Another HGV death in London (split from original thread)

[Dan B]

If people are ignorant of the dangers of this maneuver, they shouldn't be riding in this environment.

I could almost agree with this, but the remedy is not to ban the people, it's to fix the environment. Roads are public spaces, for the use of the public. If you want to drive around that space in vehicles that you can't see out of and that can't stop and that can't go round corners on their own side of the road, it should be your job to make sure no members of the public come to grief as a result. Just like if you want to set up a chainsaw juggling show in a shopping mall

 

[srw]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/20/london-cyclist-deaths-panic-change-wont-work
Warning: Article by Andrew Gilligan.
Second warning: Article by Andrew Gilligan that rejects victim-blaming and attempts to review evidence in a sober way.

I think we can all agree that a mate of Boris's who's been given a job because of the fact is de facto a nobber. And one of the commenters points out that his interpretation of Parisian statistics is incorrect. But assuming the rest of his stats are correct, he's that rare thing - someone who's trying to make policy based on evidence and to balance the interests of lots of different groups. That gives rise to grudging respect.
And, for the record, there's plenty online to support his Amsterdam statistic - 6 deaths in a city of 800,000 is far worse than 14 in a city of 8,000,000.

 

[stowie]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/20/london-cyclist-deaths-panic-change-wont-work
Warning: Article by Andrew Gilligan.
Second warning: Article by Andrew Gilligan that rejects victim-blaming and attempts to review evidence in a sober way.

I think we can all agree that a mate of Boris's who's been given a job because of the fact is de facto a nobber. And one of the commenters points out that his interpretation of Parisian statistics is incorrect. But assuming the rest of his stats are correct, he's that rare thing - someone who's trying to make policy based on evidence and to balance the interests of lots of different groups. That gives rise to grudging respect.
And, for the record, there's plenty online to support his Amsterdam statistic - 6 deaths in a city of 800,000 is far worse than 14 in a city of 8,000,000.

Sorry SRW but this doesn't cut it for me. What does comparing the two based on city size prove? Surely the measure should be either deaths per number of trips on cycles or the deaths per km cycled? Using your measure the bigger the conurbation and smaller modal share cycling has, the more safe it would seem.

 

[bianchi1]

Sorry SRW but this doesn't cut it for me. What does comparing the two based on city size prove? Surely the measure should be either deaths per number of trips on cycles or the deaths per km cycled? Using your measure the bigger the conurbation and smaller modal share cycling has, the more safe it would seem.

You are quite correct:

"Out of the countries that provided data on the number of kilometres cycled, Norway ranks first, with 11.0 cyclist deaths per billion kilometres cycled, followed by Denmark with 12.1, the Netherlands with 12.4, Sweden with 14.4 and Great Britain with 22.4. The significantly higher rate of cycling observed in the Netherlands, 863 km/person-year on average between 2008 and 2010 (Fig. 6), accounts in large part for the high rate of cycling mortality presented in figures 4 and 5, and figure 6 makes it clear that the high cycling mortality does not result from the risk of cycling in the Netherlands being particularly high."

From: http://www.etsc.eu/documents/BIKE_PAL_Safety_Ranking.pdf

 

[srw]

Here's what Gilligan actually writes:

In 2002, London had 110 million cycle trips, of which 20 ended in death. By last year, there were 180 million trips and 14 deaths – a reduction per trip of more than half. That is not "carnage". Serious injury rates are the same as they were 10 years ago.
...
Even that nirvana called Amsterdam averages six deaths a year, in a city with about the same number of bike trips as London (Amsterdamers cycle more often, but there are fewer of them).

I've also seen a suggestion elsewhere that the official stats on the number of trips undertaken by bike in London is understated.

Moreover, deriving from the Wikipedia article on cycling in the Netherlands, the average journey distance is only 4km (2.5 miles). I can't find stats for London, but I'd be amazed if it wasn't much longer - the typical cyclist in London is a cross-city or a suburb-to-city rider.

I shall now sit back and wait for the wails of "yebbut it's terrible." It's not, and all the statistics prove it. It could be better with some well-directed specific policy interventions, but it's not terrible.

 

[srw]

[QUOTE 2780951, member: 45"]I'd rather you addressed the fact that your link handily stops talking numbers when he gets to Amsterdam, replacing them with "about the same number of trips as London", and then read the post prior to your last one.[/quote]
Wrong. "About the same number" still talks numbers.

If you want the hard facts:
Amsterdam - 6 deaths per year at 500,000 trips per day (Wikipedia)
London - 14 deaths per year at 600,000 trips per day (multiple sources, originally TfL, using a methodology that focuses on main roads and may undercount). Take account of distance and I'd not be surprised to see parity.
The post before mine was irrelevant. Gilligan, I and this thread are talking London. Whole UK and whole NL stats are irrelevant.

 

[benb]

Wrong. "About the same number" still talks numbers.

If you want the hard facts:
Amsterdam - 6 deaths per year at 500,000 trips per day (Wikipedia)
London - 14 deaths per year at 600,000 trips per day (multiple sources, originally TfL, using a methodology that focuses on main roads and may undercount). Take account of distance and I'd not be surprised to see parity.
The post before mine was irrelevant. Gilligan, I and this thread are talking London. Whole UK and whole NL stats are irrelevant.

So London has about double then, and you think that's parity?
Besides, we need to look at KSI not deaths, because the difference between a K and a SI is often just dumb luck, so KSI is a more useful and accurate figure.

 

[totallyfixed]

I can't for the life of me understand why you guys are arguing over statistics, but just for the record, 40% of cyclists that die in the Netherlands are between 70 and 90 years old. However this is to miss the point completely, it is about perception, many perceive the roads over here to be a dangerous place to ride a bike, not the case in the Netherlands, and this for me is the biggest difference.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

So London has about double then, and you think that's parity?
Besides, we need to look at KSI not deaths, because the difference between a K and a SI is often just dumb luck, so KSI is a more useful and accurate figure.

I watched the webcast of Mayor's questions and there was a very heated confrontation between Jenny Jones and BJ regarding exactly this distinction. While deaths are now a smaller proportion of the KSI figures, she repeatedly had to try to stop BJ drifting back to talking only about deaths, which he was using as vindication. Her point was that the number of journeys a cyclist could make before statistically becoming a KSI had actually decreased. Her interventions ended up with BJ saying that the sooner she was in the House of Lords the better. And an ally of BJ later accused Jenny Jones of hysterical scaremongering. So, clearly, in some political circles it's true when deaths are decreasing, and hysterical scaremongering when JJ provides figures showing increasing danger...

Here, if you can bear to watch it - http://www.london.gov.uk/webcasts/34830/asx

 

[Davidsw8]

I don't get this attitude that people like BJ has which says that people have to die in significant numbers before any real action is taken.

What happened to making people 'feel' safe. If a car or a cyclist RLJ's and scares some OAP attempting to cross the road, it puts them off going out, but that doesn't matter because they haven't been physically hurt and they're not dead.

 

[stowie]

Meanwhile a Peer has claimed, during a debate in the house of Lords on littering from cars, that cyclists are longing to be run down so they can film it on their cameras.

 

[stowie]

Here's what Gilligan actually writes:

I've also seen a suggestion elsewhere that the official stats on the number of trips undertaken by bike in London is understated.

Moreover, deriving from the Wikipedia article on cycling in the Netherlands, the average journey distance is only 4km (2.5 miles). I can't find stats for London, but I'd be amazed if it wasn't much longer - the typical cyclist in London is a cross-city or a suburb-to-city rider.

I shall now sit back and wait for the wails of "yebbut it's terrible." It's not, and all the statistics prove it. It could be better with some well-directed specific policy interventions, but it's not terrible.

If cycling was terrible I wouldn't be doing it. I use a bicycle to do my shopping not because I want to play Russian Roulette. If it was significantly dangerous I wouldn't bother no matter how convenient.

The stats for London - according to a couple of new sites I have seen - are pretty sketchy. TfL publish statistics based on trips whilst DfT bases their UK stats on km.Both, in my opinion, are valid in their own way, but the normal measurement is in km for safety measurements. It appears that this measure isn't available for London cycling.

What I do understand is that low statistics such as those killed cycling in London can be prone to clumping and when this happens it is "common sense" to attribute a sudden spate of deaths to something other than "chance". The small numbers involved with the killed statistics actually makes it more valid to use KSI to determine trends in cycling safety (especially as a drop in deaths might be due to - for example - better healthcare processes for RTAs rather than less cyclists getting hit).

But one of the things I find disingenuous about Gilligan's article is the urge against knee jerk reactions. As small as the killed statistics are, there has been a common theme running through them for years. Enough not to be a statistical anomaly. And that is that cyclists deaths disproportionately involve HGVs and in particular tipper trucks. This isn't something that needed the latest spate of deaths to occur to become clear. Yet not a lot seems to have been achieved to reduce these aside from the occasional stickers on the back of them. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that changes would involve decisions unpopular with haulage and construction companies and could well highlight the dangers of the cycle infrastructure that has been popular to implement as it doesn't need any difficult decisions.

 

[Davidsw8]

Actually saw a helmetless Brompton rider undertake a huge truck turning left on to Parliament Square this morning, I thought such creatures were the stuff of myth and legend. Me and another cyclist were sat behind as he did this, the other cyclists' reaction was quite funny, I'll post a clip later.

 

[theclaud]

Actually saw a helmetless Brompton rider undertake a huge truck turning left on to Parliament Square this morning, I thought such creatures were the stuff of myth and legend. Me and another cyclist were sat behind as he did this, the other cyclists' reaction was quite funny, I'll post a clip later.

Shocking. Or possibly irrelevant. Someone help me out here.

 

[Davidsw8]

Shocking. Or possibly irrelevant. Someone help me out here.

lol, I knew someone would focus on the helmet-less bit. Sorry, I shoulda known better than to dare mention that. Apologies.

Focus on the undertaking a huge truck turning left bit (unless that's the irrelevant bit?!)