[Closed] Angry commuter - justified??

Can all the non-drivers please stop posting and report to the workhouse?
Jeeez. These chickens aren't going to muck themselves out.

GrahamS - Member

Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2009: Articles 1-7 (PDF 672 kb)

Feel free to go as deep into that rabbit hole as you like.

Thanks, not very deep as it happens. And I found:

"estimated to be"
"a number of assumptions have been made"
"a broad illustrative figure"

And no offset against any benefits at all. So, made up bollox then.

Incidently, scary stats on bike deaths. 100 people died cycling in 2009, 80% male.

I found

Well done, you found that the estimated average overall cost of an RTA fatality was an estimate. There was me thinking they'd have a precise number. 🙄

not very deep as it happens.

Well if you've already read the cited methodology in [i]Road Accidents Great Britain 1994 (Kate McMahon, Road Safety Division, Department for Transport)[/i] and the cited guidance in [i]Transport Analysis Guidance Unit 3.4.1, The Accident Sub-Objective[/i] and you still have doubts/questions then I suggest you get in contact with a member of the Integrated Transport Economics and Appraisal division at the numbers they give in that article.

And no offset against any benefits at all.

WTF????? It's an estimated figure for the cost of a fatality. You asked where TJ got his £1m+ per RTA death figure from - and that's where.

There are NO BENEFITS to consider offsetting it against. Or are you seriously suggesting we should be saying "Hmmm... those 2,222 deaths and 200,000 injuries cost us X per year, but people having cars generated Y and Y > X so we're all good"???

when GrahamS has a spreadsheet you are bound to loose here speaketh the voice of experience 😳

Graham if he has found that an estimate makes assumption and still insists on wanting a "benefit" to death I fear it may take you longer with them than with me
Good luck

Don't be silly Dear.

There are benefits to society of having a modern road based transport system not least of which are employment, wealth, distribution of goods, availability of food, mobility of the population etc.

The 'value' of these benefits needs to be offset against the 'cost' of providing the 'service'. One of the 'costs' is the people that need scraping up. I.e. your made up £1m per body 'stat'.

Looking at this through a one sided telescope (eh?) does not result in a balanced view. Which is my point.

The numbers have been created by the Govt to illustrate a point. They are based on estimates, assumptions and are broadly illustative. THEY ARE NOT FACTS. So stop trotting them out as if they are. Please.

BTW, I actually asked for a breakdown of that £1m. I know the number, it's been trotted out for years (since 1997, that's how accurate it is) and TJ actually quoted it as the cost of 'premature deaths' not RTA's. Incidently, your references cites the cost varying from £0.75m - £1.25m in 1997. They chose the mid point (why?) and then apparently adjusted to reflect 2009 prices. That's how accurate the 'facts' are.

There are benefits to society of having a modern road based transport system not least of which are employment, wealth, distribution of goods, mobility of the population etc.

Of course. I don't recall saying otherwise.

The 'value' of these benefits needs to be offset against the 'cost' of providing the 'service'. One of the 'costs' is the people that need scraping up. I.e. your made up £1m per body 'stat'.

**** me! So you [u]are[/u] actually saying that if the financial costs of deaths and injuries is less than the profit then it's all okay?

Jeeeebus, I'm not sure I have an answer for that one!

In what other UK industry would it be acceptable to kill or seriously injure 26,912 people in one year, 2,671 of which are children, as long as you turned a decent profit?

*Coughs*

If we vented this torrent internet rage at the Department of Transport for failing to reduce the cost of public transport so as to make it a viable alternative to driving for those of us who live in rural areas then maybe folks wouldn't use their cars so often?

Just sayin'...

No rage here, just discussion.

Graham. No, I'm not saying it's OK. I'm not even discussing the death/injury point. Of course it's pi$$ poor that even 1 person dies on the road but they aren't helped by people trotting out falsehoods.

I'm saying the value of the benefits affects the nominal cost of an RTA.

Unfortunately, it's not correct to debit the downside without crediting the upside. That's what the £1m esitmate is doing and is both made up (being a broad illustration) and logically flawed. People keep repeating it as if it's as reliable as the sticker on a tin of peas in Sainsbury's. I'm afraid, it's not.

they aren't helped by people trotting out falsehoods

You've offered no evidence that it is a falsehood, only that it is an estimate. If you can offer better estimate or methodology I'm sure the DfT would like to hear it. And so would I.

In the breakdown they give in that spreadsheet I'd say "Human Costs" is probably the most hand-wavey point. The others they give (Lost output, Medical/Ambulance. Police, Insurance and Admin, Damage to Property) are probably a bit easier to get hard figures for. So you could start there.

Unfortunately, it's not correct to debit the downside without crediting the upside.

I'm not trying to make a "balance of costs" argument here.
I'm just explaining the background behind the figure, which you and others were questioning.

The "balance of costs" stuff comes from much earlier in the thread where TJ asserted that if you consider indirect costs (like the cost of RTAs) then motorists don't cover all their own costs through VED and Fuel Duty and thus they are effectively subsidised by the non-motorists.

That's his argument though - take it up with him.

I'm sorry Graham, we're getting nowhere with this.

The number you are quoting is fundamentally flawed if you insist on quoting the downside and ignoring the upside. It's not the net cost which is what it is generally being portrayed as though now you are qualifying your position on that in this debate.

Why anyone would want to just consider the cost (dubious and falacious as it is) of something without considering the income side beats me and is just plain wrong.

Ask an accountant to explain credits and debits and you'll get a grasp of why this is so wide of the mark.

On the topic of are any deaths acceptable in an economic argument... If they're not they why calculate it?

As for industries killing children.....chimney sweeping, coal mining, cotton weaving. All popular career choices for the under 14's round my way.

Why anyone would want to just consider the cost (dubious and falacious as it is) of something without considering the income side beats me and is just plain wrong.

As I said the original reason that number was raised was because we were debating whether the income from VED + Fuel Duty covered all the costs or whether non-motorists subsidised motorists.

I've simply tried to move the debate forward by giving figures for the annual income from VED and Fuel Duty, costs for annual road expenditure and by clarifying where the £1.6m per RTA death figure came from.

I'd welcome further figures if that's where you want to take the debate (accurate figures of course - no estimates 😉 )

On the topic of are any deaths acceptable in an economic argument... If they're not they why calculate it?

I believe the calculation is actually made to justify spending on Road Safety campaigns (i.e. spend [i]this[/i] much, we reduce deaths by [i]this[/i] much, so overall it doesn't [i]really[/i] cost us anything).

GrahamS - Member

As I said the original reason that number was raised was because we were debating whether the income from VED + Fuel Duty covered all the costs or whether non-motorists subsidised motorists.

I've simply tried to move the debate forward by giving figures for the annual income from VED and Fuel Duty, costs for annual road expenditure and by clarifying where the £1.6m per RTA death figure came from.

Naaah, that's great thanks. Good to have 7 pages based on spurious data.

Bit pointless really if the base costs are wrong. What sort of conclusions can be drawn if the data is questionable?

To be fair, my main gripe is the figure being floated as fact (well it is 'generally accepted' dontchaknow) when it's nothing more than a badly constructed guess.

I'm slightly amused you can dismiss an educated estimate based on research as "spurious", but can hand-wavingly talk about the income generated by cars without any figures at all to back it up.

To be fair, my main gripe is the figure being floated as fact (well it is 'generally accepted' dontchaknow) when it's nothing more than a badly constructed guess.

It IS generally accepted though - have a Google - I didn't see any of the motoring lobby groups disputing this figure.

Even if you halve that slightly vague "Human Costs" figure, you're still left with over £1.1m per RTA fatality.

I could do it for less. Cheap car, sweep up the mess, run over / drive into a doley and take their lifeless corpse to the hospital myself.

I reckon if I hit them in the soft bits I could creep in below my insurance excess, never mind £1.1m.

Some people today just want gold-plated everything. Including RTA's.

The number you are quoting is fundamentally flawed if you insist on quoting the downside and ignoring the upside. It's not the net cost which is what it is generally being portrayed as though now you are qualifying your position on that in this debate. Why anyone would want to just consider the cost (dubious and falacious as it is) of something without considering the income side beats me and is just plain wrong.

<sigh> But they are not real, incremental costs... They are 'broad illustrations' based on 'assumptions' and 'estimates'. They don't recognise that a large proportion of the support infrastructure would exist regardless of how many 999 calls there are. If they are 'real', who gets sent the bill for the £1m?

I'm not claiming the numbers are high or low. I don't know what they are but I'm not presenting them as 'generally accepted' facts which is what has happened earlier in this thread.

I couldn't care less if they are 'generally accepted', it doesn't make them right does it? I'll cite my WMD dossier example. That was 'generally accepted' as correct and proved to be total cobblers.

hey don't recognise that a large proportion of the support infrastructure would exist regardless of how many 999 calls there are. If they are 'real', who gets sent the bill for the £1m?

Did you actually look at the breakdown in that spreadsheet? The Medical, Ambulance and Police costs only accounted for £11 million of the £3,680 million pa for RTA fatalities.

The main contributors were Lost Output: £1,230 million and Human Costs: £2,420 million - neither of which would "exist regardless".

Complaining that an estimate is an estimate is just silly if you object come up with a better one with a well researched base.

Ok, here's a better one, it's much like the one before, but I don't put a financial value on the distress it causes family members. Already the figure is lower and less spurious

Lost Output: £1,230 million and Human Costs: £2,420 million

Can you explain those categories? how does a death result in a loss of 1.23 million output? Also, what are Human Costs?

Can you explain those categories?

I can try but you might be better off reading [url= http://www2.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2009articles.pdf ]the article they came from[/url].

how does a death result in a loss of 1.23 million output?

It doesn't. That's the estimated loss of output from all 2,222 RTA deaths that year, where the article defines [i]"Loss of output due to injury. This is calculated as the present value of the expected loss of earnings, plus non-wage payments made by employers."[/i]

Also, what are Human Costs?

The article says [i]"The human costs of casualties. These are based on willingness to pay to avoid pain, grief and suffering to the casualty, relatives and friends, as well as intrinsic loss of enjoyment of life in the case of fatalities."[/i]

As I said this one seems a little woolly and I'd like to see a clearer definition.

So 'wooly' = made up then? 🙂

Half it and and you still end up with £1m+ per death.

This is calculated as the present value of the expected loss of earnings, plus non-wage payments made by employers.

Ahhh, the 'TJ lets half the number we made up' approach 🙂 Niiiice.

Tell you what, let's keep halfing it to see how low we can go.

I can try but you might be better off reading the article they came from.

Why is that? Are you unclear about them?

These are based on willingness to pay to avoid pain, grief and suffering to the casualty, relatives and friends, as well as intrinsic loss of enjoyment of life in the case of fatalities."

So, these are just imaginary costs, there is no actual loss to the economy, no actual money.

Come on Tim! Oooh errrr 😳

That's the estimated loss of output from all 2,222 RTA deaths that year, where the article defines "Loss of output due to injury. This is calculated as the present value of the expected loss of earnings, plus non-wage payments made by employers.

and here you've conflated death and injury

Motorcyclists have the highest fatality rate of any road user group. In 2009, 145
motorcyclists were killed per billion vehicle miles. However, this is 6 per cent lower than
in 2008 and 25 per cent below the 1994-98 average

Does this mean we can blame chaps like this one?

Still - I only have hundreds of thousands of miles over decades on motorcycles - what do I know.

DrCM I think he is suggesting you will get better information directly from the source than from his plagarised account. Suggesting he does not understand is a tad unkind.

Saying the WMD was wrong so this must be wrong is quite a large leap.

DrCM I think he is suggesting you will get better information directly from the source than from his plagarised account. Suggesting he does not understand is a tad unkind

It is a long article, which he clearly read, so I just wanted the edited highlights.

Why is that? Are you unclear about them?

Well according to [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.4.1.php ]TAG unit 3.4: The Safety Objective[/url] the full methodology is apparently well covered in [i]Hopkin, J.M. and Simpson, H.[/i] (1995) [b]"Valuation of Road Accidents"[/b], TRL Research Report 163, Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham. - but unfortunately I've left my copy at home and [url= http://www.amazon.com/Valuation-Road-Accidents-TRL-Report/dp/B000GRI4V4 ]Amazon are out of stock[/url].

Ahhh, the 'TJ lets half the number we made up' approach Niiiice

Yep, it demonstrates nicely how much variance/vagueness we can allow in that figure and still be over that £1m per death.

here you've conflated death and injury

No I haven't. That definition is for the "Loss of Output" figure, as used throughout the tables for death AND injury.

Does no one but me actually read any of these things?

Does no one but me actually read any of these things?

Yep, it demonstrates nicely how much variance/vagueness we can allow in that figure and still be over that £1m per death

Well according to TAG unit 3.4: The Safety Objective the full methodology is apparently well covered in Hopkin, J.M. and Simpson, H. (1995) "Valuation of Road Accidents", TRL Research Report 163, Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham. - but unfortunately I've left my copy at home and Amazon are out of stock

they may well be, but do you know what they mean?

WTP also seems to be a flaky approach, with at least two types, and not universally accepeted

i think we all accept any estimate as a bit flaky what you need to do is come up with a better one based on sound[er] premises.
Let us know when it get published Graham can doa peer review. I will check for spelling errors 😉

i think we all accept any estimate as a bit flaky what you need to do is come up with a better one based on sound[er] premises.

But you also have to consider whether or not the bases of those calculations are reasonable or plausible.

Junkyard - Member
i think we all accept any estimate as a bit flaky what you need to do is come up with a better one based on sound[er] premises.
Let us know when it get published Graham can doa peer review. I will check for spelling errors

Errr no, I'm not suggesting the numbers are valid. I'm suggesting a high margin for error + massive fudge factor + incomplete data modelling = really, really dubious conclusions.

You prove em if you cite em. The WMD leap is one of confidence in Govt propaganda not a link between the two subjects. Don't be obtuse, it's unbecoming.

Furthermore we have to be careful to differentiate between valuation of death and costs of death. Valuations can be ascribed to theoretical constructs, but costs need to be real.

Bloody 'ell Charlie, it's alright turning now with all yer logic and that....

50% error margin?

Indeed. 50% woolliness variance factor - like a jumper that's thick across the chest but all worn at the elbows 🙂

WTP also seems to be a flaky approach, with at least two types, and not universally accepeted

Agreed and arguably the cost of a life has no bearing on the argument if we are looking at this from a purely economic point of view (unless it involves counselling, treatment for depression for relatives etc which I don't think it does).

Okay. So if we agree to ditch that "Human Costs" figure entirely then, and if we go from the [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.4.1.php ]figures in Table 3 in the TAG document[/url] (which seem to be more precise) we're left with a figure of £615,102 average cost per RTA fatality.

Does that seem better?

Don't forget to the theoretical future benefits that a motorist would bring to the economy. That needs to be offset against your £600k. Oh and you could apply your 50% error downwards = £300k.....

Blimey £1.7m to £600k in one sentence. Greece next.

Yes, better, but i would then question the value associated with loss of Output

the difference between the present value of lifetime output and consumption

Because just becasue one individual doesn't produce the output, does not mean that it does not get produced

Blimey £1.7m to £600k in one sentence.

I'm not a zealot - Charlie put a reasonable case why me might not want to consider Human Costs in this calculation. I listened.

Because just becasue one individual doesn't produce the output, does not mean that it does not get produced

True, but it is related to consumption as well - the full definition in the TAG document says that it is [i]"calculated as the present value of the expected loss of earnings plus any non-wage payments (national insurance contributions, etc.) paid by the employer. This [u]includes the present value of consumption of goods and services[/u] that is lost as a result of injury accidents."[/i]

You can argue that someone else will do the job - though as much of our economy is built on an expanding population I'm not sure that it is quite that clear cut - but it is definitely one less person consuming at the level the poor sod was before he was juice on the tarmac.

You can argue that someone else will do the job - though as much of our economy is built on an expanding population I'm not sure that it is quite that clear cut - but it is definitely one less person consuming at the level the poor sod was before he was juice on the tarmac.

Sure, he won't consume as much dead as he might alive, but to the tune of half a million? I'm also not clear, but it seems as thought they added his income to his consumption, feels like double counting.

Sure, he won't consume as much dead as he might alive, but to the tune of half a million?

Bear in mind that some of the casualties will be children so you're looking at lifetime earnings and consumption from them.
Though even if someone is killed at 50 they may have had 15 years left at 33k pa.

If anything I'd say that figure seems low given the average UK salary is around 23k, but I guess a number of those killed won't have been in employment.

I'm also not clear, but it seems as thought they added his income to his consumption

Yeah it's not clear is it. I [i]think[/i] they are saying in that definition that by considering his overall wage they're already including the money he had to consume with (not sure how they count this for folk on benefits though? The have consumption power but no wage).

Yeah strange one that. Realistically, trying to say the 500k he hasn't spent is a direct cost is quite a shout. It assumes that the stuff he was going to buy gets made anyway, which on small scale is true, but on overall markets, is not sustainable.

Must...not...get dragged back into the argument by retarded inflammatry/trolling comments.
I will FTFY tho

There are benefits to society of having a modern [s]road based[/s] transport system

*plenty of which shown on here.

stop the ambivalance* towards the deaths.

Sure stopping the ambivalances will just increases the number of deaths! Are you suggesting folks just cycle themselves to the hospital

ok lets go with "...stop the WGAS attitude to the death"
damn dragged in again.

I'm oot, really really this time

I'm oot, really really this time

Sure, but hey, be sure to comeback when you have a coherent and defensible argument

ok you got me.

I wasn't aware that "thousands of KSIs per year is a bad thing and this needs to be remedied" was an incoherent or indefensible argument.

*watches with interest*

Just when we were making progress and getting the made up number down, someone pitches up and tries to move the goal posts....

I don't think anyone is saying the KSIs are a good thing, I'm questiong how the cost of a K is calculated. I think others are saying that they are an unfortunate side effect of having an efficient national transport system. We can't stop all KSIs, especially not by throwing money at them. There has to be a balance. Saying that the money would be better spent elsewhere is not a WGAS attitude, just a rational decision about allocation of resources

How about a 20 mph speed limit in towns then?
All the benefits and fewer [ i so want to say less to annoy you] deaths

i assume we can all agree there are some costs and we would like to reduce the deaths even if we debate the exact costs.

Yes we can ag...we can agrrrrrrrrr. We can aa aa aaaaaagre eee. There are costs. 20mph limits in residential areas look like good value. Getting rid of cars, not so good