"
But there was an increase in the number of cyclists, motorcyclists and car users killed
"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28015946
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"Road casualties in Scotland down 10% as pedestrian deaths fall"
(7 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
I notice that the numbers of cyclists killed on Scotland's roads have gone up from 4 to 11 on roads with speed limits above 40mph while they went down from 3 to 2 on roads with speed limits of 40mph or less, from 2012 to 2013.
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/rrd_reports/uploaded_reports/j326395/j326395.pdf
For other severities the numbers changed much less so why were the accidents on rural roads more likely to be fatal to cyclists last year than previously? (Maybe not statistically significant, and still tiny compared to the numbers dying early due to pollution, not getting enough exercise, etc)Posted 11 years ago # -
"why were the accidents on rural roads more likely to be fatal to cyclists last year than previously?"
Is there any data on increased mileage or speed in rural areas.
Are there any geographical clusters which may or may not relate to 'factors' - policing practices - drink-driving/speeding campaigns?
Or "maybe not statistically significant"
Posted 11 years ago # -
"the numbers of cyclists killed on Scotland's roads have gone up from 4 to 11 on roads with speed limits above 40mph while they went down from 3 to 2 on roads with speed limits of 40mph or less, from 2012 to 2013."
This really looks like something worth highlighting to politicians.
Are there equivalent figures from previous years to show a trend - or indicts that last year was exceptionally bad ?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Insto can probably confirm that the absolute numbers are so small as to be meaningless (I think it's a big hint that there were fewer serious injuries but more fatalities).
It's interesting that the creation of Police Scotland has coincided with a massive fall in reported serious injuries, but then again, so have fatalities fallen (and they would be hard to fudge or refuse to deal with).
Nothing that should prevent us attacking politicians over this 275% year-on-year increase in cycling fatalities.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The issue of statistical significance doesn't really arise because the data aren't derived from samples of the population. In a sample survey the statement that something is statistically significant is only an obscure way of saying that it was unlikely to have occurred because of some random variation in the sampling process.
But where we are dealing with data from real events we don't need to wonder if the increase is real (significant) or not. It's real.
Because there's a small number of events it's probably difficult to say anything general about them - that they are caused by increased speeding etc - without looking at the specific circumstances in each case. Even if there was a general increase in speeds on rural roads and an increase in cyclist deaths on rural roads, it would be a mistake to link the two.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Even if there was a general increase in speeds on rural roads and an increase in cyclist deaths on rural roads, it would be a mistake to link the two.
Yes, could be coincidence rather than the cause.
Nothing that should prevent us attacking politicians over this 275% year-on-year increase in cycling fatalities.
Absolutely. Well. maybe not literally attacking them, but I get your drift.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
