HiddenPaw

Why? Most people here would not deny that UK has its fair share of problems. What country doesn't? You need to keep perspective by focusing on the positives as well as the negatives. You may well find more space or a better health care sytem or less immigrants in your chosen adopted country, but I bet you'll find a whole heap of other shit there that the UK doesn't have to put with.

What's the Brazilian education system like? What is life expectancy? What is the literacy rate? What percenatge of the population live in poverty? How many have running water or electricity? What is the murder rate? What is the justice system like? How corrupt is society? I'm not asking for answers to these questions but think about the bigger picture rather than jumping on the Daily Mail bandwagon.

ladyofthelake

Maths was never my strong point, but I would say it doesn't matter how many times you travel on the tube, the risk will remain the same at 1 in 18 million. It's the same as flipping a coin. Even if you get heads 10 times in a row, your chances of flipping tails next time does not increase, you still have only a 50/50 chance of getting tails the next time.

dunroving

I think you are right if you are talking about risk/probability for any single journey.

However, I think the calculation was for someone over a one-year period, based on "travel habits" of 500 journeys a year.

Regardless, I think all three of us obviously have way too much time on our hands.

ShozInOz

Look the trouble is that you come onto the 'Moving back to the UK' forum and throw shit on the UK when the readers of this forum are obviously interested in 'Moving back to the UK'. Your post was nasty and cynical. If you don't like the UK then leave now. I'd rather have an asylum seeker who loves the UK and will contribute to it, than a whinging pom
who just wants to slag it off to people who love their country. Do you see us on the Aus/NZ/Canada/USA forums slagging our current countries off? No, because it would be out of order.

ShozInOz

I work in aviation safety and risk analysis. You have more chance dying from a car crash on the way from the airport home.

CitySlicker

The point is that the 970 million journeys are not made by 970 million different people. I'd say that about 2 million different people made those 970 million journeys. In other words a typical commuter makes an outbound and return journey per day Monday to Friday, i.e. about 500 journeys per year. And then there are tourists and occaisional visitors.

I'd say that around the time of the London suicide bombings there were about 1 million people on the system at some time (between 6:30 am and 9:30 am let's say). I believe there were 39 dead on the underground. therefore as the attack occured when 1 million were at risk the crude death rate now becomes 1 in 25,600. the attack could have occured on ANY day but the number of people exposed to the risk was about the same and the roughly SAME group of people were exposed to the risk.

In case you are wondering about the terminology I am using I used to work as an actuarial analyst and worked for 1 year in accident insurance so I do know something about the calculations. And yes, I did work in London, and yes, I did travel on the underground.

BigDavyG

Err, not so sure about that one.

As usual though here we have some muppet who still lives in the UK and who has never tried to move away from friends/family/familiarity wondering why anyone would want to move back to what he/she views as a sh*thole.
Just wait til they leave for a few months and see how their outlook changes then.

BigDavyG

Err again. Your reasoning is slightly off here I'm afraid. By only looking at the number of people in the system that day you are grossly distorting the figures.
You need to look at the number of journeys made per year and the total number of deaths. Then you can work out the likelihood of encountering death on anyone journey, then you can tailor that stat to any individual based on the number of journeys they have/will make.
Also the size of your sample so to speak is complete toilet.
Taking one year in isolation that also happens to have seen the biggest loss of life on the system is pretty useless from a statistical perspective.

I don't need to have worked as an actuary to know this. And as a former actuary you should be only too aware of how people can manipulate statistics to tell their own story.

ShozInOz

Well sure some people do, but not the regulars on this forum that I know of - in the Aus forum anyway. I just think its nasty and spiteful. Sad too.

HiddenPaw

And more so in NZ than the UK. 1 road death in every 8000 of the population in NZ compared to 1 in 16000 for the uk

CitySlicker

Let me have your calculations and then we can compare toilets. Actuaries appear to be good at manipulating stats when they are taken out of context but generally insurance companies do stay solvent and make profits if care is taken.

I'd say that you're right if you consider the yearly exposure rate. But as I said that most travellers on the underground were habitual (i.e. twice daily) travellers and were therefore exposed to the same risk on every day not just as a one off. The suicide bombers could have chosen any weekday rush hour morning but they'd still be attacking the same group of people.

I am happy that the method I have used is in accordance with actuarial method but you could get a firm of consultants (at £500 per hour) to pick it apart. Using this methodology insurance companies don't go bankrupt. If you offered accident insurance on your methodology, I for one, wouldn't be a shareholder.

As for airline travel most people don't commute country to country by air so the number of passenger trips per year is a lot lower than 500. However airline pilots, who may make (I'm guessing here) 100 flights a year find it difficult to Life Insurance. Do you think that airline pilots have the same risk of dying in a single event risk in a given year as an ordinary passenger or a higher risk. By your argument you seem to be saying that they have the same risk, I'd say it is much higher because they make more journeys. Same with a commuter compared with a tourist, say on the underground.

I have lived in NZ for over four years now and think it is overall better than the UK. Some advantages, some disadvantages. Personally I am thinking about Canada long term as the job prospects and economic outlook seem better overall. NZ is too small for the kind of job I did so I am back at Uni at the moment.

CitySlicker

No underground in NZ though.

eliscolin

Then you obviously haven't been around on many web forums then. Look at the postitive side this thread has put some life into a one sided point of view....

Lothianlad

I'm still in the UK and Edinburgh is still my home and it's cool but right now it seems to be full of French people which is crappy. I thought they didn't like us Brits but masses of them are coming over here all the time. And a lot of them take jobs here.

Fitz750

Blame Ryanair - Loads of Brits all over Europe now as well. Well probably not that many working as were not very good at languages are we.