Discussion in 'Advocacy and Cycling Safety' started by kingrollo, 29 Dec 2017.
And increased numbers of riders.
I think the accident stats for cyclists are skewed.
Using casualties per million miles, I'm pretty sure that space travel is the safest form of transportation, followed by submarine. If the casualties were measured as per million hours, the numbers woukd be more comparable.
Cycling crashes include lots of child, stunt and sport riding. Do car crashes that happen on the racetrack count towards car stats? Do freeclimbing injuries count towards pedestrisn injuries?
There's no way you can extrapolate that from a self-selecting survey of cycling enthusiasts, and it's clearly at odds with all the official stats.
That is if you believe the official stats.
The stats tell us "risk of injury of any severity whilst cycling was just 0.05 per 1,000 hours of cycling." so I take it that means 1 per 20,000 hours (or 200,000 miles?). One injury for every 200,000 miles of cycling - yea right
So for the 31 out of 109 who had suffered an injury in the CC survey. the 109 who answered must have covered 6.2 million miles (57,000 mile per rider in that year) ? the Stats just don't add up in the real world.
It isn't the stats that are not operating in the real world, unfortunately.
The headline casualty numbers we see tend to be the police reports.
There's another dataset, the hospital episode statistics, which includes lots of cases (such as the aforementioned shed head hit) which aren't in the police reports but maybe shouldn't be included in any consideration. It does also include some that should, such as collisions that both parties fail to report to the police because they feel they may be at fault and risk prosecution, or there are allegations that some constabularies won't accept reports of bike- bike collisions unless someone dies.
So the true figure is probably between the police and hospital numbers somewhere. We know the figures are probably wrong but that doesn't mean they're useless. It's still a useful estimate and better than nothing.
Just to add some hard facts the Travel in London report 10 showed serious and slight injury data as well.
The figures for serious and fatal showed an increase of 8% over the last 10 years ( 454 versus 421). The slight injuries showed a 46% increase (3,970 vs 2719).
and to remind you 61% increase in cycling based on cycle stages (average daily cycle stages and trips is the number of cyclists crossing a set of three strategic traffic counting cordons).
I don't think anywhere else has such robust figures.
See my previous post!
Stats are never misleading. It's the manner of selection, comparison and presentation that misleads. The term "statistically significant" is also misleading, in that it does not actually mean what the two words would otherwise mean in the English language.
"Lies, damned lies and statistics"
is a complete misnomer
"Liars, damned liars and those who misuse statistics"
is a little closer to the truth.
From that would you conclude that cycling in London is getting more dangerous or less dangerous.
Some great points folks.
On balance it would seem that cycling on uk roads isn't as safe as the stats that we are presented with ?
I usually find that stats are just stats until you or a loved one become one.
Separate names with a comma.