Interactive road map of UK road deaths 1999-2008

eltonioni

You might scare yourself silly with this one but it's an interesting resource. It even breaks down what type of road user got killed, including cyclists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8401344.stm

It seems that being a female cyclist is safer than being a male motorist, but you know what they say about statistics.

always_tyred

This is all very uplifting. I only wish you'd posted it first thing on a Monday morning.

attica

Always Tyred wrote:

This is all very uplifting. I only wish you'd posted it first thing on a Monday morning.

The uplifting part for me is that cycling is statistically less fatal than any other form of transport including "Other" whatever that is.
I'm riding my bike EVERWHERE now

fnegroni

Attica wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

This is all very uplifting. I only wish you'd posted it first thing on a Monday morning.

The uplifting part for me is that cycling is statistically less fatal than any other form of transport including "Other" whatever that is.
I'm riding my bike EVERWHERE now

I am a bit confused by this.

The data shows deaths percentage: out of 100 deaths say, cyclists were only, say, 5.

But consider how many thousand (million?) cars are on the roads, compared to bicycles.

Say that 95 drivers were killed, out of 100,000 on the road in that area in a certain period: that's around 0.1% likelyhood
Say that 5 cyclists were killed, out of 1,000 on the road in the same area in the same period: that's around 0.5% likelyhood

Without exact figures, and accurate statistics, it doesn't seem, to me, that we can establish cycling to be safer in terms of deaths.

Or am I getting something wrong?

BiggerBoat

8 fatalities on my commuting route over 10 years, and its only a 3 mile distance :shock:

beverick

fnegroni wrote:

Attica wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

This is all very uplifting. I only wish you'd posted it first thing on a Monday morning.

The uplifting part for me is that cycling is statistically less fatal than any other form of transport including "Other" whatever that is.
I'm riding my bike EVERWHERE now

I am a bit confused by this.

The data shows deaths percentage: out of 100 deaths say, cyclists were only, say, 5.

But consider how many thousand (million?) cars are on the roads, compared to bicycles.

Say that 95 drivers were killed, out of 100,000 on the road in that area in a certain period: that's around 0.1% likelyhood
Say that 5 cyclists were killed, out of 1,000 on the road in the same area in the same period: that's around 0.5% likelyhood

Without exact figures, and accurate statistics, it doesn't seem, to me, that we can establish cycling to be safer in terms of deaths.

Or am I getting something wrong?

You're taking one of many available views of the statistics.

The phrase lies, damn lies and statistics springs to mind.

Bob

biondino

I found the whole thing quite inspiring, actually, not depressing at all.

dilemna

Well the data used to compile the map is flawed as I know of several fatalities that occurred within the period in my area that aren't on the map - 2 pedestrians and 2 cyclists all hit by cars. So treat it with a large slice of scepticism. As with all these types surveys, statistics, etc. the people who compose them are not cyclists or pedestrians. It's all part of the conspiracy to do nothing to improve road safety for vulnerable road users. As a cyclist one is supposed to be something like 9 times more likely to be fatally injured than making a journey by car. Cannot name or remember the source, but it has stuck in my mind and seems about right if not even a little conservative.

amaferanga

Yep, I was just thinking the same thing. I know of at least one road death in 2008 in Sheffield that isn't on the map.

Eau Rouge

dilemna wrote:

It's all part of the conspiracy to do nothing to improve road safety for vulnerable road users.

Road safety is about saving lives, more than worrying about making sure the percentages are all as they should be. They don't value one life any more or less than any other life just because of the mode of transport being used at the time, they worry about reducing the overall total.
So many more people are killed or seriously injured while travelling in a vehicle or on a motorbike that that is where the resources go in order to save the most number of lives.
I find that view hard to argue against even if it does mean less attention being given to cycling fatalities.

eltonioni

The thing to remember is that none of us are statistics until we cop it. Right up until that time we all have our own risk profile, talent (or lack of) distance, etc... we're all individuals