Twice as likely as a civvy?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Plant-Pilot, Mar 11, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Anyone heard the 'road safety' campaign being rammed down our throats on BFBS radio at the moment? Where do they get their statistics from and is it legal to use false statistics or misinformation in a so called 'information ads'.

    The claim repeated in every one is that a soldier is 'twice as likely to be killed in a road accident than a civvy'. Quite a claim, as is the one where a soldier is described as 'setting out on the most dangerous mission of their career', before explaining that they are about to get in their civvy car! Not too sure that stands up in view of the losses in Afghanistan at the moment.

    I can see the need for road safety campaigns, but making them so silly they can't be believed detracts from any real message they are trying to put across. It gets me that they think soldiers are stupid enough to accept obviously dodgy statistics with out question, and that they would actually spend money on making, and wasting air time broadcasting, such rubbish.
  2. I think its because the statistics for accidents involving guys back from tour are pretty awful.

    Combination of factors I suspect but I for one certainly took risks after getting back from one tour... maybe its missing the buzz? I really dont know.
  3. I was told this at Leccy around 2000ish.
  4. Would be interested to know the statistical analysis behind this. A high percentage of service personnel are young, single, male Top-Gear fans - i.e. the part of the population that's most likely to drive their cars into trees at high speed. Are they making a comparison between soldiers and their demographically-equivalent civvies (young, single, male Top-Gear fans etc) or with civpop as a whole (including middle-aged, pensioners etc).

    If the latter, it's hardly a shock. Surprised if it's the former - certainly the accident (and death) rates in the Forest of Dean (to take but one example) among 18 to 25 y.o. civilian males are absolutely horrendous. Probably a similar picture elsewhere in the country.
  5. That's interesting, I have not noticed an increase in our statistics. All deaths in BFG will result in a report that will eventually come this way. Fortunately such reports are very rare.
  6. They've probably done the trick of not comparing like for like, all Civvies 17-90 v Service folk 17-40, rather like how Social Services rig the figures to make the mil look worse than they are by saying that an MoD housing estate will have more x,y and z problems than a 'normal' one conveniently forgetting that the same number of a similar age civilians would have the same number if issues or higher under the same conditions - still, it's a living
  7. old_fat_and_hairy

    old_fat_and_hairy LE Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Or could it just be that there are considerable less squaddies than there are comparably aged civilians? Therefore every service death is of a higher level, mathematically, than a comparable civilian death, in such ratio.
  8. Or if we all don't drive like cnuts, then there won't be so many problems and then the adverts will go away?

    No? Didn't think so. We are all the best driver in the world and that means we can drive like tw@ts whenever we want.............
  9. [​IMG]


  10. Just got some stats from the Oxfordshire County Council regarding deaths/accidents for drivers, Passengers and Bikes. Source I chose Oxon as a) I live here; b) There's a large number of military in the county (Abingdon, Bicester, RAF Benson & RAF Brize Norton).

    Interstingly it peaks for both male's & female's in the 30-39 age range, although it is significantly high for 16-24 yr olds.


    Passengers seem to be younger, possibly showing that it's probable that a large quantity of passengers are loaded in a yoofs car. (anecdotally, I seem to recall quite a few incidences of young deaths over the years where there's mulitple passengers in a car driven by newly qualified driver)


    And for bikes, it's no surprise it's highest for the 16-19 age range, and 2nd for the 40-49. With all the middle-aged crisis riders around where I live I'm surprised it isn't more 8O

  11. That was my take on it as well. Statistical comparisons of unlike groups (young soldiers - total civilian population), or not taking into account the vast difference in numbers compared (soldiers - total civilian population of same age group), make for shocking conclusions. However any conclusion that looks inaccurate and is then over hyped in an ad campaign is less likely to be a deterrent than corroborated facts.

    They do say that statistics can 'prove' that a 'million to ones shot' can happen '9 times out of 10', but I just wish they would treat soldiers as intelligent, rather than idiots who can be tricked with headlines and 'dodgy facts'.
  12. Hands up all them who when they were young sprogs didn't drive like a balls out twats when going off on leave…

    Thought not. 8)
  13. Maybe, but that wasn't because you were a soldier, it was because you (and by you, I mean almost everyone) were young and stupid. Driving like an idiot due to high spirits and youthful inexperience, does not mean that a soldier is twice as likely to be killed in a road accident than a civvy of the same age.

    The statistics used in this campaign still need verifying or quantifying to stop me thinking they are made up for the 'shock' value.