Originally Posted by DeadVim (Post 9791387)

I would think referring to someone as Asian meant Chinese (or the surrounds) around here, Indian would be ... Indian.

Originally Posted by Gibbo (Post 9791661)

I think that you are being very cheeky, Vim, when you say that your thoughts weren't based on logic etc !:)
However, you are right. Indians are called Indians and from the sub-continent, whilst almost all the rest are Asian except for the Chinese who are usually referred to as Chinese.

Originally Posted by sheene (Post 9791676)

That is a direct contradiction of what Vim said! :rofl:

Originally Posted by Pollyana (Post 9791855)

I was talking to an Aussie woman the other day who insists that Indians and Pakistanis are from the Middle East and are of the same origin as Arabs :confused:

Originally Posted by Pollyana (Post 9791855)

I was talking to an Aussie woman the other day who insists that Indians and Pakistanis are from the Middle East and are of the same origin as Arabs :confused:

Originally Posted by Pollyana (Post 9791855)

I was talking to an Aussie woman the other day who insists that Indians and Pakistanis are from the Middle East and are of the same origin as Arabs :confused:

Originally Posted by In Exile (Post 9789520)

for you, no problem.

http://www.thefreesociety.org/Articl...-1-nanny-state

"There is a PhD thesis waiting to be written some day about how Australia came to be the world’s number one nanny state; how a country that was once renowned for rugged individualism capitulated to puritanism with barely a whimper.
...

Originally Posted by Pollyana (Post 9791852)

80 to 0, brakes slammed on with no warning, the other car was a good distance behind and i honestly think he had no choice - why wouldnt the other driver at least be partially at fault for careless/dangerous driving?

Originally Posted by monkeyalan (Post 9789576)

I hate driving here.

It swings wildly between utter utter boredom one minute and heart stopping terror the next.

road deaths in Oz are 1.5 x higher than in the uk (3.6 per 100k v 5.2). for a country thats mostly empty space crisscrossed by arrow streight roads thats pretty impressive.

Apart from the lack of driving skill in general , a joking tollerance to drink driving amongst the general population and badly thought out road layouts i suspect the lack of car maintainance plays a big part in that little statistic.

letting kids with no insurance who've just passed their driving test in rear wheel drive , V6 engined cars with no requirement for an annual safety inspection is a recipe for disaster.

I 've become totally numb to the news headline that another teenager has wrapped his car round a tree ( cut to scattered wreackage of 15 year old commadore) .

Originally Posted by Gibbo (Post 9791661)

I think that you are being very cheeky, Vim, when you say that your thoughts weren't based on logic etc !:)
However, you are right. Indians are called Indians and from the sub-continent, whilst almost all the rest are Asian except for the Chinese who are usually referred to as Chinese.

Originally Posted by sheene (Post 9791394)

But India and China are both in Asia, so using your logic, Chinese should be.......Chinese.

Originally Posted by fish.01 (Post 9792346)

Not when you consider the term Asian is just a shortening for the Asian region providing the most immigrants to each country.

UK = South Asian => Asian
Oz = South East Asian/East Asian => Asian

Originally Posted by Chortlepuss (Post 9793055)

I'm a v experienced driver, just think how bad it could have been':D

Originally Posted by fish.01 (Post 9792299)

Given the different percentage of people in each country who drive and how far they drive road deaths per population is not the most accurate comparison. Per km travelled is more accurate.

Originally Posted by roaringmouse (Post 9793526)

That's just crap. You can't just look at raw statistics like you seem to want to, you need to humanize them.

With a higher road death rate per population, it means relatively more people are affected by those deaths. Surely you would agree on a human level that it gets worse with increasing numbers of people affected from someone dying from a road death - therefore a higher rate of road deaths per population is a bad thing, and is a perfectly valid way of looking at (and humanizing) such statistics.

Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders (Post 9793537)

I actually believe a fairer way of looking at it should be the death rate per 1000 vehicles registered.