slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
Edit: Ooops, I'll try and find a bigger version.
With the uptake in helmet use, it's bound to......Although the risk of death or serious injury is low, it's a concern that the rate is increasing. Gut feeling is that the cycling "boom" is among riders who aren't taking as much care on the roads as those that were cycling before the boom. Hopefully the stats will start to decrease again over time.
Although the risk of death or serious injury is low, it's a concern that the rate is increasing.
Although the risk of death or serious injury is low, it's a concern that the rate is increasing. Gut feeling is that the cycling "boom" is among riders who aren't taking as much care on the roads as those that were cycling before the boom. Hopefully the stats will start to decrease again over time.
As a matter of general interest, who exactly synthesises the miles travelled stuff? I can see that it's quite easy for motorised travel because DVLA will have mileage figures from MOT certificates (but not illegal ones), but where does the cyclist data come from? Nobody has ever asked me how far I ride. How do these creative statistician types weave their magic?The rate isn't increasing. You need to assess risk per mile, otherwise stupid people would think more people die cycling in Amsterdam so it must be more dangerous to cycle in Amsterdam.
My memory is that for donkey's years the distances have been concocted in the same way as the miles driven for cars - by traffic-counting on main roads and making an assumption about additional uncounted miles. Spot the potential problem.....As a matter of general interest, who exactly synthesises the miles travelled stuff? I can see that it's quite easy for motorised travel because DVLA will have mileage figures from MOT certificates (but not illegal ones), but where does the cyclist data come from? Nobody has ever asked me how far I ride. How do these creative statistician types weave their magic?
What sort of survey based method? If you asked a few thousand cyclists to tell you how far they had ridden in the last year, the data would probably be as reliable as asking them to self-report the size of their penises. You need a ruler, actually for some firm data.My memory is that for donkey's years the distances have been concocted in the same way as the miles driven for cars - by traffic-counting on main roads and making an assumption about additional uncounted miles. Spot the potential problem.....
A few years ago National Statistics spotted that the results were getting very inconsistent with the output of a survey-based methodology (we asked a couple of thousand people and they said...) and started investigating the difference - so stopped reporting the other version until they'd sorted out the difference. Which they haven't yet.
The rate isn't increasing.
Even our glorious transport minister made that schoolboy howler:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/25/cycling-governed-dimwits
Do share.It doesn't.
Misunderstanding, sorry.Oh, the graph does, further down, I thought you meant the OP which just said the TOTAL KSI RATE had increased without allowing for cycling rates, beg your pardon.