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

UK cyclists kill or maim two people a week



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old October 20th 17, 03:01 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default UK cyclists kill or maim two people a week

On 19/10/17 17:51, Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:37:51 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/10/17 14:49, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:15:16 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/10/17 18:35, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:28:39 +0100, TMS320


You have to have a common base to allow for the detection of trends.
Looking for impacts per pedestrian mile or impacts per pushbike mile
is going to produce the same result.Why they chose the measurement
they have I do not know - but it seems to be used by many road
transport investigators worldwide.


The French look at it by population... As I said, their figures show no
connection between casualties and vehicle distance, pedestrian or
occupant.


A vehicle/bike/pedestrian is exposed to the risk of an accident
whenever it is on the road. It would be surprising if the likelihood
of an event turned out to be unrelated to the exposure to the risk be
that in terms of miles traveled or hours driving/walking etc.


Yes, for vehicle occupant casualty against vehicle distance or for
pedestrian casualty against distance walked. Not for pedestrian casualty
against vehicle distance! This is what I take issue to.

You can certainly use the overall measure of accidents per million
inhabitants per year to see if large scale policies are having an
overall effect and you could use the same measure for groups within
the whole - what you cannot do is use the measure of accidents per
million inhabitants to compare the relative probability of an accident
across multiple groups. The French appear to use accidents/million
population for overall figures and accidents/million km for
comparative purposes (for example comparing accidents attributed to
foreign drivers against locals). They also use accidents per hour
when looking at relative risks.


In the recent documents I have I see no figure for pedestrian casualties
per vehicle distance. Perhaps I have missed it?

They used to list pedestrian casualties by department but unfortunately
it seems they no longer do so and just lump all road users together.

They also lament the poor quality of data collection "Accidents with
pedal cyclists who were hospitalised are very under estimated in the
national register of accidents particularly as the police and
gendarmerie are not always called to these accidents
especially if no motorist is involved."


Perhaps, but we're not discussing pedal cyclist versus distance cycled.

The death to injury ratio (RAS30018 Reported casualties sheet), removing
the vehicle-distance element, is the only thing that provides us with an
indication of the severity of non-fatal injuries in a collision,


The severity of injury data for more serious injuries at is available
in hospital admission data and has certainly been included is some
studies.

if
a smaller proportion of injuries convert to death, there must be fewer
life threatening injuries in the mix.


Which has no relationship with causation.


We're not discussing causation either. We are discussing the figures.

You emphasise accuracy of injury reporting but make no mention of
accuracy of distance reporting.

All of the data collection concerning cycling accidents is
inaccurate. The main impact is seen in the often poor design of
measures meant to reduce pushbike casualties.


There measures are more likely to be political and nothing to do with data.


Politicians are not noted for their intelligence and their general
mantra is "Don't just stand there - do something" where "something"
can bear no relationship to the problem. They tend to be overly
influenced by shouty lobby groups (who are also rarely interested in
the truth, their mind is made up and they don't want to be confused by
facts). The civil servants who do make up the briefing papers would
dearly like better facts as they generally do like getting the right
answer.


Indeed.
Ads
  #32  
Old October 27th 17, 02:26 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default UK cyclists kill or maim two people a week

On 10/10/2017 13:09, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/10/17 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/10/17 08:52, MrCheerful wrote:


We were told that their low inertia and rotating couples couldn't
hurt a fly,


*We* have not been told this.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863...ans-every-week


...compared to the 10 a week killed and 100 a week injured by drivers.


On Jeremy Vine yesterday (I can't a weblink to the story),


Never mind. You'll probably find a job soon, one hopes.

a case of
driver being cleared of killing someone on a zebra crossing helps build
a case of there being one law for drivers and another for cyclists.


Actually, the figures above are interesting. We are told that cycle
journeys represent 2% of road journeys (I can't be bothered to verify).


Even if it were true (as unlikely as it sounds - just think of how few
daily cyclists live in *your* street, wherever it may be), it would
certainly not be true on a distance travelled basis.

In the last three weeks, I've driven just under 5,000 miles. Can anyone
claim anywhere near that distance on a bike in the same sort of time-frame?

The figures show that injuries involving bicycles are about 2% (*) of
those involving motor vehicles.


So a lot more bicycle accidents per mile travelled.

But 6.8% of the injuries involving motor vehicles lead to death, whereas
only 1.8% of the injuries involving a bicycle do so. Which also means
that out of the whole spectrum of non-fatal injuries, those from a
bicycle must be much less severe. So yes, it demonstrates that bicycles
are considerably less dangerous.


Less dangerous?

Or less deadly?

Just because a badly-ridden bike is more likely to break a pedestrian's
collarbone rather than their spine, that is not to say that being hit by
a bike is not dangerous.

(*) Direct correlation or coincidence? Impossible to know because it is
likely that a greater proportion of vehicle journeys are through
non-dense urban areas or that pedestrians stay out of the way of areas
with heavy traffic.


Why does that matter?

  #33  
Old October 27th 17, 02:29 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default UK cyclists kill or maim two people a week

On 11/10/2017 10:20, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/10/17 09:35, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:06:02 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester


Do these figure take into account that the majority of car miles
are on trunk roads where there are few, if any, pedestrians? Whilst
bicycles spend most of their time in urban environments.

If not then they are worthless.


They do. On urban roads Pushbikes seriously injure 26 pedestrians
per billion km and kill 0.5, cars seriously injure 10 and kill 0.7.


So you love to push this. Irrespective of car bike/figures, explain why
you think pedestrian casualties per vehicle-distance is meaningful. Try
to bear in mind my earlier point about figures from France that show no
connection.


Exposure to risk / danger / hazard?

You can't fall down the stairs in a bungalow and you can't have an
accident on your bike whilst you're not on it. You are on it longer the
more miles you do (on it).
  #34  
Old October 27th 17, 02:34 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default UK cyclists kill or maim two people a week

On 14/10/2017 20:43, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/10/17 15:08, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 2:04:43 PM UTC+1, Nick wrote:
On 13/10/2017 00:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/10/17 22:11, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 01:07:40 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/10/17 12:28, Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:20:28 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/10/17 09:35, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:06:02 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester

Do these figure take into account that the majority of car miles
are on trunk roads where there are few, if any, pedestrians?
Whilst
bicycles spend most of their time in urban environments.

If not then they are worthless.

They do. On urban roads Pushbikes seriously injure 26 pedestrians
per billion km and kill 0.5, cars seriously injure 10 and kill
0.7.

So you love to push this.

"Push"?Â* One mention of DfT statistics is pushing them?

Yes. You have brought this up several times before. It is obvious you
think it is meaningful.

It is clearly meaningful as it is the data used by the government to
make decisions.

I asked you why you think pedestrian casualties per
vehicle-distance is
meaningful. Don't evade the question.

Of course it is.

That doesn't answer the question.

You won't get an answer. He won't even attempt an answer because he
knows he isn't clever enough.

FWIW the effect you are talking about with respect urban/non urban trips
is called Simpson's Paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox


So what metric should we use?
Passanger miles don't count because there is only one driver per vehicle.


Passenger miles isn't too bad - even if there is a passenger variation
from 1 to 5; at least they're actually inside the vehicles that are
doing the miles. (I expect Simpson's paradox would find a strange result
between 1 occupant, 5 occupants and average occupancy - whatever that
average is.)

I just canot fathom out why there is supposed to be a link between
pedestrians and vehicle miles.


Pedestrians are, in terms of vehicles, objects in the landscape. Like
trees or brick walls but less hard and liable to move about.

The more time you spend cycling within that landscape, and the greater
the density of pedestrians (humans) within it, the greater the
likelihood of a collision with a pedestrian.

But perhaps if analysing the frequency of cyclists crashing into brick
walls, you would refuse to take into account the number of brick walls
and the time spent cycling with a brick wall in the vicinity?

 




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
Over 74 people a week are injured by hit and run drivers in London' Alycidon UK 1 September 2nd 15 08:34 AM
How pavement motorists can kill people. Doug[_10_] UK 10 June 2nd 11 01:11 PM
Kill two cyclists get a pay cut Anton Berlin Racing 0 June 7th 09 03:47 PM
I kill people with bicycles!!! Gene Stonerly Techniques 73 January 16th 09 04:34 AM
Mandatory custodials for people who kill others on the roads. spindrift UK 56 October 9th 07 02:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.