On 18/05/2018 16:45, colwyn wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:27, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:08, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 23:56, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2018 20:26, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 18:22, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 16:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 14:08, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 13:08, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 11:35, colwyn wrote:
Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show
Graeme Paton, Transport Correspondent
May 17 2018, 12:01am,
The Times


British cyclists are four times as likely to be killed as
those in the Netherlands

The number of cyclists being injured on British roads could be
almost seven times higher than previously thought.

Huge under-reporting of cycling injuries, often involving
minor collisions with cars and other vehicles, has been found
by researchers. About a third of incidents did “not involve
anyone else”, suggesting that they were linked to potholes in
the road or other obstacles such as bollards.

The report by Rachel Aldred, a reader in transport at
Westminster University, will fuel demands for an increase in
the number of segregated cycle lanes. She said that British
cyclists were four times as likely to be killed as those in
the Netherlands, where cycle lanes are far more common.

The study also unearthed great under-reporting in the number
of people injured while walking, with pedestrians three times
more likely to be hurt than official police accident figures
show. It revealed that people with disabilities and those from
poorer homes, who are less likely to be able to afford their
own car or public transport, were more likely to be injured
than the national average.

Dr Aldred analysed feedback from the National Travel Survey,
an annual poll of the transport habits of 147,000 people. She
compared this with road accident figures based on police
reports, which recorded 18,477 cycling casualties on roads in
2016, including 14,978 slight injuries and 3,499 people who
were killed or seriously injured.

Analysis of the National Travel Survey showed that the risk of
cycling injuries was much higher, although most of these
additional injuries were likely to be slight, Dr Aldred said,
suggesting that the true scale of injuries could exceed 125,000.

Figures published by the Department for Transport at the start
of the year showed that the number of people cycling has
flatlined over the past decade as traffic has risen steeply.
The average adult made 15 journeys by bicycle in 2016, two
fewer than ten years earlier. The number has fluctuated
between 14 and 18 trips since the mid-1990s.

The government has launched a review of cycle safety to
increase the use of bicycles. It is likely to consider
imposing mandatory passing distances to prevent motorists
overtaking too close to cyclists on busy roads. It could also
investigate the possibility of fines for “car dooring”, when
motorists or car passengers negligently swing open doors and
hit passing cyclists.

Cyclists do not use segregated cycle lanes in the UK

There are no figures to show how she has arrived at her
conclusions.

Eh? This is a newspaper article analysing responses form 147,000
people!
18,477 cycling casualties in 2016 etc - I suggest you read the
article or why not contact Dr Aldred?

Cycling in the UK overall is actually declining.

And again, read the article. Here it is again:
"Figures published by the Department for Transport at the start
of the
year showed that the number of people cycling has flatlined over
the
past decade as traffic has risen steeply. The average adult made 15
journeys by bicycle in 2016, two fewer than ten years earlier. The
number has fluctuated between 14 and 18 trips since the mid-1990s."

If it is, then it is high time government does something
something about it!



So you agree, cycling is declining.

There is no link for me to follow, in order to read and analyse
the figures she gives.


Here you a http://rachelaldred.org/

I am sure she'll be able to explain.

Nothing recent on there, where is the 4 times more likely to be
killed bit?

Rachel Aldred... a rabid cyclist byh er own admission...
Exercise a *little* source criticism, for God's sake.
If you were quoting a sociologist you'd be prepared to discount
their "findings" to take acount of their predilections.
If Jeremy Clarkson came up with findings about transport, you'd pull
them to pieces before even thinking about them.
Be consistent be critical and be reasonable (clearly difficult for
cyclists, admittedly, but that's the way that academia is supposed
to work).

Rabid cyclist?

You might take issue with "rabid", but that's only a matter of degree.
She is certainly exceptionally pre-biased. Too much to have her work
and "findings" accepted uncritically.

Read and listen to her research ( something Cheerful was having
problems with - not being able to assimilate cycling related
information)

Most of her papers can be found without difficulty and even a cyclist
can make sense of it!

That's not the point.

I remind you of my observation above about Clarkson.

http://rachelaldred.org/

Well, exactly.

http://www.ciht.org.uk/en/media-cent...nars/index.cfm
http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/21111/
https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/do...jmuen.16.00068
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...ev-2017-042498

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01457518301076

And more for frothing anti cyclists!


Pre-biased ? (What's that?)

Fancy that, a cyclist in favour of push bikes, whatever next?

A cyclist who tries to be even-handed when conducting "research" on
transport?

Nah, I agree: it's vanishingly unlikely.

Not only having a doctorate to her name, contrary to limited
intelligence according to newsgroup critics, she has the ability to get
approval from august bodies such as the BMJ.

But hey, what do you expect from someone with a degree.

Lots of people have degrees, including lots who would disagree with Aldred.