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

Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 17th 18, 08:26 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,332
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

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?
Ads
  #22  
Old May 17th 18, 11:52 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,223
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

On 17/05/2018 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 17:48, MrCheerful wrote:

It is annoying that everybody's money is thrown in the wrong direction
all the time.


The money comes from a minority. I repeat my post of 21:52 on the 14th.

[quote]
This article is a few years old:-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-get-back.html


It is estimated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the tax
system, getting back more in benefits than they contribute. The neutral
point is a gross income of between £35,000 and £38,000.


There's a heck of a lot of necessary detail which is being left out
there because it makes the argument far less convincing when included.

It boils down to dependent children. The more of them a family has, the
more they are in debit to the Exchequer (not only for CHB and tax
credits, but also for primary and secondary education).

Families with fewer children will meet their "breal-even" point at a
lower level of gross income, and families with no dependent children at
all (eg, before any arrive or after they have flown the coop) at a lower
level of gross income still.

On the other hand, there's an argument that bringing up children (the
better-socialised the ... er ... better) is of advantage to society in
the mid-term. We will all need our penions paid for a few more years
yet, we hope.

So, many motorists are paying their vehicle taxes with one hand what
they receive from taxpayers with the other. If I am a beneficiary, then
by cycling I am doing taxpayers a favour. If I am a taxpayer then by
cycling I am not giving away as much to a bunch of freeloaders.
[Unquote]


It's plainly not true, but it must be of comfort to cyclists with small
brains.
  #23  
Old May 17th 18, 11:56 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,223
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

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).
  #24  
Old May 18th 18, 11:08 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
colwyn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

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?

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!

http://rachelaldred.org/
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!
  #25  
Old May 18th 18, 11:27 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,223
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

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!


  #26  
Old May 18th 18, 12:56 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,345
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

On 17/05/18 23:52, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2018 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 17:48, MrCheerful wrote:

It is annoying that everybody's money is thrown in the wrong
direction all the time.


The money comes from a minority. I repeat my post of 21:52 on the 14th.

[quote]
This article is a few years old:-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-get-back.html


It is estimated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the
tax system, getting back more in benefits than they contribute. The
neutral point is a gross income of between £35,000 and £38,000.


There's a heck of a lot of necessary detail which is being left out
there because it makes the argument far less convincing when included.

It boils down to dependent children. The more of them a family has, the
more they are in debit to the Exchequer (not only for CHB and tax
credits, but also for primary and secondary education).

Families with fewer children will meet their "breal-even" point at a
lower level of gross income, and families with no dependent children at
all (eg, before any arrive or after they have flown the coop) at a lower
level of gross income still.


Yes, it is the nature of populations that there will be spread around an
average.

On the other hand, there's an argument that bringing up children (the
better-socialised the ... er ... better) is of advantage to society in
the mid-term. We will all need our penions paid for a few more years
yet, we hope.

So, many motorists are paying their vehicle taxes with one hand what
they receive from taxpayers with the other. If I am a beneficiary,
then by cycling I am doing taxpayers a favour. If I am a taxpayer then
by cycling I am not giving away as much to a bunch of freeloaders.
[Unquote]


It's plainly not true, but it must be of comfort to cyclists with small
brains.


£6bn in - ved
£28bn in - fuel duty
£30bn out - tax credits
£56bn out - welfare

You have figures that allow a different conclusion?
  #27  
Old May 18th 18, 01:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,223
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

On 18/05/2018 12:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 23:52, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2018 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 17:48, MrCheerful wrote:

It is annoying that everybody's money is thrown in the wrong
direction all the time.

The money comes from a minority. I repeat my post of 21:52 on the 14th.

[quote]
This article is a few years old:-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-get-back.html


It is estimated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the
tax system, getting back more in benefits than they contribute. The
neutral point is a gross income of between £35,000 and £38,000.


There's a heck of a lot of necessary detail which is being left out
there because it makes the argument far less convincing when included.

It boils down to dependent children. The more of them a family has,
the more they are in debit to the Exchequer (not only for CHB and tax
credits, but also for primary and secondary education).

Families with fewer children will meet their "breal-even" point at a
lower level of gross income, and families with no dependent children
at all (eg, before any arrive or after they have flown the coop) at a
lower level of gross income still.


Yes, it is the nature of populations that there will be spread around an
average.

On the other hand, there's an argument that bringing up children (the
better-socialised the ... er ... better) is of advantage to society in
the mid-term. We will all need our penions paid for a few more years
yet, we hope.

So, many motorists are paying their vehicle taxes with one hand what
they receive from taxpayers with the other. If I am a beneficiary,
then by cycling I am doing taxpayers a favour. If I am a taxpayer
then by cycling I am not giving away as much to a bunch of freeloaders.
[Unquote]


It's plainly not true, but it must be of comfort to cyclists with
small brains.


£6bn in - ved
£28bn in - fuel duty
£30bn out - tax credits
£56bn out - welfare

You have figures that allow a different conclusion?


Show how the payments in are exclusively - or even nearly so - made by
the people receiving the payments out.
  #28  
Old May 18th 18, 03:27 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,345
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

On 18/05/18 13:46, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 12:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 23:52, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2018 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 17:48, MrCheerful wrote:

It is annoying that everybody's money is thrown in the wrong
direction all the time.

The money comes from a minority. I repeat my post of 21:52 on the 14th.

[quote]
This article is a few years old:-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-get-back.html


It is estimated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the
tax system, getting back more in benefits than they contribute. The
neutral point is a gross income of between £35,000 and £38,000.

There's a heck of a lot of necessary detail which is being left out
there because it makes the argument far less convincing when included.

It boils down to dependent children. The more of them a family has,
the more they are in debit to the Exchequer (not only for CHB and tax
credits, but also for primary and secondary education).

Families with fewer children will meet their "breal-even" point at a
lower level of gross income, and families with no dependent children
at all (eg, before any arrive or after they have flown the coop) at a
lower level of gross income still.


Yes, it is the nature of populations that there will be spread around
an average.

On the other hand, there's an argument that bringing up children (the
better-socialised the ... er ... better) is of advantage to society
in the mid-term. We will all need our penions paid for a few more
years yet, we hope.

So, many motorists are paying their vehicle taxes with one hand what
they receive from taxpayers with the other. If I am a beneficiary,
then by cycling I am doing taxpayers a favour. If I am a taxpayer
then by cycling I am not giving away as much to a bunch of freeloaders.
[Unquote]

It's plainly not true, but it must be of comfort to cyclists with
small brains.


£6bn in - ved
£28bn in - fuel duty
£30bn out - tax credits
£56bn out - welfare

You have figures that allow a different conclusion?


Show how the payments in are exclusively - or even nearly so - made by
the people receiving the payments out.


Nobody said anything about exclusivity. You tell me I am wrong and you
insult me, yet you cannot show where I am wrong.

  #29  
Old May 18th 18, 04:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
colwyn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

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?

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.
  #30  
Old May 18th 18, 05:23 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,223
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

On 18/05/2018 15:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/05/18 13:46, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 12:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 23:52, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2018 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 17:48, MrCheerful wrote:

It is annoying that everybody's money is thrown in the wrong
direction all the time.

The money comes from a minority. I repeat my post of 21:52 on the
14th.

[quote]
This article is a few years old:-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-get-back.html


It is estimated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the
tax system, getting back more in benefits than they contribute. The
neutral point is a gross income of between £35,000 and £38,000.

There's a heck of a lot of necessary detail which is being left out
there because it makes the argument far less convincing when included.

It boils down to dependent children. The more of them a family has,
the more they are in debit to the Exchequer (not only for CHB and
tax credits, but also for primary and secondary education).

Families with fewer children will meet their "breal-even" point at a
lower level of gross income, and families with no dependent children
at all (eg, before any arrive or after they have flown the coop) at
a lower level of gross income still.

Yes, it is the nature of populations that there will be spread around
an average.

On the other hand, there's an argument that bringing up children
(the better-socialised the ... er ... better) is of advantage to
society in the mid-term. We will all need our penions paid for a few
more years yet, we hope.

So, many motorists are paying their vehicle taxes with one hand
what they receive from taxpayers with the other. If I am a
beneficiary, then by cycling I am doing taxpayers a favour. If I am
a taxpayer then by cycling I am not giving away as much to a bunch
of freeloaders.
[Unquote]

It's plainly not true, but it must be of comfort to cyclists with
small brains.

£6bn in - ved
£28bn in - fuel duty
£30bn out - tax credits
£56bn out - welfare

You have figures that allow a different conclusion?


Show how the payments in are exclusively - or even nearly so - made by
the people receiving the payments out.


Nobody said anything about exclusivity. You tell me I am wrong and you
insult me, yet you cannot show where I am wrong.


Your "argument" was that car-owners (whom you choose to call "motorists"
as though it were still 1910) are subsidised.

You have not even begun to prove it.

And you shan't be able to do so.
 




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
Racing cyclists fall off and hurt themselves. Mrcheerful UK 0 July 1st 14 05:23 PM
This guy has been mown down by cyclists three times in three months ! Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 16 July 3rd 12 11:44 AM
OT cyclists do not hurt pedestrians Marie UK 0 May 23rd 10 08:25 PM
Cyclists are a Perverted Pestulance [Times Article 18/02] David Off UK 70 February 24th 04 11:50 PM
New BBC Show needs super fit cyclists kingsley Australia 2 July 11th 03 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.