"..Cyclists and pedestrians in the UK are in greater danger than those in most other industrialised countries in Europe..." according to a recent DfT report.

I know the UK has one of the worst child casualty rates and I read
that Denmark, for instance, has a cycling safety record ten times
better than the UK.

What are the actual stats please?

On 14 May 2007 05:11:36 -0700, spindrift wrote:

I know the UK has one of the worst child casualty rates and I read
that Denmark, for instance, has a cycling safety record ten times
better than the UK.

What are the actual stats please?

Helmet wearing rate in the UK 16% (1996); 22% (1999).

Helmet wearing rate in Denmark: 3% (referenced by Robinson, 2007)

Ratio of deaths while cycling (UK/Denmark) approx 8:1

_ wrote:

Ratio of deaths while cycling (UK/Denmark) approx 8:1

Is that just a raw figure of deaths, or is it a rate? And if the
former, what is reckoned to be the size of the cycling population in
each country producing those deaths?

The Danes may be much keener than us on cycling on average, but there
are more than 10 times as many folk in the UK.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 14 May, 14:18, Peter Clinch wrote:
_ wrote:
Ratio of deaths while cycling (UK/Denmark) approx 8:1

Is that just a raw figure of deaths, or is it a rate? And if the
former, what is reckoned to be the size of the cycling population in
each country producing those deaths?

The Danes may be much keener than us on cycling on average, but there
are more than 10 times as many folk in the UK.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Yeah, that's what makes it tricky, for instance cycling in London is
up 83% in five years, and accident rates for cyclists are down 28% at
the same time.

This seems to reinforce the data that shows the more cyclists there
are the safer the roads become.

spindrift wrote:
I know the UK has one of the worst child casualty rates

How do you "know" that?

and I read
that Denmark, for instance, has a cycling safety record ten times
better than the UK.

Where did you read that?

What are the actual stats please?

Pedestrian deaths per 100,000 population for 2004 were as follows[1]:

Greece: 7.8
Republic of Korea: 5.4
Poland: 5.2
Hungary: 3.2
Czech Republic: 2.8
Luxembourg: 2.7
Portugal: 2.2
Japan: 2.0
Austria: 1.6
Ireland: 1.6
Spain: 1.6
USA: 1.6
Switzerland: 1.3
UK: 1.2
Italy 1.2
Australia: 1.1
Canada: 1.1
Belgium: 1.0
France: 1.0
Germany: 1.0

[1] Road Casualties GB - 2005

--
Matt B

"spindrift" wrote in message
oups.com...
I know the UK has one of the worst child casualty rates and I read
that Denmark, for instance, has a cycling safety record ten times
better than the UK.

What are the actual stats please?

I don't know the stat's, but I seem to recall that back in the 1980s
Denmark discovered that it had a very high children's bike accident
rate. On investigation it was found that the accidents occurred on
their sidepath cycle tracks, at intersections with side roads. Their
remedy was to change the design so that cyclists crossed the
intersection via a bike lane, not a cycle track.

I can't find a very good reference to this, but I do have Clarke and
Tracy, "Bicycle Safety-Related Research Synthesis" US Federal
Highway Administration, April 1995, publication FHWA-RD-94-062

This quotes, p82, another publication which I have not seen, Laursen,
Jan Grubb, "Nordic Experience with the Safety of Cycling", for the
Bicycle Federation of America. Denmark

The quoting, comparing bike lanes with cycle tracks, says

'More dramatic claims of the safety impact of bike lanes are made in
Denmark. Laursen reports that "for some reason, the safety effect of
painted cycle lanes seems to be just as good [as cycle tracks],
although cyclists feel less safe. Even lanes of less than half a
meter width (19.7 in) - hardly able to accommodate a cyclist - reduce
the risk by up to a third, whereas lanes of 0.6 meters (2ft) reach
risk reductions of 70 to 80 percent."'

The British have also made similar comments. Professor Sir Colin
Buchanan wrote in his 1958 book "Mixed Blessing, The Motor in
Britain"
"The meagre efforts to separate cyclists from motor traffic have
failed, tracks are inadequate, the problem of treating them at
junctions and intersections is completely unsolved, and the attitude
of cyclists themselves to these admittedly unsatisfactory tracks has
not been as helpful as it might have been."

The other unique contribution of the Danes to cycling safety at
intersections, adults as well as children, was to forbid cyclists
from turning left. When Denmark introduced the law, I think in about
1970, Sweden wanted to copy it, but Swedish cyclists were able to
fight that off.

Jeremy Parker

spindrift wrote:
I know the UK has one of the worst child casualty rates and I read
that Denmark, for instance, has a cycling safety record ten times
better than the UK.

What are the actual stats please?

The quote you use in your subject line is based on data from 1996[1], so
could well be a lot worse by now, given that in the intervening decade
UK road safety policy has had speed cameras rather than road design and
user education as a cornerstone.

Another factor that will work against the UK is the percentage of
journeys able to be undertaken on motorways. The UK has by far the
smallest motorway network, pro-rata, of any major nation. In the
Netherlands in 2005 more than 42% of all motor vehicle mileage was
travelled on motorways. In Belgium the figure was 34%, in Germany 31%,
in Denmark 24%, in Austria 23%, and in France 22%. The figure for the
Great Britain was a measly 19%. More motorways means less motor traffic
on roads which are shared with vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.

Who should we blame for the lack of provision of a decent motorway
network, and hence more dangerous non-motorway journeys, in the UK?

[1] http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2001/ebp/ebp/stage1/04.htm

--
Matt B

On May 14, 3:09 pm, Matt B wrote:
Who should we blame for the lack of provision of a decent motorway
network, and hence more dangerous non-motorway journeys, in the UK?

The DfT and DSA obviously - they left out 'Use motorways wherever
possible, they can make your journey safer' in the highway code
revision.

Tim.

On May 14, 2:40 pm, Matt B wrote:

Pedestrian deaths per 100,000 population for 2004 were as follows[1]:


These figures mean next to nothing as they take no account of the
degree of exposure to risk. What we do know is that, nationally, the
UK has one of the lowest levels of cycling and walking in Europe and
British children have the lowest level of independent mobility in
Europe. Given this the GB casualty figures are surprisingly high. It
seems that the actual degree of danger on British roads is
exceptionally high, but the actual number number of pedestrian and
cycle casualties is relatively 'low' because so many people recognise
the degree of the danger on British roads posed by speeding, careless
and mobile-phone using drivers and so have abandoned the public road
to the private car, keep their children locked indoors and so on.

I also note that you have omitted the figures for those countries
which have a much lower pedestrian caualty rate than Britain such as
Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden, even on a simplistic 'casualties
per 100,000 of population' basis.

Your mention of motorways is another red herring, as most pedestrian
and cyclist casualties occur in built-up areas, especially child
cyclist and pedestrian casualties.

The International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD) notes
that, with regards overall road crash injury levels:

"The UK rate of 415 per 100,000 population is well above the EU
average of 346, and two to three times as high as Scandinavian
countries."

Similarly the report of The European Transport Safety Council (ETSC)
report 'Safety of Pedestrians and Cyclists in Urban Areas' notes
that:

"Although the UK also has some of the lowest rates of adult walking
and cycling in Europe British pedestrians and cyclists are more likely
to be killed than any of their European counterparts"

With regards child casualties, the DfT's casualty report for 2003
shows that, even on a simplistic 'deaths per 100,000 of population'
basis only Portugal and Belgium have a higher child casualty rate than
Britain. (And of course these figures ignore the fact that British
children have the lowest level of independent mobility in Europe. For
example, see: 'One False Move: A Study of Children's Independent
Mobility' by Hillman, Adams, and Whitelegg and published by the
Policy Studies Institute)

Child fatalities per 100,000 population 2003.

Portugal 1.3
Belgium 0.9
GB 0.6
Netherlands 0.6
Italy 0.6
Spain 0.6
France 0.5
Austria 0.5
Germany 0.4
Sweden 0.3
Denmark 0.3

With regards cycle casualties, a more realistic measure of risk than
one based on casualties per head of the population is one based an
number of trips made, milage or hours of exposure. Some figures
compiled by Travers Morgan in 2001 and reproduced in the CTC 'Cycle
Safe' handbook give comparative figures for the UK, Holland and
Denmark. These show that:

In Denmark 18 cyclists are killed per 1,000,000,000 km ridden with
Danish cyclists riding an average of 1,050 km per year.

In Holland 23 cyclists are killed per 1,000,000,000 km ridden with
Dutch cyclists riding an average of 850 km per year.

In the UK 58 cyclists are killed per 1,000,000,000 km ridden with UK
cyclists riding an average of 62 km per year. I.e. per km ridden UK
cyclists are 2.5 times more likely to be killed than Dutch cyclists
and 3.2 times more likely to be killed than Danish Cyclists.

Even a 'casualties per 1,000,000 km ridden' measure may not be the
most accurate measure of risk and other measures such as the actual
number of trips made or hours of exposure may be more representative
of the true level of risk faced. Other studies using such measures
indicate that UK cyclists are around 3.5 times more likely to be
killed than a Dutch cyclist and almost ten times more likely to be
killed than a Danish cyclist. (Source: Sustrans).

These differences cannot be attributed wholly to better infrastructure
as in towns cyclists usually mix with normal motor traffic. What's
more on the Continent cycling is regarded as a 'normal' activity and
hardly anyone wears high visibility jackets or helmets, in fact
Denmark, which is the safest country in Europe for cyclists, also has
the lowest level of cycle helmet wearing in Europe at around 3% of
cyclists aged over 25 and 55 of those aged 10-25.

Also interesting are some figures from Transport Safety Analyst
Malcolm Wardlaw's 'Stepping stones to a better cycling
future' (2001). In this he note that, basing the figures on risk of
fatalities per hour of cycling or driving the risks for French drivers
are about the same as for British cyclists, while the risks for
British drivers are about the same as for French cyclists. Wardlaw
also notes that:

'The French drive the same cars we do and ride the same bikes, and
like us they pursue the tradition of vehicular cycling...There are a
few countries where cycling is clearly safer than driving, and there
are a few where cycling is clearly riskier than driving. Britain falls
into the latter category. In fact, there is no other industrialised
country where there is such a large difference in risk between
cyclists and drivers.'

On 14 May 2007 07:40:08 -0700, Howard wrote:

On May 14, 2:40 pm, Matt B wrote:


Please do not feed TrollB.