Newcastle Crash

[Theo Bekkers]

Terryc wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>>
>> Why on earth do emus need to be camouflaged? With no natural enemies,
>
> umm, the word is surviving. You would not want to meet their natural
> eneny.

It was me!

Theo

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Dec 13, 7:15 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jock wrote:
> > Choose life without the risk or not.
>
> You could go home, get into bed, and pull the blankets over your head. But
> that's where most people die.

It must be getting rather crowded (and smelly) in there then.

Graeme

 

[TimC]

On 2007-12-12, G-S (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Aeek wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:13:19 +1100, G-S <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Well... not all of it is you fault.
>>>
>>> I still maintain that the emu problem is you fault though
>>
>> cos of all the ones he missed?
>
> Yup... It was obviously Theo's job to control the emu population but he
> stops half way through [1]

My cats do a very extremely good job of controlling the local emu
population. Do you see any around? No, because my cats are so good
at it.

--
TimC
Some of you know what the Perl slogan on Windows is, and you can say it
with me: "It's a good thing there's more than one way to do it, because
most of them don't work." --Larry Wall

 

[G-S]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Terryc wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>
>>> Why on earth do emus need to be camouflaged? With no natural enemies,
>> umm, the word is surviving. You would not want to meet their natural
>> eneny.
>
> It was me!
>
> Theo
>
>

This is actually true Terry (strange as that may seem


G-S

 

[Meeba]

You could go home, get into bed, and pull the blankets over your head. But
that's where most people die.

Theo[/QUOTE]

l thought most died on the crapper ............straining......(just remember that next time you go,,it could be curtains.............

 

[Resound]

"Nick Payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:53:28 +1100, EuanB wrote:
>
>> Absolute numbers, a cyclist is four times more likely to die on the
>> roads than a car driver. It's probably less now as there are more
>> cyclists and that data was from 2000 or so.
>>
> Which absolute numbers? Death rate per kilometre travelled? Death rate
> per hour on the road? What? Here's one way of looking at it:
>
> fatalities
> Activity per million hrs
> -------- ---------------
> Skydiving 128.71
> General Aviation 15.58
> On-road Motorcycling 8.80
> Scuba Diving 1.98
> Living (all causes of death) 1.53
> Swimming 1.07
> Snowmobiling .88
> Passenger cars .47
> Water skiing .28
> Bicycling .26
> Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
> Hunting .08
> Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
> Home Living (active) .027
> Traveling in a School Bus .022
> Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
> Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
> Residential Fire .003
>
> Doesn't seem to quite agree with your statement. Source: http://
> www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html.

So, according to that table, you're about three times safer in a car if it's
on fire. Not as compelling a set of figures as it might be...

 

[G-S]

Resound wrote:
> "Nick Payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:53:28 +1100, EuanB wrote:
>>
>>> Absolute numbers, a cyclist is four times more likely to die on the
>>> roads than a car driver. It's probably less now as there are more
>>> cyclists and that data was from 2000 or so.
>>>
>> Which absolute numbers? Death rate per kilometre travelled? Death rate
>> per hour on the road? What? Here's one way of looking at it:
>>
>> fatalities
>> Activity per million hrs
>> -------- ---------------
>> Skydiving 128.71
>> General Aviation 15.58
>> On-road Motorcycling 8.80
>> Scuba Diving 1.98
>> Living (all causes of death) 1.53
>> Swimming 1.07
>> Snowmobiling .88
>> Passenger cars .47
>> Water skiing .28
>> Bicycling .26
>> Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
>> Hunting .08
>> Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
>> Home Living (active) .027
>> Traveling in a School Bus .022
>> Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
>> Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
>> Residential Fire .003
>>
>> Doesn't seem to quite agree with your statement. Source: http://
>> www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html.
>
> So, according to that table, you're about three times safer in a car if it's
> on fire. Not as compelling a set of figures as it might be...
>

Funny [1]


G-S

[1] At least if you're not the one in the car anyway...

 

[Jack Russell]

Resound wrote:
> "Nick Payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:53:28 +1100, EuanB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Absolute numbers, a cyclist is four times more likely to die on the
>>>roads than a car driver. It's probably less now as there are more
>>>cyclists and that data was from 2000 or so.
>>>
>>
>>Which absolute numbers? Death rate per kilometre travelled? Death rate
>>per hour on the road? What? Here's one way of looking at it:
>>
>> fatalities
>> Activity per million hrs
>> -------- ---------------
>> Skydiving 128.71
>> General Aviation 15.58
>> On-road Motorcycling 8.80
>> Scuba Diving 1.98
>> Living (all causes of death) 1.53
>> Swimming 1.07
>> Snowmobiling .88
>> Passenger cars .47
>> Water skiing .28
>> Bicycling .26
>> Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
>> Hunting .08
>> Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
>> Home Living (active) .027
>> Traveling in a School Bus .022
>> Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
>> Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
>> Residential Fire .003
>>
>>Doesn't seem to quite agree with your statement. Source: http://
>>www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html.
>
>
> So, according to that table, you're about three times safer in a car if it's
> on fire. Not as compelling a set of figures as it might be...
>
>
Doesn't that mean living is fairly dangerous at 5th place?

--
Remove norubbish to reply

 

[Terryc]

Resound wrote:

> So, according to that table, you're about three times safer in a car if it's
> on fire. Not as compelling a set of figures as it might be...

Can you explain how you arrived at that apparently ludicrous conclusion?

Yes, your chances of dieing specifically from fire in a car crash might
be 1/3 of the chance of just dieing in a car crash from any means.
Personally I would have thought it was a lot less than 1/3, but that is
only based tv reported car deaths and images of burnt cars to non-burnt
cars. .

But in the big scheme of things, death from car accident whether roasted
alive, crush by the wheel of a big rig, or tossed around until your neck
is broken or slashed blood vessels causing you to bleed to death or
whatever, is still death by car accident.

 

[John Pitts]

On 2007-12-14, Jack Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Resound wrote:
>> "Nick Payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:53:28 +1100, EuanB wrote:
>>>
>>> fatalities
>>> Activity per million hrs
>>> -------- ---------------
>>> Skydiving 128.71
>>> General Aviation 15.58
>>> On-road Motorcycling 8.80
>>> Scuba Diving 1.98
>>> Living (all causes of death) 1.53
>>> ...
> Doesn't that mean living is fairly dangerous at 5th place?
>

Yes, you have a 100% probability of dying from it.

--
John
"Hello IT, have you tried turning it off and on again?"
- Roy, "The IT Crowd"

 

[John Pitts]

On 2007-12-14, Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Resound wrote:
>
>> So, according to that table, you're about three times safer in a car if it's
>> on fire. Not as compelling a set of figures as it might be...
>
> Can you explain how you arrived at that apparently ludicrous conclusion?
>
> Yes, your chances of dieing specifically from fire in a car crash might
> be 1/3 of the chance of just dieing in a car crash from any means.
> Personally I would have thought it was a lot less than 1/3, but that is
> only based tv reported car deaths and images of burnt cars to non-burnt
> cars. .

It is a lot less, it's closer to 1/30th:

>>> fatalities
>>> Activity per million hrs
>>> -------- ---------------
>>>
>>> Passenger cars .47
>>> Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017


--
John
I've learned from my mistakes and I'm sure I can repeat them exactly.
-- Peter Cook

 

[brucef]

On Dec 14, 12:12 pm, Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> But in the big scheme of things, death from car accident whether roasted
> alive, crush by the wheel of a big rig, or tossed around until your neck
> is broken or slashed blood vessels causing you to bleed to death or
> whatever, is still death by car accident.

Was that really necessary? I feel a little queasy...

 

[Terryc]

brucef wrote:

> Was that really necessary? I feel a little queasy...

You are being to condition to adversely react to motor cars {. Woof.

 

[Resound]

"Terryc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Resound wrote:
>
>> So, according to that table, you're about three times safer in a car if
>> it's on fire. Not as compelling a set of figures as it might be...
>
> Can you explain how you arrived at that apparently ludicrous conclusion?
>
> Yes, your chances of dieing specifically from fire in a car crash might
> be 1/3 of the chance of just dieing in a car crash from any means.
> Personally I would have thought it was a lot less than 1/3, but that is
> only based tv reported car deaths and images of burnt cars to non-burnt
> cars. .
>
> But in the big scheme of things, death from car accident whether roasted
> alive, crush by the wheel of a big rig, or tossed around until your neck
> is broken or slashed blood vessels causing you to bleed to death or
> whatever, is still death by car accident.

Oops, as John pointed out I missed the extra decimal point. At .47
casualties per million hours, being in a car generally appears to be about
30 times more dangerous that being in a burning car which has just crashed
at .017 casualties per million hours. This was not meant to be a serious
conclusion, more an exercise in pointing out the sort of conclusions that
can be reached when you're sifting data for the answer you want rather than
the answer which best represents the truth of the matter.