Cyclists killed in Britain up by 11% in three years

AndyManc

The more of us that become politically pro-active the sooner this will change.


The report says the most dangerous place for cyclists and pedestrians is London. Seventeen pedestrians per 100,000 people are killed in the capital, compared with a national average of 11.

Tory MP Edward Leigh said: "In terms of the number of child pedestrians killed as a proportion of the population, we are way down the league. Our poor performance should be a matter of national debate."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/08/cycle-accidents-road-deaths-rise




.

jonginge

hmm. don't want to completely p!ss on your bonfire but there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

They say cycling hardly increased during the time of study. That may be true nationally but in london cycling almost doubled in that timeframe. If a large minority of the fatalities were from london that would completely skew the conclusions....

AndyManc

JonGinge wrote:

hmm. don't want to completely p!ss on your bonfire but there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

They say cycling hardly increased during the time of study. That may be true nationally but in london cycling almost doubled in that timeframe. If a large minority of the fatalities were from london that would completely skew the conclusions....

I thought the increase was over a longer time scale, I never trust stats, but trying to find a motive as to why they would deliberately fix the figures in this case is hard to do.




.

wantaway

surely though if the figures are based on the proportion of fatalities per 100,000 then the overall numbers involved are not so relevant?

in any case, it is a grim thought.

jonginge

AndyManc wrote:

I thought the increase was over a longer time scale, I never trust stats, but trying to find a motive as to why they would deliberately fix the figures in this case is hard to do.

2004-2007. Big increase in cycling in london in that time, especially newbies after 7/7. I don't think it's a deliberate misrepresentation of the figures just probably a case of regurgitated journalism and a sub-ed with an eye for a headline.

wantaway wrote:

surely though if the figures are based on the proportion of fatalities per 100,000 then the overall numbers involved are not so relevant?

In the article the 11% was on the absolute figure. I'm no statistics expert but i'm pretty sure the error bars on the figures are pretty big.

wantaway wrote:

in any case, it is a grim thought.

Can't argue with that

Eau Rouge

AndyManc wrote:

I thought the increase was over a longer time scale, I never trust stats, but trying to find a motive as to why they would deliberately fix the figures in this case is hard to do.

That will depend on who "they" are. The stats are from the National Audit Office, but why is the Westminster correspondent of the Guardian reporting them today?
The press, being rubbish, isn't going to tell us that, far too interested in selling newspapers. There are a myriad of reason for this story appearing, from the benign (it's a report the NAO always publishes in mid-May every year) to the ridiculous (David Hencke is a cyclist who wants action/is a car driver who wants cyclists off the roads and spent the last month looking for ANYTHING to hang a story off) to the scary (the Dept of Transport is planning to ban cycling from the roads, so is issuing "cycling is dangerous" press releases any time it possible can, and David Hencke has bought the press release without ever reading the report)

We have no idea. We could read the report I guess, but who has time for that! And to think, some people want amateur politicians.

AndyManc

Obviously there are a myriad of reasons why reports are issued and commissioned but the results are used by pressure groups to substantiate grounds for action especially when the stats come from official sources.

Governments are run off statistics, this particular one can be used as ammunition (if anymore was needed) placing further pressure for fundamental change, that fundamental change can only be forced by a pro-active general public.

Holland places much of their present day policies down to pressure placed on their government in the 70's from the voting public, that same pressure needs to be applied here from a politically active and savvy UK populous.



.

CiB

It's also been in the top headlines on R4 & R2 news bulletins since 6:30 this morning. My assumption is that it's either a smokescreen to deflect from the expenses stuff leaked to the paper today, or that some law change is being proposed and this is the usual gentle lead in - here's a problem, followed soon after by an 'initiative'. The govt's tame news media - BBC, Guardian - are a dab hand at passing on stuff like this, to smooth the path. Carefully selected stats, no context to the figures, no-one to challenge them. It's all par for the course.

Eau Rouge

The http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8038661.stm BBC article has a lot more context.
Seems this is just the NAO doing some sort of regular report, largely good (reduction in road deaths, safe roads etc) but they see a problem with cyclists and peds and are flagging it.
I like the quote from National Audit Office head Tim Burr

Tim Burr wrote:

"Making roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists is a key element in encouraging people to walk and cycle more.

"making the road safer" not "taking them off the road onto footpaths"
I fear these "make things better for cyclists" stories. I fear a future of useless footpaths I'm supposed to pottle on at 10mph. Thats how councils view "cycling safety" today, and pressuring them for more "cycling safety" means they make it harder to cycle on the road.

roger_merriman

cycling deaths or serious numbers are very low so is going to be subject to blips and what not. stats don't lie but you need to look at the numbers.

PeteinSQ

JonGinge wrote:

2004-2007. Big increase in cycling in london in that time, especially newbies after 7/7.
[

My wife used to do work for TFL and they had figures that showed that the spike in riders following 7/7 was brief and the increase in cycling figures returned to the trend line.

jonginge

PeteinSQ wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

2004-2007. Big increase in cycling in london in that time, especially newbies after 7/7.
[

My wife used to do work for TFL and they had figures that showed that the spike in riders following 7/7 was brief and the increase in cycling figures returned to the trend line.

Interesting. There ya go. It seemed like there were a lot more after but maybe it just seemed that way due to that initial spike... perceptions, like statistics, are funny things

lost_in_thought

JonGinge wrote:

PeteinSQ wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

2004-2007. Big increase in cycling in london in that time, especially newbies after 7/7.
[

My wife used to do work for TFL and they had figures that showed that the spike in riders following 7/7 was brief and the increase in cycling figures returned to the trend line.

Interesting. There ya go. It seemed like there were a lot more after but maybe it just seemed that way due to that initial spike... perceptions, like statistics, are funny things

I'm a 7/7 cyclist! Me me me! And I continued...

Look over to the 'Cycling in the UK' thread for more cycling news posted by sarajoy...

jonginge

lost_in_thought wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

PeteinSQ wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

2004-2007. Big increase in cycling in london in that time, especially newbies after 7/7.
[

My wife used to do work for TFL and they had figures that showed that the spike in riders following 7/7 was brief and the increase in cycling figures returned to the trend line.

Interesting. There ya go. It seemed like there were a lot more after but maybe it just seemed that way due to that initial spike... perceptions, like statistics, are funny things

I'm a 7/7 cyclist! Me me me! And I continued...

Look over to the 'Cycling in the UK' thread for more cycling news posted by sarajoy...

Welcome newbie. You'll have a carbon superbike before ya know it

The Chingford Skinhead

It was the feature for the radio 5 breakfast phone in thisa morning. How utterly depressing.

I've just sent the following to their blog

I am thoroughly depressed and dismayed. Almost all of the phone-in and bloggers about improving road satiety for pedestrians and cyclists focus their criticism on cyclists. There was minimal comment or criticism of motorists but plenty of claims that they are the victims of persecution. Let’s be clear who the victims are: Motorists kill 3,000 people a year and seriously injure about 28000. Written answers in Hansard show that in 2007 motorists injured 29,297 pedestrians, of which 6,224 were seriously injured and 642 were killed. Cyclists injured 225, of which 48 were serious and 4 were killed. (source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... column_14W). You’d have thought from the show and those selected by researchers that the figures were reversed.

I won’t defend or condone the actions of cyclists who run red lights but I see cars do it every day, just as I see drivers on phones, parked or stopped in bus lanes, cycle lanes and ASL boxes. The difference is if you get hit by a car breaking the rules you’re generally injured or worse. If you get hit by a bike you generally walk away. In fact the cyclist is likely to come off worse. I’m currently recovering from a broken shoulder due to a j-walking (running) pedestrian who ran into me.

We really should have moved away from the “blame the victim” mentality that led us at one time to blame women for being victims of rape. Consider the massive profile and resources directed toward the thankfully small number of children murdered each year and compare it to our casual acceptance to their slaughter on the roads. Heaven forbid that motorists should have to change their behaviour though…

Eau Rouge

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 08/cycling

So the NAO's stats are a touch biased then.
I'm thinking David Hencke was rewriting a press release. All those years at journalism school, eh.

The Chingford Skinhead

Eau Rouge wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/08/cycling

So the NAO's stats are a touch biased then.
I'm thinking David Hencke was rewriting a press release. All those years at journalism school, eh.

Great article and some well informed comments doing down the usual anti-cyclist nonsense. Thanks for posting the link - I was seriously "down" after the appauling Radio 5 live show and blog. Esp as today's first session of physio for my shoulder was particularly painful. I've also got to start the long slow process of re-educating Mrs TCS and work, for whom my accident was confirmation of their cycling is dangerous belief - as well as getting my own confidence back when my shoulder eventually has enough motion for me to a) reach the handle bar and b) tuirn it!

neil_sheehan2000

wantaway wrote:

surely though if the figures are based on the proportion of fatalities per 100,000 then the overall numbers involved are not so relevant?

I'm not entirey sure, but I'd have thought that just basing the fatalaties on the population per 100,000 doesn't really mean that much. If they were based on the population per 100,000 cyclists (e.g. 'out of 100,000 cyclists x number of them died') then the statistics would mean far more.

Or I coud be talking rubbish. Either way, it's still too many deaths on the road.

downfader

Listening to the podcast now from radio 5. Not impressed with the london guy who jumps lights.

Added my views here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebrea ... roads.html