Why can't we have government sponsored public info' films to discourage shoot driving?

[Inertia]

[QUOTE 5252099, member: 9609"]I agree stats can be very very misleading and I accept my own figure derived from the dept of transports own data that cycling is 40x more dangerous than being within a motor car, could be well off the mark (I suspect the risk of being killed or seriously injured is far greater than that, and I'm sure other figures could be found to show it is lower than 40x)

But to suggest it is actually safer is not only completely wrong it is also deeply misleading and very unhelpful. I'm sure those in the motoring lobby groups will just love such statements as it gives them justification to carry on in their current uncaring manner. We need the powers that be to concentrate on giving more protection to vulnerable road users and not to spend their time making it safer for cars.[/QUOTE]
Its a lot more complicated than your set of stats..

We do need them to concentrate but exaggerating the dangers is unhelpful too.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

If someone is throwing a large platypus at your face you're a lot safer in a car than riding a unicycle. The statistics have no context.

 

[User10119]

[QUOTE 5252042, member: 9609"]well why didn't she make her initial comment in that thread ?
surely if someone makes a post that is clearly wrong then it is reasonable to respond to that post within the same thread it is made?[/QUOTE]

Lots of people have commented on cycling not really being really dangerous and TMN has clearly stepped away from the conversation. Why are you persisting with continuing an argument that nobody else seems all that interested in, with one specific person who isn't even here?

 

[Inertia]

[QUOTE 5252148, member: 9609"]it is the governments own stats, not mine, and massively underplayed to my mind.
[/QUOTE]
Dont worry I didn't think they were your own stats that you had personally obtained. By your stats, I meant the ones you were presenting. HTH

 

[User10119]

Second rant today I think I need some chamomile tea

I may join you in a cup.
View attachment 410499

 

[Tizme]

I wonder how many cyclists or pedestrians have been KSI while this argument has gone on?

 

[Mugshot]

[QUOTE 5252181, member: 9609"]Cyclist at 40x greater risk so why are they not acting and acting fast to amend the situation.[/QUOTE]
What do the stats tell us when we compare time as opposed to miles?

 

[Inertia]

[QUOTE 5252181, member: 9609"]Indeed, the "Department of Transports" very own stats, and they paint a very bleak picture for the vulnerable cyclist. What better stats could be used to compel the Department of Transport to improve matters for cyclists than their own statistics? if they say they are exaggerated or misleading then why did they publish them? Cyclist at 40x greater risk so why are they not acting and acting fast to amend the situation.

This thread is about public information to help make it safe for cycling, these stats should be in any such information, telling everyone it is virtually risk free and will never help our cause.[/QUOTE]
As I said, Its a lot more complicated than your set of stats.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 5252176, member: 10119"]I may join you in a cup.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you'll both fit in a cup.

[QUOTE 5252181, member: 9609"]Indeed, the "Department of Transports" very own stats, and they paint a very bleak picture for the vulnerable cyclist. What better stats could be used to compel the Department of Transport to improve matters for cyclists than their own statistics? if they say they are exaggerated or misleading then why did they publish them? Cyclist at 40x greater risk so why are they not acting and acting fast to amend the situation.

This thread is about public information to help make it safe for cycling, these stats should be in any such information, telling everyone it is virtually risk free and will never help our cause.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think they'll react to that by improving road designs or whatever we'd like? Why wouldn't they just do whatever they can to reduce the numbers cycling? After all, they're the Department for Transport and any consequential health problems or air pollution problems from a greater shift to motoring are literally somebody else's problem at the moment!

But really, I agree with others: we wouldn't say guns are safe if few gun users were injured. We'd look at how many are injured BY guns - so why claim that motorists hurting cyclists means that cycling is dangerous? Doesn't it mean motoring is even more dangerous to the public than widely accepted? Now that's some public information which more of us should try to disseminate!

 

[Milkfloat]

I think the key stat is that cycling is safer than not cycling (I cannot be arsed to prove it, but I am fairly sure that a combination of KSI stats and health stats can and do show this - feel free to link to them). If more motorists switched to bicycles and stopped KSI'ing cyclists then those stats would only improve.

 

[Mugshot]

[QUOTE 5252222, member: 9609"]I'm sure there will be a way to massage the stats to show no action is needed as cyclist are adequately safe, and it is the poor motorist we should be concentrating on helping.[/QUOTE]
I'm not looking for anyone to massage the stats, I'm asking what difference it makes to your 40x assertions when you look at things from a slightly different angle. Do you have that information?
While we're at it how do the stats for peds compare to cycling and driving for both miles and time?

 

[Tim Hall]

[QUOTE 5252222, member: 9609"]I'm sure there will be a way to massage the stats to show no action is needed as cyclist are adequately safe, and it is the poor motorist we should be concentrating on helping.[/QUOTE]
No, I think the risk per time exposed to the danger is a much more realistic way of assessing things. It's not massaging the statistics, it's using the data in a meaningful manner.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 5252240, member: 9609"]I think we're just getting into a silly play on words now. By dangerous we're talking about the likely hood of KSI.[/QUOTE]
It may be silly to you, but words and their ordering do matter. A likely hood is not the same as a likelihood, but fortunately it's obvious this time what word you meant, but I'm still not clear what you mean by "dangerous" - the likelihood of Killed or Seriously Injured, OK, but did you mean the likelihood of being the perpetrator or the victim? I'd say that the mode that is "dangerous" is perpetrators' one, but it sounds like you reckon its the victim's one... do you really think that a van driving along the pavement killing loads of people means that walking is dangerous? That seems backwards to me.

[QUOTE 5252240, member: 9609"]The argument here appears to be cycling is perfectly safe, possibly even safer than being in a car. So if anything we're telling motorists they need to be no more careful around cyclists than they currently are.[/QUOTE]
The second sentence there does not follow from the first. Motoring is dangerous, so if anything we're telling motorists they need to be more careful around everyone than they currently are.

[QUOTE 5252240, member: 9609"]a 20 mile journey is a 20 mile journey I don't see the time scale of it as remotely relevant, (yes there would be less accidents if everyone went slower but that's a different story)[/QUOTE]
If all the 20 mile journeys were being done in isolation, I'd agree with you, but in that data, the timescale is relevant because exposure to dangerous motoring is more related to time taken for the journey than its distance.

 

[Profpointy]

If all the 20 mile journeys were being done in isolation, I'd agree with you, but in that data, the timescale is relevant because exposure to dangerous motoring is more related to time taken for the journey than its distance.

Can't agree with the last point (unless I've misunderstood). By that logic you could make driving in fog safer by driving at 100mph as the risk of accident per hour would be reduced.

 

[Profpointy]

[QUOTE 5252279, member: 45"]It depends what you're basing the risk on. If it's per time spent then cycling is going to look safer than if it was per journey or per mile.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand the logic of "per time" for a journey, else you could make the journey "safer" simply by driving faster to reduce the time exposed. This makes no sense whatsoever.