From: Tony Raven on
Nick Finnigan wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:

>>
>> Its also apples and oranges. The figures are deaths or serious
>> injuries from single vehicle accidents so all cyclist accidents are
>> included (the
>
> No.
>
>> bicycle being the vehicle) whereas only those pedestrian deaths and
>> serious injuries that involved a vehicle are included.
>
> There were no cyclists deaths reported were only the cyclist was
> involved. 0.1% of SI accidents were cyclist only.

The pdf you linked to is part of Road Casualties Great Britain 2008. If
you read the Notes thereof they say:

"The statistics refer to personal injury accidents on public roads
(including footways) which become known to the police within 30 days."

and in the Definitions, accidents are defined as:

"Accident: Involves personal injury occurring on the public highway
(including footways) in which at least one road vehicle or a vehicle in
collision with a pedestrian is involved and which becomes known to the
police within 30 days of its occurrence."

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2008

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:08:09 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip ref latest figure - thanks?


>> Do your brats wear cycle helmets?
>
> I have no brats who wear pedal cycle helmets.



And if you had not snipped off the references - you would see that I
was actually replying to Clinch.


He is always on about his brats progressing with their cycling - but
he just refuses to answer the question as to whether they wear
helmets.

I wonder why?

I guess he wouldn't want to let us know that he is endangering them so
much by getting to wear them every time they go out on their bikes.

--
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: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:19:34 +0100, Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>



>Its also apples and oranges. The figures are deaths or serious injuries
>from single vehicle accidents so all cyclist accidents are included (the
>bicycle being the vehicle) whereas only those pedestrian deaths and
>serious injuries that involved a vehicle are included.
>
>So that leaves out all the deaths and serious injuries from pedestrians
>falling or tripping over on their own.



Yes - you are absolutely spot on.

I wonder what that figure is?

Anchor Lee reckons that there are actually 3,000 pedestrians per year
*killed* - just from tripping on the pavement - unfortunately he
cannot find the source of his data :-)

So add in serious injuries and you must be looking at 10,000 per
year.

So more than 25 pedestrians killed or seriously injured *every day*
just because they tripped up on the footpath - and no vehicle was
involved.

I am surprised such things don't make the newspapers.

On the other hand - it could perhaps be a very small number.

What do you think?


From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:47:52 +0100, "DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk>
wrote:

>"JMS" <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote
>>
>> Simple question for you:
>>
>> Do you think that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce the risk of
>> injury in a cycle accident than it will increase the risk of injury?
>
>A biased question. There is a third option.
>


Sorry - or will it make absolutely no difference one way or the other.

Even if you include that - the psycholists will still not answer that
question.

I wonder why?


--
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: Nick Finnigan on
Tony Raven wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Its also apples and oranges. The figures are deaths or serious
>>> injuries from single vehicle accidents so all cyclist accidents are
>>> included (the
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> bicycle being the vehicle) whereas only those pedestrian deaths and
>>> serious injuries that involved a vehicle are included.
>>
>> There were no cyclists deaths reported were only the cyclist was
>> involved. 0.1% of SI accidents were cyclist only.
>
> The pdf you linked to is part of Road Casualties Great Britain 2008. If
> you read the Notes thereof they say:
>
> "The statistics refer to personal injury accidents on public roads
> (including footways) which become known to the police within 30 days."
>
> and in the Definitions, accidents are defined as:
>
> "Accident: Involves personal injury occurring on the public highway
> (including footways) in which at least one road vehicle or a vehicle in
> collision with a pedestrian is involved and which becomes known to the
> police within 30 days of its occurrence."
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2008

Which means that a negligible number of one-cycle accidents are included.