Accident rates in London for Boris Bikes

[Boris Bajic]

snip... snip.... snip....

Anyway, I'm not the one arguing that cycling is dangerous. You are! You claim that cycling is more dangerous than bikeshare. I'm arguing that it is not. A person who uses a bikeshare bike is not a 'cyclist'. He or she is a motorist who happens to be on something that looks like a bike. let's face it: a bikeshare bike is barely a bicycle. They look more like motorless mopeds, and they weigh about the same as I'd imagine a moped would weigh without its motor.

I'm not sure whether the above was written as a joke, a wind-up or as some clever means of using absurdity to demonstrate a wider point.

With or without your inverted commas around the word 'cyclist', it reads as a delusional piece of flame-thrower opinion-spreading.

This may be your view of the users of Boris Bikes and Velib (the only two around which I've driven and ridden) but it is not the consensus.

They are on bicycles. They are cyclists. A motorless moped is a bicycle.

 

[srw]

If you're really interested (and, frankly, I don't think you should be - it's all propaganda) - there's a clear incentive on the Boris Bike scheme for trips of under an hour. Most London commuters commute within zone 1 (about half an hour from side to side) or for trips of under an hour from outer to inner London.

 

[Ian Cooper]

If you want to know whether it's safer to drive or cycle for a given trip, then KSI per distance is the metric to use.

Per distance doesn't work where distances over 20km are concerned, because over those longer distances, cyclists and motorists tend to take different routes, and the motorists take motorway routes that greatly increase speed while greatly reducing the potential for collisions. Cyclists must take routes with many intersections.

So it's not quite that simple.

There's an interesting investigation of the issue here:

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

 

[Ian Cooper]

If you're really interested (and, frankly, I don't think you should be - it's all propaganda)

Actually, I find this subject fascinating. Mostly because it's so rife with propaganda.

- there's a clear incentive on the Boris Bike scheme for trips of under an hour. Most London commuters commute within zone 1 (about half an hour from side to side) or for trips of under an hour from outer to inner London.

This is true, and it does present a better argument for per trip being an equitable gauge. But the fact still remains that bikeshare relies on an incentive to enforce a shorter trip. Meanwhile, there will be a significant number of commuters on owned bikes who will tend to commute farther, and more regularly farther, than someone using a bikeshare bike. Then there's the fact that bikeshare bikes are so disposable - you can pick them up, drop them off five minutes away and forget about them. You can't do that with an owned bike - you have to keep it secured throughout the day and then ride it home. I think this is where the effect comes in that allows Boris Bikes to claim a per-trip safety increase - an increase in safety that just doesn't make sense, given the inexperience of most bikeshare users.

 

[Boris Bajic]

[QUOTE 1952430, member: 45"]I do believe I'm on Ian's ignore list because I don't agree with his extreme view on cycle paths.[/quote]

You may not be alone.

I asked some weeks ago how he squared his trenchant anti-car views and quite strong anti-car rhetoric with having a wife who owned a car.

I also asked how his cycling skills allowed him to rule out accidents completely, something he appeared to be claiming.

Not a word since.

Won't I look a fool if this post elicits a response? But I'd also need a response about the anti-car thing.

 

[albion]

"They have already seen off a couple of news stories. One was about serious head injuries to two Boris Bike riders in the early days. "

It is sad that left and right wing politics gets in the way of real facts.
Cyclists are cyclists so they will all be grouped together anyhow.

I would reckon Boris biles do not even make up 0.5% of London cycle traffic.

 

[Red Light]

"They have already seen off a couple of news stories. One was about serious head injuries to two Boris Bike riders in the early days. "

It is sad that left and right wing politics gets in the way of real facts.
Cyclists are cyclists so they will all be grouped together anyhow.

I would reckon Boris biles do not even make up 0.5% of London cycle traffic.

Be prepared to be surprised then. There are about 500,000 cycle journeys per weekday in London vs about 20,000 Boris Bike journeys. So about 4%. However viewed from the distance of Tyneside I can see how you might not see that.

 

[Red Light]

Again, as I explained, used in this way, the figures are indeed grossly misleading. And I know they are misleading because they are 'per trip'. Because of the incentives for shorter journeys, the average Paris Velib, London Boris Bike, or Washington DC CaBi journey is going to be significantly shorter than the average non-bikeshare journey.

You know that do you? You know that the average journey is shorter on a Boris Bike than on a non-Boris Bike bike? Or are you making an assumption based on your personal prejudices without knowing what the actual figures are? I've seen the figures and I know but have you?

 

[Red Light]

Actually, I find this subject fascinating. Mostly because it's so rife with propaganda.



This is true, and it does present a better argument for per trip being an equitable gauge. But the fact still remains that bikeshare relies on an incentive to enforce a shorter trip. Meanwhile, there will be a significant number of commuters on owned bikes who will tend to commute farther, and more regularly farther, than someone using a bikeshare bike. Then there's the fact that bikeshare bikes are so disposable - you can pick them up, drop them off five minutes away and forget about them. You can't do that with an owned bike - you have to keep it secured throughout the day and then ride it home. I think this is where the effect comes in that allows Boris Bikes to claim a per-trip safety increase - an increase in safety that just doesn't make sense, given the inexperience of most bikeshare users.

How much do you actually know about the actual cycling patterns in London? Because you are not demonstrating much with your characterisation above. Lots of people use folding bikes carried in on their commuter trains or keep bikes at or near the station so only commute from the station to the office - much as if you watch the tidal flows on Boris Bikes you realise that they tend to go from the station to the office and back. But even if you were right that Boris Bike journeys are shorter they would have to be an infeasibly large amount shorter to annul the difference between 0 and 10-20 serious injuries. For every mile on a Boris Bike you would have to do at least 10-20 miles on a non-Boris Bike before they even equalised in accident rate. Which means you appear to be part of that evidence free propaganda machine you deride.

 

[albion]

Wasn't it you who claimed there were no accidents, immediately to be contradicted?
I'm quite doubts that accident and emergency has a 'was the bicycle a Boris Bike?' in their form filling requirements.

My guesswork.

Average distance on Boris bike 1 mile, own bike 5 miles?
All admittedly guesswork.

 

[Red Light]

Again, as I explained, used in this way, the figures are indeed grossly misleading. And I know they are misleading because they are 'per trip'. Because of the incentives for shorter journeys, the average Paris Velib, London Boris Bike, or Washington DC CaBi journey is going to be significantly shorter than the average non-bikeshare journey. Per trip stats are fine for propaganda purposes, but not much use for serious study or discussion. I'm fine with the Mayor of Paris or the folks behind Boris Bikes using such sophistry to get credulous bikeshare communities to breathe collective sighs of relief, but, again, when folks start telling me they're meaningful, it insults my intelligence. I am not a child who can be told that the tooth fairy exists. She does not. Per trip statistics comparing bikeshare with personal bike commuter casualty rates are similarly fictitious, because they compare apples to oranges. Unlike bikeshare folks, people who commute on their own bikes are not incentivized to keep their trips short. They're just not.

And simply saying that the per trip figures aren't misleading doesn't make your assertion any more believable. I've explained my argument. Given the fact that you're engaging purely in contradiction, I suspect you can't do the same for your side of it.

I am not engaging purely in contradiction because I know what the figures are and you don't. And the figures show your statements are indeed grossly misleading and propaganda having no basis in fact. Since you want the figures per km here they are:

Boris Bike average journey length: 4km = 2.5 miles (Source TfL)
Therefore 15 million journeys = 38m miles.

Serious injury rate for cyclists = 528 per Bn km = 32 per 38m miles (Source: RRCGB 2010)

So in 38 million miles of Boris Bike journeys we have had zero serious injuries where we would have expected from general cycling stats around 32 serious injuries making Boris Bikes massively safer than normal cycling both per journey and per mile.

I do have a strange wish not to be lied to. Whether that's 'leftpondian' or not, I'm not sure. I suspect it's an attribute I picked up when I lived in Yorkshire.

Yet you have a strange willingness to lie yourself being quite comfortable asserting things are are massively and demonstrably wrong as just shown.