Independent cycling column

Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

He states that there has been a 70% increase in cycling since 2000 and a
drop of 33% for KSI over the same period. Ok, so far. Then however, he
says that the drop in KSI is probably because the 'authorities' are re-caragorising
serious injuries and under reporting. Even his words suggest he hasn't
done his research, let alone the content.

Further into his column he implies that cycle/motor veichle colisions are
usually the fault to the cyclist.

His solution to all these woes is 'more and better cycling facilities',
though he does actually agree that some of teh exiasting farcilities are
dangerous to cyclists. He also supports stickers on the back of lorries to
stop cyclist from sneaking down the inside. I agree that being squashed
through lack of attention of the driver is still being squashed, but it's
the drivers that need proper training !!!

And his final paragraph? Well mixed, he suggests
that more shuld be done to encourage people to do some training 'to
recognise the dangers' though he conceeds that it would be impractical to
make it mandatory.

Is there any point in writing into the Indy, or is he a lost cause?

"Paul Coombs" wrote in message
newsan.2007.05.08.10.47.00.990967@whitetakeitout gables.org...
Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

He states that there has been a 70% increase in cycling since 2000 and a
drop of 33% for KSI over the same period. Ok, so far. Then however, he
says that the drop in KSI is probably because the 'authorities' are
re-caragorising
serious injuries and under reporting. Even his words suggest he hasn't
done his research, let alone the content.

The police aren't particularly interested if you get knocked off these days
but can walk away from it. It's a matter for the insurance companies to
sort out apparently.

Further into his column he implies that cycle/motor veichle colisions are
usually the fault to the cyclist.

I think that is what is often assummed even though it may be incorrect.
--
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me

naked_draughtsman wrote:
"Paul Coombs" wrote in message
newsan.2007.05.08.10.47.00.990967@whitetakeitout gables.org...
Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

He states that there has been a 70% increase in cycling since 2000 and a
drop of 33% for KSI over the same period. Ok, so far. Then however, he
says that the drop in KSI is probably because the 'authorities' are
re-caragorising
serious injuries and under reporting. Even his words suggest he hasn't
done his research, let alone the content.

The police aren't particularly interested if you get knocked off these days
but can walk away from it. It's a matter for the insurance companies to
sort out apparently.

But that sort of accident isn't really "Killed or Seriously Injured".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Paul Coombs wrote:
Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

Yes. With gems such as:
"...with many more miles of cycle paths helping to keep cyclists out of
the way of the traffic..."
and: "And while most cycling lanes have served to increase cycling safety".

He states that there has been a 70% increase in cycling since 2000 and a
drop of 33% for KSI over the same period. Ok, so far. Then however, he
says that the drop in KSI is probably because the 'authorities' are re-caragorising
serious injuries and under reporting.

Under reporting is quite likely. The DfT are worried about it too, as
it undermines their claims for speed-camera usefulness. TRL have been
looking into it, as have other researchers. It appears that although
the official statistics for casualties have been showing year-on-year
drops in the numbers of KSIs, hospital data shows no such thing.

--
Matt B

In article pan.2007.05.08.10.47.00.990967@whitetakeitoutgabl es.org,
Paul Coombs" writes:
|
| Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

No, but I may when I get home.

| He also supports stickers on the back of lorries to
| stop cyclist from sneaking down the inside. I agree that being squashed
| through lack of attention of the driver is still being squashed, but it's
| the drivers that need proper training !!!

Not at all. That is a place where the cycle lobby needs the training.
It is things like sub-standard psychle lanes and advanced stop boxes
that encourage naive cyclists to believe that is a sane thing to do.

And, yes, many of them claim that very narrow optional psychle lanes
(not just a metre, but sometimes down to 50 cm) are a good idea because
they allow cyclists to ride down the left of stationary traffic. How
many cyclists are clued-up enough to know when that is safe and when
it isn't? I have been abused and even run into by other cyclists for
not doing that when it wasn't safe.

| Is there any point in writing into the Indy, or is he a lost cause?

There is no point in trying to correct a symptom. Tackle ones of the
causes.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

naked_draughtsman wrote on 08/05/2007 12:07 +0100:

The police aren't particularly interested if you get knocked off these days
but can walk away from it. It's a matter for the insurance companies to
sort out apparently.


The definitions of killed and seriously injured have not changed and
those are not situations that are going to readily escape reporting.
Minor injuries maybe.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In article ,
Tony Raven writes:
| naked_draughtsman wrote on 08/05/2007 12:07 +0100:
|
| The police aren't particularly interested if you get knocked off these days
| but can walk away from it. It's a matter for the insurance companies to
| sort out apparently.
|
| The definitions of killed and seriously injured have not changed and
| those are not situations that are going to readily escape reporting.
| Minor injuries maybe.

Not really. With the shortage of beds, a lot of hospitals don't take
accident victims as in-patients where they would have before. See:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html

Quite a lot of nominally serious injuries don't get recorded, because
no police car gets called and the report gets lost somewhere between
the hospital and the police. I have no idea if that is increasing.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Peter Clinch typed

The police aren't particularly interested if you get knocked off
these days
but can walk away from it. It's a matter for the insurance companies to
sort out apparently.

But that sort of accident isn't really "Killed or Seriously Injured".

Given that serious is defined as needing hospital admission, I can think
of many hand, wrist, facial and other injuries with which you mabe able
to get up and walk but still need admission for treatment.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

"Paul Coombs" wrote in message
newsan.2007.05.08.10.47.00.990967@whitetakeitout gables.org...
Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

He states that there has been a 70% increase in cycling since 2000 and a
drop of 33% for KSI over the same period. Ok, so far. Then however, he
says that the drop in KSI is probably because the 'authorities' are
re-caragorising
serious injuries and under reporting. Even his words suggest he hasn't
done his research, let alone the content.

Further into his column he implies that cycle/motor veichle colisions are
usually the fault to the cyclist.

His solution to all these woes is 'more and better cycling facilities',
though he does actually agree that some of teh exiasting farcilities are
dangerous to cyclists. He also supports stickers on the back of lorries to
stop cyclist from sneaking down the inside. I agree that being squashed
through lack of attention of the driver is still being squashed, but it's
the drivers that need proper training !!!

Have you even driven a Van, let alone a 7.5 tonne lorry or a HGV? In a van
with no side windows, your blind spots down the sides of the van are
humungous compared to a car. In an actual lorry, they're rather a lot worse.
Now, passing on the nearside of a vehicle is specifically discouraged by the
highway code. Do you seriously expect all HGV drivers to get out and have a
look around for idiots stupid enough to get where they shouldn't be?

Doki wrote on 08/05/2007 16:34 +0100:

Have you even driven a Van, let alone a 7.5 tonne lorry or a HGV? In a
van with no side windows, your blind spots down the sides of the van are
humungous compared to a car. In an actual lorry, they're rather a lot
worse. Now, passing on the nearside of a vehicle is specifically
discouraged by the highway code. Do you seriously expect all HGV drivers
to get out and have a look around for idiots stupid enough to get where
they shouldn't be?

No, I expect them to have appropriate mirrors fitted and to use them

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell