Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Tony Raven on 18 May 2010 02:37 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 18 May 2010 09:22 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 18 May 2010 09:29 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 18 May 2010 09:32 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 18 May 2010 12:35
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. |