What if highway fatalities were treated as seriously as those of Covid?

[MikeWM]

Do you feel there is an absence of proportionality between our tolerance of highway and covid deaths?

Yes, absolutely. We accept the former as an unfortunate side-effect of living in a free society with the economic and social system we've established over centuries. But for some reason that I don't remotely understand, we think the latter is unacceptable, and we have to destroy our freedom, society and economy in a (futile!) attempt to try to prevent them.

 

[OneOffDave]

And how much of that released capacity was actually used? Got any stats? As regard moving patients around, it's not at all uncommon if there is high demand in a particular hospital to move patients to another one.

As regards the excess deaths, yes I am assuming that the majority of people who have died were very close to the end of life because that is what the statistics are showing - the average age of someone dying with Covid is at around or slightly above the average life expectancy. That's not to say there aren't younger people too, but for the average to be that high they are clearly a minority.

Not got the stats to hand as I'm at home today. Moving critical care patients is fairly uncommon. In the two regional major trauma centres I was emergency planner for we'd get 2-3 a month usually. The LAS set up and staffed 24/7 a critical transfer cell just to manage that. Given that this is normally managed as part of the day job by the control room and they had already drafted in a number of other staff to boost control room shifts, this shows how much more inter hospital activity was going on.

As for assuming that people near the average life expectancy are very close to the end of life, that shows a possible misunderstanding of averages. The UK currently has it's highest ever population of over 90s (over 600,000 according to ONS ONS Estimates) but the average is dragged downwards by the numbers of people who die younger. I can't find a decent distribution curve for UK deaths by age at death but the raw data is here (ONS Data) if anyone fancies plotting it

 

[squizzler]

Actually our response to Covid has been akin to that of commercial transport services - air and rail - when they encounter a dangerous state of affairs. Road traffic is a conspicuous exemption.

On the railways the corporate meltdown of Railtrack after the Hatfield crash in 2000 was very similar to the response to Covid. That was the one that involved temporary speed restrictions all over the network and total collapse of train punctuality. In that instance the problem was Railtrack's inability to track and trace fatigued rails rather than infected people.

In the airline industry the impact of the 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA are well known and contemporary of the Railtrack meltdown era. More recently the Boeing 737 Max debacle shows that major action can be taken when a danger to human life is identified.

Hitherto road transport in general and personal motoring in particular has been at odds with the precautionary principle applied for commercial transport. This might be because it is sold as an exercise in personal liberty as much as a means of mobility. However, and in light of the curtailment in our liberties imposed to deal with Covid, giving motorists an exemption to continue to impose manageable risks on communities they pass through becomes much less tenable.

Also, the imposition in personal liberties for Covid was accepted as a stopgap whilst waiting for a vaccine or remedy which most people just assumed would come soon. Road safety is in a similar position now: we think that electric cars will be the majority soon, and eventually driverless technology will become viable. This will make cars both pollution free and unlikely to crash.

Should we not be taking a similar attitude to road casualties and those due to air pollution in the same way as Covid: the technology to eliminate them are in its way but we can toughen enforcement to minimise unnecessary deaths in the interim?

 

[dan5324]

Actually our response to Covid has been akin to that of commercial transport services - air and rail - when they encounter a dangerous state of affairs. Road traffic is a conspicuous exemption.

On the railways the corporate meltdown of Railtrack after the Hatfield crash in 2000 was very similar to the response to Covid. That was the one that involved temporary speed restrictions all over the network and total collapse of train punctuality. In that instance the problem was Railtrack's inability to track and trace fatigued rails rather than infected people.

In the airline industry the impact of the 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA are well known and contemporary of the Railtrack meltdown era. More recently the Boeing 737 Max debacle shows that major action can be taken when a danger to human life is identified.

Hitherto road transport in general and personal motoring in particular has been at odds with the precautionary principle applied for commercial transport. This might be because it is sold as an exercise in personal liberty as much as a means of mobility. However, and in light of the curtailment in our liberties imposed to deal with Covid, giving motorists an exemption to continue to impose manageable risks on communities they pass through becomes much less tenable.

Also, the imposition in personal liberties for Covid was accepted as a stopgap whilst waiting for a vaccine or remedy which most people just assumed would come soon. Road safety is in a similar position now: we think that electric cars will be the majority soon, and eventually driverless technology will become viable. This will make cars both pollution free and unlikely to crash.

Should we not be taking a similar attitude to road casualties and those due to air pollution in the same way as Covid: the technology to eliminate them are in its way but we can toughen enforcement to minimise unnecessary deaths in the interim?

are you a member of the Green Party? That’s the exact kind of anti car tripe that would be spewed out of Caroline mucas’s mouth?

Do you actually have a solution? Enforcement has gotten tougher over the years. Short of having a police office on every corner, shoulder of the road though then there will always be people who getaway with breaking the rules.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Squizzler is right

Halving 'accidental' deaths in the short term, then halving them again is very realistic, the big differences compared to covid are: we know how to do it, and there are no downsides, unknowables, financial uncertainties, possible costs

 

[6Gman]

Not saying I disagree but that's an average of 5,620 direct deaths a year (accepting its probably more skewed towards later years with more cars on the road). Covid has reached almost 10x that in the UK.

If you want to win the stats war, best not to include this one - or at least not for such a long length of time!

Actually I believe the annual fatality rate has fallen, largely because of safety measures in vehicles (structural integrity, seatbelts, airbags etc).

 

[RT4038]

The opinion is often expressed on these forums (and amongst the rail advocacy scene) that there is a massive disconnect between the way that highway deaths are perceived and investigated and deaths that occur on the railways.

Perhaps there is a similar disconnect between deaths caused by covid and those from highway crashes:

• According to DfT, between 1951 and 2006 a total of 309,144 people were killed and 17.6 million were injured in accidents on British roads.
• In 2019, toxic air leads to the premature deaths of at least 40,000 people a year in the UK – 9,000 in London – and it leaves hundreds of thousands more suffering serious long-term health problems. (Royal College of Physicians).
• If you break your Covid quarantine in England - thus endangering public safety - the fine is £1000. If you public lives in danger with your car through excess speed the speeding ticket is £60. Does this difference in fine represent the likelihood and amount of injury that could be caused by these different misdemeanours?

Do you feel there is an absence of proportionality between our tolerance of highway and covid deaths? If so, how could the sense of public duty we have invoked for the covid crisis be applied to highway safety? If nothing else, highway deaths are an interesting experiment against which to measure the costs on personal freedom imposed by the Covid response. I believe we could as a society choose to reduce highway costs to zero and with fewer restrictions on personal liberty than that imposed by "lockdowns" which reduce (but not eliminate) covid deaths.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/848485/road-casualties-year-ending-june-2019.pdf

This DfT paper appears to suggest that there were 1 870 fatalities in road accidents July 18 to Jun 19, and 25 950 seriously injured. So it looks like there has been a substantial reduction, in spite of the general increase in road traffic.

 

[bramling]

No the difference is one grows exponentially and the other doesn't. Comparing them is ludicrous.

If everytime someome was killed in a car accident, their relatives went out and started deliberately driving dangerously until they had caused a few more crashes, that would be like Covid, and there would surely a be a Covid-like reponse.

Until Covid runs out of hosts, which is inevitable at some point, whereas car accidents can continue happening ad-infinitum.

 

[TheBeard]

207 people die daily from smoking. Lets cluster bomb tobacco farms and lockdown none smokers for a year so they dont inhale

 

[al78]

The primary difference between road deaths and COVID is that road deaths don't have the risk of increasing exponentially and thus don't have the risk of overwhelming the NHS, they tend to be steady state or decrease over timescales of years. They are seen as part of the annual mean death toll, and are the price society has decided to pay for the mobility freedom and opportunity that motoring brings.

 

[DB]

The primary difference between road deaths and COVID is that road deaths don't have the risk of increasing exponentially and thus don't have the risk of overwhelming the NHS, they tend to be steady state or decrease over timescales of years. They are seen as part of the annual mean death toll, and are the price society has decided to pay for the mobility freedom and opportunity that motoring brings.

But it hasn't come close to overwhelming the NHS, as a look at the stats shows. Also, the exponential increase will peak and then decline relatively rapidly if left to occur naturally.

 

[al78]

Until Covid runs out of hosts, which is inevitable at some point, whereas car accidents can continue happening ad-infinitum.

It will eventually run out of hosts, either because the weakest are killed off or we have a working vaccine that is administered to a bulk of the population. Saying "Until Covid runs out of hosts", is that an implication that we should just let it run its course no matter what the death toll, on the basis it is mostly old people at the end of their life so who cares? To take that stance li=terally means deciding the lives of the vulnerable have less value than everyone else and so are expendable. How this fits in with a civilised society, which is supposed to value human life and assist the vulnerable and needy, I don't know. As a logical solution, it might be technically valid, but pure Mr Spock style logic is not always appropriate in isolation for decision making, as a civilised society we have ethical considerations as well. That is one thing that makes humans stand out over animals.

 

[Richard Scott]

No the difference is one grows exponentially and the other doesn't. Comparing them is ludicrous.

If everytime someome was killed in a car accident, their relatives went out and started deliberately driving dangerously until they had caused a few more crashes, that would be like Covid, and there would surely a be a Covid-like reponse.

Yes but most of those involved wouldn't even know they'd had a crash, not sure there's such a thing as an asymptomatic crash?

 

[al78]

But it hasn't come close to overwhelming the NHS, as a look at the stats shows. Also, the exponential increase will peak and then decline relatively rapidly if left to occur naturally.

I can believe that, but it might if zero action was taken, we carried on as normal with no lockdowns, and let it run its course. That is the point, the lockdowns don't stop the virus spreading, they slow it down so the hospitals don't get near the point of being overwhelmed (in very localised areas i.e. individual hospitals they may have come close). That is what I believe the strategy is, to slow it down and buy enough time for a vaccine to be developed and made available to the public. There are at least two out there which appear promising, if they do in fact work as hoped, this pandemic will be virtually over by next summer. If you let it run its course, you are gambling its peak will happen before the NHS is overwhelmed, and that its peak will not be high enough to overwhelm.

 

[DB]

To take that stance li=terally means deciding the lives of the vulnerable have less value than everyone else and so are expendable. How this fits in with a civilised society, which is supposed to value human life and assist the vulnerable and needy, I don't know.

The NHS makes decisions like that every day in deciding on whether or not to give treatments, and what to prioritise .

The basic premise of this whole situation is that all deaths from Covid must be stopped at all costs. If one person doesn't get it, but dies from cancer next month anyway, that's a success because they didn't die of Covid, even if it results in suicides of younger people due to bankruptcy or whatever - they didn't die of Covid, so don't matter.

There is also no guarantee at all that the death toll from Covid won't be similar to what it would have been, just spread out over a longer period and augmented by all the people who died as a result of misguided attempts to 'beat the virus'.

 

[al78]

Yes but most of those involved wouldn't even know they'd had a crash, not sure there's such a thing as an asymptomatic crash?

There isn't, socialising with someone who has been in a car accident doesn't impose any more risk you will have a car accident, unless they are giving you a lift and driving like an idiot.

 

[DustyBin]

Squizzler is right

Halving 'accidental' deaths in the short term, then halving them again is very realistic, the big differences compared to covid are: we know how to do it, and there are no downsides, unknowables, financial uncertainties, possible costs

How do we do it? If it’s so simple why hasn’t it been done?

You previously suggested rebuilding roads to make them narrower which is a non-starter (I’m not sure if you were being serious or not!).

 

[Richard Scott]

There isn't, socialising with someone who has been in a car accident doesn't impose any more risk you will have a car accident, unless they are giving you a lift and driving like an idiot.

That's not the point being made.

 

[DB]

I can believe that, but it might if zero action was taken, we carried on as normal with no lockdowns, and let it run its course. That is the point, the lockdowns don't stop the virus spreading, they slow it down so the hospitals don't get near the point of being overwhelmed (in very localised areas i.e. individual hospitals they may have come close). That is what I believe the strategy is, to slow it down and buy enough time for a vaccine to be developed and made available to the public. There are at least two out there which appear promising, if they do in fact work as hoped, this pandemic will be virtually over by next summer. If you let it run its course, you are gambling its peak will happen before the NHS is overwhelmed, and that its peak will not be high enough to overwhelm.

Look at the rates in Sweden - still lower than many other European countries, even in the larger cities. There is little evidence that all these lockdowns, masks, etc, are having any real effect at all.

And as to your argument about risking overwhelming the NHS, the current situation is risking trashing the economy (OK, more than risking - it's actually doing it), and causing massive hardship as a result - and this is actually happening, not a hypothetical situation.

 

[bramling]

I can believe that, but it might if zero action was taken, we carried on as normal with no lockdowns, and let it run its course. That is the point, the lockdowns don't stop the virus spreading, they slow it down so the hospitals don't get near the point of being overwhelmed (in very localised areas i.e. individual hospitals they may have come close). That is what I believe the strategy is, to slow it down and buy enough time for a vaccine to be developed and made available to the public. There are at least two out there which appear promising, if they do in fact work as hoped, this pandemic will be virtually over by next summer. If you let it run its course, you are gambling its peak will happen before the NHS is overwhelmed, and that its peak will not be high enough to overwhelm.

This doesn’t reconcile with the fact that the average age of Covid mortality is 82, which actually compares favourably with current U.K. average life expectancy in general which seems to be reckoned to be 81. It of course doesn’t help that the general population seems to underestimate the former figure, in the same way that they overestimate the odds of dying from Covid.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting let it run completely unchecked, but ensuring the wider populace are not under misapprehensions regarding key statistics would be a start, and likewise making proper consideration of whether the consequences of lockdown and restriction policies are having a more harmful effect than Covid.

 

[Richard Scott]

I can believe that, but it might if zero action was taken, we carried on as normal with no lockdowns, and let it run its course. That is the point, the lockdowns don't stop the virus spreading, they slow it down so the hospitals don't get near the point of being overwhelmed (in very localised areas i.e. individual hospitals they may have come close). That is what I believe the strategy is, to slow it down and buy enough time for a vaccine to be developed and made available to the public. There are at least two out there which appear promising, if they do in fact work as hoped, this pandemic will be virtually over by next summer. If you let it run its course, you are gambling its peak will happen before the NHS is overwhelmed, and that its peak will not be high enough to overwhelm.

It might, so we've trashed the economy and people's livelihoods just because it might? That's not a sound premise on which to do things but it seems that's what we have done.

 

[al78]

The NHS makes decisions like that every day in deciding on whether or not to give treatments, and what to prioritise .

The basic premise of this whole situation is that all deaths from Covid must be stopped at all costs. If one person doesn't get it, but dies from cancer next month anyway, that's a success because they didn't die of Covid, even if it results in suicides of younger people due to bankruptcy or whatever - they didn't die of Covid, so don't matter.

There is also no guarantee at all that the death toll from Covid won't be similar to what it would have been, just spread out over a longer period and augmented by all the people who died as a result of misguided attempts to 'beat the virus'.

On an individual case by case basis based on professional expertise and judgement, and probabilities, not on a population scale it doesn't. If they did and decided not to treat people with alcohol or smoking related conditions because they likely brought it on themselves so can't be that bothered about their health, I don't think that would go down well somehow, yet implying we should let the pensioners die because they haven't got long anyway is somehow fine. All this on here seems to be the same tired old attempt to dump consequences on groups they have no identity with.

 

[bramling]

On an individual case by case basis based on professional expertise and judgement, and probabilities, not on a population scale it doesn't. If they did and decided not to treat people with alcohol or smoking related conditions because they likely brought it on themselves so can't be that bothered about their health, I don't think that would go down well somehow, yet implying we should let the pensioners die because they haven't got long anyway is somehow fine. All this on here seems to be the same tired old attempt to dump consequences on groups they have no identity with.

I think it’s more a case that people are concerned about transferring consequences from one group who are near the end of their natural lifespan, to other groups who aren’t, especially when the former group should be more easily able to shield themselves or be shielded by virtue of the fact that in most cases they don’t need to leave home to earn a living.

I think that’s a rational analysis of the situation unclouded by emotive sentiments, which is unfortunately what is needed at this time. As a society we need to accept there’s certain things which are beyond our control - trying to stop certain weather events is another example.

 

[DB]

On an individual case by case basis based on professional expertise and judgement, and probabilities, not on a population scale it doesn't. If they did and decided not to treat people with alcohol or smoking related conditions because they likely brought it on themselves so can't be that bothered about their health, I don't think that would go down well somehow, yet implying we should let the pensioners die because they haven't got long anyway is somehow fine. All this on here seems to be the same tired old attempt to dump consequences on groups they have no identity with.

They do absolutely make it on a population scale - there are guidlines on all of this sort of thing.

You accuse me of a 'tired old attempt', while you trot out the same tedious old tropes yourself! Nobody has said that we should just abandon all older people (twisting what has been said is favourite tactic of lockdown enthusiasts). The point being made is that draconian restricitons which have clear and very negative effects are being made on the basis of something that might happen, and the measures might make some difference. Until this year, this sort of policy making would have been regarded as ridiculous. There is also a complete refusal to learn from experience. If something appears to have an effect, even if it's dodgy correlation, it's shouted repeatedly as a success. But where it has no noticeable effect (masks, lockdowns) it's taken as read that it works, and when it doesn't that's just evidence that masks are needed in more places, stricter lockdowns are the answer. By the time a vaccine is rolled out in sufficient numbers, it's reasonably likely that the epidemic will have peaked and be in decline anyway.

 

[DustyBin]

On an individual case by case basis based on professional expertise and judgement, and probabilities, not on a population scale it doesn't. If they did and decided not to treat people with alcohol or smoking related conditions because they likely brought it on themselves so can't be that bothered about their health, I don't think that would go down well somehow, yet implying we should let the pensioners die because they haven't got long anyway is somehow fine. All this on here seems to be the same tired old attempt to dump consequences on groups they have no identity with.

I don’t think anybody is saying we should let pensioners die and I’m sure like me many posters have parents etc. who are getting on a bit. Aren’t you doing exactly what you’re accusing others of i.e. attempting to dump consequences on groups of people you (presumably) don’t identify with? These restrictions aren’t a minor inconvenience and no amount of rubbish from the government about “digging in” will change that. Peoples lives are being ruined, in some cases literally to the point that they no longer wish to live. The point we’re trying to make is that nobody cares about these people, they don’t have a voice, the government is blind in its obsession with Covid-19.

 

[Horizon22]

But it hasn't come close to overwhelming the NHS, as a look at the stats shows. Also, the exponential increase will peak and then decline relatively rapidly if left to occur naturally.

It hasn't come close but that's because we've put measures in place to prevent it.

I'm not suggesting that there's not excess attention placed to Covid and that current restrictions are all fine and dandy, but we have no actual idea (other than models that people often suggest are ridiculous) what would happen if there were no restrictions and the rise seen in March continued. Before lockdown 1, there were definitely some areas approaching overwhelmed status in April.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

@DustyBin
Through enforcement, so that many drivers lose their licences and/or learn to obey the law
Through stopping toleration of pavement parking, moving parked vehicles on to the road, slows traffic, simples
(Yes my suggestion is serious)

Why such action has not been taken: motor lobby, stupidity, inertia
Politicians, police, experts know all about it but do (next to) nothing

It need not even cost anything!

A regime that introduced serious enforcement leading to halving deaths and injuries would be very popular, would certainly get my vote

 

[DustyBin]

@DustyBin
Through enforcement, so that many drivers lose their licences and/or learn to obey the law
Through stopping toleration of pavement parking, moving parked vehicles on to the road, slows traffic, simples
(Yes my suggestion is serious)

Why such action has not been taken: motor lobby, stupidity, inertia
Politicians, police, experts know all about it but do (next to) nothing

It need not even cost anything!

A regime that introduced serious enforcement leading to halving deaths and injuries would be very popular, would certainly get my vote

I’m pro-car (a petrol head actually!) but some of what you’re saying makes sense. Personally I think there’s too much emphasis placed on catching people speeding (I mean by small amounts) and not enough on bad driving in general. Indicators seem to have become an optional extra in recent years, and I still see a lot of people texting etc. whilst driving.

I suspect you face problems that I don’t (pavement parking for example isn’t really an issue where I live) which will obviously shape your view. I would say though that slow, congested roads aren’t a good thing. I think I mentioned it on the speed camera on thread, I would support mandatory retesting or refresher courses for all drivers every few years as a way of maintaining standards.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Plenty of space in my leafy suburb, no 'need' to park or drive on the pavement, but many do

The media have a lot to answer for, they should treat speeding and parking like any other crime

The driver who parks on a pavement/cycle way 'without thinking', leaving the road free but endangering harmless walkers, cyclists, children, disabled people should be given a good talking to, and punished for their crime

 

[DB]

It hasn't come close but that's because we've put measures in place to prevent it.

I'm not suggesting that there's not excess attention placed to Covid and that current restrictions are all fine and dandy, but we have no actual idea (other than models that people often suggest are ridiculous) what would happen if there were no restrictions and the rise seen in March continued. Before lockdown 1, there were definitely some areas approaching overwhelmed status in April.

We are back to the 'might' again here aren't we? There is no direct evidence as to what effect the measures have had - the first lockdown was imposed at the end of winter, when all respiratory viruses would have been in decline anyway. The most recent lockdown has been so widely ignored that it's probably made little difference, especially considering that those shops which remain open have been busier.

If you think that the measures were solely / mainly responsible, how do you explain Sweden? Logically, they should have had a massive spike in April / May, way above that of all the countries which imposed lockdowns - but that didn't happen.

These measures are imposed on the basis of 'might'. Even when there is no evidence of them making any difference (masks particularlly) they are forced into more and more areas, and the very real negative effects on society (which are not 'might' - they are actually happening) are simply ignored.

And if NHS capacity was such an issue, why didn't they remove all restrictions in the summer (a better time for it to spread, as the NHS is always busier in winter), and take steps to build up capacity? In 8 months they could have achieved quite a lot, but appear to have done nothing at all.