Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 12 Apr 2010 07:22
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:09:04 +0100, Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk>
>Derek C wrote:
>>> Spot on - so why are the stats as follow:
>>> Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
>>> Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
>>> All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
>> Cyclists have to mix it with road traffic whereas pedestrians are more
>> separated, they go faster than pedestrians and take more risks,
>> pedestrians have a wider base to balance on and generally get more
>> practice at it.
>> Derek C,
>Actually its much simpler than that. Those are the figures for deaths
>and injuries involving a vehicle. So a cyclist falling off their bike
>on their own would be recorded (because a vehicle, their bicycle, is
>involved). A pedestrian tripping over or falling on their own would not.
>The number of pedestrians deaths and injuries with no vehicle involved
>dwarf those figures.
They are the figures for people who went to hospital - killed or
When did you last see a pedestrian who tripped over on a footpath and
was seriously injured or killed?
Yes of course they do - do you have the figures for pedestrians who
are killed or seriously injured every year just by walking - with no
other vehicle involved.
Perhaps you got your information from Anchor Lee - according to him
there are over 3000 pedestrians killed every year just by tripping on
the pavement. Are those the figures you are thinking of, or do you
have your "own"?
From: soup on 12 Apr 2010 07:36
On 07/04/2010 18:30, Derek C wrote:
> I shall continue to wear a helmet (my choice).
The only accident you told us about is one where your face struck the
kerb injuring your teeth and your jaw, so I take it the type of helmet
you wear is the kind that covers your teeth and jaw.
From: soup on 12 Apr 2010 07:42
On 08/04/2010 07:49, Derek C wrote:
> because horses go at about the same speed as bikes!
Yes (up to a point, Canters are in the 10-17 MPH region whilst a gallop
is in the 25-30MPH region), but there are few bicycles where the saddle
is six feet from the ground.
From: Derek C on 12 Apr 2010 08:05
On Apr 12, 12:36 pm, soup <1...(a)2invalid.com> wrote:
> On 07/04/2010 18:30, Derek C wrote:
> > I shall continue to wear a helmet (my choice).
> The only accident you told us about is one where your face struck the
> kerb injuring your teeth and your jaw, so I take it the type of helmet
> you wear is the kind that covers your teeth and jaw.
At the time I was 10 years old, back in the 1950's, and I don't
remember there being such things as cycle helmets available then. It
is quite possible that if I had being wearing a helmet, it would have
hit the kerb stone first and reduced or prevented my injuries.
Basically I fell off my bike on the low side after the front wheel
skidded on some dog poo as I rode round a corner on a residential
road. I was slightly concussed so I don't remember too much about it,
but I guess that I must have landed on the side of my head first
(there was a bruise and a graze there), which then twisted so my teeth
hit the kerb.
From: Roland Perry on 12 Apr 2010 08:00
In message <_GDwn.98957$Yx6.81567(a)newsfe29.ams2>, at 12:42:48 on Mon, 12
Apr 2010, soup <1(a)2invalid.com> remarked:
>there are few bicycles where the saddle is six feet from the ground.
Penny Farthing? And I bet they don't have brakes on the rear wheel,