'Cyclists kill or maim two pedestrians every week, according to statistics'

[jefmcg]

Or this.

Um......

 

[benb]

Um......

Thanks.
Here it is again.

 

[MontyVeda]

It seems to be true.

http://road.cc/content/news/230427-number-pedestrians-killed-or-maimed-cyclists-doubles-decade

...

Could it be that the shared use paths that've been appearing in recent decades, putting bicycles and peds in close proximity isn't really working? Maybe it's time to revise the initiative and consider putting wheeled vehicles back on the roads where they belong... and clamp down on inconsiderate road use to make the space safer for all, leaving the pavements for peds and kids on scooters.

 

[derrick]

Sunday Express stirring the excrement in today's paper - unfortunately mentioned on Radio 4 Sunday Papers after the 8am news this morning. Disgraceful misrepresentation of statistics.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863550/cyclist-killed-bicycle-accident-two-pedestrians-every-week

Who actually buys papers today.

 

[benb]

More recent data.

 

[mjr]

Could it be that the shared use paths that've been appearing in recent decades, putting bicycles and peds in close proximity isn't really working?

It used to be the case that most pedestrians KSId by cycles were in the road (where cycling speeds are generally higher even when pedestrians are around) so your point is baseless, although I've not checked the 2016 data (if it's available in sufficient detail yet) so there's a tiny chance that's changed but I'd be surprised.

 

[MontyVeda]

It used to be the case that most pedestrians KSId by cycles were in the road (where cycling speeds are generally higher even when pedestrians are around) so your point is baseless, although I've not checked the 2016 data (if it's available in sufficient detail yet) so there's a tiny chance that's changed but I'd be surprised.

I wasn't making a point... i was just throwing ideas around.

 

[benb]

[QUOTE 4994709, member: 9609"]clearly the menace of cycling needs to be stamped out.

where does the chart come from ? I need to send it to my MP[/QUOTE]
Saw it on Twitter.
View: https://twitter.com/AsEasyAsRiding/status/917762833676472321

Source will be ONS road casualty stats. Available online.

 

[Buddfox]

Should this analysis also consider the greater number of miles travelled by cars over cyclists? Does that change the conclusions?

 

[benb]

Should this analysis also consider the greater number of miles travelled by cars over cyclists? Does that change the conclusions?

Even if you take that into account drivers are many times more likely to KSI.
But even if that wasn't the case, when looking where to expend resources on harm reduction you would use absolute risk not relative risk to decide.

 

[User269]

I wasn't making a point... i was just throwing ideas around.

Well don't just 'throw ideas around'. Look at the facts.
You state; "Could it be that the shared use paths that've been appearing in recent decades, putting bicycles and peds in close proximity isn't really working? "
No, it couldn't be. There is no evidence supporting your question. Leave such rhetoric to the hysterical anti-cycling, bigoted, and hate promoting sections of the press.

 

[growingvegetables]

... the greater number of miles travelled by cars over cyclists? Does that change the conclusions?

Red herring.

Or at least - it's a nasty, underhand piece of spin. Not by you personally. It comes, I suspect, from the anti-cycling brigade. And we mustn't fall for it, or accept it.

Cut out the miles travelled by cars on motorways, cut out the intercity journeys, cut out the caravan-towing and holiday journeys, cut out the miles travelled by cars on journeys over ... say 10 miles (?), cut out the miles cars transport families, cut out ... any number of journeys made by cars which are entirely different from, and impractical as, cycling journeys. Then we might be able to think about conclusions.

 

[jefmcg]

From another thread, it seems per mile we are deadlier than cars.

(working is mine)

View attachment 377298
That's rather worrying. According to the Dft, bicycles travel a little over 1% of the annual distance travelled by cars, yet the relative fatality rate is 1.7% of cars. I'd hope it to be much smaller not 70% greater.

Obviously the total is pretty small, so presumably could be represent an anomaly, but maybe we are a greater hazard than we think to other vulnerable road users.

 

[growingvegetables]

From another thread, it seems per mile we are deadlier than cars.

(working is mine)

Once again - a straight "per mile" calculation is such a gross over-simplification. As relevant as comparing the fatalities-by-mile of the Apollo space missions.

 

[Buddfox]

Red herring.

Or at least - it's a nasty, underhand piece of spin. Not by you personally. It comes, I suspect, from the anti-cycling brigade. And we mustn't fall for it, or accept it.

Cut out the miles travelled by cars on motorways, cut out the intercity journeys, cut out the caravan-towing and holiday journeys, cut out the miles travelled by cars on journeys over ... say 10 miles (?), cut out the miles cars transport families, cut out ... any number of journeys made by cars which are entirely different from, and impractical as, cycling journeys. Then we might be able to think about conclusions.

This is how I was thinking about it. I think the logic of considering, in some way, how much time each vehicle type is on the road, is worth doing, but taking the total doesn't make sense. To take just one of the examples you list, motorway miles should surely be excluded, because neither pedestrians nor bicycles use motorways.

But I also recognise the points made about absolute outcomes as well. It is the number of people (measured absolutely) that are being killed or seriously injured that should determine the start point of any mitigating action.