Safer roads
View Full Version : Safer roads
The 2002 casualty figures[1] contain:
Cyclists killed 130 (138 in 2001) - down 6% Cyclists seriously injured 2320 (2540 in 2001) - down 9%
It also reports that cycle traffic increased by 4%
Also Pedestrians killed 775 (826 in 2001) - down 6% Pedestrians seriously injured 7856 (8238 in
2001) - down 5%
This is evidence that it's getting safer to cycle (and walk).
The 2002 traffic speed figures[2] contain: The number of cars exceeding 30mph speed limits is down
to 59% (from 65% in 2001) The number of cars exceeding 30mph speed limits by more than 5mph is down
to 25% (from 32% in 2001)
This is evidence that motorists are responding to campaigns to encourage conformance with the
30mph limit.
Combined, this is evidence that the more drivers conform with the 30mph speed limit, the safer the
roads become.
I think this link was already known. For me the interesting thing is to see the clear
supporting evidence.
Stephen
[1] Road Casualties in Great Britain Main Results: 2002
http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/2003/rcas/pdf/rcas02.pdf
[2] Vehicle Speeds in Great Britain 2002
http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/2003/vsgb/pdf/vsgb.pdf
In article <3efd567d.6875837@news.legend.co.uk>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
stephenc@xrem.ovex.legend.co.uk (StephenC) wrote:
> The 2002 casualty figures[1] contain:
Use with caution. 2001 had exceptional factors. Alternatives to the roads were closed for much of
the year forcing more cyclists and walkers onto the roads; that alone could easily account for the
difference. Then there was that alice-in-wonderland reaction to a rail crash crippling another
lifesaver.
> This is evidence that it's getting safer to cycle (and walk).
>
> I think this link was already known. For me the interesting thing is to see the clear supporting
> evidence.
A comparison involving other years - and perhaps (with caution) other countries, might be
more reliable.
--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)
StephenC deftly scribbled:
> The 2002 casualty figures[1] contain:
> This is evidence that it's getting safer to cycle (and walk).
Not necessarily, it just shows that less cyclists were killed or seriously injured .. Which is not
the same thing as showing it's safer to walk and cycle.
> This is evidence that motorists are responding to campaigns to encourage conformance with the
> 30mph limit.
Nope, not necessarily .. It could also be argued that due to the increased numbers of vehicles on
the road, average speeds have simply dropped due to the (so it seems) ever-increasing congestion.
> Combined, this is evidence that the more drivers conform with the 30mph speed limit, the safer the
> roads become.
Again, not necessarily, see above answers.
> I think this link was already known. For me the interesting thing is to see the clear supporting
> evidence.
I would doubt that a single years results are enough to draw any 'real' conclusions from .. ;)
--
Digweed
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:26:50 +0100, "Not me, someone else" <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> This is evidence that it's getting safer to cycle (and walk).
>Not necessarily, it just shows that less cyclists were killed or seriously injured .. Which is not
>the same thing as showing it's safer to walk and cycle.
I checked this out yesterday, the rate is down (cycling up 4% accidents down, I think). I might be
misremembering.
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
Nick Kew wrote:
> In article <3efd567d.6875837@news.legend.co.uk>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
> stephenc@xrem.ovex.legend.co.uk (StephenC) wrote:
>> The 2002 casualty figures[1] contain:
>
> Use with caution. 2001 had exceptional factors. Alternatives to the roads were closed for much of
> the year forcing more cyclists and walkers onto the roads; that alone could easily account for the
> difference. Then there was that alice-in-wonderland reaction to a rail crash crippling another
> lifesaver.
>
>> This is evidence that it's getting safer to cycle (and walk).
>>
>> I think this link was already known. For me the interesting thing is to see the clear supporting
>> evidence.
>
> A comparison involving other years - and perhaps (with caution) other countries, might be more
> reliable.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Leave out the information you don't like and you can have results
to confirm your arguement. Around our way the speed limit, road signs and rules of the road are
deliberatley flouted and disregarded completely, roads safer? No way. In fact since the increase of
traffic our village roads are perceived to be worse.
best regards stratton
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:19:45 +0100, "stratton" <stratton@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Leave out the information you don't like and you can have results to confirm your arguement.
The Smith Technique to a T.
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:26:50 +0100, "Not me, someone else" <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote:
>StephenC deftly scribbled:
>
>> The 2002 casualty figures[1] contain:
>
>> This is evidence that it's getting safer to cycle (and walk).
>
>Not necessarily, it just shows that less cyclists were killed or seriously injured .. Which is not
>the same thing as showing it's safer to walk and cycle.
You're right to a point. For example, it could be that cyclists are more aware of the danger spots
and are avoiding them. In that case, safety hasn't improved - contrary to the impression given by
the statistics. I'd need to see a good alternative explanation before I change my view that more
cycling and fewer cyclists hurt means safer..
>
>> This is evidence that motorists are responding to campaigns to encourage conformance with the
>> 30mph limit.
>
>Nope, not necessarily .. It could also be argued that due to the increased numbers of vehicles on
>the road, average speeds have simply dropped due to the (so it seems) ever-increasing congestion.
I don't think that congestion has increased enough between 2001 and 2002 to be the reason. I'll
stick to the view that more drivers are chosing to drive at a legal speed in 30mph zones.
>
>> Combined, this is evidence that the more drivers conform with the 30mph speed limit, the safer
>> the roads become.
>
>Again, not necessarily, see above answers.
>
>> I think this link was already known. For me the interesting thing is to see the clear supporting
>> evidence.
>
>I would doubt that a single years results are enough to draw any 'real' conclusions from .. ;)
The figures [1][2] in recent years for cycling - killed, killed and seriously injured (KSI) and
billion vehicle kilometers are:- 1994 172 4001 4.5 1995 213 3967 4.5 1996 203 3789 4.3 1997 183 3597
4.1 1998 158 3312 3.9 1999 172 3367 4.1 2000 127 2770 4.0 2001 138 2678 4.0 This shows a trend that
the number of cyclists badly hurt is reducing against a background of a declining level of cycling.
I'm wary of saying safety is improving when the amount of cycling is falling. The fall in KSI
between 2001 and 2002 is broadly consistent with the trend since 1994. The thing that's changed is
that cycling is reported to be up 4% in this time without causing injuries to have gone up. Cycling
up + injuries down = good news.
[1]http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/2002/ragb/download/tables/pdf/table05c.pdf
[2] http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/4/pdf/40702.pdf
Just zis Guy, you know? deftly scribbled:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:26:50 +0100, "Not me, someone else" <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> This is evidence that it's getting safer to cycle (and walk).
>
>> Not necessarily, it just shows that less cyclists were killed or seriously injured .. Which is
>> not the same thing as showing it's safer to walk and cycle.
>
> I checked this out yesterday, the rate is down (cycling up 4% accidents down, I think). I might be
> misremembering.
I know.
What I was pointing out was that the reliance on one set of figures to 'prove a point' may not
necessarily be a reliable method for drawing inferences from. ;)
--
Digweed
In article <3efdb299_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "stratton" <stratton@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Lies, damned lies and statistics. Leave out the information you don't like and you can have
> results to confirm your arguement.
Some statistics are more credible than others. The difficulty is that few people are qualified to
tell the difference, and those who present the stats to us often have an axe to grind.
As it happens, I am qualified to tell the difference, and in my capacity as a pedant I took it upun
myself to draw attention to the likelihood of significant sampling abnormalities in the figures
presented.
> Around our way the speed limit, road signs and rules of the road are deliberatley flouted
> and disregarded completely, roads safer? No way. In fact since the increase of traffic our
> village roads are perceived to be worse.
Couldn't comment on that. It's not statistics, and I wouldn't like to accuse you of lies - damned or
otherwise.
--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)
Digweed "Not me, someone else" <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote: ( StephenC deftly scribbled: ) >
This is evidence that it's getting safer to cycle (and walk). ( Not necessarily, it just shows that
less cyclists were killed or seriously ) injured ..
No it doesn't, it shows that fewer of them were killed. Those that were were killed entirely, not in
any lesser part.
StephenC deftly scribbled:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:26:50 +0100, "Not me, someone else" <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> StephenC deftly scribbled:
>>
>>> The 2002 casualty figures[1] contain:
>>
>>> This is evidence that it's getting safer to cycle (and walk).
>>
>> Not necessarily, it just shows that less cyclists were killed or seriously injured .. Which is
>> not the same thing as showing it's safer to walk and cycle.
>
> You're right to a point. For example, it could be that cyclists are more aware of the danger spots
> and are avoiding them. In that case, safety hasn't improved - contrary to the impression given by
> the statistics.
Yup, that's one way of looking at it ..
> I'd need to see a good alternative explanation before I change my view that more cycling and fewer
> cyclists hurt means safer..
errr .. didn't you say in your first post "This is evidence that it's getting safer to cycle (and
walk)." ??? Or was this part of the quoted article ? It's not entirely clear what you mean ..
>>> This is evidence that motorists are responding to campaigns to encourage conformance with the
>>> 30mph limit.
>>
>> Nope, not necessarily .. It could also be argued that due to the increased numbers of vehicles on
>> the road, average speeds have simply dropped due to the (so it seems) ever-increasing congestion.
>
> I don't think that congestion has increased enough between 2001 and 2002 to be the reason. I'll
> stick to the view that more drivers are chosing to drive at a legal speed in 30mph zones.
No worries, different views, different people .. ;)
>>> Combined, this is evidence that the more drivers conform with the 30mph speed limit, the safer
>>> the roads become.
>>
>> Again, not necessarily, see above answers.
>>
>>> I think this link was already known. For me the interesting thing is to see the clear supporting
>>> evidence.
>>
>> I would doubt that a single years results are enough to draw any 'real' conclusions from .. ;)
>
> The figures [1][2] in recent years for cycling - killed, killed and seriously injured (KSI) and
> billion vehicle kilometers are:- 1994 172 4001 4.5 1995 213 3967 4.5 1996 203 3789 4.3 1997 183
> 3597 4.1 1998 158 3312 3.9 1999 172 3367 4.1 2000 127 2770 4.0 2001 138 2678 4.0 This shows a
> trend that the number of cyclists badly hurt is reducing against a background of a declining level
> of cycling. I'm wary of saying safety is improving when the amount of cycling is falling. The fall
> in KSI between 2001 and 2002 is broadly consistent with the trend since 1994. The thing that's
> changed is that cycling is reported to be up 4% in this time without causing injuries to have gone
> up. Cycling up + injuries down = good news.
Fair comment, but that wasn't what you presented in the first post .. ;)
--
Digweed
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Geraint Jones wrote:
> ( Not necessarily, it just shows that less cyclists were killed or seriously ) injured ..
>
> No it doesn't, it shows that fewer of them were killed. Those that were were killed entirely, not
> in any lesser part.
Nobody has suggested that the cyclists were less killed than previously, though. Presumably the
greater cyclists survived.
From earlier:-
> Cyclists killed 130 (138 in 2001) - down 6% Cyclists seriously injured 2320 (2540 in 2001) - down
> 9% It also reports that cycle traffic increased by 4% The number of cars exceeding 30mph speed
> limits is down to 59% (from 65% in 2001) The number of cars exceeding 30mph speed limits by more
> than 5mph is down to 25% (from 32% in 2001)
>>
>> The figures in recent years for cycling - killed, killed and seriously injured (KSI) and billion
>> vehicle kilometers are:- 1994 172 4001 4.5 1995 213 3967 4.5 1996 203 3789 4.3 1997 183 3597 4.1
>> 1998 158 3312 3.9 1999 172 3367 4.1 2000 127 2770 4.0 2001 138 2678 4.0
In 2002, distance cycled is shown as being up and cycle casualties are shown to be down when
compared with 2001. This may indicate a reduction in risk exposure rather than an increase in road
safety, but I'm too much of a layman to appreciate the difference.
As I understand it, old fashioned road safety policy concentrated on the headline figures of killed
and injured. It was felt that cycling should not be encouraged as this would result in worse road
safety figures. The logic of this is that you improve road safety on a section of road by making it
so dangerous to cycle that nobody cycles. This has contributed to the long term decline in cycling.
It also creates the perverse situation that we have the 'safest' roads in Europe and at the same
time casualty rates for cycling are 10 times higher than in Denmark and Holland.
Since 1994, There has been 6 years in which cycling distance is recorded as having fallen or stayed
the same. In each of these years there was a fall in cyclists KSI. In one year cycling distance was
recorded as having risen. This was accompanied by a rise in cycle casualties. In one year (2002)
cycling distance was recorded as having risen and the number of cycling casualties fell.
Perhaps something uniquely positive has occurred that opens the possibility for a virtuous circle.
More cycling leading to motorists being more aware of cyclists. More awareness leading to improved
safety for cyclists. Improved safety encouraging more cycling.
OK it's only one year. The stats may be wrong. I may have interpreted them incorrectly.
If you accept that safety for cyclists has improved (humour me), then perhaps there one or more
factors can be identified that are responsible for this. One thing that has changed is that vehicle
speeds in 30mph zones are recorded as being significantly down (it seems reasonable to assume that
most cyclist injuries occur in 30mph zones). It seems to me intuitive that as more vehicles conform
to the 30mph speed limit, fewer cycling injuries will occur and the severity of those injuries will
be reduced. There is now evidence that supports this statement. Maybe there are also other factors.
Certainly this evidence doesn't constitute a proof. However, I think there is enough evidence to
continue the policy to bring about increased conformance with the 30mph speed limit - through
education and enforcement. At least until the 2003 statistics are out.
StephenC
Henry Braun <braun@maths.ox.ac.uk> wrote: ( On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Geraint Jones wrote: ) > ( Not
necessarily, it just shows that less cyclists were killed or seriously ( > ) injured .. ) > ( > No
it doesn't, it shows that fewer of them were killed. ) > Those that were were killed entirely, not
in any lesser part. ( ) Nobody has suggested that the cyclists were less killed than previously, (
though. Presumably the greater cyclists survived.
If it were a distinction between greater and lesser cyclists it would surely have been "lesser
cyclists". The phrase used is symptomatic of the vulgar prejudice that all cyclists, to some extent)
ride on pavements, the wrong way up one-way street with no contra-flow cycle lanes, and through red
lights: they are as indistinguishable and frequent as atoms and can be treated as an
undifferentiated substance through which a property (such as killèdness) is evenly distributed.
On the other hand it could be a grammatical ****-up. This ought perhaps to be in the proper
sentencing thread, or indeed under "proper sentancing".
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
