Cycling Deaths and Injuries are up

Department for Transport statistics show the number of cyclists killed on the
UK's roads rose last year, from 104 in 2009 to 111 in 2010. Killed and
seriously injured (KSI) figures for the same period were also up, from 2,710 to
2,771.

...... the critical indicator figure of cyclist deaths per billion miles, the
most effective measurement of how safe cycling actually is rose too, from 33.5
to 35.7, suggesting that perhaps the UK's roads are becoming marginally less
safe for bike users.

Cyclists were the only major category of road users to suffer a yearly rise in
both fatalities and KSI figures.



http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...uries-up-32173

On 01/11/2011 15:14, Statto (JMS) wrote:


Department for Transport statistics show the number of cyclists killed on the
UK's roads rose last year, from 104 in 2009 to 111 in 2010. Killed and
seriously injured (KSI) figures for the same period were also up, from 2,710 to
2,771.

..... the critical indicator figure of cyclist deaths per billion miles, the
most effective measurement of how safe cycling actually is rose too, from 33.5
to 35.7, suggesting that perhaps the UK's roads are becoming marginally less
safe for bike users.

Cyclists were the only major category of road users to suffer a yearly rise in
both fatalities and KSI figures.



http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...uries-up-32173

It is rather pointless to try to project trends from the figures for
just two consecutive years. The report, which was first published on
June 30th, also shows that, compared to the average for the period
1994-1998, cyclist deaths have fallen by 40%, while the overall drop in
KSI was 26%. Over the same period, motorcyclists have shown the least
improvement (14% killed 20% KSI), while pedestrians have shown the
greatest drop in killed (60%).

Colin Bignell

On Nov 1, 3:43*pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/11/2011 15:14, Statto (JMS) wrote:











Department for Transport statistics show the number of cyclists killed on the
UK's roads rose last year, from 104 in 2009 to 111 in 2010. Killed and
seriously injured (KSI) figures for the same period were also up, from 2,710 to
2,771.

..... the critical indicator figure of cyclist deaths per billion miles, *the
most effective measurement of how safe cycling actually is rose too, from 33.5
to 35.7, suggesting that perhaps the UK's roads are becoming marginally less
safe for bike users.

Cyclists were the only major category of road users to suffer a yearly rise in
both fatalities and KSI figures.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...d-injuries-up-...

It is rather pointless to try to project trends from the figures for
just two consecutive years. The report, which was first published on
June 30th, also shows that, compared to the average for the period
1994-1998, cyclist deaths have fallen by 40%, while the overall drop in
KSI was 26%. Over the same period, motorcyclists have shown the least
improvement (14% killed 20% KSI), while pedestrians have shown the
greatest drop in killed (60%).

Colin Bignell

Don't confuse it with facts.

MBQ

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:14:16 +0000, Statto (JMS)
wrote:



Department for Transport statistics show the number of cyclists killed on the
UK's roads rose last year, from 104 in 2009 to 111 in 2010. Killed and
seriously injured (KSI) figures for the same period were also up, from 2,710 to
2,771.

Nowhere near enough.

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:43:03 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

snip


It is rather pointless to try to project trends from the figures for
just two consecutive years. The report, which was first published on
June 30th, also shows that, compared to the average for the period
1994-1998, cyclist deaths have fallen by 40%, while the overall drop in
KSI was 26%. Over the same period, motorcyclists have shown the least
improvement (14% killed 20% KSI), while pedestrians have shown the
greatest drop in killed (60%).

Colin Bignell

There was no attempt to project trends - it was purely a comparison with the
previous year - and cycling deaths and injuries are up compared to last year

There have of course been major changes in road layouts, cycle facilities, the
numbers of people cycling to work, the use of helmets etc etc. over the last
seventeen years

Therefore the relevance of a comparison with seventeen years ago is neither
here nor there. It is a convenient benchmark for the DfT so that they can show
how things are improving.

The point being made is that there are more injuries and deaths for cyclists
compared to last year, Nothing more, nothing less.

On Nov 1, 3:43*pm, Nightjar wrote:
It is rather pointless to try to project trends from the figures for
just two consecutive years. The report, which was first published on
June 30th, also shows that, compared to the average for the period
1994-1998, cyclist deaths have fallen by 40%, while the overall drop in
KSI was 26%. Over the same period, motorcyclists have shown the least
improvement (14% killed 20% KSI), while pedestrians have shown the
greatest drop in killed (60%).


Looks pretty safe to me.

http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/6035/009ob.jpg

--
Simon Mason

On 01/11/2011 17:37, Statto (JMS) wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:43:03 +0000,
wrote:

snip


It is rather pointless to try to project trends from the figures for
just two consecutive years. The report, which was first published on
June 30th, also shows that, compared to the average for the period
1994-1998, cyclist deaths have fallen by 40%, while the overall drop in
KSI was 26%. Over the same period, motorcyclists have shown the least
improvement (14% killed 20% KSI), while pedestrians have shown the
greatest drop in killed (60%).

Colin Bignell

There was no attempt to project trends - it was purely a comparison with the
previous year - and cycling deaths and injuries are up compared to last year

There have of course been major changes in road layouts, cycle facilities, the
numbers of people cycling to work, the use of helmets etc etc. over the last
seventeen years

Therefore the relevance of a comparison with seventeen years ago is neither
here nor there. It is a convenient benchmark for the DfT so that they can show
how things are improving.

The point being made is that there are more injuries and deaths for cyclists
compared to last year, Nothing more, nothing less.

Which is statistically meaningless.

Colin Bignell

On 01/11/11 21:00, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:43 pm, wrote:
It is rather pointless to try to project trends from the figures for
just two consecutive years. The report, which was first published on
June 30th, also shows that, compared to the average for the period
1994-1998, cyclist deaths have fallen by 40%, while the overall drop in
KSI was 26%. Over the same period, motorcyclists have shown the least
improvement (14% killed 20% KSI), while pedestrians have shown the
greatest drop in killed (60%).


Looks pretty safe to me.

http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/6035/009ob.jpg

--
Simon Mason

Those figures look like they are averaged over the population as a
whole. I'm not sure that is a helpful way of assessing risk, given that
the probability of death whilst partaking in a given activity depends on
whether an individual actually partakes in that activity in the first place.

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 23:10:05 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 01/11/2011 17:37, Statto (JMS) wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:43:03 +0000,
wrote:

snip


It is rather pointless to try to project trends from the figures for
just two consecutive years. The report, which was first published on
June 30th, also shows that, compared to the average for the period
1994-1998, cyclist deaths have fallen by 40%, while the overall drop in
KSI was 26%. Over the same period, motorcyclists have shown the least
improvement (14% killed 20% KSI), while pedestrians have shown the
greatest drop in killed (60%).

Colin Bignell

There was no attempt to project trends - it was purely a comparison with the
previous year - and cycling deaths and injuries are up compared to last year

There have of course been major changes in road layouts, cycle facilities, the
numbers of people cycling to work, the use of helmets etc etc. over the last
seventeen years

Therefore the relevance of a comparison with seventeen years ago is neither
here nor there. It is a convenient benchmark for the DfT so that they can show
how things are improving.

The point being made is that there are more injuries and deaths for cyclists
compared to last year, Nothing more, nothing less.

Which is statistically meaningless.

What happens when you point out facts to JMS that conflict with its
anti-cyclist agenda is that it attacks you relentlessly until one of
the following occurs: you go away bored, or the heat death of the
universe intervenes.

There is no known way of getting JMS to amend its opinions in response
to facts, reason, sarcasm, satire, wit, intelligence, evidence,
rhetoric or anything else.

Just so you know. I'll enjoy watching your half of the exchange :-)

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Nov 1, 3:14*pm, Statto (JMS) wrote:
Department for Transport statistics show the number of cyclists killed on the
UK's roads rose last year, from 104 in 2009 to 111 in 2010. Killed and
seriously injured (KSI) figures for the same period were also up, from 2,710 to
2,771.

..... the critical indicator figure of cyclist deaths per billion miles, *the
most effective measurement of how safe cycling actually is rose too, from 33.5
to 35.7, suggesting that perhaps the UK's roads are becoming marginally less
safe for bike users.

Cyclists were the only major category of road users to suffer a yearly rise in
both fatalities and KSI figures.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...d-injuries-up-...

So Judith, does this mean I'm still less likely to die cycling a mile
instead of walking a mile?