Road Casualties 2009
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: nmm1 on 21 Jul 2010 06:20 In article <j_2dnXWaoMeZXdvRnZ2dnUVZ7tqdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Tony Raven <junk(a)raven-family.invalid> wrote: >Derek C 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? >>> >> Possibly just random statistical variations, or an increase in risky >> cycling behaviours such as deliberate red light jumping, which seems >> to tie up with my personal observations of cyclists in the London >> area. Before risk compensation is brought into the argument, it's >> mainly the unhelmeted cyclists (pscholists!) who seem to to do this. > >So you're suggesting that when deaths decrease its an effect of helmets >and when they increase its a random statistical fluctuation? Of course. Why are you surprised? As a rusty statistician, I can confirm that the decrease was quite insignificant, and I stand by my previous posting. I should also point out that such unpredictable factors as weather are known to have quite large effects on road casualty statistics, so anyone claiming that statistical significance of a single period implies a change in the incidence is, at best, misguided. As all trolls are, of course. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Tony Raven on 21 Jul 2010 06:25 Adrian wrote: > > Very true. They would, however, be helped massively by those same > cyclists pausing to think - even briefly - about what the hell they're > doing going down the left of an HGV at lights. In a few cases that is the problem, often encouraged by the provision of a cycle lane into an ASL on the left of the road. But it's more often the lorry pulling up alongside the cyclist. It also doesn't happen very much with buses or coaches where one would expect a similar problem. Its only with lorries which represent about 1% of the traffic on the roads of London and ~50% of the cyclist fatalities. That also tends to indicate its something about the lorries and their drivers, not the cyclists. -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Just zis Guy, you know? on 21 Jul 2010 06:27 On 21 Jul 2010 09:41:32 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >were saying: > >> In London more cyclists are killed on green by drivers running a red >> light than the other way round. But even then they make up a tiny >> proportion of the cyclist deaths most of which are caused by lorries >> turning across cyclists and either crushing them under the back wheels >> or crushing them against the railings. None of those would be helped >> one iota by a helmet. > >Very true. They would, however, be helped massively by those same >cyclists pausing to think - even briefly - about what the hell they're >doing going down the left of an HGV at lights. Probably cycling along a feeder lane to an ASL box that some cretin in the council failed to realise would be a death trap. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed to be worth the price paid.
From: Adrian on 21 Jul 2010 06:28 "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> In London more cyclists are killed on green by drivers running a red >>> light than the other way round. But even then they make up a tiny >>> proportion of the cyclist deaths most of which are caused by lorries >>> turning across cyclists and either crushing them under the back wheels >>> or crushing them against the railings. None of those would be helped >>> one iota by a helmet. >>Very true. They would, however, be helped massively by those same >>cyclists pausing to think - even briefly - about what the hell they're >>doing going down the left of an HGV at lights. > Probably cycling along a feeder lane to an ASL box that some cretin in > the council failed to realise would be a death trap. Possibly. But that doesn't make it anything but thoroughly stupid and suicidal to use it, does it?
From: Just zis Guy, you know? on 21 Jul 2010 06:31
On 21 Jul 2010 10:28:49 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> gurgled happily, >sounding much like they were saying: > >>>> In London more cyclists are killed on green by drivers running a red >>>> light than the other way round. But even then they make up a tiny >>>> proportion of the cyclist deaths most of which are caused by lorries >>>> turning across cyclists and either crushing them under the back wheels >>>> or crushing them against the railings. None of those would be helped >>>> one iota by a helmet. > >>>Very true. They would, however, be helped massively by those same >>>cyclists pausing to think - even briefly - about what the hell they're >>>doing going down the left of an HGV at lights. > >> Probably cycling along a feeder lane to an ASL box that some cretin in >> the council failed to realise would be a death trap. > >Possibly. But that doesn't make it anything but thoroughly stupid and >suicidal to use it, does it? You're preaching to the choir here. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed to be worth the price paid. |