Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[MrHappyCyclist]

It is of course convenient and cheap. The downside is it is risky*

But not as risky as walking, according to the statistics.

and you have an even chance of having your bike pinched.

Reference please? 50% chance?

Those most able to realise the benefits of the former and ameliorate the effects of the latter are the youthful and fit. Which just happens to be the core constituency of urban cyclists.

As a (formerly 15 stone) 54 year old with a badly arthritic hip who nevertheless cycles about 100 miles a week, I would take issue with that.

*The safety issue is a vexed one. Falling off hurts. Being knocked off hurts even more. I've been knocked off more than once and suspect most posters on cycling forums who've ridden long enough have too. I agree that one shouldn't misrepresent the dangers but they are ever-present and cycling boards replete with accident anecdote. That contradiction needs to be addressed intelligently and new riders given more than statistics by way of hope.

statistics = scientific evidence
anecdote = misrepresentation

We need less anecdote and more evidence-based fact (i.e. statistics).

 

[blockend]

statistics = scientific evidence
anecdote = misrepresentation

We need less anecdote and more evidence-based fact (i.e. statistics).

There's nothing wrong with statistics so long as they're consumed as the light puff pastry they are. For comparison, air travel is extremely safe per mile travelled. Part of the reason is aircraft travel extremely quickly and are loaded with passengers. When something goes wrong however, there's a high chance every one of those two hundred passengers will be going home in bags, probably several. We might compare survival in air accidents and survival in bicycle accidents and get a meaningful, or meaningless set of stats, depending how predisposed we are to either means of travel.

One of the main differences of course, is unless the air accident is quickly proved to be operator error or a prodigious dose of weather, every similar model of aircraft is going nowhere until it can prove its airworthiness. We might do well to contrast that situation with the number of riders, especially young women, who are killed riding up the inside of long vehicles and ask why those vehicles aren't taken off the road until their blind spots are non-existent.
That comparison is absurd or bang on the money depending on how seriously you take your statistics.

 

[Dan B]

There's nothing wrong with statistics so long as they're consumed as the light puff pastry they are.

Your case is not against statistics but against the abuse thereof.

The only reason to compare safety of air travel against safety of cycle travel is when you have a journey that you could accomplish by either means and need to decide which. Which I would venture to suggest is quite rare. If you're comparing apples with oranges, the statistic that the latter are 100% more orange-like is still true even if it's not useful to you

 

[blockend]

Your case is not against statistics but against the abuse thereof.

The only reason to compare safety of air travel against safety of cycle travel is when you have a journey that you could accomplish by either means and need to decide which. Which I would venture to suggest is quite rare. If you're comparing apples with oranges, the statistic that the latter are 100% more orange-like is still true even if it's not useful to you

That isn't how statistics are used. They're conceived, collected and disseminated by people with agendas to make their beliefs appear less arbitrary. I cycle because I'm bloody minded, not because cycling feels particularly safe. Statistics are neither here nor there if you meet someone behind a steering wheel with insufficient skill or care to accommodate your highway expertise.

 

[Dan B]

Your case is not against statistics but against the abuse thereof.

 

[blockend]

Your case is not against statistics but against the abuse thereof.

I have no feelings about statistics either way, they're just numbers. I'm wary of the people who cite them as proof of anything.

 

[Dan B]

Your earlier post said "I've been knocked off more than once and suspect most posters on cycling forums who've ridden long enough have too. I agree that one shouldn't misrepresent the dangers but they are ever-present and cycling boards replete with accident anecdote"

That contains one personal observation and two assertions about probability ("I've been knocked off more than once", " suspect most posters ..." and " the dangers [...] are ever-present")

I sympathise with your scepticism towards the use of stats, but on what other grounds can you make these assertions? the use of supposition and anecdote to the same end has even less credibility. There are obvious problems with "helmets prevent 88% of all head injuries" just as I'm sure there are with "helmet compulsion caused a 76% drop in cycling" but either of them still represents a step forward in the discussion from "a helmet saved my life once, you know"

 

[jonesy]

If we aren't allowed to provide quantitative evidence, then what evidence can be considered? On what other basis can objective decisions be taken?

 

[blockend]

Your earlier post said "I've been knocked off more than once and suspect most posters on cycling forums who've ridden long enough have too. I agree that one shouldn't misrepresent the dangers but they are ever-present and cycling boards replete with accident anecdote"

That contains one personal observation and two assertions about probability ("I've been knocked off more than once", " suspect most posters ..." and " the dangers [...] are ever-present")

I sympathise with your scepticism towards the use of stats, but on what other grounds can you make these assertions? the use of supposition and anecdote to the same end has even less credibility. There are obvious problems with "helmets prevent 88% of all head injuries" just as I'm sure there are with "helmet compulsion caused a 76% drop in cycling" but either of them still represents a step forward in the discussion from "a helmet saved my life once, you know"

My anecdotes are based a knowing lots of cyclists over many years and reading a sufficient number of cycling forums to make certain assertions. One such observation might be that if you leave a quality bike in the open, in a city centre for long enough, it will be pinched. I do know cyclists who do that and haven't yet had a bike nicked, on the other hand I know cyclists who've had almost every bicycle they've owned stolen in those circumstances. We can examine the quality of their locks, the exact place they leave the bikes or the value of their bicycles but in the real world in doesn't matter, the compelling reality is nice bikes get pinched in public places.

Re. accidents, I can't think of any time served riders who haven't had any vehicle related accidents. Whether that anecdote/statistic should discourage riders from continuing or newbies from taking up cycling is up to the individual concerned. What is disingenuous is to say 'you'll probably be fine' because the rider may not be and it won't necessarily depend on mileage or skill but pure chance.

On helmets I don't like wearing one because they're hot and sweaty, although I wear one off road. There is no logic in that but I slip off wet tree roots towards drystone walls often enough for it to feel like the right thing to do. There are numerous incidents where a helmet might save my head on the highway and plenty of accidents where it won't. A risk assessment in those circumstances is meaningless, people guess one way or the other. As for credibility I couldn't give a monkey's, my anecdote match your statistics if misfortune decides to trump either.

 

[jonesy]

One of the reasons why so much poor quality and pointless cycling infrastructure has been built in the UK is because the decisions weren't evidence based, they were driven by anecdote, politics and the personal preferences of influential individuals. We really have to move beyond that if we want to make a case for investment in cycling, or (as Dellzeqq would no doubt prefer) in creating a street environment that is convivial and supports sustainable travel behaviour.

 

[blockend]

Statistics are unlikely to persuade anyone who isn't disposed to believe them. If they suit the political will of the moment they won't be required and if they don't no amount of data probability will swing the idea.
Better to deal in emotion than stats if you want change.

 

[Dan B]

My anecdotes are based a knowing lots of cyclists over many years and reading a sufficient number of cycling forums to make certain assertions.

In other words, you've made a number of observations, and you consider them collectively to make assertions about probability. That, dear boy, is the basis of a statistic.

It's probably not a very reliable statistic, because as anyone who's studied the field carefully can tell you, there are all kinds of complications about how you collect the data and how you interpret it that are non-intuitive. And as you're apparently not even aware you're compiling statistics, chances are you haven't studied the field carefully.

So effectively what you're saying here is that statistics are bad but that bad statistics are ok.

 

[blockend]

So effectively what you're saying here is that statistics are bad but that bad statistics are ok.

See reply above.

 

[Red Light]

My anecdotes are based a knowing lots of cyclists over many years and reading a sufficient number of cycling forums to make certain assertions.

Mistake number one. You are looking at a very biased sample selection. If a cyclist is seriously injured or killed anywhere in the country you have a good chance of reading about it here. You don't read about the millions of journeys daily that went off without incident.

One such observation might be that if you leave a quality bike in the open, in a city centre for long enough, it will be pinched. I do know cyclists who do that and haven't yet had a bike nicked, on the other hand I know cyclists who've had almost every bicycle they've owned stolen in those circumstances. We can examine the quality of their locks, the exact place they leave the bikes or the value of their bicycles but in the real world in doesn't matter, the compelling reality is nice bikes get pinched in public places.

Another observation might be that the cost of standalone bike insurance is about 10% of the insured value of the bike indicating that bikes are stolen at worst once every ten years on average. The other explanation that the insurance industry is full of bike friendly philanthropic actuaries is highly unlikely.

Re. accidents, I can't think of any time served riders who haven't had any vehicle related accidents. Whether that anecdote/statistic should discourage riders from continuing or newbies from taking up cycling is up to the individual concerned. What is disingenuous is to say 'you'll probably be fine' because the rider may not be and it won't necessarily depend on mileage or skill but pure chance.

Boris Bike stats are about 15 minor injuries for over 3 million journeys. That would take me many many lifetimes to clock up a minor injury worth reporting. If that is going to deter me then I have to look at whether I should even step out my front door. Perhaps I should stay in and have an early coronary instead. What is disingenuous is to pretend extremely rare events need protecting against on a daily basis. Unless you carry a smoke mask, air cylinder and parachute with you every time you fly?

As for credibility I couldn't give a monkey's, my anecdote match your statistics if misfortune decides to trump either.

Mistake number two in not understanding the basics of statistics. Look out the window. It's obvious to anyone the earth is flat and the sun goes round the earth. You don't need any data analysis to tell you that, just anecdotal observation.

 

[Dan B]

Better to deal in emotion than stats if you want change.

OK, fine, but you're completely neglecting the question of "what changes do we need?" and jumping to "how do we get them?". If you're not going to consider "what to do" objectively, as Jonesy says, you end up with a mess based on anecdote and prejudice and it really doesn't matter how successful you are in pushing that change through, you're still not helping.