Are the safety stats misleading ?

Discussion in 'Advocacy and Cycling Safety' started by kingrollo, 29 Dec 2017.

Tags:
  1. MichaelW2

    MichaelW2 Über Member

    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?
     
  2. boydj

    boydj Veteran

    Location:
    Paisley
    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.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Legendary Member

    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.
     
    classic33 likes this.
  4. TinyMyNewt

    TinyMyNewt An execrable pun

    Location:
    South coast, UK
    It isn't the stats that are not operating in the real world, unfortunately.
     
  5. mjr

    mjr Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next

    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.
     
  6. Tailendman

    Tailendman Regular

    Location:
    Milton Keynes
    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.
     
    CrinklyLion, Fab Foodie and mjr like this.
  7. byegad

    byegad Guru

    Location:
    NE England
    See my previous post!
     
  8. Drago

    Drago Guru

    Location:
    Poshamptonshire.
    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.
     
    PK99 likes this.
  9. PK99

    PK99 Guru

    Location:
    SW19
    "Lies, damned lies and statistics"

    is a complete misnomer

    "Liars, damned liars and those who misuse statistics"

    is a little closer to the truth.
     
    CrinklyLion, Mr Bunbury and srw like this.
  10. OP
    OP
    kingrollo

    kingrollo Über Member

    From that would you conclude that cycling in London is getting more dangerous or less dangerous.
     
  11. OP
    OP
    kingrollo

    kingrollo Über Member

    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 ?
     
  12. Fab Foodie

    Fab Foodie hanging-on in quiet desperation ...

    Less.
     
  13. Slick

    Slick Veteran

    I usually find that stats are just stats until you or a loved one become one.
     
    classic33 and BoldonLad like this.
  14. Fab Foodie

    Fab Foodie hanging-on in quiet desperation ...

    I’m not sure how you get to that conclusion?
     
    CrinklyLion, mjr and Slick like this.
  15. Slick

    Slick Veteran

    Same as everyone else, read the stats and make them say whatever you like. :okay:
     
    classic33 likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice