On 13/10/2017 00:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/10/17 22:11, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 01:07:40 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/10/17 12:28, Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:20:28 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/10/17 09:35, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:06:02 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester

Do these figure take into account that the majority of car miles
are on trunk roads where there are few, if any, pedestrians? Whilst
bicycles spend most of their time in urban environments.

If not then they are worthless.

They do. On urban roads Pushbikes seriously injure 26 pedestrians
per billion km and kill 0.5, cars seriously injure 10 and kill 0.7.

So you love to push this.

"Push"?Â* One mention of DfT statistics is pushing them?

Yes. You have brought this up several times before. It is obvious you
think it is meaningful.

It is clearly meaningful as it is the data used by the government to
make decisions.

I asked you why you think pedestrian casualties per vehicle-distance is
meaningful. Don't evade the question.

Of course it is.

That doesn't answer the question.

You won't get an answer. He won't even attempt an answer because he
knows he isn't clever enough.

FWIW the effect you are talking about with respect urban/non urban trips
is called Simpson's Paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox