|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
UK road safety data
The latest UK road safety data has been released recently and the main thing that has hit the headlines is the fact that our rural roads are far more dangerous than our urban roads or motorways.
Our Government is making an effort to address the abolute and relative risks of cycling in particular given the publicity it has received in recent years. There have been many threads on this subject here with some lively "debate" between certain prominent members. For those of you wishing to study the latest data for the UK it can be found he https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013 For those of you who do not have the time or inclination to trawl through all of it then one of the papers in the collection: "Focus on pedal cyclists" is worth a read. It tries objectively to set out the difficulties of obtaining accurate data and explains the limitations of the current datasets. That said it does set out the latest results in terms of absolute and relative risks compared to other transport modes. The general conclusion is that whilst all modes of transport are regarded as being safe in the UK cycling and walking share the same risk of death at 34 per billion miles travelled whereas the risk of death or serious injury is about two and a half time higher for cycling than walking - 1036 vs 463 events per billion miles travelled. These are considerably higher than travelling by car and considerably lower than travelling by motorbike. No surprises there then! For the really keen amongst you that paper even includes an invite, complete with email address, for the submission of ideas on how the data can be improved. Graham. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
UK road safety data
oh yeah, English country lanes are famous amongst the cognoscenti. Even Man was a country lane 50 years ago.
Thinking about this makes me cringe. http://goo.gl/9uLXAn |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
UK road safety data
On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:46:24 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote:
The latest UK road safety data has been released recently and the main thing that has hit the headlines is the fact that our rural roads are far more dangerous than our urban roads or motorways. Our Government is making an effort to address the abolute and relative risks of cycling in particular given the publicity it has received in recent years. There have been many threads on this subject here with some lively "debate" between certain prominent members. For those of you wishing to study the latest data for the UK it can be found he https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013 For those of you who do not have the time or inclination to trawl through all of it then one of the papers in the collection: "Focus on pedal cyclists" is worth a read. It tries objectively to set out the difficulties of obtaining accurate data and explains the limitations of the current datasets. That said it does set out the latest results in terms of absolute and relative risks compared to other transport modes. The general conclusion is that whilst all modes of transport are regarded as being safe in the UK cycling and walking share the same risk of death at 34 per billion miles travelled whereas the risk of death or serious injury is about two and a half time higher for cycling than walking - 1036 vs 463 events per billion miles travelled. These are considerably higher than travelling by car and considerably lower than travelling by motorbike. No surprises there then! For the really keen amongst you that paper even includes an invite, complete with email address, for the submission of ideas on how the data can be improved. Graham. Thanks Graham. Two striking facts are juxtaposed: * Today pedal cycle traffic only accounts for 1 per cent of road traffic in Great Britain. and * Pedal cyclists accounted for 11 per cent of all road casualties in 2013: 6 per cent of all road accident fatalities, 15 per cent of all serious injuries and 10 per cent of all slight injuries. This means roughly that, compared to the average of all "traffic", the average British bicycle journey is 11 times more likely to end in tears, 6 times more likely to end in death, 15 times more likely to end in serious injury, and 10 times more likely to end in slighter injury. Nothing new in these numbers. To get to where the boosters can declare cycling safer than walking or playing tiddlywinks, one has to massage the numbers by first changing the base (per journey? per mile?) and then adding in whole-of-life benefits to the cyclist's health, plus societal benefits of the healthier cyclist not getting sick and needing medical care. Of course, in Britain, all of that benefit can easily be consumed by the cost of the National Health system looking after the larger percentage of cyclist who are hurt, and this could become an adverse weighting on the numbers if more people were to cycle. The answer isn't to fiddle the statistics, as some here do (with the fascist mentalities going as far as to say a hundred -- or seven hundred as in the States -- fatalities are a low price to pay for cycling benefits), but to change the attitude of other road users to cyclists, as has been very successfully done in the The Netherlands. Andre Jute |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
UK road safety data
On 10/10/14 04:09, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:46:24 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote: The latest UK road safety data has been released recently and the main thing that has hit the headlines is the fact that our rural roads are far more dangerous than our urban roads or motorways. Our Government is making an effort to address the abolute and relative risks of cycling in particular given the publicity it has received in recent years. There have been many threads on this subject here with some lively "debate" between certain prominent members. For those of you wishing to study the latest data for the UK it can be found he https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013 For those of you who do not have the time or inclination to trawl through all of it then one of the papers in the collection: "Focus on pedal cyclists" is worth a read. It tries objectively to set out the difficulties of obtaining accurate data and explains the limitations of the current datasets. That said it does set out the latest results in terms of absolute and relative risks compared to other transport modes. The general conclusion is that whilst all modes of transport are regarded as being safe in the UK cycling and walking share the same risk of death at 34 per billion miles travelled whereas the risk of death or serious injury is about two and a half time higher for cycling than walking - 1036 vs 463 events per billion miles travelled. These are considerably higher than travelling by car and considerably lower than travelling by motorbike. No surprises there then! For the really keen amongst you that paper even includes an invite, complete with email address, for the submission of ideas on how the data can be improved. Graham. Thanks Graham. Two striking facts are juxtaposed: * Today pedal cycle traffic only accounts for 1 per cent of road traffic in Great Britain. and * Pedal cyclists accounted for 11 per cent of all road casualties in 2013: 6 per cent of all road accident fatalities, 15 per cent of all serious injuries and 10 per cent of all slight injuries. This means roughly that, compared to the average of all "traffic", the average British bicycle journey is 11 times more likely to end in tears, 6 times more likely to end in death, 15 times more likely to end in serious injury, and 10 times more likely to end in slighter injury. Nothing new in these numbers. To get to where the boosters can declare cycling safer than walking or playing tiddlywinks, one has to massage the numbers by first changing the base (per journey? per mile?) and then adding in whole-of-life benefits to the cyclist's health, plus societal benefits of the healthier cyclist not getting sick and needing medical care. Of course, in Britain, all of that benefit can easily be consumed by the cost of the National Health system looking after the larger percentage of cyclist who are hurt, and this could become an adverse weighting on the numbers if more people were to cycle. The answer isn't to fiddle the statistics, as some here do (with the fascist mentalities going as far as to say a hundred -- or seven hundred as in the States -- fatalities are a low price to pay for cycling benefits), but to change the attitude of other road users to cyclists, as has been very successfully done in the The Netherlands. Andre Jute Around here, 1.6% mode share in Victoria, accounts for 3.5% of deaths (4.6% in Melbourne) and 5.8% (6.7% in Melbourne) injuries requiring hospitalisation. http://chartingtransport.files.wordp...me-series1.png http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...fatalities-xml http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...c-injuries-xml It seems we are safer here, yet I felt safer there. Mind you, I was only riding there for a couple of weeks, and not in a heavily populated area. The motorists there seemed easier to get along with. More considerate in general. Maybe closer to London it is the opposite. -- JS |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
UK road safety data
ach
http://twicemodern.files.wordpress.c.../03/img484.jpg and how are the motorcycle stats ? hear from Austria or he Pyrenees ? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
UK road safety data
On Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:10:09 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 10/10/14 04:09, Andre Jute wrote: On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:46:24 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote: The latest UK road safety data has been released recently and the main thing that has hit the headlines is the fact that our rural roads are far more dangerous than our urban roads or motorways. Our Government is making an effort to address the abolute and relative risks of cycling in particular given the publicity it has received in recent years. There have been many threads on this subject here with some lively "debate" between certain prominent members. For those of you wishing to study the latest data for the UK it can be found he https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013 For those of you who do not have the time or inclination to trawl through all of it then one of the papers in the collection: "Focus on pedal cyclists" is worth a read. It tries objectively to set out the difficulties of obtaining accurate data and explains the limitations of the current datasets. That said it does set out the latest results in terms of absolute and relative risks compared to other transport modes. The general conclusion is that whilst all modes of transport are regarded as being safe in the UK cycling and walking share the same risk of death at 34 per billion miles travelled whereas the risk of death or serious injury is about two and a half time higher for cycling than walking - 1036 vs 463 events per billion miles travelled. These are considerably higher than travelling by car and considerably lower than travelling by motorbike. No surprises there then! For the really keen amongst you that paper even includes an invite, complete with email address, for the submission of ideas on how the data can be improved. Graham. Thanks Graham. Two striking facts are juxtaposed: * Today pedal cycle traffic only accounts for 1 per cent of road traffic in Great Britain. and * Pedal cyclists accounted for 11 per cent of all road casualties in 2013: 6 per cent of all road accident fatalities, 15 per cent of all serious injuries and 10 per cent of all slight injuries. This means roughly that, compared to the average of all "traffic", the average British bicycle journey is 11 times more likely to end in tears, 6 times more likely to end in death, 15 times more likely to end in serious injury, and 10 times more likely to end in slighter injury. Nothing new in these numbers. To get to where the boosters can declare cycling safer than walking or playing tiddlywinks, one has to massage the numbers by first changing the base (per journey? per mile?) and then adding in whole-of-life benefits to the cyclist's health, plus societal benefits of the healthier cyclist not getting sick and needing medical care. Of course, in Britain, all of that benefit can easily be consumed by the cost of the National Health system looking after the larger percentage of cyclist who are hurt, and this could become an adverse weighting on the numbers if more people were to cycle. The answer isn't to fiddle the statistics, as some here do (with the fascist mentalities going as far as to say a hundred -- or seven hundred as in the States -- fatalities are a low price to pay for cycling benefits), but to change the attitude of other road users to cyclists, as has been very successfully done in the The Netherlands. Andre Jute Around here, 1.6% mode share in Victoria, accounts for 3.5% of deaths (4.6% in Melbourne) and 5.8% (6.7% in Melbourne) injuries requiring hospitalisation. http://chartingtransport.files.wordp...me-series1.png http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...fatalities-xml http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...c-injuries-xml It seems we are safer here, yet I felt safer there. At a quick glance I would that, with such a small modal share, and the uncertainties and methodical differences in reporting serious but non-fatal accidents, modest differences may not tell us much statistically. That is why I'm loath to conclude anything unless there is a glaringly large multiple to hand, like "11 times as likely for a bicyclist as for a motorist". As for people who distinguish trends from shifts of one and two percent, surely they're jesting! That, incidentally, is one of the reasons that I think any increase in cycling will have more to do with perceptions like yours when they spread to the general population of potential cyclists than with the actual facts even when the confidence one can put in the statistical implications are higher than at present (for instance because the base on which one calculates has grown larger than a derisory one or two percent). In my opinion, the "genetral population of potential cyclists" is far, far smaller than cycling advocates will admit; the twin perceptions that cycling is a poverty mode of transport, and is dangerous to life and limb, are just too firmly ingrained. The interesting thing is that public opinion always leads or lags trends in events. Thus one could, strictly for the sake of a grim Halloween amusement you understand, make a case that Krygowski has a point when he screeches that our discussions of conditions for cyclists are shouts of "Danger! Danger!" that puts off potential cyclists. It is field manure of course: Joe Public is far from stupid, and if he is, his wife will straighten him out; in the end the public will catch on to those who abuse statistics to lie for whatever cause. But there is a point where opinion substitutes for facts, and it's much more prevalent now that journalists deal in speculation rather than facts; for instance, I got a whole book out of exposing the lies told about Stieg Larsson (the author of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) by people who should have known better and in many cases must have known that they were lying, includng some of the once-great papers of the world, like the Guardian. Mind you, I was only riding there for a couple of weeks, and not in a heavily populated area. The motorists there seemed easier to get along with. More considerate in general. Maybe closer to London it is the opposite. Until proven otherwise, I'm happy to assume that riding in the city is less pleasant and more dangerous than riding in the countryside. I like my lanes, and the people who live in them like me, but if the lanes were choked with cars and cyclists, I doubt their outlook would be as beneficent as on a single or a few cyclists they know by name or at least by sight. Andre Jute |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
UK road safety data
On 10/10/2014 6:35 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:10:09 PM UTC+1, James wrote: On 10/10/14 04:09, Andre Jute wrote: On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:46:24 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote: The latest UK road safety data has been released recently and the main thing that has hit the headlines is the fact that our rural roads are far more dangerous than our urban roads or motorways. Our Government is making an effort to address the abolute and relative risks of cycling in particular given the publicity it has received in recent years. There have been many threads on this subject here with some lively "debate" between certain prominent members. For those of you wishing to study the latest data for the UK it can be found he https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013 For those of you who do not have the time or inclination to trawl through all of it then one of the papers in the collection: "Focus on pedal cyclists" is worth a read. It tries objectively to set out the difficulties of obtaining accurate data and explains the limitations of the current datasets. That said it does set out the latest results in terms of absolute and relative risks compared to other transport modes. The general conclusion is that whilst all modes of transport are regarded as being safe in the UK cycling and walking share the same risk of death at 34 per billion miles travelled whereas the risk of death or serious injury is about two and a half time higher for cycling than walking - 1036 vs 463 events per billion miles travelled. These are considerably higher than travelling by car and considerably lower than travelling by motorbike. No surprises there then! For the really keen amongst you that paper even includes an invite, complete with email address, for the submission of ideas on how the data can be improved. Graham. Thanks Graham. Two striking facts are juxtaposed: * Today pedal cycle traffic only accounts for 1 per cent of road traffic in Great Britain. and * Pedal cyclists accounted for 11 per cent of all road casualties in 2013: 6 per cent of all road accident fatalities, 15 per cent of all serious injuries and 10 per cent of all slight injuries. This means roughly that, compared to the average of all "traffic", the average British bicycle journey is 11 times more likely to end in tears, 6 times more likely to end in death, 15 times more likely to end in serious injury, and 10 times more likely to end in slighter injury. Nothing new in these numbers. To get to where the boosters can declare cycling safer than walking or playing tiddlywinks, one has to massage the numbers by first changing the base (per journey? per mile?) and then adding in whole-of-life benefits to the cyclist's health, plus societal benefits of the healthier cyclist not getting sick and needing medical care. Of course, in Britain, all of that benefit can easily be consumed by the cost of the National Health system looking after the larger percentage of cyclist who are hurt, and this could become an adverse weighting on the numbers if more people were to cycle. The answer isn't to fiddle the statistics, as some here do (with the fascist mentalities going as far as to say a hundred -- or seven hundred as in the States -- fatalities are a low price to pay for cycling benefits), but to change the attitude of other road users to cyclists, as has been very successfully done in the The Netherlands. Andre Jute Around here, 1.6% mode share in Victoria, accounts for 3.5% of deaths (4.6% in Melbourne) and 5.8% (6.7% in Melbourne) injuries requiring hospitalisation. http://chartingtransport.files.wordp...me-series1.png http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...fatalities-xml http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...c-injuries-xml It seems we are safer here, yet I felt safer there. At a quick glance I would that, with such a small modal share, and the uncertainties and methodical differences in reporting serious but non-fatal accidents, modest differences may not tell us much statistically. That is why I'm loath to conclude anything unless there is a glaringly large multiple to hand, like "11 times as likely for a bicyclist as for a motorist". As for people who distinguish trends from shifts of one and two percent, surely they're jesting! That, incidentally, is one of the reasons that I think any increase in cycling will have more to do with perceptions like yours when they spread to the general population of potential cyclists than with the actual facts even when the confidence one can put in the statistical implications are higher than at present (for instance because the base on which one calculates has grown larger than a derisory one or two percent). In my opinion, the "genetral population of potential cyclists" is far, far smaller than cycling advocates will admit; the twin perceptions that cycling is a poverty mode of transport, and is dangerous to life and limb, are just too firmly ingrained. The interesting thing is that public opinion always leads or lags trends in events. Thus one could, strictly for the sake of a grim Halloween amusement you understand, make a case that Krygowski has a point when he screeches that our discussions of conditions for cyclists are shouts of "Danger! Danger!" that puts off potential cyclists. It is field manure of course: Joe Public is far from stupid, and if he is, his wife will straighten him out; in the end the public will catch on to those who abuse statistics to lie for whatever cause. But there is a point where opinion substitutes for facts, and it's much more prevalent now that journalists deal in speculation rather than facts; for instance, I got a whole book out of exposing the lies told about Stieg Larsson (the author of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) by people who should have known better and in many cases must have known that they were lying, includng some of the once-great papers of the world, like the Guardian. Mind you, I was only riding there for a couple of weeks, and not in a heavily populated area. The motorists there seemed easier to get along with. More considerate in general. Maybe closer to London it is the opposite. Until proven otherwise, I'm happy to assume that riding in the city is less pleasant and more dangerous than riding in the countryside. I like my lanes, and the people who live in them like me, but if the lanes were choked with cars and cyclists, I doubt their outlook would be as beneficent as on a single or a few cyclists they know by name or at least by sight. Well that's one reason that increased cycling numbers tends to decrease cycling danger. Once you get past the local driver waving at the local cyclist who have both known each other for ages, you start to get strangers in cars dealing with unexpected strangers on bikes. It's when the strangers on bike are enough that they are no longer unexpected by the motorists the accidents tend to go down. I prefer this than, to paraphrase, depending on the beneficence of strangers. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
UK road safety data
On Friday, October 10, 2014 1:50:08 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 10/10/2014 6:35 AM, Andre Jute wrote: On Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:10:09 PM UTC+1, James wrote: On 10/10/14 04:09, Andre Jute wrote: On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:46:24 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote: The latest UK road safety data has been released recently and the main thing that has hit the headlines is the fact that our rural roads are far more dangerous than our urban roads or motorways. Our Government is making an effort to address the abolute and relative risks of cycling in particular given the publicity it has received in recent years. There have been many threads on this subject here with some lively "debate" between certain prominent members. For those of you wishing to study the latest data for the UK it can be found he https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013 For those of you who do not have the time or inclination to trawl through all of it then one of the papers in the collection: "Focus on pedal cyclists" is worth a read. It tries objectively to set out the difficulties of obtaining accurate data and explains the limitations of the current datasets. That said it does set out the latest results in terms of absolute and relative risks compared to other transport modes.. The general conclusion is that whilst all modes of transport are regarded as being safe in the UK cycling and walking share the same risk of death at 34 per billion miles travelled whereas the risk of death or serious injury is about two and a half time higher for cycling than walking - 1036 vs 463 events per billion miles travelled. These are considerably higher than travelling by car and considerably lower than travelling by motorbike. No surprises there then! For the really keen amongst you that paper even includes an invite, complete with email address, for the submission of ideas on how the data can be improved. Graham. Thanks Graham. Two striking facts are juxtaposed: * Today pedal cycle traffic only accounts for 1 per cent of road traffic in Great Britain. and * Pedal cyclists accounted for 11 per cent of all road casualties in 2013: 6 per cent of all road accident fatalities, 15 per cent of all serious injuries and 10 per cent of all slight injuries. This means roughly that, compared to the average of all "traffic", the average British bicycle journey is 11 times more likely to end in tears, 6 times more likely to end in death, 15 times more likely to end in serious injury, and 10 times more likely to end in slighter injury. Nothing new in these numbers. To get to where the boosters can declare cycling safer than walking or playing tiddlywinks, one has to massage the numbers by first changing the base (per journey? per mile?) and then adding in whole-of-life benefits to the cyclist's health, plus societal benefits of the healthier cyclist not getting sick and needing medical care. Of course, in Britain, all of that benefit can easily be consumed by the cost of the National Health system looking after the larger percentage of cyclist who are hurt, and this could become an adverse weighting on the numbers if more people were to cycle. The answer isn't to fiddle the statistics, as some here do (with the fascist mentalities going as far as to say a hundred -- or seven hundred as in the States -- fatalities are a low price to pay for cycling benefits), but to change the attitude of other road users to cyclists, as has been very successfully done in the The Netherlands. Andre Jute Around here, 1.6% mode share in Victoria, accounts for 3.5% of deaths (4.6% in Melbourne) and 5.8% (6.7% in Melbourne) injuries requiring hospitalisation. http://chartingtransport.files.wordp...me-series1.png http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...fatalities-xml http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...c-injuries-xml It seems we are safer here, yet I felt safer there. At a quick glance I would that, with such a small modal share, and the uncertainties and methodical differences in reporting serious but non-fatal accidents, modest differences may not tell us much statistically. That is why I'm loath to conclude anything unless there is a glaringly large multiple to hand, like "11 times as likely for a bicyclist as for a motorist". As for people who distinguish trends from shifts of one and two percent, surely they're jesting! That, incidentally, is one of the reasons that I think any increase in cycling will have more to do with perceptions like yours when they spread to the general population of potential cyclists than with the actual facts even when the confidence one can put in the statistical implications are higher than at present (for instance because the base on which one calculates has grown larger than a derisory one or two percent). In my opinion, the "genetral population of potential cyclists" is far, far smaller than cycling advocates will admit; the twin perceptions that cycling is a poverty mode of transport, and is dangerous to life and limb, are just too firmly ingrained. The interesting thing is that public opinion always leads or lags trends in events. Thus one could, strictly for the sake of a grim Halloween amusement you understand, make a case that Krygowski has a point when he screeches that our discussions of conditions for cyclists are shouts of "Danger! Danger!" that puts off potential cyclists. It is field manure of course: Joe Public is far from stupid, and if he is, his wife will straighten him out; in the end the public will catch on to those who abuse statistics to lie for whatever cause. But there is a point where opinion substitutes for facts, and it's much more prevalent now that journalists deal in speculation rather than facts; for instance, I got a whole book out of exposing the lies told about Stieg Larsson (the author of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) by people who should have known better and in many cases must have known that they were lying, includng some of the once-great papers of the world, like the Guardian. Mind you, I was only riding there for a couple of weeks, and not in a heavily populated area. The motorists there seemed easier to get along with. More considerate in general. Maybe closer to London it is the opposite. Until proven otherwise, I'm happy to assume that riding in the city is less pleasant and more dangerous than riding in the countryside. I like my lanes, and the people who live in them like me, but if the lanes were choked with cars and cyclists, I doubt their outlook would be as beneficent as on a single or a few cyclists they know by name or at least by sight. Well that's one reason that increased cycling numbers tends to decrease cycling danger. Once you get past the local driver waving at the local cyclist who have both known each other for ages, you start to get strangers in cars dealing with unexpected strangers on bikes. It's when the strangers on bike are enough that they are no longer unexpected by the motorists the accidents tend to go down. I prefer this than, to paraphrase, depending on the beneficence of strangers. And that perfectly encapsulates the conundrum, doesn't it? Your median cyclist is stuck in that middle phase where he's dealing with strangers sitting in murderous blunt objects, waiting for there to be more cyclists so that the stranger in cars will expect them. Since I don't expect to see the third phase in my lifetime in any of the anglophone countries (though I suppose we could go live in The Netherlands or Germany or Belgium or France, as the language wouldn't be a problem -- we used to live in France), I'm happy to be able to live in a place where I can enjoy the first, village phase of cycling. It is notable that the incomers, especially from behind the erstwhile Iron Curtain, are the most dangerous drivers on our roads, and that's saying something as until recently Irish drivers were truly terrifying (not just to cyclists), until the driving license tests were outsourced to what I believe is a Swiss firm. Of course, local bicycle facilities, if heavily used, will tend to turn bicycle communities into villages once again. Not that I expect it to happen; I just throw it in as a discussion point (on RBT called "a troll"). Andre Jute |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
UK road safety data
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... On Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:10:09 PM UTC+1, James wrote: On 10/10/14 04:09, Andre Jute wrote: On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:46:24 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote: The latest UK road safety data has been released recently [snip] Until proven otherwise, I'm happy to assume that riding in the city is less pleasant and more dangerous than riding in the countryside. [snip] Apparently, and this was the point picked up by the media relating to driving, rural roads are the "most" dangerous for all modes. Whilst there are far more accidents resulting in injuries in urban areas speeds tend to be far lower and deaths thereby less likely. Apparently you are more likely to get killed on a rural road in the UK whatever your mode if you are involved in an accident. This is put down to drivers driving far too fast for their range of vision, their ability to react to the unexpected and their basic level of driving skill. I do most of my riding in the lanes of the Cotswolds and have had quite a few "interesting" experiences. Please no Danger Danger! comments. Graham. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
UK road safety data
On 10/10/2014 9:18 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 10, 2014 1:50:08 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote: On 10/10/2014 6:35 AM, Andre Jute wrote: On Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:10:09 PM UTC+1, James wrote: On 10/10/14 04:09, Andre Jute wrote: On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:46:24 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote: The latest UK road safety data has been released recently and the main thing that has hit the headlines is the fact that our rural roads are far more dangerous than our urban roads or motorways. Our Government is making an effort to address the abolute and relative risks of cycling in particular given the publicity it has received in recent years. There have been many threads on this subject here with some lively "debate" between certain prominent members. For those of you wishing to study the latest data for the UK it can be found he https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013 For those of you who do not have the time or inclination to trawl through all of it then one of the papers in the collection: "Focus on pedal cyclists" is worth a read. It tries objectively to set out the difficulties of obtaining accurate data and explains the limitations of the current datasets. That said it does set out the latest results in terms of absolute and relative risks compared to other transport modes. The general conclusion is that whilst all modes of transport are regarded as being safe in the UK cycling and walking share the same risk of death at 34 per billion miles travelled whereas the risk of death or serious injury is about two and a half time higher for cycling than walking - 1036 vs 463 events per billion miles travelled. These are considerably higher than travelling by car and considerably lower than travelling by motorbike. No surprises there then! For the really keen amongst you that paper even includes an invite, complete with email address, for the submission of ideas on how the data can be improved. Graham. Thanks Graham. Two striking facts are juxtaposed: * Today pedal cycle traffic only accounts for 1 per cent of road traffic in Great Britain. and * Pedal cyclists accounted for 11 per cent of all road casualties in 2013: 6 per cent of all road accident fatalities, 15 per cent of all serious injuries and 10 per cent of all slight injuries. This means roughly that, compared to the average of all "traffic", the average British bicycle journey is 11 times more likely to end in tears, 6 times more likely to end in death, 15 times more likely to end in serious injury, and 10 times more likely to end in slighter injury. Nothing new in these numbers. To get to where the boosters can declare cycling safer than walking or playing tiddlywinks, one has to massage the numbers by first changing the base (per journey? per mile?) and then adding in whole-of-life benefits to the cyclist's health, plus societal benefits of the healthier cyclist not getting sick and needing medical care. Of course, in Britain, all of that benefit can easily be consumed by the cost of the National Health system looking after the larger percentage of cyclist who are hurt, and this could become an adverse weighting on the numbers if more people were to cycle. The answer isn't to fiddle the statistics, as some here do (with the fascist mentalities going as far as to say a hundred -- or seven hundred as in the States -- fatalities are a low price to pay for cycling benefits), but to change the attitude of other road users to cyclists, as has been very successfully done in the The Netherlands. Andre Jute Around here, 1.6% mode share in Victoria, accounts for 3.5% of deaths (4.6% in Melbourne) and 5.8% (6.7% in Melbourne) injuries requiring hospitalisation. http://chartingtransport.files.wordp...me-series1.png http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...fatalities-xml http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...c-injuries-xml It seems we are safer here, yet I felt safer there. At a quick glance I would that, with such a small modal share, and the uncertainties and methodical differences in reporting serious but non-fatal accidents, modest differences may not tell us much statistically. That is why I'm loath to conclude anything unless there is a glaringly large multiple to hand, like "11 times as likely for a bicyclist as for a motorist". As for people who distinguish trends from shifts of one and two percent, surely they're jesting! That, incidentally, is one of the reasons that I think any increase in cycling will have more to do with perceptions like yours when they spread to the general population of potential cyclists than with the actual facts even when the confidence one can put in the statistical implications are higher than at present (for instance because the base on which one calculates has grown larger than a derisory one or two percent). In my opinion, the "genetral population of potential cyclists" is far, far smaller than cycling advocates will admit; the twin perceptions that cycling is a poverty mode of transport, and is dangerous to life and limb, are just too firmly ingrained. The interesting thing is that public opinion always leads or lags trends in events. Thus one could, strictly for the sake of a grim Halloween amusement you understand, make a case that Krygowski has a point when he screeches that our discussions of conditions for cyclists are shouts of "Danger! Danger!" that puts off potential cyclists. It is field manure of course: Joe Public is far from stupid, and if he is, his wife will straighten him out; in the end the public will catch on to those who abuse statistics to lie for whatever cause. But there is a point where opinion substitutes for facts, and it's much more prevalent now that journalists deal in speculation rather than facts; for instance, I got a whole book out of exposing the lies told about Stieg Larsson (the author of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) by people who should have known better and in many cases must have known that they were lying, includng some of the once-great papers of the world, like the Guardian. Mind you, I was only riding there for a couple of weeks, and not in a heavily populated area. The motorists there seemed easier to get along with. More considerate in general. Maybe closer to London it is the opposite. Until proven otherwise, I'm happy to assume that riding in the city is less pleasant and more dangerous than riding in the countryside. I like my lanes, and the people who live in them like me, but if the lanes were choked with cars and cyclists, I doubt their outlook would be as beneficent as on a single or a few cyclists they know by name or at least by sight. Well that's one reason that increased cycling numbers tends to decrease cycling danger. Once you get past the local driver waving at the local cyclist who have both known each other for ages, you start to get strangers in cars dealing with unexpected strangers on bikes. It's when the strangers on bike are enough that they are no longer unexpected by the motorists the accidents tend to go down. I prefer this than, to paraphrase, depending on the beneficence of strangers. And that perfectly encapsulates the conundrum, doesn't it? Your median cyclist is stuck in that middle phase where he's dealing with strangers sitting in murderous blunt objects, waiting for there to be more cyclists so that the stranger in cars will expect them. Since I don't expect to see the third phase in my lifetime in any of the anglophone countries (though I suppose we could go live in The Netherlands or Germany or Belgium or France, as the language wouldn't be a problem -- we used to live in France), I'm happy to be able to live in a place where I can enjoy the first, village phase of cycling. You can start to see it happening here in Quebec. It's probably not in line with what the VC purists would like as there is still a large disparity in mode share between commuters and recreational cyclists but both are increasing for the most part. I've posted this before but: http://www.velo.qc.ca/en/pressroom/B...ve-year-study- It is notable that the incomers, especially from behind the erstwhile Iron Curtain, are the most dangerous drivers on our roads, and that's saying something as until recently Irish drivers were truly terrifying (not just to cyclists), until the driving license tests were outsourced to what I believe is a Swiss firm. Of course, local bicycle facilities, if heavily used, will tend to turn bicycle communities into villages once again. Not that I expect it to happen; I just throw it in as a discussion point (on RBT called "a troll"). I have sort of the best of both in that I can ride to work in relatively safe conditions in spite of fairly high levels of traffic but I can also spend my weekends in the rural areas where there are often more bikes than cars on the road. If we didn't have 6 months of winter it would be great. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spanish road safety film teaches drivers how to share the road | Simon Mason | UK | 0 | January 17th 12 03:22 PM |
"More or Less" on bicycle safety data | Frank Krygowski[_3_] | Techniques | 9 | August 27th 11 10:50 PM |
"More or Less" on bicycle safety data | Frank Krygowski[_3_] | General | 0 | August 22nd 11 03:17 PM |
Source of British data on cycling & safety | Frank Krygowski[_2_] | Techniques | 0 | February 25th 11 08:12 PM |
Some data on Safety In Numbers. | spindrift | UK | 22 | November 10th 08 03:48 PM |