Crashes are due to social deprivation, apparently
Discussion
Couldn't find this being discussed on here already, but what about this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67936...
I absolutely hate it when causality is implied between two factors, when a third common factor is ignored... It's something I see in the Daily Mail and the Guardian, I don't expect it from a government body.
The dashboard itself and the title implies either "poor people are bad at driving" or "councils in poor areas are bad at road design". Why not collect data on other factors, such as "country where driving licence was first obtained"? Or "how strongly did the driver believe his fate was pre-ordained by a higher power?"
I absolutely hate it when causality is implied between two factors, when a third common factor is ignored... It's something I see in the Daily Mail and the Guardian, I don't expect it from a government body.
The dashboard itself and the title implies either "poor people are bad at driving" or "councils in poor areas are bad at road design". Why not collect data on other factors, such as "country where driving licence was first obtained"? Or "how strongly did the driver believe his fate was pre-ordained by a higher power?"
I have noticed this for years, in Wythenshawe, biggest council estate in Europe (or was) where I hail from originally, has a greater than average number of Police notices with flowers stuck to lamposts than anywhere else, in the leafier bits its usually where a cyclists has been mown down by a Range Rover but in Wythenshawe it seems to be endemic.
Suppose you will have more substance issues, disabilities, different risk perception and potentially lower IQs, higher incidence of illegal vehicles, with the new issue of idiots on Moto X bikes and Sur-Ron high powered electric motorcycles (they arent E bikes) and even better, those geniuses dont wear helmets ! They simple wear a "Bally", a Balaclava, which may hide your face but wont protect your thick head, might keep most of the mush in one place though.
Then you go to other areas, low flying crime funded RS Audis and M cars, inexplicable driving like U turns across a busy main road, high speeds through built up areas and when it all goes wrong then you scuttle out of the country.
Suppose you will have more substance issues, disabilities, different risk perception and potentially lower IQs, higher incidence of illegal vehicles, with the new issue of idiots on Moto X bikes and Sur-Ron high powered electric motorcycles (they arent E bikes) and even better, those geniuses dont wear helmets ! They simple wear a "Bally", a Balaclava, which may hide your face but wont protect your thick head, might keep most of the mush in one place though.
Then you go to other areas, low flying crime funded RS Audis and M cars, inexplicable driving like U turns across a busy main road, high speeds through built up areas and when it all goes wrong then you scuttle out of the country.
It's not just crashes but road traffic injuries according to the report. Isn't this just common sense? More deprived areas are more heavily populated so most likely have a pile of cars stacked all over the pavement narrowing vision, kids who aren't parented very well running out into the road etc.
Seems a bit of a pointless report.
Seems a bit of a pointless report.
To be fair they say that by driving in the deprived areas the higher the risk of an accident, which is correct, as thats what the data shows. It doesn't though say that being deprived is what causes it. As someone hinted above, correlation is not causation, the deprived area is the label if you like but the causing variables sit under that, whatever that are.
I don't see what the problem with this is. Gathering as much data as possible makes sense, so you don't waste resources targeting areas/people where it won't make a difference.
I know that "private sector = good, public sector = bad" is extremely prevalent here but criticising an organisation for collecting data and analysing it seems crazy even for this place
I know that "private sector = good, public sector = bad" is extremely prevalent here but criticising an organisation for collecting data and analysing it seems crazy even for this place
Its just the interpretation, the report simply says accidents are more likely to happen in deprived areas, if thats what the data says they have collected then its a fair comment. I quickly looked at the link and the report doesn't say being deprived causes accidents, which is what some are possibly misinterpretting it as.
Covid highlighted how poorer, bme sections of the UK came off far worse
- tend to do face to face jobs so no wfh
- had to use public transport, so interactions not easy to avoid
- multi generation housing made isolation hard
Before COVID, you wouldn't have necessarily joined the dots on these factors having consequences on mortality rates.
So looking at road statistics through a different lense could well be useful.
I note the report mentioned poorer people were more likely to be in an accident even when they travelled to wealthier areas.
So this indicates it's the people taking their poor driving with them, rather than an intrinsic road design issue within the borough.
I think the op has made a valid point with respect to which country they learnt to drive in. I commute up the M23 near Gatwick, and my "lived experience" is taxi drivers from the global majority have little to no understanding of lane discipline.
If this is scaled up to the intense traffic in London, plus the inherent risks of powered two wheelers, you could quite quickly have an inpact on these stats.
Having said that: takeaway delivery is a low skill low paid sector, so it's going to be a magnet for poor people.
The business models probably force riders to take risks to complete deliveries - I can't believe they all ride like suidlcidal nutcases just for fun.
So I can see councils keeping well away from those sorts of conclusions. Lambeth council seem to want to make this a social justice issue (see article) - and reclaim streets from notor vehicles.
So what is a street if it doesn't carry motor vehicles? It's just a flat space tarmacced at huge expense connecting everything together.
Ultimately I think any real casualty reduction opportunities from this report will be missed as the watermelons and sjw crowd get hold of it for their agenda.
- tend to do face to face jobs so no wfh
- had to use public transport, so interactions not easy to avoid
- multi generation housing made isolation hard
Before COVID, you wouldn't have necessarily joined the dots on these factors having consequences on mortality rates.
So looking at road statistics through a different lense could well be useful.
I note the report mentioned poorer people were more likely to be in an accident even when they travelled to wealthier areas.
So this indicates it's the people taking their poor driving with them, rather than an intrinsic road design issue within the borough.
I think the op has made a valid point with respect to which country they learnt to drive in. I commute up the M23 near Gatwick, and my "lived experience" is taxi drivers from the global majority have little to no understanding of lane discipline.
If this is scaled up to the intense traffic in London, plus the inherent risks of powered two wheelers, you could quite quickly have an inpact on these stats.
Having said that: takeaway delivery is a low skill low paid sector, so it's going to be a magnet for poor people.
The business models probably force riders to take risks to complete deliveries - I can't believe they all ride like suidlcidal nutcases just for fun.
So I can see councils keeping well away from those sorts of conclusions. Lambeth council seem to want to make this a social justice issue (see article) - and reclaim streets from notor vehicles.
So what is a street if it doesn't carry motor vehicles? It's just a flat space tarmacced at huge expense connecting everything together.
Ultimately I think any real casualty reduction opportunities from this report will be missed as the watermelons and sjw crowd get hold of it for their agenda.
It's interesting to play with the dashboard.
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMDM2OWYyYzg...
The pattern holds for "serious" or "slight" injuries, but oddly is absent or reversed for fatal injuries. There may be some artefacts of reporting in there.
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMDM2OWYyYzg...
The pattern holds for "serious" or "slight" injuries, but oddly is absent or reversed for fatal injuries. There may be some artefacts of reporting in there.
In the early naughties, I worked on a Government project promoted by Gordon Brown about how improving road safety might help to reduce Social inequality in deprived areas.
It was glaringly obvious, to most, that kids driven to school in mummy’s SUV were much less at risk of accidents than those kids who walked alone to school in winter darkness.
A more surprising result was that by the time the poorer kids were 13+, they were street-wise and so had few road injuries than the Henry and Henriettas that had yet to identify their arses and elbows.
It was glaringly obvious, to most, that kids driven to school in mummy’s SUV were much less at risk of accidents than those kids who walked alone to school in winter darkness.
A more surprising result was that by the time the poorer kids were 13+, they were street-wise and so had few road injuries than the Henry and Henriettas that had yet to identify their arses and elbows.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff