Re: The true danger on pavements - CARS!!!!!!!!!

Kit Wolf

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, half_pint wrote:

> Addendum, July 2003
> It is important to keep a perspective on the actual level of harm done by
> different types of vehicle to people on the footway.
> Answering a Parliamentary question, David Jamieson, a Department for
> Transport minister, said that in 2001 64 pedestrians were injured in
> collisions with cyclists on the pavement.
>
> By contrast, the DfT's figures for collisions between motor cars and
> pedestrians on footways are as follows:
>
> Year Killed Seriously injured Slightly injured
> 1999 4 76 394
> 2000 9 109 498
> 2001 7 77 520
> ===================================
>
> So conclusive evidence you are ten times more likely to be injured by a car
> than
> a bicycle.
>
> So where is the campaign against pavement motorists? - Answer - Nowhere.
>
> Will the receive on the spot fines for driving on the pavement? - Answer -
> NO
>
> Also please not that most of the 64 cyclist caused injuries wil be slight
> injuries.
>

If we were to assume that all of the injuries were slight injuries:

520/64 ~= 8

You are about eight times more likely to be injured by a driver on the
pavement than by a cyclist on the pavement.

There are far more cars than cyclists in most towns I've been to in the
UK. Assuming there are more than ~ 8 times as many cars as cyclists -
which I strongly suspect is the case - your figures suggest that the
average cyclist will pose a greater risk to pedestrians than the average
driver. Or to put it another way, if most car occupants switched to
cycling tomorrow I would expect more pedestrians to be injured on the
pavements.

Of course, if that were to happen maybe people wouldn't cycle on the
pavements so often. And the number of pedestrian injuries as a whole would
probably be reduced based on other figures I've seen.

KW

David Hansen

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:12:45 +0000 someone who may be Kit Wolf
<kit@brain.ncl.ac.uk> wrote this:-

>There are far more cars than cyclists in most towns I've been to in the
>UK. Assuming there are more than ~ 8 times as many cars as cyclists -
>which I strongly suspect is the case - your figures suggest that the
>average cyclist will pose a greater risk to pedestrians than the average
>driver.

Incorrect. From the viewpoint of a pedestrian the numbers of
cyclists and motorists doesn't matter in this context. What matters
is how likely each group is to kill or injure them and it is clear
that motorists are the cause of most danger to pedestrians.

The road "safety" lobby is vary careful to select and present
figures that "show" the activities of the road "safety" lobby are
good. That doesn't mean one must look at figures with the same
glasses.





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Kit Wolf

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, David Hansen wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:12:45 +0000 someone who may be Kit Wolf
> <kit@brain.ncl.ac.uk> wrote this:-
>
> >There are far more cars than cyclists in most towns I've been to in the
> >UK. Assuming there are more than ~ 8 times as many cars as cyclists -
> >which I strongly suspect is the case - your figures suggest that the
> >average cyclist will pose a greater risk to pedestrians than the average
> >driver.

I would have preferred that you leave in the sentence qualifying that
statement to apply only to pedestrians on pavements.

> Incorrect. From the viewpoint of a pedestrian the numbers of
> cyclists and motorists doesn't matter in this context. What matters
> is how likely each group is to kill or injure them and it is clear
> that motorists are the cause of most danger to pedestrians.

From a public-health point of view I agree with you. From a personal
responsibility point of view I disagree. If cycling on the pavement is
dangerous to pedestrians then the fact that not many people do so doesn't
make it any less inconsiderate. It's like saying that bull bars are
irrelevant to road safety as so few cars have them - a statement that few
of us on this newsgroup would agree with.

> The road "safety" lobby is vary careful to select and present
> figures that "show" the activities of the road "safety" lobby are
> good. That doesn't mean one must look at figures with the same
> glasses.

Has anyone ever compared the number of pedestrians killed per cyclist-mile
and the number killed per motorist mile? I know cyclists don't kill many
people but I'm not sure that we're all that innocuous.

KW

half_pint

"Kit Wolf" <kit@brain.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SGI.4.44.0412151503270.777058-100000@mercy.ncl.ac.uk...
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, half_pint wrote:
>
> > Addendum, July 2003
> > It is important to keep a perspective on the actual level of harm done
by
> > different types of vehicle to people on the footway.
> > Answering a Parliamentary question, David Jamieson, a Department for
> > Transport minister, said that in 2001 64 pedestrians were injured in
> > collisions with cyclists on the pavement.
> >
> > By contrast, the DfT's figures for collisions between motor cars and
> > pedestrians on footways are as follows:
> >
> > Year Killed Seriously injured Slightly injured
> > 1999 4 76 394
> > 2000 9 109 498
> > 2001 7 77 520
> > ===================================
> >
> > So conclusive evidence you are ten times more likely to be injured by a
car
> > than
> > a bicycle.
> >
> > So where is the campaign against pavement motorists? - Answer - Nowhere.
> >
> > Will the receive on the spot fines for driving on the pavement? -
nswer -
> > NO
> >
> > Also please not that most of the 64 cyclist caused injuries wil be
slight
> > injuries.
> >
>
> If we were to assume that all of the injuries were slight injuries:
>
> 520/64 ~= 8
>
> You are about eight times more likely to be injured by a driver on the
> pavement than by a cyclist on the pavement.
>
> There are far more cars than cyclists in most towns I've been to in the
> UK. Assuming there are more than ~ 8 times as many cars as cyclists -
> which I strongly suspect is the case - your figures suggest that the
> average cyclist will pose a greater risk to pedestrians than the average
> driver. Or to put it another way, if most car occupants switched to
> cycling tomorrow I would expect more pedestrians to be injured on the
> pavements.
>
> Of course, if that were to happen maybe people wouldn't cycle on the
> pavements so often. And the number of pedestrian injuries as a whole would
> probably be reduced based on other figures I've seen.
>
> KW

I think you are missing the point a bit, most people feel safe on the
pavement
(from the point of view of getting knocked down by a car).
So should they worry about cyclists when the present a danger just a 1/10
of there general traffic?

Also I would add that many of the injuries (probably most) were caused by
bicycles
which were (at least initially on the road, just like the cars were on the
road before they mounted the pavement).


And 64 minor injuries is nothing more people probably injure then
selves getting the top off a bottle of sauce
>
>