http://www.channel4.com/news/why-are-more-cyclists-dying-on-britains-roads
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
"Why are more cyclists dying on Britain's roads?"
(11 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
On C4 NOW
Or 4+1 in an hour or (probably) http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4od later.
Posted 12 years ago # -
It's just a quirk of presentation I think.
As the last link points out, although KSI in London were up 9%, the amount of cycling had increased by 15% so it was actually quite a lot safer than the year before.
470 KSI in London forms quite a large proportion of the UK overall KSI, but the amount of cycling in London (apparently) forms a small proportion of overall UK cycling.
Thus we have an increase of 15% in London cyclists versus a 1.5% increase in UK cyclists, while the number of KSIs in London is ~500 against the UK total of just ~2500.
To put it another way, if London KSIs increased by 10% that would be a 2% increase in UK KSIs, but a 10% rise in London cyclists is (far less than) a 1% increase in UK cyclists.
No change in cycle danger in London can therefore make it seem like UK cycling is increasing in danger by twice the rate it is getting more popular, even though all that's actually happened is a straight increase of cyclists having increased collisions.
IMO.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I had to read that three times, but yes, I think I understand that now, and it makes sense. You would think the programmes would have people who knew this stuff to check figures! (I didn't watch the show so can't actually comment).
Posted 12 years ago # -
Well, it's a question of motivation. Suppose the annual KSI figures come out showing a 10% rise in cycling and a 5% rise in KSIs...
CTC: "good news, cycling is safer than ever before"
Daily Mail: "ever increasing numbers of cyclists killed on the roads"It would be a pretty dull program if all it did was explain that the way statistics are collated makes something seem more slightly dangerous when it's actually slightly less ;-)
Posted 12 years ago # -
I don't understand this C4 article. In 2010 across the UK some 111 cyclists sadly died and 2,660 were seriously injured - a slight increase on 2009 but a huge drop from the 1994-1998 annual average of 186 deaths and 3,546 serious injuries. Details from Department for Transport at:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/ras30001.xls
At the same time, the number of miles cycled in the UK increased from 2.6bn in 2000 to 3.1bn in 2010. As Dave says - an increase in the number of miles cycled and a general downward trend in cycling casualties, with a slight increase in the last two years - not long enough to establish any trend.
Possibly John Snow using his influence to raise the issue of cyclist safety, which possibly needs a bit of sensationalism to make it into the news (even C4 news needs viewers after all) - which is to be applauded, if a tad sloppy with the statistics.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm all for Mr. Snow using his influence for the cause. Some small counterbalance to Top Gear, interminable news reports about motor traffic tailbacks, congestion, lane closures on motorways, etc. etc. ad nauseum...
Posted 12 years ago # -
But wouldn't it be necessary to talk about how cycling is getting safer?
Talking about how dangerous cycling is (especially if it actually isn't) is not counterbalancing Top Gear, but reinforcing it...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Talking of stats -
"
NicolaSturgeon:Scotland has some of the best health service data in the world. New health stats out today - http://t.co/uASk6vD
Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/95797165431070720
"
But do there use them to come to useful conclusions?
How much would KSIs come down (and NHS costs) if (for instance) urban areas had blanket 20 mph?
Posted 12 years ago # -
An easy way to tell would be to make the Department of Transport responsible for that element of NHS costs which arise from road crashes. At the moment, as far as anyone in government is concerned, the NHS is the NHS, and the choice on the roads is merely casualty statistics VS driver happiness.
If it saved a vast amount of money making people drive more safely (or the converse) there would be a lot more action...
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
