CTC - Safety in Numbers Doc

[Origamist]

The Government’s draft Road Safety Strategy, 'A Safer Way', has backed a key demand of CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, by proposing a target to halve the risks of cycling by 2020.

Worth a read:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/CTC_Safety_in_Numbers.pdf

 

[sheddy]

"Improving driver training, with more emphasis on cyclists’ needs"
and how would this be actually carried out ? - part of the Driving Test or just some posters in the Cop Shop ?

 

[Origamist]

OT: Welcome back Origamist. You been cycling round the world or something?

Thanks - yes, SE Asia. Phnom Penh was the craziest place I have ever cycled. It was chaos, but the traffic kept moving (apart from when there were crashes - I witnessed 3).

 

[summerdays]

Yes - I read it earlier and then forwarded it on to several friends but forgot to put a link in here. Still not been able to find what grade Bristol was given for cycling safety.

 

[Origamist]

Here's the Guardian's article on the report:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling-safety-york-calderdale

 

[Woz!]

"Improving driver training, with more emphasis on cyclists’ needs"
and how would this be actually carried out ? - part of the Driving Test or just some posters in the Cop Shop ?

It would be a start if they did a series of information adverts that pointed out that cyclists have as much right to be on the road as other road users, irrespective if there's a cycle path within half a mile.

 

[summerdays]

It would be a start if they did a series of information adverts that pointed out that cyclists have as much right to be on the road as other road users, irrespective if there's a cycle path within half a mile.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of today's announcement about the government not doing enough to prevent accidents in the more vulnerable groups of road users.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8038661.stm

 

[HLaB]

It will be interesting to see what comes out of today's announcement about the government not doing enough to prevent accidents in the more vulnerable groups of road users.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8038661.stm

BBC Breakfast was talking about this and they also had somebody from the ctc there.

 

[MartinC]

Not sure if this is off topic or not.

It's interesting to contrast the Audit Office's report that we are 17th out of the 24 developed nations in terms of child pedestrian casualties with the recent thread about the unfortunate woman run down by a bus. The consensus view, even on a cycling forum, seemed to be that the roads belong to car drivers and to be safe you must conform to their needs. It seems to me that the 2 things are linked.

Is it that the "safety in numbers" thing comes from starting to redress the perception that the roads only belong to cars because people see and notice more different road users?

 

[purplepolly]

Not sure if this is off topic or not.

It's interesting to contrast the Audit Office's report that we are 17th out of the 24 developed nations in terms of child pedestrian casualties with the recent thread about the unfortunate woman run down by a bus. The consensus view, even on a cycling forum, seemed to be that the roads belong to car drivers and to be safe you must conform to their needs. It seems to me that the 2 things are linked.

It's easy to reduce casualties if you scare a particular group off the road. How many children walk anywhere nowadays compared to 30 years ago? People on my parents street even drive older children to my old primary school - 10 to 15 minutes walk with a crossing attendant on the only through road.

 

[dellzeqq]

the full report is really worth reading
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/improving_road_safety_for_ped.aspx
Linfy will of course tell us that pages 5 and 6 are all wrong

 

[nigelnorris]

The claims made in the pdf linked in the original post are meaningless. I strongly disagree with the spin they're trying to put on those numbers.

It is every bit as (I would argue more likely - because of the dates) likely that the link between higher numbers of cyclists and lower numbers of fatalities is a consequence of the fact the more people cycle because the roads are safer in the first place. Especially since using their own data the increase in safety came first.

"London has seen a 91% increase in cycling since 2000 and a reduction of 33% in casualties since the mid nineties therefore the extra bikes have made the roads safer" (ok I've edited their text but that's their point) would make more sense written as "The roads started becoming safer in the mid nineties and as a consequence there has been an 91% increase in cycling since 2000".

The implication of that graph (and the accompanying text) is that if we were to overnight add 5 times as many bikes on the road then there would be less injuries which is plainly silly.

 

[HJ]

The claims made in the pdf linked in the original post are meaningless. I strongly disagree with the spin they're trying to put on those numbers.

It is every bit as (I would argue more likely - because of the dates) likely that the link between higher numbers of cyclists and lower numbers of fatalities is a consequence of the fact the more people cycle because the roads are safer in the first place. Especially since using their own data the increase in safety came first.

"London has seen a 91% increase in cycling since 2000 and a reduction of 33% in casualties since the mid nineties therefore the extra bikes have made the roads safer" (ok I've edited their text but that's their point) would make more sense written as "The roads started becoming safer in the mid nineties and as a consequence there has been an 91% increase in cycling since 2000".

The implication of that graph (and the accompanying text) is that if we were to overnight add 5 times as many bikes on the road then there would be less injuries which is plainly silly.

There is plenty of evidence from around the world to show that the more cyclist there are on the roads the safer they are and that when there is a drop in the numbers of cyclist on the roads, the rate of fatality for cyclist increases. There are two reason:
1) the more cyclist there are the more used drivers to encountering them
2) the more likely drivers are to be cyclist too, and so have a better attitude to them.

 

[nigelnorris]

There is plenty of evidence from around the world to show that the more cyclist there are on the roads the safer they are and that when there is a drop in the numbers of cyclist on the roads, the rate of fatality for cyclist increases. There are two reason:
1) the more cyclist there are the more used drivers to encountering them
2) the more likely drivers are to be cyclist too, and so have a better attitude to them.

I don't doubt you, not at all. In fact what you say is entirely intuitive and I am happy to beileve it on spec.

But I am a mathematician by trade and can spot a manipulated statistic at 100 yards, and that's what's going on in that article. When they reprint it and show at a given time the cyling numbers went up and at a later date the accident rate went down I'll give it credulity. I'm completely open to the suggestion that such research exists, but there's no evidence there. If they want to convince people who are on the other side of the fence they need to me more rigourous than that because what they write is too easy to pick holes in.

I approve of the notion, but sloppy use of statisitics is no use to any cause.

 

[HJ]

I don't doubt you, not at all. In fact what you say is entirely intuitive and I am happy to beileve it on spec.

But I am a mathematician by trade and can spot a manipulated statistic at 100 yards, and that's what's going on in that article. When they reprint it and show at a given time the cyling numbers went up and at a later date the accident rate went down I'll give it credulity. I'm completely open to the suggestion that such research exists, but there's no evidence there. If they want to convince people who are on the other side of the fence they need to me more rigourous than that because what they write is too easy to pick holes in.

I approve of the notion, but sloppy use of statisitics is no use to any cause.

Fair enough, I can't argue with that...