This was written on Totalkitcar this morning. They claim that if you break down on the hard shoulder and stay in your car, your life expectancy is 23 minutes.

Now I find this hard to accept. The implication is that your parked car will be crashed into fatally, the median time to death being 23 minutes. I don't tracel on motorways weekly but I've done my fair share on them. I've never seen a car on the hard shoulder with someone piled into the back of them. I've never seen people drift onto the hard shoulder in a way that would cause a crash if there's been a brake down. I don't see vehicles on the hard shoulder with enough frequency to justify 23 minues even if they were all crashed into. Is this story utter bull droppings?

Er yeah. The only place iv seen a car hit another car on the hard shoulder is on them police camera things and most of the time there are only minor casualties if that.

I think they got complete death confusedwith average recovery time.

er, hmmm. i'm not convinced either. i've heard of plenty of crashes where people have been killed lately, but nothing to do with anyone on the hard shoulder

I suspect the person who got told that 'fact' on the course didn't quite understand the stat he was being told and has misinterpreted it as 'life expectancy'.

Perhaps it meant that, in hard shoulder crashes where there was a fatality, the average time from parking to death was 23 minutes? It might be based on a sample of say 10

or maybe the average time spent on the hardshoulder is 23 minutes, from pulling over to being able to drive away?

There are quite a few collisions on the hard shoulder when people aren't paying attention and assume the parked car is in lane 1. I'm not convinced by that statistic though.

I was once at an RTA with fire service, ambulances, police, blue flashing lgihts, cones etc on the hard shoulder where a bloke ploughed through all the cones and almost hit a fire engine. He wasn't popular. So I would never stay in a car on the hard shoulder myself.

I'd be prepared to accept that for all those killed on the hard shoulder the average time from breaking down to death was 23mins.

If you discount all those not killed from the averaging process it doesn't sound too far out.

A completely pointless statistic if so.

im a recovery man and just in peterborough there have been 20+ rta's where the car on the shoulder has been crashed into 4 fatal, and in huntingdon about 15 with 3 fatal in the last year
it happens all the time but if there is no deaths the accident is cleared within an hour or so

quote:

---

Originally posted by iank
I'd be prepared to accept that for all those killed on the hard shoulder the average time from breaking down to death was 23mins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iank
I'd be prepared to accept that for all those killed on the hard shoulder the average time from breaking down to death was 23mins.

---

I too agree with Ian K. But would this only include kits? I imagine kits create more hard shoulder fatalities as they are often open topped and I guess the occupants are more likely to try and fix themselves.

AFK... as a single male, I waited 3 hours both times I have ever needed recovery. Would it be fair to say I should phone up and say I am dead to get a quicker responce? Crude but true?

Not sure they'd believe you if you phoned t o say you were already dead, and if you call from the Other Side it's a bit late......

Shucks. Still half asleep! I'll go get some breakfast shortly then leave some proper thought out comments.

I travel on the motorways a fair amount and its amazing how many trucks wander slightly on to the hard shoulder,

apparently they don't feel the white line when they drive over it?

anyway we once broke down and the police arrived not long after to make sure we were out of the car as where we were was a bad place for trucks to wander off and flatten you.

Had happen to four young people the month before.

You can manipulate statistics to show whatever result you want.

Phil

Jan 2008 Avatar

The data presented in this sig, for example, implies BECs are the way to go.

We all know that, reading in between the lines, this is definitely not the case

Edited to say "sig" so i look like less of a n00b.

[Edited on 20/2/09 by cd.thomson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellfire
You can manipulate statistics to show whatever result you want.

Phil

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cd.thomson

Jan 2008 Avatar

The data presented in this avatar, for example, implies BECs are the way to go.

We all know that, reading in between the lines, this is definitely not the case

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 02GF74

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellfire
You can manipulate statistics to show whatever result you want.

Phil

---

yeah, but only 90 percent of them.

---

I spent an hour on the hard shoulder when mates Cobra broke down, its scary how many HGV'S wander into the hard shoulder, we were on a unlit section of the M6,(with total power failure on car, no lights or anything, it took the AA nearly 3 hrs to come and that was with the Highways lot badgering them to move him imediatly,
i didnt like being there,

75% of all statistics are made up

The Provincial Police here in Ontario did a study a few years ago. They parked a marked Police vehicles with emergency lights flashing, at night on the shoulder of a four lane highway. Several were struck, mostly by impaired drivers looking at the pretty lights.

They then did the same experiment with all the lights off, and also with abandoned cars at the side of the road, no collisions, what does this say about Hazzard lights.

Many years ago Custom Car magazine drove a car that was fluorescent pink (yuk!).

After a while they reckoned that other drivers were attracted to it! They were so mesmerised by the lurid colour that they would drift towards it as they drove along...