Child cyclist fatalities in London

Child cyclist fatalities in London:
2001 - 4
2002 - 4
2003 - 3
2004 - 1
2005 - 0
2006 - 0
2007 - 0
2008 Jan - Mar - 0

There has never been a safer time to be a child cyclist in the
Capital.

All cyclist fatalities in London
1994 to 1998 average - 14.8
2001 - 21
2002 - 20
2003 - 19
2004 - 8
2005 - 21
2006 - 19
2007 - 15
12 months to March 2008 - 13
2003 to 2007 average - 16.4

The 5 year average (1994 - 1998 and 2003 - 2007) fatality rate has
risen by 10%. However, in that time there has been a doubling of
cycling in the capital. That implies a substantial fall in cycling
fatalities per mile and per journey.

Cycling fatalities are the most accurate measure of cyclist safety.
There can be little doubt about what constitutes a cyclist fatality,
but the cause of non-fatal injuries are not so rigorously recorded.

Information source:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/proj...aces/2840.aspx

Tom Crispin wrote:
Child cyclist fatalities in London:
2001 - 4
2002 - 4
2003 - 3
2004 - 1
2005 - 0
2006 - 0
2007 - 0
2008 Jan - Mar - 0

There has never been a safer time to be a child cyclist in the
Capital.

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

Hint: The statistically insignificant figures above don't prove anything.

--
Matt B

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
Child cyclist fatalities in London:
2001 - 4
2002 - 4
2003 - 3
2004 - 1
2005 - 0
2006 - 0
2007 - 0
2008 Jan - Mar - 0

There has never been a safer time to be a child cyclist in the
Capital.

total crap. If you check up, I think you will find 1934 was far safer

Tom Crispin wrote:
Child cyclist fatalities in London:
2001 - 4
2002 - 4
2003 - 3
2004 - 1
2005 - 0
2006 - 0
2007 - 0
2008 Jan - Mar - 0

There has never been a safer time to be a child cyclist in the
Capital.

All cyclist fatalities in London
1994 to 1998 average - 14.8
2001 - 21
2002 - 20
2003 - 19
2004 - 8
2005 - 21
2006 - 19
2007 - 15
12 months to March 2008 - 13
2003 to 2007 average - 16.4

The 5 year average (1994 - 1998 and 2003 - 2007) fatality rate has
risen by 10%. However, in that time there has been a doubling of
cycling in the capital. That implies a substantial fall in cycling
fatalities per mile and per journey.

Cycling fatalities are the most accurate measure of cyclist safety.
There can be little doubt about what constitutes a cyclist fatality,
but the cause of non-fatal injuries are not so rigorously recorded.

Hmm - the problem is that the numbers are thankfully low so noise can
overwhelm the signal. I would prefer to consider KSI.

--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

On Oct 8, 8:09*pm, Tom Crispin
wrote:
Child cyclist fatalities in London:
2001 - 4
2002 - 4
2003 - 3
2004 - 1
2005 - 0
2006 - 0
2007 - 0
2008 Jan - Mar - 0

There has never been a safer time to be a child cyclist in the
Capital.

All cyclist fatalities in London
1994 to 1998 average - 14.8
2001 - 21
2002 - 20
2003 - 19
2004 - 8
2005 - 21
2006 - 19
2007 - 15
12 months to March 2008 - 13
2003 to 2007 average - 16.4

Aren't these figures somewhat meaningless without knowing the total
number of cyclists (child or otherwise) using the roads? For example,
it's possible that in 2001 there were 1000 cyclists in London of which
21 were killed (2.1%) while in 2007 there were only 500 cyclists in
London of which 15 individuals were killed (3%). Now, obviously those
figures are entirely made up, but the point that these figures are
largely useless without knowing the total number of cyclists remains.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:04:26 -0700 (PDT), jd wrote:

All cyclist fatalities in London
1994 to 1998 average - 14.8
2001 - 21
2002 - 20
2003 - 19
2004 - 8
2005 - 21
2006 - 19
2007 - 15
12 months to March 2008 - 13
2003 to 2007 average - 16.4

Aren't these figures somewhat meaningless without knowing the total
number of cyclists (child or otherwise) using the roads? For example,
it's possible that in 2001 there were 1000 cyclists in London of which
21 were killed (2.1%) while in 2007 there were only 500 cyclists in
London of which 15 individuals were killed (3%). Now, obviously those
figures are entirely made up, but the point that these figures are
largely useless without knowing the total number of cyclists remains.

Perhaps you missed this bit of the post to which you replied:

"However, in that time there has been a doubling of cycling in the
capital."

_ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:04:26 -0700 (PDT), jd wrote:

Aren't these figures somewhat meaningless without knowing the total
number of cyclists (child or otherwise) using the roads? For example,
it's possible that in 2001 there were 1000 cyclists in London of which
21 were killed (2.1%) while in 2007 there were only 500 cyclists in
London of which 15 individuals were killed (3%). Now, obviously those
figures are entirely made up, but the point that these figures are
largely useless without knowing the total number of cyclists remains.

Perhaps you missed this bit of the post to which you replied:

"However, in that time there has been a doubling of cycling in the
capital."

How many of these new cyclists were children?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire http://www.shrimper.org.uk

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:36:24 GMT, _
wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:04:26 -0700 (PDT), jd wrote:

All cyclist fatalities in London
1994 to 1998 average - 14.8
2001 - 21
2002 - 20
2003 - 19
2004 - 8
2005 - 21
2006 - 19
2007 - 15
12 months to March 2008 - 13
2003 to 2007 average - 16.4

Aren't these figures somewhat meaningless without knowing the total
number of cyclists (child or otherwise) using the roads? For example,
it's possible that in 2001 there were 1000 cyclists in London of which
21 were killed (2.1%) while in 2007 there were only 500 cyclists in
London of which 15 individuals were killed (3%). Now, obviously those
figures are entirely made up, but the point that these figures are
largely useless without knowing the total number of cyclists remains.

Perhaps you missed this bit of the post to which you replied:

"However, in that time there has been a doubling of cycling in the
capital."

Not by children there hasn't - the amount of cycling by children has
decreased over the last ten years.



--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

_ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:04:26 -0700 (PDT), jd wrote:

All cyclist fatalities in London
1994 to 1998 average - 14.8
2001 - 21
2002 - 20
2003 - 19
2004 - 8
2005 - 21
2006 - 19
2007 - 15
12 months to March 2008 - 13
2003 to 2007 average - 16.4

Aren't these figures somewhat meaningless without knowing the total
number of cyclists (child or otherwise) using the roads? For example,
it's possible that in 2001 there were 1000 cyclists in London of which
21 were killed (2.1%) while in 2007 there were only 500 cyclists in
London of which 15 individuals were killed (3%). Now, obviously those
figures are entirely made up, but the point that these figures are
largely useless without knowing the total number of cyclists remains.

Perhaps you missed this bit of the post to which you replied:

"However, in that time there has been a doubling of cycling in the
capital."

of children? it's prefectly possible and not that unlikly that increase
is adult.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:12:19 +0100, (Roger
Merriman) wrote:

"However, in that time there has been a doubling of cycling in the
capital."

of children? it's prefectly possible and not that unlikly that increase
is adult.

With the amount of cash that Transport for London has been plying into
child cyclist training, school travel plans and cycle storage in
London's schools I think it highly likely that the number of child
cyclists in London is rising.

TfL's annual budget for child cyclist training alone is £3,000,000.