Criminals on TV

Matt B wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
NM wrote:

3500 injured by cars on the pavement, where did you get this
information?

I assume you mean annually.

Yes & Hansard.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/50316w01.htm


If we also take account of exposure, say pedestrians hit per mileage
travelled by each mode we get a better idea of their relative safeties.

From Transport Statistics GB 2005, we can find that for 2003 (to match
the latest Hansard numbers) the number Billion passenger kilometres
travelled by bike and car were 5 and 677.

A simple calculation gives the rate of Pedestrians injured on the
footway or verge per billion passenger kilometres of the vehicle
involved as:

14.4 for bicycles
5.1 for cars

We can conclude from that that bikes are _2.8_ times as likely to hit a
pedestrian on the pavement as a car, per distance travelled.

That is determining the risk of the wrong thing.

Since pedestrians are not passengers, a more accurate method of
determining the risk to a pedestrian of being hit by either means would
be to compare the rate per unit of pathway in the country. This is about
the same for both motor vehicles and bicycles.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Are you still here? The message is over. Shoo! Go away!

On 18 Aug, 10:40, Matt B wrote:


If we also take account of exposure, say pedestrians hit per mileage
travelled by each mode we get a better idea of their relative safeties.


No we don't because cars do the majority of their miles on roads
where there are few or no pedestrians. Bikes are mainly used in
urban environments.

From Transport Statistics GB 2005, we can find that for 2003 (to match
the latest Hansard numbers) the number Billion passenger kilometres
travelled by bike and car were 5 and 677.


Passenger miles is an even worse metric. Risk per passemger mile
tells us that, for a given mile of road, a car with the driver only
poses
5 times as much risk to a pedestrian as one with driver + 4
passengers. Clearly nonsense.
A car with 5 passengers could make a 200 mile motorway journey
in 3 hours without passing a single pedestrain. That is 1000
passenger miles without even the possibility of injuring a pedestrian.
That represents more passenger miles than the average cyclist
does in a year, all of which will be in close proximity to
pedestrians.


We can conclude from that that bikes are _2.8_ times as likely to hit a
pedestrian on the pavement as a car, per distance travelled.


Cloud-cuckoo-land.transport is that way -------------------------

Cloud-cuckoo-land.transport is that way -------------------------

He's had this conversation before, and much the same stuff was said. As
you can see he wasn't able to learn anything from it. MB is not interested
in advacing his knowledge, but just aches for that little bit of human
contact. Trapping people in a debate by posting easily refuted arguments
is his tactic, and way in which he recycles his previously refuted nonsense
merely confirms he's a troll.

Occasionally people think that he's not a troll. They generally change
their minds after months of listening to his repeated and flawed ramblings.

--
Mark T

Paul George wrote:
On 18 Aug, 10:40, Matt B wrote:

If we also take account of exposure, say pedestrians hit per mileage
travelled by each mode we get a better idea of their relative safeties.


No we don't because cars do the majority of their miles on roads
where there are few or no pedestrians. Bikes are mainly used in
urban environments.

From Transport Statistics GB 2005, we can find that for 2003 (to match
the latest Hansard numbers) the number Billion passenger kilometres
travelled by bike and car were 5 and 677.


Passenger miles is an even worse metric. Risk per passemger mile
tells us that, for a given mile of road, a car with the driver only
poses
5 times as much risk to a pedestrian as one with driver + 4
passengers. Clearly nonsense.
A car with 5 passengers could make a 200 mile motorway journey
in 3 hours without passing a single pedestrain. That is 1000
passenger miles without even the possibility of injuring a pedestrian.
That represents more passenger miles than the average cyclist
does in a year, all of which will be in close proximity to
pedestrians.

We can conclude from that that bikes are _2.8_ times as likely to hit a
pedestrian on the pavement as a car, per distance travelled.


Cloud-cuckoo-land.transport is that way -------------------------



I'm amazed you find the figure so low I would have put it well into
double figures, most minor damage to pedestrians tends not to be
reported as the injured party knows that the cyclist probably has no
insurance thus it's futile persuing them (because as cyclists tend to be
the poorer members of society they probably don't have many tangible
assests).

The other side of the coin is pedetrians injured by motorists know the
insurer will probably pay out so almost all of these accidents get
reported even minor ones.

On 18 Aug, 14:23, Mark T
pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_ reply*.com.invalid
wrote:

He's had this conversation before, and much the same stuff was said. As
you can see he wasn't able to learn anything from it. MB is not interested
in advacing his knowledge, but just aches for that little bit of human
contact. Trapping people in a debate by posting easily refuted arguments
is his tactic, and way in which he recycles his previously refuted nonsense
merely confirms he's a troll.

Occasionally people think that he's not a troll. They generally change
their minds after months of listening to his repeated and flawed ramblings.


Don't worry, I have been posting here since 1994 (probably before Matt
B
was born) and am well aware of his trollish nature. It's just that I
knew one
of the anti-cycling biggots would gleefully trot out the passenger
mile data
in the mistaken belief they had 'proved' that cyclists are more
dangerous
than motorists, Matt B just happened to be the one.

Paul George wrote:
On 18 Aug, 10:40, Matt B wrote:

If we also take account of exposure, say pedestrians hit per mileage
travelled by each mode we get a better idea of their relative safeties.

No we don't because cars do the majority of their miles on roads
where there are few or no pedestrians. Bikes are mainly used in
urban environments.

From Transport Statistics GB 2005, we can find that for 2003 (to match
the latest Hansard numbers) the number Billion passenger kilometres
travelled by bike and car were 5 and 677.

Passenger miles is an even worse metric. Risk per passemger mile
tells us that, for a given mile of road, a car with the driver only
poses
5 times as much risk to a pedestrian as one with driver + 4
passengers. Clearly nonsense.

Accepted, I used the wrong table. Let's use the pure "vehicle
kilometres" instead:

Bikes: 4.5 billion
Cars and taxis: 393.1 billion

We can conclude from that that bikes are _2.8_ times as likely to hit a
pedestrian on the pavement as a car, per distance travelled.

So with the more sensible data, that gives:

Bikes: 16 pedestrians injured per billion vehicle kilometres.
Cars: 8.78 pedestrians injured per billion vehicle kilometres.

Bikes are, in fact, only 1.8 times as dangerous as cars to pedestrians
on the pavement ;-)

Cloud-cuckoo-land.transport is that way -------------------------

There is plenty of fantasy stuff here to keep me busy, thanks.

--
Matt B

Mark T wrote:
Cloud-cuckoo-land.transport is that way -------------------------

He's had this conversation before, and much the same stuff was said.

Can you cite it for us, for those who missed it - that is if you are
telling the truth.

As
you can see he wasn't able to learn anything from it.

What should I have learnt? That rates are only acceptable if:
1) they show cyclists in a good light
2) they show motorists in a bad light

You should have learnt, from my previous posts, that absolute numbers,
be they casualties, or whatever, cannot be compared with no context of
exposure. That is why rates, per mile, or per capita, or whatever are
used. The judgement is which rate best reveals the true state.

MB is not interested
in advacing his knowledge, but just aches for that little bit of human
contact.

It seems many here never learn. What I have learnt here is that are
many myths, largely rooted in prejudice which persist here. I will
continue to reveal them each time I come across them.

Trapping people in a debate by posting easily refuted arguments
is his tactic, and way in which he recycles his previously refuted nonsense
merely confirms he's a troll.

You obviously never learn. Refuting a point is different to prooving it
wrong. I air my views and opinions, which are often rigorously
challenged, but rarely with any success. Those with similar prejudices
may choose to support the challenger, but that only proves that they
have similar prejudices, not that my views are inherently wrong.

Occasionally people think that he's not a troll. They generally change
their minds after months of listening to his repeated and flawed ramblings.

i.e. They think they can win the argument, finding taht they can't they
often resort to the well-practised escpae route of this group -
disqualifying the victor as a troll.

--
Matt B

Paul George wrote:
On 18 Aug, 14:23, Mark T
pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_ reply*.com.invalid
wrote:
He's had this conversation before, and much the same stuff was said. As
you can see he wasn't able to learn anything from it. MB is not interested
in advacing his knowledge, but just aches for that little bit of human
contact. Trapping people in a debate by posting easily refuted arguments
is his tactic, and way in which he recycles his previously refuted nonsense
merely confirms he's a troll.

Occasionally people think that he's not a troll. They generally change
their minds after months of listening to his repeated and flawed ramblings.


Don't worry, I have been posting here since 1994 (probably before Matt
B
was born) and am well aware of his trollish nature.

I may be a thorn in the side of those with certain prejudices, yes.

It's just that I
knew one
of the anti-cycling biggots would gleefully trot out the passenger
mile data
in the mistaken belief they had 'proved' that cyclists are more
dangerous
than motorists, Matt B just happened to be the one.

Are you suggesting that pro-truth, pro-safe-roads equates to
anti-cycling??? shame on you. There are many bigots here, granted, but
mainly anti-motoring bigots - I think.

The "passenger mileage" data I chose was wrong, I agree, and I have
corrected it now with "vehicle mileage". But don't suggest that its use
was deliberate "troll" - it wasn't.

--
Matt B

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:42:17 +0000, NM wrote:

I'm amazed you find the figure so low I would have put it well into
double figures, most minor damage to pedestrians tends not to be
reported as the injured party knows that the cyclist probably has no
insurance thus it's futile persuing them (because as cyclists tend to be
the poorer members of society they probably don't have many tangible
assests).


It really is quite sad how some people have so little self esteem that
they believe the car they drive is all that defines their worth.

Tony

Pyromancer wrote:

Given we insist on trains having yellow ends for visibility reasons, it
could be argued that all cars should have bright fronts. Granted, I
don't see much chance of this actually becoming law... :-)


There seem to be moves by car manufacturers to have cars permanently
showing lights, allegedly to improve safety. As a driver and
especially as a cyclist, I'm strongly against this - I find that car
lights distract attention from unlit or less-lit objects such as
street furniture, obstacles, bicycles, horses and unlit cars.

This is especially true during the day as demonstrated by chavs with
their spotlights, Volvo drivers, and BMW drivers with their badly-
shaped dipped beams. Arguably it's even more of a problem at night
but I accept that the advantages of lights at night outweigh the
disadvantages, provided that lights designed to assist the driver's
vision don't do it at the cost of dazzling oncoming drivers or
outshining more restricted light sources.

If most common hazards are brightly lit (or, indeed, hi-viz) then it
will become common to assume that anything not so marked is not a
hazard. This is clearly a Bad Idea. Much better to train road users to
look properly, however difficult this might be.

-adrian