Cycling slowly raises odds of an accident

[si_c]

Much better to recast it as something like 'Accident risk increased by cycling slowly'.

Still implies causation, and falls into a similar trap as the article headline. Would be better to say something like "Cyclists travelling slower at increased risk of being involved in a collision". Not perfect though, a bit too wordy.

 

[Apollonius]

Trees and traffic islands are slower than us and they manage not to hit them.

Not round our way. Plenty of trees decorated with bits of plastic worn off traffic-jam boxes; Armco round traffic islands bent to grotesque shapes.

Since I got away with the last large quote from the Times, here is the rest of the (brief) article:

"The study also found that women were more likely to be involved in a traffic incident than men, with slower road speeds contributing to the disparity.

The conclusions were made as part of a large-scale study by Westminster University of cyclists’ daily experiences. It follows the publication of official figures showing that more than 3,500 cyclists were seriously injured or killed last year, up eight per cent in 12 months.

Dr Rachel Aldred, a senior lecturer in transport at Westminster University, said: “We need to pay particular attention to the experiences of people cycling more slowly. If people need to maintain a speed of 12mph or more to avoid high levels of scary incidents, we will find it very difficult to break out of the current situation where UK cycling is dominated by men and younger adults.”

There follows the usual discussion from pro and anti-cyclists, but, I am glad to say, a bit above the Daily M**l level.

 

[Tin Pot]

Okay, throwing punctuation aside, last rewrite...

Drivers Find It Harder To Kill The Faster Cyclists

Accurate and laying blame where it should.

Though it begs for the corollary ..Complain Daily Mail Readers.

 

[DaveReading]

The conclusions were made as part of a large-scale study by Westminster University of cyclists’ daily experiences.

Accessible here: http://www.nearmiss.bike/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Nearmissreport-final-web-2.pdf

 

[growingvegetables]

Accessible here: http://www.nearmiss.bike/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Nearmissreport-final-web-2.pdf

Which makes the Times article an even more obnoxious piece of victim blaming.

 

[oldroadman]

The statistic showing an apparent 8% increase in cycling incidents (I won't call some of what happens accidents, because they are avoidable mishaps) is useless without a corresponding figure showing the overall increase in cycling. Which we believe is on the rise and observational/anecdotal evidence seems to indicate this is the case. Thus, if cycling traffic increases by 10% and incidents rise 8%, then you could draw the conclusion that cycling is actually becoming safer. If that was the case, but just quoting an incident increase without proper background information (which was probably in the report) is clickbait journalism designed to get more people to pay to access the Times website.

 

[Apollonius]

Having just re-read the Times article, I think it is a reasonable "take" on the research it is summing-up. The article is objective and factual. I cannot agree that it is "victim-blaming".

Thanks for the link to the published research paper @DaveReading. I was particularly interested in the statistics giving thge frequency of serious incidents.

I am still finding it odd that the Times is getting negative reactions like the one above. It has been very supportive of cycling in general, and, as i said, do not read the article as victim blaming in any way.

 

[DaveReading]

I am still finding it odd that the Times is getting negative reactions like the one above. It has been very supportive of cycling in general, and, as i said, do not read the article as victim blaming in any way.

The author of the article, Graeme Paton, identifies himself as a keen cyclist, according to his Twitter feed.

 

[fossyant]

What sort of speed is 8 or 12 mph ? Up a 1 in 4.

 

[jonny jeez]

I ride fast, in town I stay up with, or overtake traffic...generally. I feel safe and in many years have had no issues.

When I cycle with friends who ride slowly I immediately feel more at risk. More drivers are trying to get past me, with less patience and crossing big junctions can be a worry, as the lights can change in the time it takes to cross.

I cant quantify it or provide empirical evidence...but my own experience tells me that I prefer to ride at a healthy pace in town.

I don't agree that riding fast makes you "hardy", which the report suggests...that's tosh, it feels like it just makes you less of an inconvenience to others and therefore not something others "NEED" to get past.

 

[RichardB]

Still implies causation, and falls into a similar trap as the article headline.

Agreed. I was looking for a wording that reflected the content and wasn't ambiguous., rather than accurate per se.

I ride fast, in town I stay up with, or overtake traffic...generally. I feel safe and in many years have had no issues.

The last time I was regularly riding in city traffic was when I commuted daily into Hull. I was younger and fitter then, rode as fast as the other traffic, was positive and assertive without being a dick, and I don't recall any scary moments* or aggression from drivers. My impression (as a cyclist, driver and motorcyclist) is that if car drivers see you as a serious element of the traffic flow (moving reasonable quickly, being observant and decisive, showing awareness) they will treat you with respect. If they see you as casual or inexperienced (slow, indecisive, unaware, wobbling) they will dismiss you as a serious road user** and get past as quickly as they can, regardless of your safety and comfort.

* I lied. Just the one, and totally my own fault.
** For the record, I'm not saying this is right, just an observation.

 

[jonny jeez]

Agreed. I was looking for a wording that reflected the content and wasn't ambiguous., rather than accurate per se.



The last time I was regularly riding in city traffic was when I commuted daily into Hull. I was younger and fitter then, rode as fast as the other traffic, was positive and assertive without being a dick, and I don't recall any scary moments* or aggression from drivers. My impression (as a cyclist, driver and motorcyclist) is that if car drivers see you as a serious element of the traffic flow (moving reasonable quickly, being observant and decisive, showing awareness) they will treat you with respect. If they see you as casual or inexperienced (slow, indecisive, unaware, wobbling) they will dismiss you as a serious road user** and get past as quickly as they can, regardless of your safety and comfort.

* I lied. Just the one, and totally my own fault.
** For the record, I'm not saying this is right, just an observation.

This is precisely how I find it too.

Couldn't have said it better myself...in fact I tried...and failed.

 

[glenn forger]

This is like the Daily Mail article that said that if you lived in a house numbered less than a hundred you were more likely to get burgled.
GO HOME DAILY MAIL YOU'RE DRUNK

 

[albion]

*******"The study also found that women were more likely to be involved in a traffic incident than men, with slower road speeds contributing to the disparity.

The conclusions were made as part of a large-scale study by Westminster University of cyclists’ daily experiences. It follows the publication of official figures showing that more than 3,500 cyclists were seriously injured or killed last year, up eight per cent in 12 months*******

The rise in cycling was earlier so most of that has to have some other reason.

Could it be the popularisation of negative attitudes?

 

[RichardB]

This is like the Daily Mail article that said that if you lived in a house numbered less than a hundred you were more likely to get burgled.
GO HOME DAILY MAIL YOU'RE DRUNK

Brilliant. It reminds me of the headline in the Sun a few years ago: "HALF OF ALL CHILDREN LEAVING PRIMARY SCHOOL BELOW AVERAGE IN READING SHOCK"