Are the safety stats misleading ?

[boydj]

[QUOTE 5095472, member: 9609"]yes I think the stats are greatly misleading, I'm sure the gov want us all to think cycling is super safe, they need people to cycle for a whole host of good reasons including health and enviroment - so the very last thing they want people to know is it is very dangerous or they would need to spend serious money and start enforcing road laws which would upset too many people.

I did I little survey a while ago,
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cycling-injury-survey.222247/
and yes I accept it could have been worded better and maybe those injured were more likely to respond, but then again those injured who just simple give up cycling probably give up on CC and never seen the question to answer,

31% of us had received some sort of injury in the last 12 months.
cycling on our roads is a very dangerous thing to do.[/QUOTE]

There's no way you can extrapolate that from a self-selecting survey of cycling enthusiasts, and it's clearly at odds with all the official stats.

 

[mjr]

The headline casualty numbers we see tend to be the police reports.

There's another dataset, the hospital episode statistics, which includes lots of cases (such as the aforementioned shed head hit) which aren't in the police reports but maybe shouldn't be included in any consideration. It does also include some that should, such as collisions that both parties fail to report to the police because they feel they may be at fault and risk prosecution, or there are allegations that some constabularies won't accept reports of bike- bike collisions unless someone dies.

So the true figure is probably between the police and hospital numbers somewhere. We know the figures are probably wrong but that doesn't mean they're useless. It's still a useful estimate and better than nothing.

 

[Tailendman]

Just to add some hard facts the Travel in London report 10 showed serious and slight injury data as well.
The figures for serious and fatal showed an increase of 8% over the last 10 years ( 454 versus 421). The slight injuries showed a 46% increase (3,970 vs 2719).
and to remind you 61% increase in cycling based on cycle stages (average daily cycle stages and trips is the number of cyclists crossing a set of three strategic traffic counting cordons).
I don't think anywhere else has such robust figures.

 

[byegad]

Increased recording, particularly in hospitals.

See my previous post!

 

[Drago]

Stats are never misleading. It's the manner of selection, comparison and presentation that misleads. The term "statistically significant" is also misleading, in that it does not actually mean what the two words would otherwise mean in the English language.

 

[PK99]

Stats are never misleading. It's the manner of selection, comparison and presentation that misleads. The term "statistically significant" is also misleading, in that it does not actually mean what the two words would otherwise mean in the English language.

"Lies, damned lies and statistics"

is a complete misnomer

"Liars, damned liars and those who misuse statistics"

is a little closer to the truth.

 

[kingrollo]

Just to add some hard facts the Travel in London report 10 showed serious and slight injury data as well.
The figures for serious and fatal showed an increase of 8% over the last 10 years ( 454 versus 421). The slight injuries showed a 46% increase (3,970 vs 2719).
and to remind you 61% increase in cycling based on cycle stages (average daily cycle stages and trips is the number of cyclists crossing a set of three strategic traffic counting cordons).
I don't think anywhere else has such robust figures.

From that would you conclude that cycling in London is getting more dangerous or less dangerous.

 

[kingrollo]

Some great points folks.
On balance it would seem that cycling on uk roads isn't as safe as the stats that we are presented with ?

 

[Fab Foodie]

From that would you conclude that cycling in London is getting more dangerous or less dangerous.

Less.

 

[Slick]

Some great points folks.
On balance it would seem that cycling on uk roads isn't as safe as the stats that we are presented with ?

I usually find that stats are just stats until you or a loved one become one.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Some great points folks.
On balance it would seem that cycling on uk roads isn't as safe as the stats that we are presented with ?

I’m not sure how you get to that conclusion?

 

[Slick]

I’m not sure how you get to that conclusion?

Same as everyone else, read the stats and make them say whatever you like.

 

[MontyVeda]

I’m not sure how you get to that conclusion?

i think he'd come to it before starting the thread.

 

[Slick]

i think he'd come to it before starting the thread.

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 5098040, member: 9609"]so do you believe the stats that show there is only one injury of any severity whilst cycling for every 200,000 miles ridden?

I have no idea if cycling is safer or more dangerous that it was years ago, I suspect more cyclists protect themselves better now with brighter clothing, lights, and helmets etc, but that may or may not of been outweighed by busier roads and a more hostile attitude from drivers? My beef is with the stats that just don't seem to add up to the real world. Just follow CC, 1000 regular posters? and not a week goes by without one of us coming a cropper. that would suggest a 1:20 chance of some sort of cycling related injury this coming year (1:40,000 miles?)

I suspect the big anomaly in cycling stats is the amount of miles that are claimed to be ridden. Unlike cars/waggons etc where mileage can be fairly accurately calculated, cycling miles can't. Loads of people who ride a bit in the summer then probably claim to ride most weeks.[/QUOTE]
i think you're putting far too much faith in a 'survey' conducted on a forum that the vast majority of cyclists aren't aware exists.