The UK's Rail Safety & Standards Board - RSSB - published its annual safety performance report for 2009/2010. I read the "Key facts and figures" bit - and fascinating it was too.

There were no passenger or workforce fatalities in train accidents in Great Britain during the year.

There were five passenger fatalities (two on platform edges hit by trains, two falling off platforms and one falling on an escalator): this is equal to the lowest annual figure on record. There were three workforce fatalities, and 298 public fatalities - suicides, trespassers or people misusing level crossings.

Most of the risk of fatalities on the railway is through the behaviour of members of the public.

The annual average number of workforce fatalities has dropped by 98% since 1949: passenger fatalities are also significantly down. Public fatalities have shown no significant change.

In the last three years, and in five of the last 10 years, there have been no fatalities to passengers in train accidents. The moving average number of train accidents resulting in passenger or workforce fatalities has fallen by 75% since 1950, and is currently less than one a year.

These are excellent figures, superb figures, and it is just a shame that, because they are good news, they hit no headlines. Because the rail system in Great Britain carries around 24,000 trains a day with trailing loads of up to 1000 tonnes: they travel at speeds of up to 200 km/h and are powered by either high-voltage electricity or flammable diesel fuel.

They are driven, controlled and signalled by fallible human beings. Several stations see more passengers than Heathrow Airport.

And yet no passenger has been killed in a train accident for three years: there were no such fatalities in half of the last 10 years.

Not only is that good news, it is a high tribute to the excellence of our rail system - all of it. Managers, workforce, maintainers, everyone involved.

The report can be found on RSSB's web-site, www.rssb.co.uk.

No, I don't mean exponentials - as a mere economist, I can just about manage them!

It just that, in writing a report, they will typically write 'The system needs 28 no. point ends' when it actually needs 28 point ends.

There was an example in a magazine I was reading today - a building was being protected from earthquakes by 'using 292 nos. pendulum seismic isolators'.

This seems odd. Can some engineer - or some teacher of engineers - tell me what the rationale is, please?

I was very interested to read 'The New York City pedestrian safety study & action plan', published by the Department of Transport this month - see the New York City web-site.

Headline facts are that
pedestrians are 10 times more likely to die than a motor vehicle occupant in the event of a crash,
pedestrians accounted for 50% of traffic fatalities in 2005-2009,
36% of crashes resulted from driver inattention,
27% of crashes where pedestrians were killed or seriously injured occured when a motorist failed to give way,
80% of crashes which kill or seriously injure pedestrians involve male drivers, and
79% involve private cars.

New York City is relatively safe as American cities go - there are 3.49 traffic fatalities for each 100,000 of population (compared with Atlanta at 10.97 and Detroit at 10.31). But London has 2.10 and Stockholm 1.23. Since national fatality rates are 12.2, it must be pretty deadly out in the sticks!

Since 2004, the number of traffic fatalities in New York City has been lower than in 1910 - which is impressive!

Pedestrian fatality rates were 1.8/100,000 of population in 2008 - again much lower than Atlanta (11) and Los Angeles (7.6).

Vulnerable road users - pedestrians, cyclists and motor-cyclists - accounted for 71% of the city's traffic fatalities.

A telling quote from the report is that, 'Drivers can usually be expected to behave in ways appropriate for their own safety but may not always have the same commitment to the safety of people outside vehicles'.

A disproportionate number of pedestrian crashes in Manhattan were on major 2-way streets.

Wide roads also accounted for more pedestrian crashes - this reflects much other research which shows that widening roads reduces safety.

74% of crashes involving pedestrians were at intersections (it's 24% in the rest of the USA). Nearly half were at signalled intersections: 57% of these occurred when the pedestrain was crossing with the signal.

Pedestrians are more likely to be killed or seriously injured when crossing with the signal than against it, although crossing against the signal is more likely to be fatal.

Driver inattention was a factor in 36% of crashes: these were more than twice as likely to be fatal than others. Driving while using a mobile phone is more dangerous than drunken driving.

Speed is also an issue. A pedestrian struck at 40 miles/h is 4 times more likely to die than one struck at 30: one struck at 30 is 6 times more likely to die than one struck at 20.

As a result of the study, an action plan has been drawn up. High-crash corridors are to be identified and targeted, and countdown signals are to be installed at more crossings. The State legislature is to be pressed to allow more red light cameras (only 150 are allowed at the
moment) and speed cameras (currently illegal in New York City).

The city's target is to halve traffic fatalities between 2007 and 2030: they are currently a bit ahead of traget, with 256 fatailites in 2009.

The late afternoon news on BBC yesterday carried the story about a possible strike involving BAA's airports.

The story was illustrated by a nice airport picture.

In fact, it was the stunning and iconic Pier 6 bridge at Gatwick Airport.

Yes, the Gatwick Airport which BAA was forced to sell some months ago and which isn't involved in the strike!

A form of words which seems to have come into use recently is the 'x times less than' type of statement - as in 'He earns 10 times less than I do', or 'Rail passengers are 1500 times less likely to have an accident than motor cyclists'.

Very true, no doubt - but what does it mean?

If I have 100, 10 times more than this is 1000 - that's easy. So is 10 times less than this actually a negative figure, -900? If not, why not?

And if you really mean 'one tenth of' then why not say so? That is clear and unambiguous - a tenth of 100 is 100 divided by 10.

Because I came across '1.6 times less than' recently: this is probably '60% of' but it seemed a bizarre way of putting it. I assume that 'two times less than' is a half, and you wouldn't (presumably!) say 'one times less than'!

I would like to see this terminology used several times less than I do!