A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Safety in numbers?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 30th 09, 05:15 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
J. Chisholm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Safety in numbers?

Clive George wrote:
From another list:

The thing which improves cyclist safety the most is increasing numbers -
and that means encouraging everyday use of bikes, not just saving them
and dressing up for special occasions.

Jacobsen's "safety in numbers" article (the root of that meme) is bad
science. Good rebuttals are pending publication.


The first paragraph is mine - anybody know anything about what's hinted in
the latter?


I'd like to test the hypothesis or perhaps reword it. Perhaps:

"The more motor vehicle drivers are also regular cyclists, the lower the
crash rate for cyclists"

see also:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/53/article5.html
(from April 2004)

The year after I wrote that I spent 10 days cycling in Denmark. I
realised how considerate Danish drivers were to cyclists. I then
discovered that some 60% (?) of Danish drivers are also regular
cyclists. Or is it the 'liabilty' rules that make Danish drivers more
considerate?

Jim
Ads
  #12  
Old March 30th 09, 08:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default Safety in numbers?

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:38:46 -0700 (PDT), spindrift
wrote:

On Mar 30, 10:57*am, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
Clive George wrote:
From another list:


The thing which improves cyclist safety the most is increasing numbers -
and that means encouraging everyday use of bikes, not just saving them
and dressing up for special occasions.


Jacobsen's "safety in numbers" article (the root of that meme) is bad
science. Good rebuttals are pending publication.


The first paragraph is mine - anybody know anything about what's hinted in
the latter?


no idea.

but my own experiance leads me to be a least a bit cincal about it,
living here, sw london ish area bikes are common as is traffic squeezing
past, back nr my folks place around the beacons and into the "valleys"
bikes are not common, and traffic does tend to overtake, as is over the
white line.

thats not to say that "safety in numbers" as a idea has no mert but much
like "speed kills" it does depend on the where/when and other
qualifcations.

roger
--www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coastwww.justgiving.com/rogermerriman


Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling
P L Jacobsen

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/.../short/9/3/205

More cycling is making UK roads safer
Oct 20th
CTC has welcomed news that an increase in cycling has made it safer to
cycle on UK roads.
Basing its figures on Department for Transport statistics, CTC
estimates that cycle use in the UK has increased by 10 per cent since
1993, and that the rate of reported pedal casualties has decreased by
more than 34
per cent over the same period.



Sorry old bean is out of date - I think you will find there is more up
to date information (from the DfT)

The average number of trips by bicycle fell by just over a fifth (22%)
between 1995/97 and 2005, from 18 to 14 trips per person per year.

Over the same period, the average distance traveled by bicycle fell by
16%, from 43 to 36 miles per person per year.
--
British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:
Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries, as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents
  #13  
Old March 31st 09, 10:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nuxx Bar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default Safety in numbers?

On Mar 30, 10:57*am, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
like "speed kills" it does depend on the where/when and other
qualifcations.


Sacrilege! You KNOW by now that that assertion is on the Banned List:
no matter how true it is, you're not allowed to say it, as it
disadvantages the anti-motorist effort by effectively arguing against
one of its main planks (the abuse of speed enforcement in order to
bully motorists off the roads).

The Group Owner, Chapman, will be along shortly once His Highness has
decided what the consequences of your transgression will be.
  #14  
Old March 31st 09, 10:05 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nuxx Bar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default Safety in numbers?

Yawn. Spindrift starts off with an anti-motorist position and tries
to make the figures fit through patchwork copying and pasting, again.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some data on Safety In Numbers. spindrift UK 22 November 10th 08 03:48 PM
Safety in Numbers Roos Eisma UK 249 September 17th 08 09:20 AM
Numbers to think about CowPunk Racing 107 August 2nd 06 10:48 AM
Safety in Numbers. Simon Mason UK 11 April 23rd 05 09:34 PM
bicycling - safety in numbers Paul R Social Issues 7 April 20th 05 03:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.