How fair are the fares?

[Tony Polson]

EE507 <ee507**********.uk> wrote:
>
>More than 8 people die on the roads every day [1], each life being
>valued at an average of £1.5m.

Valued at an average of £1.5m by whom?

[EE507]

On Feb 20, 7:18*pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@***************> wrote:
> EE507 <ee...**********.uk> wrote:
>
> >More than 8 people die on the roads every day [1], each life being
> >valued at an average of £1.5m.
>
> Valued at an average of £1.5m by whom?

The DfT, but it varies (or used to) by mode. It's based on lost
economic output and tax revenues, as well as direct costs.

This value was used to justify the fitment of central door locking on
Mk2 and Mk3 stock.

It also played a part in the decision to install TPWS rather than ATP,
given that so few additional lives would be saved at the vastly
greater cost of the latter. If you want a reference, google Prof.
Andrew Evans.

[Tony Polson]

EE507 <ee507**********.uk> wrote:

>On Feb 20, 7:18*pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@***************> wrote:
>> EE507 <ee...**********.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >More than 8 people die on the roads every day [1], each life being
>> >valued at an average of £1.5m.
>>
>> Valued at an average of £1.5m by whom?
>
>The DfT, but it varies (or used to) by mode. It's based on lost
>economic output and tax revenues, as well as direct costs.
>
>This value was used to justify the fitment of central door locking on
>Mk2 and Mk3 stock.
>
>It also played a part in the decision to install TPWS rather than ATP,
>given that so few additional lives would be saved at the vastly
>greater cost of the latter. If you want a reference, google Prof.
>Andrew Evans.

Thanks.

[Charlie Hulme]

> If an average of 8 people currently die on the roads each
> day, then if all road traffic transferred to rail we could expect an
> average of between 1 and 3 deaths per day on the rail network.
>

We probably get that many now if you take into account
trespassers and people who fall, etc., not included in
normal count of 'train accidents.'

I see the point you are making, but I still feel your
analysis is spurious. For example, pedestrians just
walking to the shops, children walking to school etc.
would be far safer if they didn't have to mingle with
(often incompetently or aggressively driven) road vehicles.

Charlie

[Charlie Hulme]

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:11:08 +0000, Charlie Hulme
> <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> I see the point you are making, but I still feel your
>> analysis is spurious. For example, pedestrians just
>> walking to the shops, children walking to school etc.
>> would be far safer if they didn't have to mingle with
>> (often incompetently or aggressively driven) road vehicles.
>
> There are ways of achieving this without removing the road vehicles
> (other than cyclists[1]). Think Milton Keynes or Runcorn.
>

If all towns could be demolished and completely re-built!

> The trouble with it is that what you actually find is a perception
> (and it is only a perception - the statistics don't bear it out at
> all, nor do my personal experiences of walking and cycling on the MK
> Redways) that walking alongside a road busy with vehicles is safer for
> an individual than walking on an isolated path away from a road, even
> if the likelihood is that the vehicles wouldn't stop and assist.

I suppose that even in the car-free dream world there
would still be buses, taxis, delivery vehicles. etc.,
and of course there would be many more people walking
along those isolated paths.

Charlie

[mcp]

>>More than 8 people die on the roads every day [1], each life being
>>valued at an average of £1.5m.

>Yes, but it isn't the treasury paying that sum. That's the cost to the
>victims' families, employers and insurers.

There is still a substantial cost to the treasury for the police
investigation and coroner's inquest, possibly a criminal trial etc.

[Tony Polson]

Charlie Hulme <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> If an average of 8 people currently die on the roads each
>> day, then if all road traffic transferred to rail we could expect an
>> average of between 1 and 3 deaths per day on the rail network.
>>
>
>We probably get that many now if you take into account
>trespassers and people who fall, etc., not included in
>normal count of 'train accidents.'
>
>I see the point you are making, but I still feel your
>analysis is spurious. For example, pedestrians just
>walking to the shops, children walking to school etc.
>would be far safer if they didn't have to mingle with
>(often incompetently or aggressively driven) road vehicles.

Agreed. The perceived risk of an accident while walking is the main
reason why so many people choose to go (or take their children) by car,
therefore (ironically) making the problem even worse.