Road Casualties 2009
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Tony Raven on 21 Jul 2010 06:31 nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article <j_2dnXWaoMeZXdvRnZ2dnUVZ7tqdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, > Tony Raven <junk(a)raven-family.invalid> wrote: >> 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? > Not surprised, unconvinced. Are you not surprised/unconvinced by the asymmetry of Derek's explanation. That any decrease in deaths is due to increased helmet wearing but any increase in deaths is just statistical noise? Personally I think both are statistical noise. -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Adrian on 21 Jul 2010 06:37 "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. Am I? It doesn't seem like it. Quite the opposite, in fact, with the usual strong hints of "They're a cyclist, and came off far worse, therefore they must be the innocent party".
From: nmm1 on 21 Jul 2010 07:11 In article <8ao29tF22bU10(a)mid.individual.net>, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> As has been pointed out, you can reduce the incidence of accidents and >> incidents that are almost accidents almost to zero by following the >> rules in Cyclecraft, and NOT those perpetrated by the Highways >> Authorities, almost all "pro-cycling" pressure groups and, regrettably, >> even some of the Highway Code. >> >> What that doesn't do is to protect you from assault by people who are >> using their vehicle as a weapon :-( > >Fortunately, the usual maxim of "Never ascribe to malice that which can >easily be explained by incompetence" applies here, too, in 99% of >instances. That is true, but what most people miss is that 99% is not enough. Let us assume that 99% of drivers are never aggressive to cyclists, and the ones that are, drive reasonably even in cases of driver/ cyclist conflict 90% of the time. Those figures are plausible, in my experience, and mean that 99.9% of conflicting interactions are little or no problem. If a cyclist is inflicted with a road layout where ALL interactions are conflicts, a fairly typical commuter will have 100 driver/cyclist conflicts a day. That means one aggressive incident a fortnight. Now, let's say that 90% of them are merely intimidating, and 99% involve at most only minor injury or damage. Again, plausible in my experience. That means that such an unfortunate cyclist can expect to have one not-minor incident every two years. That ain't funny. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Tony Raven on 21 Jul 2010 07:16 nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > > > Nine times out of ten, if that happens, it's because they have stopped > in the gutter rather than in the primary position. That's stupid and > dangerous - cyclists should almost always maintain a distance of 1-2 > metres from the kerb, for many reasons. > In front of the cab is a dangerous place to be too. More than a few cyclists have been run over by a driver who pulled up behind a cyclist who then became out of sight, out of mind for the driver. Visibility directly in front of the cab is not good unless you stand out of the seat and lean forward. -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Alan Braggins on 21 Jul 2010 07:25
In article <WfudndqehI8EUdvRnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Tony Raven wrote: >nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: >> Tony Raven <junk(a)raven-family.invalid> wrote: > >>> 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? > >Not surprised, unconvinced. Are you not surprised/unconvinced by the >asymmetry of Derek's explanation. I can't speak for Nick, but I'd be surprised if Derek managed a convincing explanation of anything. |