From a proper news source (mumsnet)- what would you ban?

[vetran]

I love statistics.

Like
In the UK there is a fall on stairs every 90 seconds. (Source: BS 5395-1:2010[1]
During 2015 there were 787 deaths in England and Wales caused by a fall on and from steps or stairs. (Source: Office for National Statistics[2])

So I guess we ban stairs then??

Did see a tv documentary years ago but cannot find it online. That had a title something like "how safe are we really"

It included stuff like how many people die falling in the shower in the morning. Or number of people really die from shootings or attacks. And opposite to what the media will tell you, they state we have never been safer.

Medicine is better than it has ever been.
Heart disease, cancer etc is survivable now, unlike only a few years ago.

As for banning dogs, I agree something needs to be done about bad dog owners.

But that includes putting bins back in parks etc.

We are safer but we like upping our risks.

Sadly many 'road accidents' are preventable that is why they are now described as "Road Traffic collisions". The bit they don't seem to be sharing is that many of the deaths are basically self inflicted driving too fast (75mph speed limiter) without a seatbelt (interlock on the seatbelt/ignition with a blaring alarm in the cab), poor road craft - use CCTV +AI and online retests, banned drivers (electronic tag) and of course criminals dying while fleeing the police seems to be common. Combine this with idiots who don't think they need lights, respect a red signal or to respect a 1 ton killing machine and step out a foot in front of it in poor visibility.

Stairs / falls among the elderly could be reduced in severity by having suitable electronics monitoring them.

Perfectly happy with dog licences.

[Paddy]

9 is single figures.

Yes it's a price worth paying until it's one of you family.

[vetran]

Yes it's a price worth paying until it's one of you family.

Sadly not a big bang for your buck.

Everything has a cost, if you want to do good on a budget then look for the best deal.

Poor medical outcomes, Road deaths/injuries, building safety are the big ticket items we should concentrate on.

Though thugs that own unpleasant dogs are like dodgy car drivers probably involved in something criminal. So policing that may well bear benefits if you believe the broken window theory.

[SueEllen]

I would ban Royals from writing any form of book and script for screen or theatre.

Leave such Arts to common folk.

[d000hg]

Yes it's a price worth paying until it's one of you family.

So 9 deaths annually without licenses. How many was it when there were licenses?
You get a license, get a dog, it kills someone, you lose your license.

[PCTNN]

Yes it's a price worth paying until it's one of you family.

Since you're clearly scared to the bone, you should try therapy to understand and solve your fears.

You're suggesting a solution to a non existing problem.

[vetran]

So 9 deaths annually without licenses. How many was it when there were licenses?
You get a license, get a dog, it kills someone, you lose your license.

the licence part may have more worth keeping nutters away from animals.

[NotAllThere]

I'd ban activists and group hugs.

[d000hg]

the licence part may have more worth keeping nutters away from animals.

So again I ask, what does the data show about how removing the license changed the number of deaths and serious injuries, and the number of dogs who had to be put down for that matter?

I remember a ruckus in the news when I was quite young about rottweilers and a couple of other types of dogs being banned/unbanned but not sure when that was.

The people who are really likely to have properly nasty dogs will probably do so without a license, in the same way a lot of RTAs are caused by unlicensed drivers in untaxed/uninsured vehicles? Certainly round here I know a lot of people who aren't going to stop having dogs if they required a license, many would simply get dogs without bothering to get a license out of laziness.
And presumably for anyone else, getting a license is not going to be very onerous so will it stop deaths?

[Gibbon]

So again I ask, what does the data show about how removing the license changed the number of deaths and serious injuries, and the number of dogs who had to be put down for that matter?

I remember a ruckus in the news when I was quite young about rottweilers and a couple of other types of dogs being banned/unbanned but not sure when that was.

The people who are really likely to have properly nasty dogs will probably do so without a license, in the same way a lot of RTAs are caused by unlicensed drivers in untaxed/uninsured vehicles? Certainly round here I know a lot of people who aren't going to stop having dogs if they required a license, many would simply get dogs without bothering to get a license out of laziness.
And presumably for anyone else, getting a license is not going to be very onerous so will it stop deaths?

Around the late eighties with the pit bulls making an appearance, I'd just got a brindle Boxer which was mistaken by some.


Let PETA police who has a licence, that'll keep two lots of nutters happy.