Road Casualties 2009
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Derek C on 21 Jul 2010 01:07 On Jul 20, 9:06 pm, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article <oavb46tdkbonfdonmrj32b0h5uv5r5b...(a)4ax.com>, > Tom Crispin <kije.rem...(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > > >On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:52:37 +0100, Tony Raven <tra...(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... > > You are looking at different data. > > Regards, > Nick Maclaren. The Guardian article only looked at the first quarter of the year 2009, when both cyclist deaths and KSIs had increased over the previous year's first quarter, KSIs by 19%. This was put down by the CTC as being due to a large influx of new and inexperienced cyclists coming onto the road, and possibly an increase in risky cycling behaviour such as red light jumping. Maybe the worst cyclists eliminated themselves by Darwinian selection, or became more experienced and competent, as the year progressed, so the total annual figures for 2009 where less bad.
From: Tony Raven on 21 Jul 2010 02:49 Derek C wrote: > > The Guardian article only looked at the first quarter of the year > 2009, when both cyclist deaths and KSIs had increased over the > previous year's first quarter, KSIs by 19%. This was put down by the > CTC as being due to a large influx of new and inexperienced cyclists > coming onto the road, and possibly an increase in risky cycling > behaviour such as red light jumping. Maybe the worst cyclists > eliminated themselves by Darwinian selection, or became more > experienced and competent, as the year progressed, so the total annual > figures for 2009 where less bad. Your usual explanation would be that they forgot to buy a helmet but after the first quarter, all rushed out and bought one. -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Adrian on 21 Jul 2010 02:54 JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>Nor do I see the fact it was a child as being particularly relevant - if >>the child wasn't old enough to properly understand the rules of the >>road, then it's a failure of the parents to properly supervise their >>child. > There are many here who promote the idea of 5 and 6 year olds cycling to > school unaccompanied - because it is quite safe. I'm sure it is. If those children understand and obey the rules of the road.
From: Adrian on 21 Jul 2010 02:56 Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> It would probably be inappropriate to ask why somebody was cycling >>> across a pedestrian crossing, wouldn't it? >> I don't know if it was a toucan crossing, I do know that it was a >> child. > Not exactly - well a 16 year old child. So certainly old enough to understand the rules of the road, then. Old enough, in fact, to have a licence for a motor vehicle. If he had been using a motor vehicle, would the same excuses be being made? Or is this yet another case of defining blame based on the mode of transport used?
From: Tony Raven on 21 Jul 2010 03:08
Derek C wrote: > On Jul 20, 7:52 pm, Tony Raven <tra...(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. >> >> Tony >> > Possibly because a greater percentage of cyclists now wear cycle > helmets. > So how do you explain the rise in cyclist deaths over 2003-6. Was helmet wearing dropping over that period? -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell |