Road Casualties 2009
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 20 Jul 2010 17:09 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:21:38 +0100, "Mrcheerful" <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >JMS wrote: >> Road Casualties Great Britain Main Results: 2009 are out at the DfT >> webpages. >> >> Main Highlights are : >> >> Total road casualties down 4% >> Seriously injured down 6% >> Child casualties down 6% >> All pedestrian casualties down 6% >> Motor cycle casualties down 4% >> >> All good news - oh - there are a couple more: >> >> Number of seriously injured cyclists up 6% >> Total casualties among cyclists up 5% > >that is probably because of an increase in their numbers coupled witha lack >of training/regulation > Oh - I see you have found a straw - why not have a clutch at it? Numbers have not risen as much as injuries/casualties. -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: Tom Crispin on 20 Jul 2010 17:11 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:59:21 +0100, Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: >Tom Crispin wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:52:37 +0100, Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>> >>> Somehow the minor fact that cyclist fatalities fell by 10% seems to >>> have been overlooked. I can't think why on earth that would be. >> >> Not according to the Guardian's headline: "Sharp rise in number of >> cyclists killed on roads" >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/05/cycling-deaths-department-of-transport >> > > >"The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 10 per cent from 115 in >2008 to 104 in 2009. The number of seriously injured rose by 6 per cent >to 2,606. The total casualties among pedal cyclists rose by 5 per cent >to 17,064." >Reported Road Casualties Great Britain Main Results: 2009 >http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesmr/rrcgbmainresults2009 I am not disputing what you say, only the accuracy of the Guardian's headline.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 20 Jul 2010 17:12 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:29:56 +0100 (BST), nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: >In article <VOl1o.235346$sD7.191566(a)hurricane>, >Mrcheerful <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>JMS wrote: >>> Road Casualties Great Britain Main Results: 2009 are out at the DfT >>> webpages. >>> >>> Main Highlights are : >>> >>> Total road casualties down 4% >>> Seriously injured down 6% >>> Child casualties down 6% >>> All pedestrian casualties down 6% >>> Motor cycle casualties down 4% >>> >>> All good news - oh - there are a couple more: >>> >>> Number of seriously injured cyclists up 6% >>> Total casualties among cyclists up 5% >> >>that is probably because of an increase in their numbers coupled witha lack >>of training/regulation > >Without more information, we cannot even say whether the number of >accidents per cyclist or mile cycled rose or fell, and we CERTAINLY >have no grounds to even guess at a cause. > > >Regards, >Nick Maclaren. Numbers went up - by 4% - less than injuries. I have no reason to believe that cyclists have started riding much further than they used to do on average - it is reasonable to assume on information available that cycling is becoming more dangerous - year on year. -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: Tom Crispin on 20 Jul 2010 17:15 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:53:46 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <nf0c46phk1oa5e4pqi7elvqb352cr0e5kd(a)4ax.com>, at 21:21:59 on >Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> >remarked: >>A young lad was killed by a policeman driving a fast moving police car, >>with lights but no siren, as the child was cycling across a pedestrian >>crossing. > >That has a certain resonance with a youngster reportedly run over by an >ambulance while crossing a motorway a few nights ago. I find it of interest that you compare a pedestrian crossing with a motorway. Perhaps you feel that motorists have a similar expectation of coming across children on both, i.e. not places where young people should be.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 20 Jul 2010 17:16
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:52:37 +0100, Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: >Mrcheerful wrote: >> JMS wrote: >>> Road Casualties Great Britain Main Results: 2009 are out at the DfT >>> webpages. >>> >>> Main Highlights are : >>> >>> Total road casualties down 4% >>> Seriously injured down 6% >>> Child casualties down 6% >>> All pedestrian casualties down 6% >>> Motor cycle casualties down 4% >>> >>> All good news - oh - there are a couple more: >>> >>> Number of seriously injured cyclists up 6% >>> Total casualties among cyclists up 5% >> >> that is probably because of an increase in their numbers coupled witha lack >> of training/regulation >> >> > >Somehow the minor fact that cyclist fatalities fell by 10% seems to have >been overlooked. I can't think why on earth that would be. It was insignificant cf other modes. The number of fatalities fell for almost all types of road user, with a fall of 12 per cent for car occupants, 11 per cent for pedestrians, 16 per cent for motorcyclists -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea) |