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

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

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

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

ach


http://twicemodern.files.wordpress.c.../03/img484.jpg

and how are the motorcycle stats ?

hear from Austria or he Pyrenees ?

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

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.

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

"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

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.