Cycling- The Dangers

spindrift said:

Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.

The key points of which are, as a means of transport walking is more
dangerous that cycle, Cycling in Britain is safer than driving in some
European counties, Cycling is far safer than driving anywhere, Cycling
gets safer as it gets more popular, and that There is no known example
in recent decades when an increase in cycling led to an increase in
cyclist deaths.

I think you should probably be a bit more careful with qualifications
and attributions.

There is more to being "a report from the NHS" than being available on a
server in an HHS domain.

Further on qualifications, it's entirely likely that a 1,000% increase
in cycling will increase the number of cyclist deaths, but the important
point is that the /rates/ of deaths will probably decrease. It is worth
being careful about this sort of distinction out IMHO, or eeejits will
just accuse of trying to lie with statistics. It is telling that the
original key point you've related as "Cycling is far safer than driving
anywhere" is actually "Cycling is far safer than driving anywhere when
the health benefits and reduced risk to third parties are included".

Quoted message said:

Isn't this the kind of material to focus on rather than the rather
hysterical inflation of the dangers of cycling in, for example, the
London Freewheel Press Release?

Indeed, but when focusing I don't think it helps to do the sort of
selective editing that will lead to people dismissing it. Ironically, I
got accused a wee while ago of being a "weasel" by carefully qualifying
things I said, though that was in the context of giving careful answers
to deliberately (mis)leading questions. Blatant spinning should be
deprecated though, it doesn't help in today's climate.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Further on qualifications, it's entirely likely that a 1,000%
increase
in cycling will increase the number of cyclist deaths, but the
important
point is that the /rates/ of deaths will probably decrease."

Quite right, I should have made that clear, especially cos the Evading
Standard trumpetted the rise in cycling accidents whilst ignoring the
explosion in cycling rates!

I just felt the Freewheel caveats, whilst probably a condition of
their public liability insurance, was akin to saying:

"Cycling is safe, fun and will prolong your life. Warning! You may
die!!"

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:13:05 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Ironically, I
got accused a wee while ago of being a "weasel" by carefully qualifying
things I said, though that was in the context of giving careful answers
to deliberately (mis)leading questions.

If people are attacking one's viewpoint then that is a good
indication that one is right and causing others to be uncomfortable.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

spindrift said:

Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.

Quoted message said:

http://www.networks.nhs.uk/uploads/06/09/wardlaw.pdf

I note that the cyclists have ignored the mandatory cycle
lane on page 355 ;-)

Martin Dann said:

spindrift said:

Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.

Quoted message said:

http://www.networks.nhs.uk/uploads/06/09/wardlaw.pdf

I note that the cyclists have ignored the mandatory cycle lane on page
355 ;-)

It's not a mandatory cycle lane, at least I can't see I sign to say that
it is, the white line is solid meaning that the cars should't be parked
there but nothing says that the cyclists should be

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:32:28 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.

Quoted message said:

http://www.networks.nhs.uk/uploads/06/09/wardlaw.pdf

I note that the cyclists have ignored the mandatory cycle
lane on page 355 ;-)

Tee, hee, hee.

Given that it is not mandatory for cyclists to use such a lane, but
it is mandatory for motorists not to use such a lane, shouldn't the
police be upholding the law and dealing with the criminals who are
clearly using the lane?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

Given that it is not mandatory for cyclists to use such a lane, but
it is mandatory for motorists not to use such a lane, shouldn't the
police be upholding the law and dealing with the criminals who are
clearly using the lane?

Because as no doubt TrollB and his sidekick Another Troll There is One
You Know will be along to inform you, their presence parked there is no
evidence of their having illegally driving in the cycle lane - they
could have legally levitated into position ;-)

Tony

marc said:

Martin Dann said:

I note that the cyclists have ignored the mandatory cycle lane on
page 355 ;-)

It's not a mandatory cycle lane, at least I can't see I sign to say
that it is, the white line is solid meaning

... meaning that it IS a mandatory cycle lane. That's what a solid
line means - that it's a mandatory lane. If it's not a mandatory
lane, it has a broken line.

Quoted message said:

but nothing says that the cyclists should be

Eh? Whether a cycle lane is a mandatory one or not has no bearing on
cyclists in teh vicinity. Your comment appears to be a non-sequitur.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Just thanks for an interesting and informative thread; much
appreciated.

--
Charles

Tony Raven said:

David Hansen said:

Given that it is not mandatory for cyclists to use such a lane, but
it is mandatory for motorists not to use such a lane, shouldn't the
police be upholding the law and dealing with the criminals who are
clearly using the lane?

Because as no doubt TrollB and his sidekick Another Troll There is One
You Know will be along to inform you, their presence parked there is no
evidence of their having illegally driving in the cycle lane - they
could have legally levitated into position ;-)

Tony

I am supprised that you cant speak up for yourself without having to
resort to slinging 'troll' 'troll' at those who don't sahre your
viewpoint, there is one you know...

David Hansen said:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:13:05 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Ironically, I
got accused a wee while ago of being a "weasel" by carefully qualifying
things I said, though that was in the context of giving careful answers
to deliberately (mis)leading questions.

If people are attacking one's viewpoint then that is a good
indication that one is right and causing others to be uncomfortable.

Yes. :-)

--
Matt B

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:13:05 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Ironically, I
got accused a wee while ago of being a "weasel" by carefully qualifying
things I said, though that was in the context of giving careful answers
to deliberately (mis)leading questions.

If people are attacking one's viewpoint then that is a good
indication that one is right and causing others to be uncomfortable.

Or it could be that the viewpoint is wrong and potentially damaging.

(e.g. cycle helmet compulsion is a good thing because helmets save lives).

spindrift said:

Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.

Is that what you think? What you actually found is a copy of a 4.5
year-old article from "tec" magazine. "tec" (Traffic Engineering and
Control) is a magazine for traffic planners. The author is a well know
cycling campaigner.

Quoted message said:

The key points of which are, as a means of transport walking is more
dangerous that cycle,

The units he uses for comparisons - risk per kilometre - are the same
units that received so much derision here (mainly from you IIRC) when,
by using them, it was shown that cyclists pose more of a risk to
pedestrians than white van men do in urban streets. Remember???

--
Matt B

marc said:

Martin Dann said:

spindrift said:

Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.

Quoted message said:

http://www.networks.nhs.uk/uploads/06/09/wardlaw.pdf

I note that the cyclists have ignored the mandatory cycle lane on page
355 ;-)

It's not a mandatory cycle lane, at least I can't see I sign to say that
it is,

It doesn't need a sign - it needs a solid white line.

Quoted message said:

the white line is solid meaning that the cars should't be parked
there

Or as HC rule 119 puts it:

"You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line
during its times of operation."

So, let's give the motorists the benefit of the doubt eh?

Quoted message said:

but nothing says that the cyclists should be

I think the clue is in the ";-)".

--
Matt B

David Hansen said:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:32:28 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

Just recently I came across a report from the NHS entitled Cycling -
the actual risks which makes for interesting reading.
http://www.networks.nhs.uk/uploads/06/09/wardlaw.pdf

I note that the cyclists have ignored the mandatory cycle
lane on page 355 ;-)

Tee, hee, hee.

Given that it is not mandatory for cyclists to use such a lane, but
it is mandatory for motorists not to use such a lane,

Tee, hee, hee. Given that the HC says that they /can/ use the lane
quite _legally_ outside of its times of operation.

Quoted message said:

shouldn't the
police be upholding the law and dealing with the criminals who are
clearly using the lane?

It may be "clear" to you - but, perhaps you are seeing something which
isn't there. ;-)

--
Matt B

Tony Raven said:

David Hansen said:

Given that it is not mandatory for cyclists to use such a lane, but
it is mandatory for motorists not to use such a lane, shouldn't the
police be upholding the law and dealing with the criminals who are
clearly using the lane?

Because as no doubt TrollB and his sidekick Another Troll There is One
You Know will be along to inform you, their presence parked there is no
evidence of their having illegally driving in the cycle lane

And they'd be correct wouldn't they?

Quoted message said:

- they
could have legally levitated into position ;-)

Yes, or just simply driven there legally ;-)

--
Matt B

" Or it could be that the viewpoint is wrong and potentially
damaging."

Or it could be that the ABD member and defender of killer drivers
trollb has its inane, ill-informed and asinine views attacked so often
because it's a proven liar who deliberately disrupts this board by
asking the same question over and over and over again or spamming
threads with multiple posts minutes after each other- see below.

Please don't engage with it, ignoring it would be the worst possible
punishment and would foster an sense of bitter grievance that would,
with any luck, develop into brain cancer.

"The units he uses for comparisons - risk per kilometre - are the
same
units that received so much derision here (mainly from you IIRC)
when,
by using them, it was shown that cyclists pose more of a risk to
pedestrians than white van men do in urban streets."

A bare faced lie. "Urban streets" wasn't mentioned when Paul Smith of
the Safespeeding campaign encouraging motorists to break the law
released his silly press release. Stop telling lies.

spindrift said:

that would, with any luck, develop into brain cancer.

That seems to be making a rather big assumption about the presence of a
certain organ... ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/