaped. How many unfortunate nieces did your poor sister bear ?
Three. One married a Scot and stayed there, one an Ulsterman and they live and work in London. The third’s an academic in the Midlands. No sons.
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears is stronger than it was
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Would the British be so sanguine after a massacre at the Albert Hall, gunning down the staff of Private Eye, and a few trucks ploughing into groups of tourists on Brighton seafront and the like, and a priest being murdered in his church in Oxford ?
I'd imagine the residents of Brighton Pavilion constituency would either blame themselves or say the tourists brought it on themselves....
A fact people are not factoring in, is that Le Pen is hardly an outsider. There has been a Le Pen on the ballot every election bar one since 1974! She is very Establishment.
Because her father was on the ballot paper (and didn't win) somehow makes her establishment?
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears is stronger than it was
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Would the British be so sanguine after a massacre at the Albert Hall, gunning down the staff of Private Eye, and a few trucks ploughing into groups of tourists on Brighton seafront and the like, and a priest being murdered in his church in Oxford ?
I'd imagine the residents of Brighton Pavilion constituency would either blame themselves or say the tourists brought it on themselves....
If the truck was powered by biogas there might even be a few approving words spoken
I'm not saying we'd be sanguine. I'm just pointing out that we are very illogical when we think about relative risk, and it distorts our decisions. We choose to throw massive resources at something which is highly unlikely to kill us.
Your chance of being killed in a commercial air accident is basically zero, how concerned are people about flying. Whereas your chance of being killed crossing the road is surprisingly high, but people do that all the time without much show of concern. The perceived risk is a much more reliable indicator of money spent that the real risk on all sorts of everyday activities, just look at all the security theatre we have at airline checkins these days which make basically no difference to anything.
If there were two companies, one of which was managing to perceived risk, and the other to real risk, I think we all know which one would be the success.
So why do so many intelligent people - like yourself - insist that we manage our country using perceived risk as the measure?
I'm not saying we'd be sanguine. I'm just pointing out that we are very illogical when we think about relative risk, and it distorts our decisions. We choose to throw massive resources at something which is highly unlikely to kill us.
I suppose the statistics are based on actual terrorist attacks. If we sat back and let nature take its course, presumably there would be more attacks and more deaths.
I'm not saying we'd be sanguine. I'm just pointing out that we are very illogical when we think about relative risk, and it distorts our decisions. We choose to throw massive resources at something which is highly unlikely to kill us.
Your chance of being killed in a commercial air accident is basically zero, how concerned are people about flying. Whereas your chance of being killed crossing the road is surprisingly high, but people do that all the time without much show of concern. The perceived risk is a much more reliable indicator of money spent that the real risk on all sorts of everyday activities, just look at all the security theatre we have at airline checkins these days which make basically no difference to anything.
If there were two companies, one of which was managing to perceived risk, and the other to real risk, I think we all know which one would be the success.
So why do so many intelligent people - like yourself - insist that we manage our country using perceived risk as the measure?
If you try and manage by real risk, you wont get elected.
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
I agree that it looks likely that Fillon is going to recover enough to edge past Macron into round two. (what is keeping Macron favourite?)
However I do fear that Le Pen will win against Fillon or that it will be even tighter than latest head to head polls suggest.
After promising three weeks ago to stand down if he is indicted following the fraud investigation, he has suddenly decided to stick it out, come what may, presumably because he knows that the President is immune from prosecution. If it is Le Pen versus an indicted Fillon, he could well be in trouble.
Macron has had a bad week, angering the right by calling French colonial rule in Algeria 'a crime against humanity' and then the left by trying to reach out to rightwing opponents of gay marriage saying they had been 'stigmatised' under Hollande which was especially ill advised given the current rumours about his private life. He is now neck and neck with Fillon to get the right to face Le Pen in the runoff http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/18/macron-loses-lead-remarks-colonial-algeria-gay-marriage-spark/
I'm not saying we'd be sanguine. I'm just pointing out that we are very illogical when we think about relative risk, and it distorts our decisions. We choose to throw massive resources at something which is highly unlikely to kill us.
Your chance of being killed in a commercial air accident is basically zero, how concerned are people about flying. Whereas your chance of being killed crossing the road is surprisingly high, but people do that all the time without much show of concern. The perceived risk is a much more reliable indicator of money spent that the real risk on all sorts of everyday activities, just look at all the security theatre we have at airline checkins these days which make basically no difference to anything.
If there were two companies, one of which was managing to perceived risk, and the other to real risk, I think we all know which one would be the success.
So why do so many intelligent people - like yourself - insist that we manage our country using perceived risk as the measure?
If you try and manage by real risk, you wont get elected.
So, instead of demanding leaders who tell us the truth about the real risks we run, we demand those who follow the herd, yelling loudly.
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears is stronger than it was
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Actually we do. The cycle superhighway in London for instance.
I'm not saying we'd be sanguine. I'm just pointing out that we are very illogical when we think about relative risk, and it distorts our decisions. We choose to throw massive resources at something which is highly unlikely to kill us.
I suppose the statistics are based on actual terrorist attacks. If we sat back and let nature take its course, presumably there would be more attacks and more deaths.
Ofcourse. Since the risk of a terrorist incident is so low clearly we should wind up MI5 and Special Branch, all that money on the Counter Terrorist Command in the Met is surplus.
Can I just say - what a cartoon. The way that Geoffrey is looking down with a withering "WTF are you bleating on about, woman?" is just so well drawn.
I know. It easily reaches - dare I say exceeds? - the heights, the veritable genius of Brant, the Physical Cartoonist from "The Day Today". Marf, put away your quill: your job is done...
rcs1000 - I'm not sure what point you're making. Yes, you're more likely to get killed in an RTC. We've introduced seat belts and improved the crash worthiness of cars. But there is only so much that you can do. As long as humans are driving the cars, there will be crashes of which some will cause fatalities.
But no one sets out at the start of the journey to cause a fatal car crash. That's the difference. We can put a fair amount of resource into tackling terrorism as it's targeted at people who do want to cause harm.
rcs1000 - I'm not sure what point you're making. Yes, you're more likely to get killed in an RTC. We've introduced seat belts and improved the crash worthiness of cars. But there is only so much that you can do. As long as humans are driving the cars, there will be crashes of which some will cause fatalities.
But no one sets out at the start of the journey to cause a fatal car crash. That's the difference. We can put a fair amount of resource into tackling terrorism as it's targeted at people who do want to cause harm.
That's not true at all.
The government has figures for what it is prepared to spend to prevent a road death (in terms of changing road layouts in accident blackspots), or to prolong a life by a year.
We make decisions all the time about what a human life is worth.
Yet, for terrorism, we ramp it up 100 or even 1,000x. That's absurd and ridiculous.
I'm not saying we'd be sanguine. I'm just pointing out that we are very illogical when we think about relative risk, and it distorts our decisions. We choose to throw massive resources at something which is highly unlikely to kill us.
Your chance of being killed in a commercial air accident is basically zero, how concerned are people about flying. Whereas your chance of being killed crossing the road is surprisingly high, but people do that all the time without much show of concern. The perceived risk is a much more reliable indicator of money spent that the real risk on all sorts of everyday activities, just look at all the security theatre we have at airline checkins these days which make basically no difference to anything.
If there were two companies, one of which was managing to perceived risk, and the other to real risk, I think we all know which one would be the success.
So why do so many intelligent people - like yourself - insist that we manage our country using perceived risk as the measure?
If you try and manage by real risk, you wont get elected.
So, instead of demanding leaders who tell us the truth about the real risks we run, we demand those who follow the herd, yelling loudly.
Good luck with that. What you say is true, but it isn't realistic. Even if you told the public the truth they wouldn't believe you. We have been telling people how safe air travel is for decades and yet many many passengers are still sh*t scared of getting on an airplane.
Airlines are a bunch of cutthroat bastards, the fact that they spend vast amounts of money implementing essentially pointless security screens because they give passengers a warm feeling tells you all you need to know about the reality of having to pander to unrealistic risk expectations to make any sort of progress.
We are discussing politics here, in that world truth is perception.
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears is stronger than it was
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Actually we do. The cycle superhighway in London for instance.
I suspect the Cycle Superhighway will actually cause road deaths rather than prevent them...
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears is stronger than it was
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Actually we do. The cycle superhighway in London for instance.
Not just that. All the pavements barriers, all the pelican/zebra crossings, all the research and developing into the fronts of cars to increase crash survivability, all the education efforts for road safety, all the pedestrian bridges, subways, traffic calming measures, etc etc across the entire country, no nothing spent on reducing the level of road deaths at all.
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears is stronger than it was
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Actually we do. The cycle superhighway in London for instance.
Not just that. All the pavements barriers, all the pelican/zebra crossings, all the research and developing into the fronts of cars to increase crash survivability, all the education efforts for road safety, all the pedestrian bridges, subways, traffic calming measures, etc etc across the entire country, no nothing spent on reducing the level of road deaths at all.
I didn't say "nothing". I said we attribute a much higher "price" to a terrorism death to a road death, and that is ridiculous and absurd.
rcs1000 - I'm not sure what point you're making. Yes, you're more likely to get killed in an RTC. We've introduced seat belts and improved the crash worthiness of cars. But there is only so much that you can do. As long as humans are driving the cars, there will be crashes of which some will cause fatalities.
But no one sets out at the start of the journey to cause a fatal car crash. That's the difference. We can put a fair amount of resource into tackling terrorism as it's targeted at people who do want to cause harm.
That's not true at all.
The government has figures for what it is prepared to spend to prevent a road death (in terms of changing road layouts in accident blackspots), or to prolong a life by a year.
We make decisions all the time about what a human life is worth.
Yet, for terrorism, we ramp it up 100 or even 1,000x. That's absurd and ridiculous.
I suppose what it comes down to is how road deaths and those killed by terrorists are viewed. Yes a road junction could be dodgy, but most of the time it is fine as people use it everyday. I suspect what a lot of people do is rationalise road traffic deaths by thinking "well, they were probably driving badly or did something stupid." Perhaps that rather unfairly blames the victim, but it's what happens.
If we followed your approach I'd suggest there wouldn't be a Mosque left standing after a few years of terrorist attacks. The people would take the issue into their own hands.
Mr. Smithson, that question is leading, but I have a vague memory of a similar question a month or two ago being equally leading, but in the other direction.
But not used by me.
The reason I like the YouGov BREXIT tracker is you have the same standard question asked regularly over a period of time.
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears is stronger than it was
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Actually we do. The cycle superhighway in London for instance.
I suspect the Cycle Superhighway will actually cause road deaths rather than prevent them...
I believe there are data indicating that the red-ways in Milton Keynes are (in a sense that I wasn't told) are more dangerous to cyclists than roads are. Certainly I know of a couple of serious examples. Very few collisions are worse than one cycle running into another head on. Often people cycle along two up chatting. Blind terns are particularly scary with cyclists cutting corners. Walking and riding on red-ways I have had several dodgy interactions in spite of my best caution. Although cyclists pay taxes and rates, which are the lion's share of road building and maintenance costs, they are considered second class users.
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
1. The FN is much more centrist than it was, and has (mostly) ditched the whole antisemitism thing. 2. France is desparate for change, it just hasn't worked out how to marry its economic system with the challenges of globalisation (and promising it can be just how it used to be if you just got rid of the immigrants, charged a tariff on imports and paid more generous pensions sound pretty appealing) 3. The threat of Islamic terrorism appears is stronger than it was
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Actually we do. The cycle superhighway in London for instance.
Not just that. All the pavements barriers, all the pelican/zebra crossings, all the research and developing into the fronts of cars to increase crash survivability, all the education efforts for road safety, all the pedestrian bridges, subways, traffic calming measures, etc etc across the entire country, no nothing spent on reducing the level of road deaths at all.
I didn't say "nothing". I said we attribute a much higher "price" to a terrorism death to a road death, and that is ridiculous and absurd.
... and its how the world is, voters are not rational, shouting at them that they are stupid wont make them so.
Emigration, EUDivvie. That's the problem in SNP occupied Scotland, not immigration.
Michael Gray @GrayInGlasgow Not unanimous: but a clear 37% difference in positions. There's way more isolationist nationalism on the UK side that the indyScot side.
Are Scot Nats even self aware at all.
Oh gawd, not the internationalist bucaneering Brexiteers trading with the world* bollox again.
*Only English speakers need apply.
The ultras are after you TUD, they will be polishing the jackboots.
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
Le Pen has managed to really close the gap on Fillon in the second round, largely as left wing voters seem increasingly unwilling to vote for him.
It looks quite likely Fillon edges out Macron in the first round, which could make for an exciting second round. (Albeit, I suspect he'll still win by a comfortable double digit margin on the day.)
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
snip
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Actually we do. The cycle superhighway in London for instance.
Not just that. All the pavements barriers, all the pelican/zebra crossings, all the research and developing into the fronts of cars to increase crash survivability, all the education efforts for road safety, all the pedestrian bridges, subways, traffic calming measures, etc etc across the entire country, no nothing spent on reducing the level of road deaths at all.
I didn't say "nothing". I said we attribute a much higher "price" to a terrorism death to a road death, and that is ridiculous and absurd.
I think I have had this argument with you before, but I strongly disagree; or rather, it may be ridiculous and absurd but that doesn't stop us doing it. A terrorist death inspires terror (hence the name) in everyone in the country, pretty much, and that is part of the total effect of the death. So it causes massively more harm than a road death (unless you think terror is not harmful, or might be harmful but should be robustly ignored because it is in this case irrational). And this feeds through to politics in the most obvious way: a government isn't going to fall over a 20% increase in road deaths, but it will over a 20% increase in terrorist deaths.
Although cyclists pay taxes and rates, which are the lion's share of road building and maintenance costs, they are considered second class users.
Where does car tax and petrol duty go then?
It's hard to be precise, but I once cruised the web and reckoned that 80 or 90 percent of all costs is covered by taxes. I think that car road tax is peanuts. Maybe if petrol prices were quadrupled or more the condescension sometimes shown to cyclists would be justified. By the way I would be more than happy to pay a cycling road tax in proportion to the damage to surfaces they cause.
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
A fact people are not factoring in, is that Le Pen is hardly an outsider. There has been a Le Pen on the ballot every election bar one since 1974! She is very Establishment.
Because her father was on the ballot paper (and didn't win) somehow makes her establishment?
Doesn't it? She's hardly a breath of fresh air, is she. Her Party is one of the French mainstream parties, and her platfrorm goes back to Poujadism in the 50's.
I believe two things have happened since December.
Firstly, the public broadly agree with the government's stated aims from the negotiation, thinking them reasonable and sensible.
Secondly, like Scotland, there is an element of referendum fatigue within the electorate.
It feels to me that the majority are saying, both in the UK and in Scotland for it's Sindy issue, 'you asked us once, we gave you an answer, get on with it and stop bothering us."
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
Interesting. Of those "conveyances" It might be fair to say that only walking and cycling have definite positive health benefits so tending to enhance health and lifespan.
Mr. 1000, just over a week before Australia... cheers.
Edited extra bit: good luck with your bets.
Mr. HYUFD, that may be so, but it's the second round that'll decide things (seems unlikely anyone could get 50%+ in the first round).
Mr. HYUFD (2), not to be confused with the shipwrights' Serial Keelers, or breakfast club Cereal Killers parties.
It shows how things have shifted, that Chirac defeated Le Pen Pere 82-18%, and Fillon would win something like 57-43%.
I think there are three factors behind that:
snip
Fixed that for you.
It's still a negligible threat. You are at least 100x more likely to die in a road accident, and we don't divert massive resources to cutting the level of road deaths down.
Actually we do. The cycle superhighway in London for instance.
Not just that. All the pavements barriers, all the pelican/zebra crossings, all the research and developing into the fronts of cars to increase crash survivability, all the education efforts for road safety, all the pedestrian bridges, subways, traffic calming measures, etc etc across the entire country, no nothing spent on reducing the level of road deaths at all.
I didn't say "nothing". I said we attribute a much higher "price" to a terrorism death to a road death, and that is ridiculous and absurd.
I think I have had this argument with you before, but I strongly disagree; or rather, it may be ridiculous and absurd but that doesn't stop us doing it. A terrorist death inspires terror (hence the name) in everyone in the country, pretty much, and that is part of the total effect of the death. So it causes massively more harm than a road death (unless you think terror is not harmful, or might be harmful but should be robustly ignored because it is in this case irrational). And this feeds through to politics in the most obvious way: a government isn't going to fall over a 20% increase in road deaths, but it will over a 20% increase in terrorist deaths.
The Government and media over-reaction to terror deaths simply amplifies the terror and does the terrorists work for them. It would be much better if the Government and media simply didn't report any terror attacks. Then the attacks wouldn't terrorise. The vast majority of the population wouldn't know anything about them.
rcs1000 - I'm not sure what point you're making. Yes, you're more likely to get killed in an RTC. We've introduced seat belts and improved the crash worthiness of cars. But there is only so much that you can do. As long as humans are driving the cars, there will be crashes of which some will cause fatalities.
But no one sets out at the start of the journey to cause a fatal car crash. That's the difference. We can put a fair amount of resource into tackling terrorism as it's targeted at people who do want to cause harm.
That's not true at all.
The government has figures for what it is prepared to spend to prevent a road death (in terms of changing road layouts in accident blackspots), or to prolong a life by a year.
We make decisions all the time about what a human life is worth.
Yet, for terrorism, we ramp it up 100 or even 1,000x. That's absurd and ridiculous.
The risk of terror is not just the number killed but that it is an attempt to destroy a functioning society and replace it with anarchy.
People don't get upset about road deaths but they do care about terrorism not because they might die in it but because it threatens their whole way of life.
rcs1000 - I'm not sure what point you're making. Yes, you're more likely to get killed in an RTC. We've introduced seat belts and improved the crash worthiness of cars. But there is only so much that you can do. As long as humans are driving the cars, there will be crashes of which some will cause fatalities.
But no one sets out at the start of the journey to cause a fatal car crash. That's the difference. We can put a fair amount of resource into tackling terrorism as it's targeted at people who do want to cause harm.
That's not true at all.
The government has figures for what it is prepared to spend to prevent a road death (in terms of changing road layouts in accident blackspots), or to prolong a life by a year.
We make decisions all the time about what a human life is worth.
Yet, for terrorism, we ramp it up 100 or even 1,000x. That's absurd and ridiculous.
The risk of terror is not just the number killed but that it is an attempt to destroy a functioning society and replace it with anarchy.
People don't get upset about road deaths but they do care about terrorism not because they might die in it but because it threatens their whole way of life.
Not sure about that. I care about terrorism because I feel angry that families have their lives torn apart by indiscriminate cowards. I don't believe they threaten my way of life.
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
Train must be the safest.
6,000 miles on a choo-choo according to Wiki.
In reality jet is much safer as well, once you take out private jets and dodgy eastern bloc and chinese airlines the figures improve dramatically, for a modern western commercial airline the figures are probably 10x those shown above.
Although cyclists pay taxes and rates, which are the lion's share of road building and maintenance costs, they are considered second class users.
Where does car tax and petrol duty go then?
It's hard to be precise, but I once cruised the web and reckoned that 80 or 90 percent of all costs is covered by taxes. I think that car road tax is peanuts. Maybe if petrol prices were quadrupled or more the condescension sometimes shown to cyclists would be justified. By the way I would be more than happy to pay a cycling road tax in proportion to the damage to surfaces they cause.
In the rest of the UK, people have to use cars to go places. I assume you live in London..and so are out of touch with how the majority of people live.
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
In a few days it's the tenth anniversary of the Grayrigg derailment, the last rail crash in the UK that killed a passenger. This is an unprecedented period of safety on our railways.
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
Train must be the safest.
6,000 miles on a choo-choo according to Wiki.
In reality jet is much safer as well, once you take out private jets and dodgy eastern bloc and chinese airlines the figures improve dramatically, for a modern western commercial airline the figures are probably 10x those shown above.
Probably true for trains too, though maybe not to quite the same extent.
Although cyclists pay taxes and rates, which are the lion's share of road building and maintenance costs, they are considered second class users.
Where does car tax and petrol duty go then?
It's hard to be precise, but I once cruised the web and reckoned that 80 or 90 percent of all costs is covered by taxes. I think that car road tax is peanuts. Maybe if petrol prices were quadrupled or more the condescension sometimes shown to cyclists would be justified. By the way I would be more than happy to pay a cycling road tax in proportion to the damage to surfaces they cause.
In the rest of the UK, people have to use cars to go places. I assume you live in London..and so are out of touch with how the majority of people live.
Actually, I sold my one car in 1973 and have cycled at least 300,000 miles since, and walked/run many tens of thousand miles. For many years I commuted by cycle from Bedford to Milton Keynes. I would have long dead had I not forsaken driving. I absolutely cannot stand being in queues and jams. Tuning into to one's own body by physical activityis powerfully calming.
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
Train must be the safest.
6,000 miles on a choo-choo according to Wiki.
In reality jet is much safer as well, once you take out private jets and dodgy eastern bloc and chinese airlines the figures improve dramatically, for a modern western commercial airline the figures are probably 10x those shown above.
That's reassuring, having flown well over a million miles...
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
It might be more informative to do it per hour spent travelling instead of miles travelled:
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike@50mph = 0.12hrs Travelling 17 miles by walking@5mph = 3.4hrs Travelling 10 miles by bicycle@10mph = 1hr Travelling 230 miles by car@50mph = 4.6hrs Travelling 1000 miles by jet@500mph = 2hrs
Sorting these into descending order thus:
Travelling 230 miles by car@50mph = 4.6hrs Travelling 17 miles by walking@5mph = 3.4hrs Travelling 1000 miles by jet@500mph = 2hrs Travelling 10 miles by bicycle@10mph = 1hr Travelling 6 miles by motorbike@50mph = 0.12hrs
Although cyclists pay taxes and rates, which are the lion's share of road building and maintenance costs, they are considered second class users.
Where does car tax and petrol duty go then?
It's hard to be precise, but I once cruised the web and reckoned that 80 or 90 percent of all costs is covered by taxes. I think that car road tax is peanuts. Maybe if petrol prices were quadrupled or more the condescension sometimes shown to cyclists would be justified. By the way I would be more than happy to pay a cycling road tax in proportion to the damage to surfaces they cause.
I find that hard to believe given fuel duty alone corresponds to almost £30bn of annual revenue.
The Government and media over-reaction to terror deaths simply amplifies the terror and does the terrorists work for them. It would be much better if the Government and media simply didn't report any terror attacks. Then the attacks wouldn't terrorise. The vast majority of the population wouldn't know anything about them.
Simply don't report 9/11? How's the f*ck is that supposed to work? Bloody great skyscrapers demolished, planes crashed, the Pentagon hit, and the press should keep quiet? Trying to keep quiet about it would only feed the conspiracy theorists.
Besides that we live in a world where the press are never first to the scene, social media beats the press every time, and in many cases the press resorts to showing social media. When the guy shot up a mall in Germany in the summer Sky went "live" to Periscope and showed video of the scene that I'd personally watched a few minutes earlier.
The Government and media over-reaction to terror deaths simply amplifies the terror and does the terrorists work for them. It would be much better if the Government and media simply didn't report any terror attacks. Then the attacks wouldn't terrorise. The vast majority of the population wouldn't know anything about them.
Simply don't report 9/11? How's the f*ck is that supposed to work? Bloody great skyscrapers demolished, planes crashed, the Pentagon hit, and the press should keep quiet? Trying to keep quiet about it would only feed the conspiracy theorists.
Besides that we live in a world where the press are never first to the scene, social media beats the press every time, and in many cases the press resorts to showing social media. When the guy shot up a mall in Germany in the summer Sky went "live" to Periscope and showed video of the scene that I'd personally watched a few minutes earlier.
Yes, one of the wackier things I've read on PB recently
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
In a few days it's the tenth anniversary of the Grayrigg derailment, the last rail crash in the UK that killed a passenger. This is an unprecedented period of safety on our railways.
Although generally Network Rail and the operating companies are to be congratulated.
Yes, it's a very good record, though of course we did have the Croydon tram crash recently. I don't like to be wise after the event but I was shocked to learn about the set up with the tram. I didn't realise just how fast they go and having right angled bends at the end of long straights.
The Government and media over-reaction to terror deaths simply amplifies the terror and does the terrorists work for them. It would be much better if the Government and media simply didn't report any terror attacks. Then the attacks wouldn't terrorise. The vast majority of the population wouldn't know anything about them.
Simply don't report 9/11? How's the f*ck is that supposed to work? Bloody great skyscrapers demolished, planes crashed, the Pentagon hit, and the press should keep quiet? Trying to keep quiet about it would only feed the conspiracy theorists.
Besides that we live in a world where the press are never first to the scene, social media beats the press every time, and in many cases the press resorts to showing social media. When the guy shot up a mall in Germany in the summer Sky went "live" to Periscope and showed video of the scene that I'd personally watched a few minutes earlier.
Yes, one of the wackier things I've read on PB recently
I understand the sentiment, and idealistically there is some sense to it. That said the world where the media could be censored and people wouldn't find out by other means barely existed even during WWII, and nowadays it's a futile goal, as the press are not even the first to report.
rcs1000 - I'm not sure what point you're making. Yes, you're more likely to get killed in an RTC. We've introduced seat belts and improved the crash worthiness of cars. But there is only so much that you can do. As long as humans are driving the cars, there will be crashes of which some will cause fatalities.
But no one sets out at the start of the journey to cause a fatal car crash. That's the difference. We can put a fair amount of resource into tackling terrorism as it's targeted at people who do want to cause harm.
That's not true at all.
The government has figures for what it is prepared to spend to prevent a road death (in terms of changing road layouts in accident blackspots), or to prolong a life by a year.
We make decisions all the time about what a human life is worth.
Yet, for terrorism, we ramp it up 100 or even 1,000x. That's absurd and ridiculous.
The risk of terror is not just the number killed but that it is an attempt to destroy a functioning society and replace it with anarchy.
People don't get upset about road deaths but they do care about terrorism not because they might die in it but because it threatens their whole way of life.
Agree Some risks are inherently more manageable in society than others. People are happy to take lots of risks that might end up in accidental death: drinking alcohol, being overweight, driving a car, walking on the pavement, going fell walking, skydiving, doing martial arts.
On the other hand people have zero tolerance of the idea of being blown up on a plane, or getting taken hostage and killed in a shopping centre.
It is not a question of percieved vs actual risk, it is just a reflection of the fact that people are happy to take some managed risks but not others. From a cost benefit point of view there are no benefits to terrorism, only costs that go way beyond the loss of life in an individual incident.
It is not a question of percieved vs actual risk, it is just a reflection of the fact that people are happy to take some managed risks but not others. From a cost benefit point of view there are no benefits to terrorism, only costs that go way beyond the loss of life in an individual incident.
Good point, there's not much upside to a maniac cutting your head off in the name of Islam.
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
Train must be the safest.
not sure about this micromort thing. The average journey length for a plane journey is surely much longer than a journey on foot? I used to do a lot of long distance cycling but crashed going at 40 mph down a hill and hitting a pothole, had I landed on my head I would be dead now. I unfortunately now have a complete aversion to cycling.
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
In a few days it's the tenth anniversary of the Grayrigg derailment, the last rail crash in the UK that killed a passenger. This is an unprecedented period of safety on our railways.
Although generally Network Rail and the operating companies are to be congratulated.
Yes, it's a very good record, though of course we did have the Croydon tram crash recently. I don't like to be wise after the event but I was shocked to learn about the set up with the tram. I didn't realise just how fast they go and having right angled bends at the end of long straights.
That surprised me too.
I don't follow these things closely, but surely the train going round a steep curve too fast causes train to come off track thingy has been a known problem for a couple of centuries.
Overall though, the denominator on the passenger-miles-travelled-vs-passengers-killed-or-injured calculation must have increased substantially over the last decade and a half.
When the numerator goes up everyone in the country knows about it.
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
In a few days it's the tenth anniversary of the Grayrigg derailment, the last rail crash in the UK that killed a passenger. This is an unprecedented period of safety on our railways.
Although generally Network Rail and the operating companies are to be congratulated.
Yes, it's a very good record, though of course we did have the Croydon tram crash recently. I don't like to be wise after the event but I was shocked to learn about the set up with the tram. I didn't realise just how fast they go and having right angled bends at the end of long straights.
Yes, I didn't count the Croydon tram crash as that's light rail, not heavy rail, and the regulations are very different. It's not just the setup of the track; it's the sparsity of signalling and other safety mechanisms on trams that disturbs me. Although the moment you add them on, you increase costs massively and make trams uncompetitive to build.
As an aside, I read in another place that adding one new signal on a working railway line cost a quarter of a million pounds. I'm unsure how unusual that figure is, but blooming heck.
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
In a few days it's the tenth anniversary of the Grayrigg derailment, the last rail crash in the UK that killed a passenger. This is an unprecedented period of safety on our railways.
Although generally Network Rail and the operating companies are to be congratulated.
Yes, it's a very good record, though of course we did have the Croydon tram crash recently. I don't like to be wise after the event but I was shocked to learn about the set up with the tram. I didn't realise just how fast they go and having right angled bends at the end of long straights.
Yes, I didn't count the Croydon tram crash as that's light rail, not heavy rail, and the regulations are very different. It's not just the setup of the track; it's the sparsity of signalling and other safety mechanisms on trams that disturbs me. Although the moment you add them on, you increase costs massively and make trams uncompetitive to build.
As an aside, I read in another place that adding one new signal on a working railway line cost a quarter of a million pounds. I'm unsure how unusual that figure is, but blooming heck.
I'm not an engineer but work in the industry and I can believe that figure for signalling. The thing NR really don't like are diamond crossovers at station throats, they are pain to maintain.
On the tram, how difficult would it be to put in some physical retardant that slows the tram down as it approaches the corner?
I don't follow these things closely, but surely the train going round a steep curve too fast causes train to come off track thingy has been a known problem for a couple of centuries.
(Snip)
It's been known about, but solving it is non-trivial. The tram needs to know where it is and how fast it is going; it should know the latter, and the former can be obtained from a passive or active balise in the track (basically a beacon) - GPS can be too unreliable, especially in cities.
This adds complexity to the system (both trackside and on-train), but is manageable. However it also has to fit into the rest of the system; if it applies a full service brake you have to ensure that tram behind does not run into it. You also need to ensure that false positives do not introduce service delays. The corner and edge cases can be numerous.
Corbyn’s personal ratings dropped to a net minus 35, matching those of Michael Foot at the same stage of his leadership in the early 1980s. May’s net ratings rose to plus 17.
Cycling is my favourite mode of transport. I cycle so many places now that I used to drive.. 15 mins drive often only 22 mins by bike due to lack of traffic/short cuts. I cant recommend it highly enough
Until you go over the back of a car blind turning in Brixton Road and the next thing you know you're in St Thomas'.....
Yeah to be fair, where I live there are a lot of cycle paths through parks and countryside that negate the need to be on the road
A micromort is an measurements of risk expressed as a 1-in-1 million chance of death. The relative safety of the common modes of transport can be seen as each of the following "cost" 1 micromort.
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike Travelling 17 miles by walking Travelling 10 miles by bicycle Travelling 230 miles by car Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
In a few days it's the tenth anniversary of the Grayrigg derailment, the last rail crash in the UK that killed a passenger. This is an unprecedented period of safety on our railways.
Although generally Network Rail and the operating companies are to be congratulated.
Yes, it's a very good record, though of course we did have the Croydon tram crash recently. I don't like to be wise after the event but I was shocked to learn about the set up with the tram. I didn't realise just how fast they go and having right angled bends at the end of long straights.
Yes, I didn't count the Croydon tram crash as that's light rail, not heavy rail, and the regulations are very different. It's not just the setup of the track; it's the sparsity of signalling and other safety mechanisms on trams that disturbs me. Although the moment you add them on, you increase costs massively and make trams uncompetitive to build.
As an aside, I read in another place that adding one new signal on a working railway line cost a quarter of a million pounds. I'm unsure how unusual that figure is, but blooming heck.
Manchester's second city crossing (2CC) on Metrolink opens on Monday 27th.
Rotherham Parkgate on Supertram also scheduled to open later this year.
Corbyn’s personal ratings dropped to a net minus 35, matching those of Michael Foot at the same stage of his leadership in the early 1980s. May’s net ratings rose to plus 17.
Corbyn’s personal ratings dropped to a net minus 35, matching those of Michael Foot at the same stage of his leadership in the early 1980s. May’s net ratings rose to plus 17.
Comments
"Any good fake news post would be nothing without a shocking image to go alongside it: here, a policeman kneeling on the ground with blood all over his face. Except the photo wasn't even taken in France, but in Morocco, on July 9, 2015. "
http://observers.france24.com/en/20170217-how-spread-fake-news-about-paris-riots-guide
Nevertheless, they were polling much better in first round polls, and underperformed those polls dramatically.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2cPQPBjL3MCZlVpM3RkRjhvU2s/view
ICM poll on Brexit.
"Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
The Government should get on with implementing the result of the referendum to take Britain out of the EU and in doing so take back control of our borders, laws money and trade."
That is highly leading and why haven't the other findings been released.
However I do fear that Le Pen will win against Fillon or that it will be even tighter than latest head to head polls suggest.
After promising three weeks ago to stand down if he is indicted following the fraud investigation, he has suddenly decided to stick it out, come what may, presumably because he knows that the President is immune from prosecution. If it is Le Pen versus an indicted Fillon, he could well be in trouble.
No sons.
So why do so many intelligent people - like yourself - insist that we manage our country using perceived risk as the measure?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/18/macron-loses-lead-remarks-colonial-algeria-gay-marriage-spark/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/791762/posts
But no one sets out at the start of the journey to cause a fatal car crash. That's the difference. We can put a fair amount of resource into tackling terrorism as it's targeted at people who do want to cause harm.
The government has figures for what it is prepared to spend to prevent a road death (in terms of changing road layouts in accident blackspots), or to prolong a life by a year.
We make decisions all the time about what a human life is worth.
Yet, for terrorism, we ramp it up 100 or even 1,000x. That's absurd and ridiculous.
Airlines are a bunch of cutthroat bastards, the fact that they spend vast amounts of money implementing essentially pointless security screens because they give passengers a warm feeling tells you all you need to know about the reality of having to pander to unrealistic risk expectations to make any sort of progress.
We are discussing politics here, in that world truth is perception.
If we followed your approach I'd suggest there wouldn't be a Mosque left standing after a few years of terrorist attacks. The people would take the issue into their own hands.
The reason I like the YouGov BREXIT tracker is you have the same standard question asked regularly over a period of time.
Although cyclists pay taxes and rates, which are the lion's share of road building and maintenance costs, they are considered second class users.
They do provide a comparison to the responses given in December (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2cPQPBjL3MCN2kxX2VIR1J0MFk/view) though so we can see movement in the respondents' attitudes to the question if we cross reference.
I believe two things have happened since December.
Firstly, the public broadly agree with the government's stated aims from the negotiation, thinking them reasonable and sensible.
Secondly, like Scotland, there is an element of referendum fatigue within the electorate.
It feels to me that the majority are saying, both in the UK and in Scotland for it's Sindy issue, 'you asked us once, we gave you an answer, get on with it and stop bothering us."
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike
Travelling 17 miles by walking
Travelling 10 miles by bicycle
Travelling 230 miles by car
Travelling 1000 miles by jet
(and yes, I motorcycle at the moment!)
People don't get upset about road deaths but they do care about terrorism not because they might die in it but because it threatens their whole way of life.
I assume you live in London..and so are out of touch with how the majority of people live.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDerT_tvGRw
There's also been a large amount of luck in it as well. As an example, this neat bit of incompetence by Network Rail could easily have led to a crash or deaths:
https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/trains-passed-over-washed-out-track-at-baildon
Although generally Network Rail and the operating companies are to be congratulated.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-fallout-hits-dutch-anti-islamic-candidate-wilders-1487443873
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike@50mph = 0.12hrs
Travelling 17 miles by walking@5mph = 3.4hrs
Travelling 10 miles by bicycle@10mph = 1hr
Travelling 230 miles by car@50mph = 4.6hrs
Travelling 1000 miles by jet@500mph = 2hrs
Sorting these into descending order thus:
Travelling 230 miles by car@50mph = 4.6hrs
Travelling 17 miles by walking@5mph = 3.4hrs
Travelling 1000 miles by jet@500mph = 2hrs
Travelling 10 miles by bicycle@10mph = 1hr
Travelling 6 miles by motorbike@50mph = 0.12hrs
Besides that we live in a world where the press are never first to the scene, social media beats the press every time, and in many cases the press resorts to showing social media. When the guy shot up a mall in Germany in the summer Sky went "live" to Periscope and showed video of the scene that I'd personally watched a few minutes earlier.
Some risks are inherently more manageable in society than others. People are happy to take lots of risks that might end up in accidental death: drinking alcohol, being overweight, driving a car, walking on the pavement, going fell walking, skydiving, doing martial arts.
On the other hand people have zero tolerance of the idea of being blown up on a plane, or getting taken hostage and killed in a shopping centre.
It is not a question of percieved vs actual risk, it is just a reflection of the fact that people are happy to take some managed risks but not others. From a cost benefit point of view there are no benefits to terrorism, only costs that go way beyond the loss of life in an individual incident.
I used to do a lot of long distance cycling but crashed going at 40 mph down a hill and hitting a pothole, had I landed on my head I would be dead now. I unfortunately now have a complete aversion to cycling.
I don't follow these things closely, but surely the train going round a steep curve too fast causes train to come off track thingy has been a known problem for a couple of centuries.
Overall though, the denominator on the passenger-miles-travelled-vs-passengers-killed-or-injured calculation must have increased substantially over the last decade and a half.
When the numerator goes up everyone in the country knows about it.
As an aside, I read in another place that adding one new signal on a working railway line cost a quarter of a million pounds. I'm unsure how unusual that figure is, but blooming heck.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/18/labour-sure-it-can-see-off-ukip-in-stoke-central
On the tram, how difficult would it be to put in some physical retardant that slows the tram down as it approaches the corner?
This adds complexity to the system (both trackside and on-train), but is manageable. However it also has to fit into the rest of the system; if it applies a full service brake you have to ensure that tram behind does not run into it. You also need to ensure that false positives do not introduce service delays. The corner and edge cases can be numerous.
(AIUI - IANAE)
Con 40 (+3) Lab 27 (-3) UKIP 14 (nc) Lib Dems 8 (nc)
Corbyn’s personal ratings dropped to a net minus 35, matching those of Michael Foot at the same stage of his leadership in the early 1980s. May’s net ratings rose to plus 17.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/18/labour-sure-it-can-see-off-ukip-in-stoke-central
Rotherham Parkgate on Supertram also scheduled to open later this year.
https://twitter.com/wahlrecht_de/status/833058066388152322