Car Manufacturers

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Because my post was a direct repose to a cretin post. You simply wish to use obfuscation to distract.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nope, if you pose a question, you cannot complain when someone answers it.

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Even if you add in all deaths by violence (0.93 % of the annual total and not all of them will involve weapons), then that still only adds up to 1.23% which is significantly less than the numbers killed in traffic accidents.

How clear is that?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As mud, .93% of what? sugar in my cupboard. I hate to say you are starting to sound like Mr. Smith, quoting meaningless statistics.

Or are you suggesting that we only look at a small slice of the motoring industry that concerns England so that we can ignore the millions of people who get killed every year with weapons (note the use of the word weapons, includes all forms of weaponry from a handgun to an h-bomb).

The automotive industry is worldwide, as is weapons, let's not try to skew the stats to suit our needs.

eternal_headwind · June 2007

Interesting. The only other industries the motor industry has been compared against in this thread are drugs and guns.

Unknown · June 2007

I've lost count of the number of times a car has been used against me as a weapon (although never successfully I hasten to add!). So using this definition, the car industry is part of the weapons industry!

Having said that though, I guess sports equipment, kitchen utensils, power tools etc. could all also fall into this category...

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PetrolHead

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Even if you add in all deaths by violence (0.93 % of the annual total and not all of them will involve weapons), then that still only adds up to 1.23% which is significantly less than the numbers killed in traffic accidents.

How clear is that?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As mud, .93% of what? sugar in my cupboard. I hate to say you are starting to sound like Mr. Smith, quoting meaningless statistics.

Or are you suggesting that we only look at a small slice of the motoring industry that concerns England so that we can ignore the millions of people who get killed every year with weapons (note the use of the word weapons, includes all forms of weaponry from a handgun to an h-bomb).

The automotive industry is worldwide, as is weapons, let's not try to skew the stats to suit our needs.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Sigh...

I suspect you are pretending not to understand, but I will explain in case it's genuinely unclear.

Did you read my previous post?

If so, did you read the part that refered to the percentages as percentages of annual deaths? Still with me now?

So, it would seem reasonable that I would carry on using the same reference point, especially if I'm adding them together... do you agree?

So, worldwide, traffic accidents account for 2.09% of all deaths worldwide, war 0.3% and violence (which would include all other deaths with weapons) 0.98% (sorry, the 0.93 was a misprint). That is a total of 1.28% of annual global deaths.

So, yes, nowhere near those caused by cars.

(Data from the World Health Organisation)

PS: what youa re talking about re: skewing stats, I have no idea...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Why not fight against those people who misuse that product, and those people who step into the road forgetting those products are there?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people. Sounds like the NRA

Pedestrians have no right to be on or near the road. Sounds like the SS

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The NRA quote is entirely correct. Gun crime is not an issue in countries where owners are taught the meaning of responsibility. Go check out Switzerland, their citizens can legally own fully automatic rifles and yet don't go around shooting their neighbours - because they're trained. Cars aren't dangerous in the same way that roads aren't dangerous. They're both just objects. Unexploded bombs are dangerous though, and unhinged women are pretty dangerous too

Pedestrians have every right to cross the road, and I'll thank you to not mis-quote me in future. Pedestrians however have no right to step into the road without first using the marvellous bits of biology called 'eyeballs' and 'ears'. I would very much like to see a statistical analysis of pedestrian fatalities, and who was to blame - I have a feeling I wouldn't be surprised at the figures.

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

Right, obviously I am supposed not to noticed the deliberate attempt to obfuscate the facts that were suppied to this thread by you, and then you try to skew the facts.

You clearly haven't read your own reference points, so I will make it clear in very small words so that even very stupid people can understand.

read up from your misquoted stat to the stat that reads:
Intentional injuries (suicide, murder, war, etc.)

Ooooh does that say 2.84%, oh hush my mouth I just exposed your obfuscation and skewing. Still following me I suspect that you are now deliberately trying not to understand or perhaps you are genuinely unclear of your own stats.

And to follow your lead if we add in violence and war that will give us 4.12, almost double traffic accidents. And lets not forget that traffic accidents do not always mean accidents with a car, but just to save your embarrasment we will let that one lie.

I grade you at 0 out of 10, please try harder

domd1979 · June 2007

"No right"? I'll step into the road when I want thanks, at my risk. Drivers have "no right" to drive over zebra crossings without using "their marvellous bits of biology", but they do. Same goes any other example of maniac driving you care to name. Part of the responsibility of driving is to anticipate what everyone else, pedestrians included may or may not do, regardless of whether or not you think they have a "right" to do it.

On the original subject of car advertising - there's no doubt the sheer amount the industry can spend means they can influence attitudes to modal choice. The money they spend on lobbying governments and politicians is probably more damaging to sustainable transport policy though.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
Pedestrians have every right to cross the road, and I'll thank you to not mis-quote me in future. Pedestrians however have no right to step into the road without first using the marvellous bits of biology called 'eyeballs' and 'ears'. I would very much like to see a statistical analysis of pedestrian fatalities, and who was to blame - I have a feeling I wouldn't be surprised at the figures.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
On the original subject of car advertising - there's no doubt the sheer amount the industry can spend means they can influence attitudes to modal(sic.) choice.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Too true, let's be honest, who on earth would have bought the new model Renault Meganne unless they'd shown the advert with the sexy women 'Shakin' their Ass!'

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Oh joy, the Swiss firearms canard again.
The problem with having an immediately deadly weapon to hand, like a gun (or a car), is that a moment of red mist results in a death rather than a bruise. If you actually examine the murder and suicide rates in Switzerland, you will see that death by firearm is disproportionally high. That is because the weapon is always to hand--the Swiss are required to keep their assault rifles at home.
Without a gun, that moment of anger or depression is much less likely to be immediately fatal.
That's the statistical evidence. I can offer one personal anecdote: a relative of a friend, diagnosed with terminal cancer, decided to kill himself. He went into town, to a bridge over a turbulent river, and got ready to jump in. He stood and thought, and was dragged back by passers by.
He went home, with police on their way, and this being France, got out his hunting rifle.
He wounded two neighbours and a policeman before fatally shooting himself.
See the difference?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

"No right"? I'll step into the road when I want thanks, at my risk. Drivers have "no right" to drive over zebra crossings without using "their marvellous bits of biology", but they do. Same goes any other example of maniac driving you care to name. Part of the responsibility of driving is to anticipate what everyone else, pedestrians included may or may not do, regardless of whether or not you think they have a "right" to do it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Step into the road when you like? Thats classic. Do you have a death wish? Even at a Zebra crossing you are not supposed to do this. I'm amazed you're still around, with that attitude.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Yes, you might run into an Advanced Motorist (disqualified as cheat) who is judging his own safe and---what was that bang?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

"No right"? I'll step into the road when I want thanks, at my risk. Drivers have "no right" to drive over zebra crossings without using "their marvellous bits of biology", but they do. Same goes any other example of maniac driving you care to name. Part of the responsibility of driving is to anticipate what everyone else, pedestrians included may or may not do, regardless of whether or not you think they have a "right" to do it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Step into the road when you like? Thats classic. Do you have a death wish? Even at a Zebra crossing you are not supposed to do this. I'm amazed you're still around, with that attitude.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Tell you what, Cretin, someone thought this:

"Society is pivoting more and more to a point where we're now being made to feel guilty to stand up for ourselves.

The idiot driving in the middle of the road towards you, no, can't blast your horn in case he tracks you down and robs your car. No, can't blast your horn at the guy who cuts you up or leaps out on you from a side road because he'll just abuse you - again.

Can't stand up for yourself, because of the consequences."

Poor put upon motorist - now has to threaten pedestrians to get his jollies.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Cretin · June 2007

Threatening? Where did I threaten anybody?

You really do enjoy just making things up. If pedestrians step into the road without looking they will likely get run over, and possibly killed. This is indisuptable fact. Its got nothing to do with any imagined sociopathic tendencies you may wish to ascribe to my character. I will always drive as safely as I can and would always try to avoid such incidents, but I point blank refuse to accept responsibility for people who take risks with their own safety.

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Threatening? Where did I threaten anybody?

You really do enjoy just making things up. If pedestrians step into the road without looking they will likely get run over, and possibly killed. This is indisuptable fact. Its got nothing to do with any imagined sociopathic tendencies you may wish to ascribe to my character. I will always drive as safely as I can and would always try to avoid such incidents, but I point blank refuse to accept responsibility for people who take risks with their own safety.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Who said you did threaten someone?

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Cretin · June 2007

The bit where you wrote "Poor put upon motorist - now has to threaten pedestrians to get his jollies" perhaps?

Jaded · June 2007

Which, if you look closely refers to the word 'someone'. It doesn't refer to a cretin.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Jaded · June 2007

(unless you are Simon Dean! [:D])

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PetrolHead

Right, obviously I am supposed not to noticed the deliberate attempt to obfuscate the facts that were suppied to this thread by you, and then you try to skew the facts.

You clearly haven't read your own reference points, so I will make it clear in very small words so that even very stupid people can understand.

read up from your misquoted stat to the stat that reads:
Intentional injuries (suicide, murder, war, etc.)

Ooooh does that say 2.84%, oh hush my mouth I just exposed your obfuscation and skewing. Still following me I suspect that you are now deliberately trying not to understand or perhaps you are genuinely unclear of your own stats.

And to follow your lead if we add in violence and war that will give us 4.12, almost double traffic accidents. And lets not forget that traffic accidents do not always mean accidents with a car, but just to save your embarrasment we will let that one lie.

I grade you at 0 out of 10, please try harder
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Okay, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you clearly are an idiot as well as a troll.

Intentional injuries includes violence and war, so you can't add violence and war to them. Trying reading the original explanations of the stats (from the WHO) whence these figures come.

And, certainly traffic accidents include more than deaths caused by cars, but where did I say they didn't?

If you are going to trying to criticise you should at least have a vague idea of what you are talking about.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

Which, if you look closely refers to the word 'someone'. It doesn't refer to a cretin.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If thats the case than I apologise for responding to it, but it wasn't really very clear.

eternal_headwind · June 2007

So, we have an industry that is being ranked even by it's supporters against gun runners and nicotine drug dealers.
Are we still of the opinion that the car manufacturers are innocent?

bad company · June 2007

I have just returned from a driving holiday - yes driving a car for the shear pleasure of doing so! I was in the Alps mainly followed by a high speed blast the whole length of Germany.

I do not consider that I was driving dangerously at any time - I kept to speed limits where they existed although I would say that I was as they say 'making progress'.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

I have just returned from a driving holiday - yes driving a car for the shear pleasure of doing so! I was in the Alps mainly followed by a high speed blast the whole length of Germany.

I do not consider that I was driving dangerously at any time - I kept to speed limits where they existed although I would say that I was as they say 'making progress'.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's disappointing BC. I thought that you, a safe and experienced driver, would know that 'driving dangerously' is not a yes or no situation. It's a measure.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

bad company · June 2007

Not sure I understand what you are driving at Mr P.

The definition of dangerous driving is interesting though. If you are driving then yes there is always a degree of danger so you are right it is a measure - but how are you going to measure danger???

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

Not sure I understand what you are driving at Mr P.

The definition of dangerous driving is interesting though. If you are driving then yes there is always a degree of danger so you are right it is a measure - but how are you going to measure danger???
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your second paragraph shows that you do understand what I meant.

You can measure it relatively. For example, you driving your car down the same road in the same conditions at 90mph is more dangerous than if you were at 50mph.[;)]

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

eternal_headwind · June 2007

How quickly these threads dissolve. We are back to criticising one particular incident and a little name calling

Car Manufacturers

Comments

Categories