It's happened again

[Origamist]

Thankfully, the cyclist is alive, albeit in a critical condition:

https://twitter.com/EnfieldCycling/status/553213651373793280

 

[downfader]

A horrible tragedy indeed, but let's please not exaggerate the risks of cycling. In those same eight days that five people died cycling, there were 3,484 deaths from cardiovascular disease. Many of those people would have lived had they been getting regular exercise. It is far safer to cycle than not.

Unfortunately Numbnuts is right. We are disappearing from the roads, no matter how safe we say it is most people wont cycle. It will take something almighty to get a majority of people in the saddle again.

 

[derrick]

Thankfully, the cyclist is alive, albeit in a critical condition:

https://twitter.com/EnfieldCycling/status/553213651373793280

Sorry for the wrong information i posted, My source was not reliable.

 

[Inertia]

Hope the cyclist recovers

Unfortunately Numbnuts is right. We are disappearing from the roads, no matter how safe we say it is most people wont cycle. It will take something almighty to get a majority of people in the saddle again.

Its only my experience but I see more cyclists than ever on the roads.

 

[downfader]

Hope the cyclist recovers


Its only my experience but I see more cyclists than ever on the roads.

According to the data analysed by cycle groups we're STILL at the same 2% we've been in for nearly 10 years.

What I think is happening, and this may not be the case I accept, is that as one city or area gets popular another becomes less popular. So areas ebb and flow and cycling has almost become tidal.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Unfortunately Numbnuts is right. We are disappearing from the roads

Nope:

 

[downfader]

Nope:

a) that is in London. Not the full UK
b) that is for trips, not the number of riders. It means people are riding more, not that there are more riding.
c) a rise of 0.25 is hardly something to crow about...

 

[TheDoctor]

a) that is in London. Not the full UK
b) that is for trips, not the number of riders. It means people are riding more, not that there are more riding.
c) a rise of 0.25 is hardly something to crow about...

a) True, but we don't know that it's not UK wide
b) It is number of trips, but we don't know that people are riding more. It could well be more people riding.
c) Nearly doubling (300 000 to 550 000) is something to crow about, actually

 

[CopperBrompton]

a) that is in London. Not the full UK
b) that is for trips, not the number of riders. It means people are riding more, not that there are more riding.
c) a rise of 0.25 is hardly something to crow about...

a) Cycling is increasing in the UK as a whole too: http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/ctc-cycling-statistics
b) Exceedingly unlikely, but by all means post data to argue your case
c) It has almost doubled

Your argument is that cycling is declining: let's see your evidence in support of this claim.

 

[downfader]

a) Cycling is increasing in the UK as a whole too: http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/ctc-cycling-statistics
b) Exceedingly unlikely, but by all means post data to argue your case
c) It has almost doubled

Your argument is that cycling is declining: let's see your evidence in support of this claim.

Well no, the assertion was made first that cycling is booming, ergo its down to the "boomers" to prove.
Secondly even the CTC site states trips not people. The National Travel Survey 2013 shows stagnation in the number of people participating iirc

Stating that c) is "almost doubled" still doesnt prove there are more riders nationally. The 2011 census states 741,000 riders 3x a week. Thats still 2.3% of all road users once you take the 32 million into account...

This is the last bit of Government data to cover cycling numbers:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/342160/nts2013-01.pdf

In 2013, 1% of all stages were made by bicycle. Between 1995/97 and 2013 the average number
of bicycle stages per person per year has fallen from 20 stages in 1995/97 to 15 stages in 2013; a
fall of 25%.

However, due to the relatively small number of cyclists in the NTS sample there is annual volatility
in the cycling data and bicycle stages as a proportion of all stages generally fluctuates between
1% and 2%.

It seems that the only real way to determine numbers is to do a road-side audit or a yearly census on road users. Only then will we have the specifics.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Your argument is that cycling is declining: let's see your evidence in support of this claim.

Well no

Well yes – you said: "Unfortunately Numbnuts is right. We are disappearing from the roads"

 

[jefmcg]

Back to the original accident (please take the statistical squabbling to another thread), this makes me sort of happy

"Seven members of the public rolled a car onto its side to free a trapped cyclist after a crash."

It's nice to see members of the public getting in and doing what needs doing, instead of waiting helpless for ambulance and then (presumably) fire brigade.

I wonder if it saved a life?