Cycling- The Dangers

Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.


The key points of which are, as a means of transport walking is more
dangerous that cycle, Cycling in Britain is safer than driving in some
European counties, Cycling is far safer than driving anywhere, Cycling
gets safer as it gets more popular, and that There is no known example
in recent decades when an increase in cycling led to an increase in
cyclist deaths.


http://www.networks.nhs.uk/uploads/06/09/wardlaw.pdf

In fact the truism that the more cyclists there are the safer the
roads become seems to be bolstered by the London explosion in cycling-
cycling rates up 80% in 5 years but the accident rate is down:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modalpages/972.aspx

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.

Roger Geffen, CTC campaigns and policy manager, said:

"The relationship between increased cycle use and reduced cycle
casualties found in mainland Europe also holds for Britain - the more
people that cycle, the safer it is to cycle."

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/22045/...UK-roads-safer

The more people cycle, the more aware drivers become and the safer the
roads are for cyclists.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/4188.aspx

CYCLING MAKES ROADS SAFER!

Recent statistics gathered throughout the UK confirm that an increase
in cycle use leads to safer roads. Apart from the fact that drivers
who also cycle tend to be more aware of other road users, more
cyclists on the road ensures that even drivers who don't cycle are
more likely to expect the presence of cyclists, motorcyclists and
pedestrians.

http://www.cyclingscotland.org/didyouknow.aspx


After all, the more people who take up cycling, the safer it will be
for all road users, not just for cyclists - hence the conference
title:

"Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer
Cycling = More Cycling ....."

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4802

Perception is a big problem here," says Wilson. "Unsurprisingly, many
people think cycling is dangerous but it has been proved that the more
cyclists there are on the road, the safer it is per cyclist. Drivers
get used to them."

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/fe...cle1088929.ece

Isn't this the kind of material to focus on rather than the rather
hysterical inflation of the dangers of cycling in, for example, the
London Freewheel Press Release?

spindrift wrote:
Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.


The key points of which are, as a means of transport walking is more
dangerous that cycle, Cycling in Britain is safer than driving in some
European counties, Cycling is far safer than driving anywhere, Cycling
gets safer as it gets more popular, and that There is no known example
in recent decades when an increase in cycling led to an increase in
cyclist deaths.

I think you should probably be a bit more careful with qualifications
and attributions.

There is more to being "a report from the NHS" than being available on a
server in an HHS domain.

Further on qualifications, it's entirely likely that a 1,000% increase
in cycling will increase the number of cyclist deaths, but the important
point is that the /rates/ of deaths will probably decrease. It is worth
being careful about this sort of distinction out IMHO, or eeejits will
just accuse of trying to lie with statistics. It is telling that the
original key point you've related as "Cycling is far safer than driving
anywhere" is actually "Cycling is far safer than driving anywhere when
the health benefits and reduced risk to third parties are included".

Isn't this the kind of material to focus on rather than the rather
hysterical inflation of the dangers of cycling in, for example, the
London Freewheel Press Release?

Indeed, but when focusing I don't think it helps to do the sort of
selective editing that will lead to people dismissing it. Ironically, I
got accused a wee while ago of being a "weasel" by carefully qualifying
things I said, though that was in the context of giving careful answers
to deliberately (mis)leading questions. Blatant spinning should be
deprecated though, it doesn't help in today's climate.

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/

"Further on qualifications, it's entirely likely that a 1,000%
increase
in cycling will increase the number of cyclist deaths, but the
important
point is that the /rates/ of deaths will probably decrease."

Quite right, I should have made that clear, especially cos the Evading
Standard trumpetted the rise in cycling accidents whilst ignoring the
explosion in cycling rates!

I just felt the Freewheel caveats, whilst probably a condition of
their public liability insurance, was akin to saying:

"Cycling is safe, fun and will prolong your life. Warning! You may
die!!"

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:13:05 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
wrote this:-

Ironically, I
got accused a wee while ago of being a "weasel" by carefully qualifying
things I said, though that was in the context of giving careful answers
to deliberately (mis)leading questions.

If people are attacking one's viewpoint then that is a good
indication that one is right and causing others to be uncomfortable.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

spindrift wrote:
Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.

http://www.networks.nhs.uk/uploads/06/09/wardlaw.pdf

I note that the cyclists have ignored the mandatory cycle
lane on page 355 ;-)

Martin Dann wrote:

spindrift wrote:
Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.

http://www.networks.nhs.uk/uploads/06/09/wardlaw.pdf

I note that the cyclists have ignored the mandatory cycle lane on page
355 ;-)

It's not a mandatory cycle lane, at least I can't see I sign to say that
it is, the white line is solid meaning that the cars should't be parked
there but nothing says that the cyclists should be

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:32:28 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
wrote this:-

spindrift wrote:
Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.

http://www.networks.nhs.uk/uploads/06/09/wardlaw.pdf

I note that the cyclists have ignored the mandatory cycle
lane on page 355 ;-)

Tee, hee, hee.

Given that it is not mandatory for cyclists to use such a lane, but
it is mandatory for motorists not to use such a lane, shouldn't the
police be upholding the law and dealing with the criminals who are
clearly using the lane?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:

Given that it is not mandatory for cyclists to use such a lane, but
it is mandatory for motorists not to use such a lane, shouldn't the
police be upholding the law and dealing with the criminals who are
clearly using the lane?


Because as no doubt TrollB and his sidekick Another Troll There is One
You Know will be along to inform you, their presence parked there is no
evidence of their having illegally driving in the cycle lane - they
could have legally levitated into position ;-)

Tony

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:40:23 +0100, marc wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:

I note that the cyclists have ignored the mandatory cycle lane on
page 355 ;-)

It's not a mandatory cycle lane, at least I can't see I sign to say
that it is, the white line is solid meaning

... meaning that it IS a mandatory cycle lane. That's what a solid
line means - that it's a mandatory lane. If it's not a mandatory
lane, it has a broken line.

but nothing says that the cyclists should be

Eh? Whether a cycle lane is a mandatory one or not has no bearing on
cyclists in teh vicinity. Your comment appears to be a non-sequitur.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Just thanks for an interesting and informative thread; much
appreciated.



--
Charles