"Cyclists kill more people each year than White Vans!&q

always_tyred

I picked this quote up from another thread. Posted by an enthusiastic cyclist.

I haven't the faintest idea what the statement is based on, but I thought it would make a good topic.

Any takers?

Slim Middleton

Sounds like someone is messing with words. Cyclists are nearly always people and therefore capable of murder whereas a white van is an inanimate object. (there doesn't seem to be a smart ass smiley)

dirk_van_gently

Statement Probably from a Daily Mail reader, wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit them. :shock:

Belv

There are lies, damn lies and statistics... so it's probably true.

Bikerbaboon

Its a valid statistic that gets quoted alot.
Its all about the number of fatal crashes per year. That does mean that our bikes are killers but its maily due to crashes with pedestrians. You think about it a quiet bike doing 20-30 mph 3' from the curb or a 2 tonne big white van withs rusted out exuaust rumberling away. who do you think the dosey pedestrian would spot b4 stepping out between a line of cars.
Also nowhere in that statistic is anything to do with blame..... if you asked who was a fault at fatal crashes you would see a different picture.

just dont ask about fatalitys per mile traveled.................

see just a little play with stats and you can get them to say anything. :P

Parkey

Vans and private cars also put in a much larger proportion of their mileage on motorways, dual carriageways and trunk roads where the risk of hitting a pedestrian is significantly reduced. This rather dilutes the figures for pedestrian deaths they're responsible for in the higher-risk built up areas. The majority of bicycle miles are clocked up in such areas.

Buses also appear to be statistically more dangerous to pedestrians for the very same reason.

graeme_s-2

Don't cyclists kill an average of 1 pedestrian a year in the UK? I have a sneaking suspicion that white vans manage a couple more than that.

DavidTQ

I certainly havent heard of cyclists killing many pedestrians. The last case I remember was a year or so ago in cornwall, Where some guy with learning difficulties took his nephews bike out for a spin on the pavement and knocked a guy over killing him, that was well publicized at the time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/0 ... e.uknews41

spen666

this is a quote from that late ( and not missed) Paul smith & his SS trolls

Clever Pun

Graeme_S wrote:

Don't cyclists kill an average of 1 pedestrian a year in the UK? I have a sneaking suspicion that white vans manage a couple more than that.

each???

do the stats also include the cyclists fatalities?

Bikerbaboon

Parkey wrote:

Vans and private cars also put in a much larger proportion of their mileage on motorways, dual carriageways and trunk roads where the risk of hitting a pedestrian is significantly reduced. This rather dilutes the figures for pedestrian deaths they're responsible for in the higher-risk built up areas. The majority of bicycle miles are clocked up in such areas.

Buses also appear to be statistically more dangerous to pedestrians for the very same reason.

I was only trying to make the point that with a little selection on the boundrys of a statistic you can make them say anything. I think the quote goes "theres lies, dam lies and statistics"


answers of who said that quote on the back of a self adressed post card and you can win a smug feeling of getthing the right answer through the post sent back to you. :twisted:

cee

Graeme_S wrote:

Don't cyclists kill an average of 1 pedestrian a year in the UK? I have a sneaking suspicion that white vans manage a couple more than that.

pff. you guys really need to get your yourselves in order.....

I'm up to 12 this week alone!

graeme_s-2

Clever Pun wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

Don't cyclists kill an average of 1 pedestrian a year in the UK? I have a sneaking suspicion that white vans manage a couple more than that.

each???

In total! As in 1 pedestrian killed each year in the whole of the UK as a result of being hit by a cyclist.

Mike Healey

Why are you all so disbelieving? It's perfectly true.

For example, in the 5 years ending 31/12/05, 22 pedestrians were killed in collisions with pedal cyclists. Not one White Van died from the same cause in that period

boybiker

I was wondering,if you kill the people who walk along cycle paths with herds of dogs on those extending leads, and then stand in the middle of the path hopping from one foot to the other when they see you coming, do you get bonus points?

Belv

Bikerbaboon wrote:

Parkey wrote:

Vans and private cars also put in a much larger proportion of their mileage on motorways, dual carriageways and trunk roads where the risk of hitting a pedestrian is significantly reduced. This rather dilutes the figures for pedestrian deaths they're responsible for in the higher-risk built up areas. The majority of bicycle miles are clocked up in such areas.

Buses also appear to be statistically more dangerous to pedestrians for the very same reason.

I was only trying to make the point that with a little selection on the boundrys of a statistic you can make them say anything. I think the quote goes "theres lies, dam lies and statistics"

answers of who said that quote on the back of a self adressed post card and you can win a smug feeling of getthing the right answer through the post sent back to you. :twisted:

I did! Fourth post down. Pay attention!
(and a quick google suggests the origin of that quote is unknown although Mark Twain and Benjamin Disraeli are often touted as the source)

Mike Healey

Table 1 Pedestrian fatalities by pedestrian location involving motor vehicles (DfT)
1 Jan 98 to 31 Dec 05 TOTALS Yrly Avge
crossing on ped crossing 530 66.25
crossing on zig zag approach 35 4.38
crossing on zig zag exit 25 3.13
crossing <50m of crossing 511 63.88
crossing elsewhere 3100 387.50
on footway or verge 382 47.75
on refuge/c. island/reservation 37 4.63
in c/way - not on refuge 385 48.13
in c/way - not crossing 943 117.88
unknown 364 45.50
TOTAL 6312 789.00
Table 2 Pedestrian fatalities by pedestrian location involving pedal cyclists (DfT)
crossing on ped crossing 3 0.38
crossing on zig zag approach 0 0.00
crossing on zig zag exit 0 0.00
crossing <50m of crossing 1 0.13
crossing elsewhere 13 1.63
on footway or verge 2 0.25
on refuge/c. island/reservation 0 0.00
in c/way - not on refuge 1 0.13
in c/way - not crossing 1 0.13
unknown 1 0.13
TOTAL 22 2.75

Mike Healey

Apologies for state of last post. Can't seem to be able to transfer table format in either Word or Excel. Can anyone help?

hamboman

I think it's cyclists killing themselves. If you tally all cyclist fatalities together and compare them to WV deaths it's probably higher.

Cunobelin

This was my quote...

As pointed out buy SPEN666 - The original work was carried out by a Road Safety (not) group which is infamous for suggesting that if you get caught for speeding you trawl the obituary column for a suitable candidate and then claim they were driving as the Police are unlikely to follow up!

Due to personal abuse of staff at the old C+ site we are not allowed to publish their name!



Basically it goes like this

Group A kills 1 person in a given year

Group B kills 200 persons in the same year

Group A travels 1 mile a year - the death rate is 1 person per mile

Group B travels 300 miles in a year - the death rate is 0.6 people per mile


Therefore per mile travelled group A kills more people than group B

Place cyclists as the low distance low fatality group and White Van Man as the high distance high fatality group and you get the statement....

It was part of the helmet debate where it was claimed that risk (injuries per distance travelled/ time) was more important that the actual number of head injuries that ocurred when comparing groups.

The claim was that using the actual number was inappropriate.

This an illustration of why sometimes the factual numbers can be a important as the "risk"

Now - if you are not allowed to include the actual incidence and point out that only one death is caused by a cyclist every three years - how do you put the claim into perspective and present the real picture?

always_tyred

That's quite good.

I don't see why that wouldn't be true, but the sample size isn't large enough to make that a worthwhile analysis. As I recall from the dim and distant past, there are a number of algorithms for evaluating uncertainty, which would probably exceed the actual calculated values here. My stats was never good enough but its a bit like saying that, if you know that you have a speedometer with a measurement error of +/- 10mph, you can only state for certain that the vehicle is not stationary if the speedometer reads more than 10mph.

But sure, why not - cyclists are probably no more visible to pedestrians than they are to motorists.

I'd like to be able to say that at least white vans pi5s more people off than cyclists, but even that's not true!!