Roads? Only amount for the 1% of the causes of death; and that also answers Richard's question.
Actually it doesn't.
The statistics don't tell you the cause. They tell you what people at the scene thought the cause was. It is folly to rely ion statistics in these cases.
To blame the road you have to be aware of the road issues that can cause problems - and most people filling in post accident forms aren't aware. Plus the forms themselves don't have clear categories for blaming the road - so it isn't a surprise that the statistics don't reflect reality on that point.
In formula 1 the drivers are all highly skilled and so it is natural to blame road or car design for deaths, which is why fatalities have fallen even more in that domain.
Plus - if you classify death statistics by type of road then you find some types to be safer than others - which more or less proves that the road is, to some extent, to blame all of the time.
Well you can get a good approximation to it just by Googling
police shootings US
In fact there is a US law, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, specifically Section 210402, the U.S. Congress mandated that the attorney general collect data on the use of excessive force by police and publish an annual report from the data. However this has not been done in recent years so the void has been filled by crowdsourcing.
SO who's fault is it that the don't have the data?
Re: Re: Re: Re: The technology is here. The genie is out.
A felony record will make it a lot harder to maintain good relations and a good job, making you less attractive as a mate and less successful in procreation.
Meanwhile, in the real world these people are put into a position where the only recreation they can afford is procreation - whilst the higher achievers are too busy with their careers to bother with having children.
Re: Re: Re: The technology is here. The genie is out.
You don't turn more than a millennium of religious zealotry on the subject into the ideal world in one generation.
Unfortunately, as I commented above, "religious zealotry" isn't the problem. After all many of the current generation of moral zealots are actually, or even officially, atheists (eg the Chinese government).
The actual problem is an innate human tendency to want to have someone to look down on. Sometimes this manifests as racism, sometimes as religious moralising or bigotry - all of which goes against the true teaching of the religion which tells you to ingore the speck in your brother's eye until you have removed the plank from your own.
It is somewhat ironic that the practitioners of that religion who ought to have been leading the charge against this problem for nearly 2000 years have actually spent a lot of the time making it worse.
But then again there are also the verses: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
We've abandoned moral disapproval of so many things that used to be on the "unmentionable list" (sex/pregnancy outside marriage, homosexuality, promiscuity etc) but we just can't do without something to get all high and mighty about - so it is all heaped on the one thing that we can all agree on - paedophilia and child porn.
We are really comfortable doing this because it is the only sin that we aren't tempted by personally. It's really good to complain about other people and not to have to examine ourselves
In my mind this attitude is more destructive than the things it diisapproves of - and this case demonstrates it perfectly - because all the parties here (apart from the daughter and her boyfriend) are guilty of it!
Actually, whilst all traffic deaths are down, they have not gone down as far as airline deaths and motorsport deaths. The big difference is that in these two fields the culture is not to blame the driver/pilot because there will always be mistakes (or in the case of regualr road traffic, idiots) but rather for the authorities to change the things that they can change.
Obvious examples of that are road layout/furniture and vehicle design.
Speed limits and drink drive laws have a role - but their downside is that they encourage a blame culture that can actually get in the way of real improvements.
Take the death of Princess Diana.
People blamed the paparazzi for creating a chase. People blamed the driver for drugs/drink and speeding. People blamed Princess Diana herself for not wearing a seatbelt.
However the authorities could do precisely zero to affect any of these - without serious civil liberties implications.
What the French authorities could have done is to install a crash barrier to prevent a head on collision with one of the pillars.
AFAIK THEY STILL HAVEN'T DONE THIS! yet it would have saved the lives of everyone in the car regardless of their bad behaviour and that of the press.
Actually if they performed proper statistical analysis on their results then they would have found that their methodology generates a large p value and hence any reasonable person would have just chucked the result in the bin!
it will not be just the united states, it is being everywhere, where the US foot print has been is just the beginning, congratulations Kissinger you have brought about the end of the world just in time for you to not care,
W S Gilbert has a quote for you too: The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this and every country but his own.
Chief Justice Brian Quinn’s opinion reflects intellectual honesty. The upshot is that the legal system will still believe any nonsensical lie told by a cop on the stand if the prosecution fleshes it out with enough background fluff to satisfy the demand of creating the appearance of expertise. and again
Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative
Maybe this is because drug smugglers just happen to be human beings and being such, they tend to engage in the same innocuous acts in which law abiding citizens engage.
When a felon's not engaged in his employment Or maturing his felonious little plans His capacity for innocent enjoyment Is just as great as any honest man's Our feelings we with difficulty smother When constabulary duty is to be done Taking one consideration with another A policeman's lot is not a happy one When constabulary duties to be done, to be done A policeman's lot is not a happy one When the enterprising burglar's not a-burgling When the cutthroat isn't occupied in crime He loves to hear the little brook a-gurgling And listen to the merry village chime When the coster's finished jumping on his mother He loves to lie a-basking in the sun Taking one consideration with another A policeman's lot is not a happy one When constabulary duty's to be done, to be done A policeman's lot is not a happy one When the drunkard shows no sign of where the drink went He nobly bids all alchohol farewell When the juvenile delinquent to the clink went He hung his mother's picture in his cell When the cardshark's finished wiping out his brother He buys a rattle for his little son Taking one consideration with another A policeman's lot is not a happy one When constabulary duties to be done, to be done A policeman's lot is not a happy one from elyrics.net
This whole discussion looks bizarre when viewed from this side of the atlantic, where the police have welcomed the introduction and use of cameras on the grounds that it makes suspects less likely to attempt to use force on the police.
But then of course the major difference is we have the sense not to allow the population to arm themselves to the teeth and we therefore don't need to arm the police either.
You are of a different (and to us very strange) planet in the US.
And by the way, when the usual idiots come out with the response that more guns=less crime - and put up links that purport to prove that point - I shan't bother to read them for the same reason that I don't read articles that also come from your country that purport to show that the earth was created 6000 years ago in 7 days, the moon landings were faked etc etc etc.
This isn't surprising as the heroes of films and police dramas on TV do this kind of thing all the time and although they sometimes get punished (a useul plot device) they almost always get exonerated in the end because they "Get Results".
It is only to be expected that real life police officers do the same thing.
y would he need to be convicted in the UK to be sent to the US? It beats me how someone who has never visited the US can be guilty of a crome under US law. It looks like the US wants to impose its laws on everyone else in the world.
Since people in th UK don't have a say in US laws this would seem to be one step worse than the complaint that started the AMerican revolution.