"Killer" bikes

[Lazy-Commuter]

A pic and a little about the author of the article in the Torygraph.

Kate Devlin

Kate Devlin is the Medical Correspondent for The Telegraph newspaper and website. She writes on everything from swine flu to the challenges facing the NHS, and was previously Scottish Political Correspondent.

One would have thought she would have some brains then. Obviously not, certainly no medical or scientific qualifications having written an article such as this. Or if she has she ought to know better.

Her article even got past an editor. Just shows standards at the Telegraph are slipping.

Actually she looks young and green enough to be the work placement temp .

.. think their standards have slipped. Seems we're all at risk from putting on loads of weight, what with all this exercise we've been doing!

Link is from Bad Science, a website previously mentioned on this thread, ripping apart another science / medical article in the Telegraph.

 

[XmisterIS]

What a fantastically sensationalist piece of journalism with the usual attitude of, "Oh, careful now! So-and-so is dangerous, you know!".

Cue much head-shaking, folded arms, tutting and teeth sucking from the Health and Safety brigade ...

 

[jonny jeez]

I'm probably not going to make many friends with this comment ...but I think it's a valid bit of journalism, its an interesting take on the attacks and subsequent activities and doesn't look to penalise or bash anyone.

It make's sense to me that if people are fearful of one form of transport they will swap to another, this increases the amount of users of the "new" form and therefore increases the amount of incidents/accidents that occur ...its just maths...more people=more incidents.

I agree its written a little poorly with even a few typo's (but then I cant talk)

I've read much more fascinating theory's on all sorts of populace related facts..if you're are interested, go get a copy of "freakonomics" by Steven Levitt...his theories challenge our commonly accepted views on a whole pile of issues.


Wonder what he'd make of commuters and bikes?

 

[Origamist]

I would have guessed that but would have no way of proving it.

So let's assume that the TUBE is safer per mile traveled - any action that moves people from a safer to a more dangerous form of transport can be partially blamed for more deaths, but for the terrorist attack would that cyclist have been killed.

Before you all go nuts this is clearly a narrow minded view that looks at one element of cycling in isolation and fails to acknowledge the wider picture and benefits - speed, cost, enjoyment fitness greenness etc etc etc

Not the best article but I think it raises a valid discussion point but has been badly handled.

I'm not known for going nuts, but I'll oblige you on another thread if it fits your caricature of the average CCer...

The article is v sloppy but the psychological dread risk effect is interesting so I'd agree with you there. However, the Prof is also on record as saying that cause of the casualties could not be established conclusively (this was conveniently dropped from the Telegraph piece).

 

[BentMikey]

It make's sense to me that if people are fearful of one form of transport they will swap to another, this increases the amount of users of the "new" form and therefore increases the amount of incidents/accidents that occur ...its just maths...more people=more incidents.

No arguments from me, I agree. The problem comes not because of deaths per mile/journey/hour, which I don't think is in doubt. It arises because although cycling might be slightly more risky, it saves lives on average when you take into account the health effects.

 

[sunnyjim]

Report on the research (which we paid for) here:

http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/E...wardHolder=&isProfiled=&AwardHolderID=&Sector=


The cycling reference is in the last two sentences.

The Herald version is interesting-


“The reduced Underground travel, higher levels of cycling and increased number of casualties of cyclists on London’s roads suggests that some people switched from the Underground to cycling, and the psychological dread risk effect may be the explanation for this behaviour.”
The study, which was presented at the British Psychological Society’s cognitive psychology annual conference, also looked at car accidents but found no increase after the July 7 attacks."

So apparently these additional 'cycling' accidents didn't involve cars.

 

[CotterPin]

And I have done a little research to uncover this:

The Impact of 9/11 on Road Fatalities: The Other Lives Lost to Terrorism

Garrick Blalock
Cornell University - Department of Applied Economics and Management
Vrinda Kadiyali
Cornell University - Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management
Daniel H. Simon
Cornell University - Department of Applied Economics and Management

February 10, 2005

Abstract:
We find that driving fatalities increased significantly following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, an event which prompted many travelers to substitute less-safe surface transportation for safer air transportation. After controlling for time trends, weather, road conditions, and other factors, we attribute an increase of 242 driving fatalities per month to additional road travel undertaken in response to 9/11. In total, our results suggest that at least 1,200 additional driving deaths are attributable to the effect of 9/11. We also provide evidence that is consistent with the 9/11 effect on road fatalities weakening over time as drivers return to flying. Our results show that the public response to terrorist threats can create unintended consequences that rival the attacks themselves in severity.

No mention of killer cars!

 

[garrilla]

And I have done a little research to uncover this:

The paper you refer to is from "February 2, 2005"

Its available to download

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID677549_code452866.pdf?abstractid=677549&mirid=3

 

[Davidc]

Interesting looking at the reader comments the Telegraph have allowed through - all seem to be slagging off the Telegraph, its sub-editor, and the research. Just like on here!

And so they should.

 

[garrilla]

I haven't bothered to read the original article but I have read Ayton's paper. Its not actually comparing the risks from one mode of transport to another, its comparing the perception of risk and decision making post risk awareness.

Research by Gigerenzer (2004; 2006) demonstrated that, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001, Americans reduced their air travel while interstate highway travel increased. An increase of 1,500 traffic fatalities in the 12 months following the attacks suggested that people are more influenced by “dread” risks (prominent events where large numbers are affected by one event) than less dreaded but actuarially greater risks. We investigated whether a similar effect may have occurred in London following the terrorist attacks of July 7th 2005. We analysed daily field data on cycle accidents for the past 25 years and found significant above baseline increases in injurious cycle accidents specific to central London over 3 months following the attacks. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that, in seeking to avoid a dread risk associated with public transport, some people preferred to travel by bicycle and thereby chose a greater risk of injury.​

TO show this is more than a random correlation they would have to show that the fatalities were recent converts to cycling having been previously tube or bus commuters.​

There might also be a case for stating, theortically, that the new cycling commuters didn't have to be the fatalities but add to the general dynamic that comes from increased volume of cycle-based commuters. On the one hand we discuss this all the time on here - do RLJers make it unsafe for the all cyclists? etc - while on the other hand its meaningless beyond the academic as the complexity of such a proposition can only be expressed in general assumptive terms.

Equally, it could be argued, from a theoretical stand point, that people become fatalistic in the face of a "dread" risk and lower their risk aversion mechanisms. In the study by Ayton, 12 out 13 studies they did were using agent based simulation models to evalute decision-making. None of them had the agents becomeing more fatalistic.​

 

[HJ]

Odd how just a couple of months ago there were stories going about that cycling had gotten safer in London due to the increase in the number of people cycling...

 

[BentMikey]

Odd how just a couple of months ago there were stories going about that cycling had gotten safer in London due to the increase in the number of people cycling...

That's still true, as is that the tube/train is far safer per mile than cycling on a travel only basis. OTOH the tube is bound to be worse for you if you include the health and other benefits of cycling.

 

[ufkacbln]

Time for a war on cycling. It'd help with my hardman outlaw-type image.

I love the "Pace line" in this video

.... and for the next "SMIDSY" - the ultimate commuting accessory:

 

[skrx]

So let's assume that the TUBE is safer per mile traveled

In immediate casualties, yes. (But do we include the people falling down escalators, off platforms etc? There's always posters up like "Take care on the escalator: last year, 237 injuries")

Long-term, cycling might be healthier because of the benefits of exercise.

 

[Fab Foodie]

The increase in Cycling fatalaties could of course be due to the increase in car journeys caused by people avoiding the tube rather than the increase in cycling. Let's face it, the majority of people will go for the car option before the bicycle option.