Another interesting observation. I had my incident in Nov 2007 and the po-leese 'processed' it although they took no action against the driver. BUT, no dot. The nearest dot is on a roadabout about 50m away. Is that me? If it is, the road conditions at the dot are very different to the road where the incident took place.
(Places scientist monocle in eye) I would conclude that the raw data are either incomplete (because I'm not on it!) or at the least spatially inaccurate. The raw data in the source spreadsheet doesn't give any indication of spatial error, although I've not looked through the associated web site.
With the issues that m'colleague Origamist has highlighted, I'd be very sceptical about inferring too much from individual points on the map. If they're aggregated over a sufficiently large area they could mean that there are either lots of cyclists or lots of incidents, but you can't tell from the raw data alone.
(Places scientist monocle in eye) I would conclude that the raw data are either incomplete (because I'm not on it!) or at the least spatially inaccurate. The raw data in the source spreadsheet doesn't give any indication of spatial error, although I've not looked through the associated web site.
With the issues that m'colleague Origamist has highlighted, I'd be very sceptical about inferring too much from individual points on the map. If they're aggregated over a sufficiently large area they could mean that there are either lots of cyclists or lots of incidents, but you can't tell from the raw data alone.