Pedestrian casualties higher among BAME people and in poor areas – study

[ClappedOut]

The report is pointing out in statistical terms what has long been clear; that people living in poorer areas are more at risk of injury and death from motor vehicles. There are lots of reasons for this, from the greater prevalence of walking (and cycling) to social attitudes to police enforcement patterns, hopefully the report might help untangle these. We also know that people from ethnic minorities are more likely to be poor and live in deprived neighbourhoods that white people. Those posters fixating on the race aspect and claiming the report was produced to an agenda would seem to have their own agenda.

Not at all
If there is a same income level across all backgrounds and BAME have higher casualties is it because they live in vastly different area with higher traffic flows, narrower pavements or is it something else?

The report is junk as it doesn't explain the reasons.

I have friends, extended family and associates that are various shades and I think highly of them-pulling your a racist card falls flat on it's face.

[thirdcrank]

While wealthier people will tend to have better access to private motor cars, and those cars will tend to be posher and newer, that says nothing about exposure to traffic. I'll jump to the conclusion that a lot of the drivers of motor vehicles are not representative of the wealthier classes. As stevek76 suggested above, the casualty rate of pedestrians in an area isn't a function of the car ownership but exposure to traffic.

[mattsccm]

There might be some greater validity if it indicated whose fault these injuries were.
At that point some useful conclusions could be gained.
I have said this before, but still can't find the source, that a survey (which I have seen) some years ago proved, through police records, that most collisions between pedestrain and vehicles were the pedestrians fault. Drunks wandering out into the road, kids diving through parked cars sort of thing.
Equally I wonder if the survey mentioned takes into account the actions of these pedestrians. Youths wandering down the middle of a street are just plain stupid whatever their race. Obviously only selected data is published.

[merseymouth]

Hi Pete, I think that expecting personal responsibility is not victim blaming! Everyone who moves around in a shared society has a duty for others as well as themselves. Expecting others to be in charge of ones inattentive actions is selfish and asinine.
We all have a part to play in keeping everyone safe. Observation to make safe judgements when people are around who may not be in a position to fulfil this duty of care, for example children and others with impairment which limit such a role.
Apply thought not prepare excuses for a low standard. MM

[mattsccm]

"Yes we certainly need to take stronger action against drivers using phones."
One hhas to assume that Pete has his tongue in his cheek very firmly here.
I bet you that wandering across the road with a mobile glued to the ear has been responsible for more accidents that dozy drivers.

[Mike Sales]

There might be some greater validity if it indicated whose fault these injuries were.
At that point some useful conclusions could be gained.
I have said this before, but still can't find the source, that a survey (which I have seen) some years ago proved, through police records, that most collisions between pedestrian and vehicles were the pedestrians fault. Drunks wandering out into the road, kids diving through parked cars sort of thing.
Equally I wonder if the survey mentioned takes into account the actions of these pedestrians. Youths wandering down the middle of a street are just plain stupid whatever their race. Obviously only selected data is published.

The source I cannot find says that most such RTCs are the fault of the driver, more so if you remove children from the count.
Of course those collisions which take place in the carriageway are usually put down to the pedestrian, who "should not be there" though how one can get anywhere without crossing a road where most drivers speed, is not explained.
Pedestians killed on the pavement are surely the fault of the driver, there are about fifty of these p.a.

[thirdcrank]

I'd be very slow to rely on police stats here. The point is that the "innocent till proven guilty" concept means that causation factors which imply the commission of an offence will often go unrecorded, while what we might call "jaywalking" isn't an offence so is easily recorded. Survivors' justice is another factor: your version of events is less likely to be recorded if you are unable to give it. And so on.

Support for my general point is given by the fact (unless something has changed) that police accident stats are not National Statistics.

[Mike Sales]

While wealthier people will tend to have better access to private motor cars, and those cars will tend to be posher and newer, that says nothing about exposure to traffic. I'll jump to the conclusion that a lot of the drivers of motor vehicles are not representative of the wealthier classes. As stevek76 suggested above, the casualty rate of pedestrians in an area isn't a function of the car ownership but exposure to traffic.

Exposure to traffic as a pedestrian is greater in households which have no access to a car. It is impossible to go very far walking without crossing a road.
Richer households tend these days to have more than one car. Adults in multi-person but single car households, have to walk more when the car is being used by other household members..
Children, too young to drive, are ferried around (dad's taxi is a phrase I have read here), which either limits their freedom or, if they walk, exposes them to traffic.If they are lucky enough to have someone with the time to do this.
I take as a end case of this, though it is not very rare, the single parent family, living in the inner city, on benefits. No car, and children with a very limited young experience, no garden, and the park across busy roads.
Some poorer people have to somehow find the money to run a car, but this will be at the expense of other money choices, which is a deprivation.

[thirdcrank]

We risk going in a circle. As I see it pedestrian traffic casualties are presumably a function of P = pedestrians and T = traffic. It's a bit more complicated for that because it's not just a pedestrian headcount but how much time they spend in traffic. Now there are all sorts of reasons influencing the extent of the latter. eg Children in terraced streets of houses opening directly onto the street have nowhere else to play and so on.

Suggesting that it goes beyond this can IMO only raise two broad possibilities.

(1) BAME people somehow tend to behave differently as pedestrians to their white counterparts.
(2) Drivers somehow tend to behave differently in the presence of BAME pedestrians.

While both are inevitable in some cases, my feeling (and it's nothing more than that) is that neither are widespread. ie I fancy that in general, pedestrian and driver behaviour are not influenced by skin colour or ethnic origin

[Bullseye]

Seems simple to me, you'll find more BAME drivers in BAME areas which will result higher pedestrian casualties among BAME people.

[ClappedOut]

Seems simple to me, you'll find more BAME drivers in BAME areas which will result higher pedestrian casualties among BAME people.

Could be many factors, such as driving licence which for 12 months a foreign one allowed

[atoz]

It is looking at 10 years worth of pedestrian casualty statistics and finds - as similar studies have found in the past - that poor people are more likely to be squished by motors than rich people. It is not a controversial or novel finding, we have known this for a long time. Road danger is a class issue, which is why labour governments have tended to take it seriously and conservative governments have tended to oppose the so called "war on motorists".

Given that we have a conservative government in place that is eager to stoke culture wars at any mention of concern about racial injustice, it is probably a tactical mistake for Living Stree

Seems simple to me, you'll find more BAME drivers in BAME areas which will result higher pedestrian casualties among BAME people.

Could be many factors, such as driving licence which for 12 months a foreign one allowed

ts to highlight the impact of road danger on minorities.

May be just a question of postcode ie where the victim lived, although as they say in statistics, correlation is not necessarily proof of causation.

[mattsccm]

Pedestians killed on the pavement are surely the fault of the driver, there are about fifty of these
Undoubtedly but dimwits wandering out between parked cars have to take some of the blame.

[mattsccm]

Now why is it that, in my experience , the areas of several towns and cities where I live that have high "ethnic" populations also have more people wandering down the middle of the roads, riding bikes against the traffic flow etc?
My point is that the survey plus the original post here is nowt but **** stirring for political reasons, knowing full well that nay objections can happily labeled racism.
Ever noticed how its ok to slag the Tory party but not Labour.

[Pete Owens]

Pedestians killed on the pavement are surely the fault of the driver, there are about fifty of these
Undoubtedly but dimwits wandering out between parked cars have to take some of the blame.

Oh dear yet more victim blaming.

Do you take the same view of cyclists who have the audacity to ride on the road rather confine themselves to farcilities are offering themselves as target practice?