Danger Danger!

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:21:54 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote


Do you mean the rate per year, the rate per mile cycled, or the rate per cyclist? Those are greatly different things. And yet, as the article I linked demonstrated, cycling in London is significantly safer than pedestrian travel. Cycling has far fewer fatalities per year, and significantly fewer fatalities per mile traveled.



Take all those statements above and compare them to the official report by the UK government paying partucular attention to charts 5 and 7.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...cgb2012-01.pdf

Of course, you're now changing focus. Your original post, plus my responses, plus the article from which I quoted, plus most of the "Danger! Danger!" news coverage has focused on cycling deaths within the city of London. The paper you linked was, instead, data for all of Great Britain. It's still true that cycling in London causes fewer deaths (in total, and per mile traveled) than walking in London, from what I can see.

I am not changing any focus I am just providing data. That was the first reliable source I came across which happened to be for the nation as a whole and as such it is worthy of note and refutes your contention at least at that level.

I was hoping you might be more familiar with British data - and in particular, London data - than I was. But keep in mind, the article you originally linked (and every article I've read when following this subject for months) has focused on London. fter all, Boris is not the mayor of Great Britain! In that context, data for Great Britain isn't particularly useful. Including data from Cardiff, Inverness, Liverpool, and Lower Slaughter (among hundreds of others) doesn't help.

Can you tell me how many motorist deaths occur in London (and only London) each year? I was curious about that, but unable to find it quickly.

I don't know what your "experience" is regarding cycling deaths, beyond the obvious: that it hasn't happened to you. Do you have some "reliable source" which shows more cycling deaths than pedestrian deaths in London?

Not immediately to hand but I do know that the national statistics are broken right down to local authority level. You should be able to turn them up relatively quickly from the govenment stats website.

Well, again, I'm much better with U.S. data sources. I suspect you'd be better at British ones. But the articles I've read - written by people who _should_ have access to British data - claim that cycling is still much safer than walking. And those sounding most measured claim that the recent blip is, indeed, a blip - a statistical anomaly.

And I'm not saying that things can't be improved. But we do seem to disagree on the most effective method for improvement.

There you go again trying to create an argument. I have made no mention of any method of improvement and do not intent to this is purely about DATA!

OK, I apologize if I misinterpreted. The great bulk of the articles I've read have included statements saying something like "We must have Dutch-style segregation!" Perhaps I confused you with those guys.

Again, from what I can tell from data, the first key is to do something serious about HGVs. Haven't all - or almost all - the London cyclist fatalities involved HGVs?

- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:46:35 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:

It's extremely strange that the CTC claims to be devastated. Their
actions clearly demonstrate that they have little interest in reducing
cyclist deaths and injuries. They're still promoting the big lie that
helmets are detrimental to public health.

Tsk, tsk. They also seem to think an adult can safely ride a bike without fitting a flippy flag, a blinding daytime strobe light, a blinding non-compliant headlight, a coffee holder, etc.

It's hopeless, Steven. You'll never convince them. You'll simply have to start your own British cycling association. Just proclaim yourself the "World's Greatest Authority on British Cycling" as you've done for bike lights, helmets, folding bikes, coffee, flippy flags and who knows what else. Brits by the millions will flock to your wisdom! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

More on British data. But still not London-specific:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24987425

- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:46:35 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 11/19/2013 9:47 AM, Graham wrote:
I just received this in a news letter from the UK CTC of which I am a member:

"My colleagues and I are absolutely devastated with the shocking rate at which cyclists are dying on London’s roads. Six cyclists have died over the last two weeks, all of them in collisions with large vehicles, three of which were lorries. During this period, three pedestrians were also killed in collisions with lorries in London."

I just heard a story on the news about what's happening in London with
regards to cycling deaths.

It's extremely strange that the CTC claims to be devastated. Their
actions clearly demonstrate that they have little interest in reducing
cyclist deaths and injuries. They're still promoting the big lie that
helmets are detrimental to public health. Is anyone really stupid enough
to believe that? It's one thing to be opposed to mandatory helmets,
that's a reasonable position, but the CTC's position goes far beyond
that, embracing junk science and statistics in an effort to justify
their views.

Read
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets.
There are at least 30 statements in that blurb that are provably wrong.

An alternate thesis might be that the present poster is wrong and the
thirty statements are true.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:21:54 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote


Do you mean the rate per year, the rate per mile cycled, or the rate per cyclist?


Take all those statements above and compare them to the official report by the UK government paying partucular attention to charts 5 and 7.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...cgb2012-01.pdf


It's still true that cycling in London causes fewer deaths (in total, and per mile traveled) than walking in London, from what I can see.

I was hoping you might be more familiar with British data - and in particular, London data - than I was. Can you tell me how many motorist deaths occur in London (and only London) each year? I was curious about that, but unable to find it quickly.

As have shown an interest then I have had a quick scan through the goverments publised database and come up with some data. So far I have not managed to get London specific rate data. I do not have the time to trawl much furhter to get number of trips or distance travelled but if you are interested you can find it for yourself. You are correct that absolute death numbers are higher for pedestrians in London than for cyclists but if the numbers for trips and miles travelled are anywhere near the annual averages then the cycling rate data will be higher and progressively so as you move down the severity categories.

If you want to follow this up the main database is at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...l-tables-index

Follow that through to these two links and I am sure those three tables will be of interest
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...road-accidents
Table RAS30053
Table RAS30070

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-comparisons
Table RAS53001

This link will take you London's own database
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ondon-2012.pdf

Sorry I cannot be any more help as I really need to ride my bike rather than sitting at this key board

I don't know what your "experience" is regarding cycling deaths, beyond the obvious: that it hasn't happened to you.

There as been one death in our club caused by a car recently and several serious injuries this year alone. I was hit and hospitalised in 2006.

Graham.

On 11/20/2013 7:52 PM, James wrote:
On 21/11/13 13:46, sms wrote:
On 11/19/2013 9:47 AM, Graham wrote:
I just received this in a news letter from the UK CTC of which I am a
member:

"My colleagues and I are absolutely devastated with the shocking rate
at which cyclists are dying on London’s roads. Six cyclists have died
over the last two weeks, all of them in collisions with large
vehicles, three of which were lorries. During this period, three
pedestrians were also killed in collisions with lorries in London."

I just heard a story on the news about what's happening in London with
regards to cycling deaths.

It's extremely strange that the CTC claims to be devastated. Their
actions clearly demonstrate that they have little interest in reducing
cyclist deaths and injuries. They're still promoting the big lie that
helmets are detrimental to public health. Is anyone really stupid enough
to believe that? It's one thing to be opposed to mandatory helmets,
that's a reasonable position, but the CTC's position goes far beyond
that, embracing junk science and statistics in an effort to justify
their views.

Read
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets.
There are at least 30 statements in that blurb that are provably wrong.

Try driving a truck over a foam helmet at see how it is destroyed.

Another prime example of a clueless statement regarding helmets.

On 11/20/2013 9:57 PM, John B. wrote:

An alternate thesis might be that the present poster is wrong and the
thirty statements are true.

No it wouldn't because a thesis should have some scientific basis. The
CTC statement is a religious statement that ignores scientific fact
because it conflicts with their dogma. To then come out and claim that
they are devastated is the height of hypocrisy, since their dogma has
contributed to the problem in the first place.

It's like the Catholic church claiming that they are devastated by all
the incidents of sexual misconduct by their clergy, when it's their
dogma that led to the problem; if they really want to fix it they could
end the ban on celibacy and on priests marrying, which was not
originally part of Catholic dogma (Protestants objected to celibacy,
because they believed that it promoted homosexuality and illicit
fornication). But of course they don't really want to fix it. The new
pope is an improvement to be sure, but it's a micro-step.

As soon as you see the claim that helmet promotion will lead to a
decline in public health you know that you're dealing with a bunch of
religious lunatics. Even helmet compulsion has _NEVER_ been followed by
a decrease in cycling rates (even the most virulent anti-helmet people
now admit this, but now they claim that cycling rates would have
increased even more if not for helmet compulsion). And even in the
unlikely event that someone gave up cycling because of helmet promotion
the idea that they would soon become a flabby mass of flesh, sitting on
the couch watching TV and eating fatty snacks, rather than finding some
other alternative to cycling, is ludicrous.

The biggest lack of logic comes when someone says "well the solution is
not to wear helmets, it's to create a safer cycling environment so
helmets aren't necessary." Yeah, it would be great if other countries
followed The Netherlands lead and invested heavily in separated bicycle
facilities and promoted bicycling in other ways as well. In the
meantime, cyclists need to take steps to a) protect themselves in the
event of a crash, and b) make themselves more conspicuous to help reduce
the likelihood of a crash. You see the same thing in r.b.t. where some
people get all upset whenever it's suggested that cyclists need to take
some responsibility for their own safety because they can't depend on
motor vehicles, or other cyclists, or pedestrians, to behave properly.

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:59:33 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote:

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:21:54 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote

Do you mean the rate per year, the rate per mile cycled, or the rate per cyclist? ...

It's still true that cycling in London causes fewer deaths (in total, and per mile traveled) than walking in London, from what I can see.

I was hoping you might be more familiar with British data - and in particular, London data - than I was. Can you tell me how many motorist deaths occur in London (and only London) each year? I was curious about that, but unable to find it quickly.

As have shown an interest then I have had a quick scan through the goverments publised database and come up with some data. So far I have not managed to get London specific rate data. I do not have the time to trawl much furhter to get number of trips or distance travelled but if you are interested you can find it for yourself. You are correct that absolute death numbers are higher for pedestrians in London than for cyclists but if the numbers for trips and miles travelled are anywhere near the annual averages then the cycling rate data will be higher and progressively so as you move down the severity categories.

If you want to follow this up the main database is at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...l-tables-index



Follow that through to these two links and I am sure those three tables will be of interest

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...road-accidents

Table RAS30053

Table RAS30070



https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-comparisons

Table RAS53001

This link will take you London's own database

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ondon-2012.pdf

Sorry I cannot be any more help as I really need to ride my bike rather than sitting at this key board

Well, examining some of those, one might conclude that things are not as dire as the press generally makes it seem. Total casualties for London, 20123 (with other years being similar) from RAS30053 (Sorry, not sure how the alignment will work out)

Pedestrian 5,272
Pedal cycle 4,619
Motorcycle 4,653
Car 12,298
Bus or coach 1,330
Van / LGV 539
HGV 49
All road users 28,822

So more car, pedestrian and motorcycle "casualties" than bikes.

Transport for London's Surface Transportation Fact Sheet matches those counts pretty well (not quite precisely). But it sorts them into Fatal, Serious and Slight. I'll add in the percentages for the top four categories, as I've calculated them:

Pedestrian 69 Fatal (1.3%), 1054 Serious (20%, 4143 Slight (79%)
Pedal cycle 14 Fatal (0.3%), 657 Serious (14%), 3942 Slight (85%)
Motorcycle 27 Fatal (0.6%), 602 Serious (13%), 4022 Slight (86%)
Car 19 Fatal (0.2%), 429 Serious (3%), 11217 Slight (91%)

(I think that information is in the report, but it was easier for me to run the numbers than to dig deeply.)

I'm still not seeing any per-km data for London. Still, what I'm finding doesn't seem to justify any special "Danger! Danger!" cries about London cycling.

I don't know what your "experience" is regarding cycling deaths, beyond the obvious: that it hasn't happened to you.

There as been one death in our club caused by a car recently and several serious injuries this year alone. I was hit and hospitalised in 2006.

Graham.

That can make a person sensitive to this issue, I'm sure. Each time one of my friends died while motoring (there have been at least six of them) it made me think hard about that danger.

(In over 40 years of cycling, I've never known a person who died due to a bike crash.)

- Frank Krygowski

On 22/11/13 01:30, sms wrote:
On 11/20/2013 7:52 PM, James wrote:

Try driving a truck over a foam helmet at see how it is destroyed.

Another prime example of a clueless statement regarding helmets.


Good luck with that.

--
JS

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:48:57 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 11/20/2013 9:57 PM, John B. wrote:

An alternate thesis might be that the present poster is wrong and the
thirty statements are true.

No it wouldn't because a thesis should have some scientific basis. The
CTC statement is a religious statement that ignores scientific fact

You really do need to acquire a dictionary.

On Line Dictionary:
Thesis - " an unproved statement put forward as a premise in an
argument"

Dead Tree dictionary:
Thesis: - "proposition to be maintained or proved"

(Given a exhibition of ignorance of the term in question exposed in
the first line of the rebuttal the remaining portions have been
deleted as redundant.)

--
Cheers,

John B.