Parents should guard their kids from unexpectedly running out into the street during a heightened sense of adventure and excitement pursuing candy and treats. Drivers should always remember they're piloting a guided 2000 lb missile and to drive defensively, not offensively (read: aggressively.)
From that chart, an increase of 1.75 fatalities per hour spiking to 3.25 (both estimated) per hour. Percentages are irrelevant with such numbers.
"...greater progress toward eliminating pedestrian fatalities altogether." And once you totally eliminate the fatality of walking by or on a street, what's your next target for Zero Risk, Lloyd? I keep asking, and also keep stating that LIFE is always a non-zero Risk event. There is no magic wand, no wrapping up into bubble-wrap, no amount of Laws and regulations, and no sarcastic King Canute that can make it otherwise.
But while we're playing this game, I swing you (having superglued our hands together to eliminate you falling on the asphalt) around to your severe lack of cognition concerning Politics - how will you accomplish such a result? It's nice to say, even if a bit hackneyed, "SOMEONE HAS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!". Well, there, you've done that.
But what's the plan to accomplish it? In totality and not just a couple of streets a couple nights a year in a certain spot?
Meanwhile, I'll be taking the Grandson and the Foster Child down to the police blocked off "main" street of our tiny hamlet where the local residents have all voluntarily banded together to dish out candy to all the young'us and the adults stand in the street yakking with each other. The only "danger" will be one of those voluminous "crazed dinosaur" costumes that a pre- or early teenager will probably show up in, lose track of where the eye slits are, and bowls over a 3 year old.
It’s a valid concern. At what point does investment in reducing risks become a negative ROI? When the rate falls to 1.25? Maybe 0.5? Or is zero the ultimate goal?
Life has a 100% chance of mortality, as Grok says. Each incremental regulation meant to reduce risks comes at a cost, both in manufacturing as well as regulatory compliance. All of that gets passed on to the consumer. Life carries risks with it, and we each need to consider how much we want to pay to ensure our own safety and health, but if the ROI doesn’t warrant it should we continue pushing for tighter and tighter regulations? I don’t believe we should. At some point the consumer has to accept a certain amount of responsibility and risk for their actions or inactions.
I’ve known people who’ve spent $150k+ on a $200k house renovating it to be as energy efficient as possible but will never recoup their investment saving on energy bills. Meanwhile, they struggle to keep food on the table or forego medical care because they don’t have enough free cash flow. What is the point of that hubris?
John Staples' Figure 2 is interesting - but were the stats controlled for changes in clock time from DST to (local)Standard Time? Would it create a change in the statistics?
Personally I regard Hallowe'en as a another commercial holiday, to be avoided and left unsupported in respect for those Hallows (saints - people we knew who have passed on). The full name is All Hallows Eve; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween
Otherwise, I agree completely with Lloyd's comments. Sidewalks, high-vis clothing for everyone, slower speeds on streets (perhaps every residential street a school/playground zone on 31 October).
The "ten times as likely" stat is in the second graf of the "Results" section, and refers to children aged 4 to 8:
Subgroup analysis revealed the highest relative risk increase was among children, with pedestrians aged 4 to 8 years exhibiting a 10-fold increase in pedestrian fatality risk on Halloween (odds ratio, 10.00 [95% CI, 5.23-19.11]; P < .001; Figure 1).
Parents should guard their kids from unexpectedly running out into the street during a heightened sense of adventure and excitement pursuing candy and treats. Drivers should always remember they're piloting a guided 2000 lb missile and to drive defensively, not offensively (read: aggressively.)
From that chart, an increase of 1.75 fatalities per hour spiking to 3.25 (both estimated) per hour. Percentages are irrelevant with such numbers.
"...greater progress toward eliminating pedestrian fatalities altogether." And once you totally eliminate the fatality of walking by or on a street, what's your next target for Zero Risk, Lloyd? I keep asking, and also keep stating that LIFE is always a non-zero Risk event. There is no magic wand, no wrapping up into bubble-wrap, no amount of Laws and regulations, and no sarcastic King Canute that can make it otherwise.
But while we're playing this game, I swing you (having superglued our hands together to eliminate you falling on the asphalt) around to your severe lack of cognition concerning Politics - how will you accomplish such a result? It's nice to say, even if a bit hackneyed, "SOMEONE HAS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!". Well, there, you've done that.
But what's the plan to accomplish it? In totality and not just a couple of streets a couple nights a year in a certain spot?
Meanwhile, I'll be taking the Grandson and the Foster Child down to the police blocked off "main" street of our tiny hamlet where the local residents have all voluntarily banded together to dish out candy to all the young'us and the adults stand in the street yakking with each other. The only "danger" will be one of those voluminous "crazed dinosaur" costumes that a pre- or early teenager will probably show up in, lose track of where the eye slits are, and bowls over a 3 year old.
How would that be tracked in the stats?
Why do you need to be a dick? 🤡
Some one needs to bring up reality.
It's not reality 🤡
It’s a valid concern. At what point does investment in reducing risks become a negative ROI? When the rate falls to 1.25? Maybe 0.5? Or is zero the ultimate goal?
Life has a 100% chance of mortality, as Grok says. Each incremental regulation meant to reduce risks comes at a cost, both in manufacturing as well as regulatory compliance. All of that gets passed on to the consumer. Life carries risks with it, and we each need to consider how much we want to pay to ensure our own safety and health, but if the ROI doesn’t warrant it should we continue pushing for tighter and tighter regulations? I don’t believe we should. At some point the consumer has to accept a certain amount of responsibility and risk for their actions or inactions.
I’ve known people who’ve spent $150k+ on a $200k house renovating it to be as energy efficient as possible but will never recoup their investment saving on energy bills. Meanwhile, they struggle to keep food on the table or forego medical care because they don’t have enough free cash flow. What is the point of that hubris?
John Staples' Figure 2 is interesting - but were the stats controlled for changes in clock time from DST to (local)Standard Time? Would it create a change in the statistics?
Personally I regard Hallowe'en as a another commercial holiday, to be avoided and left unsupported in respect for those Hallows (saints - people we knew who have passed on). The full name is All Hallows Eve; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween
Otherwise, I agree completely with Lloyd's comments. Sidewalks, high-vis clothing for everyone, slower speeds on streets (perhaps every residential street a school/playground zone on 31 October).
Thanks for the repost.
The "ten times as likely" stat is in the second graf of the "Results" section, and refers to children aged 4 to 8:
Subgroup analysis revealed the highest relative risk increase was among children, with pedestrians aged 4 to 8 years exhibiting a 10-fold increase in pedestrian fatality risk on Halloween (odds ratio, 10.00 [95% CI, 5.23-19.11]; P < .001; Figure 1).