Cycling- The Dangers

[spindrift]

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.


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

In fact the truism that the more cyclists there are the safer the
roads become seems to be bolstered by the London explosion in cycling-
cycling rates up 80% in 5 years but the accident rate is down:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modalpages/972.aspx

Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling
P L Jacobsen

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/9/3/205

More cycling is making UK roads safer
Oct 20th
CTC has welcomed news that an increase in cycling has made it safer to
cycle on UK roads.
Basing its figures on Department for Transport statistics, CTC
estimates that cycle use in the UK has increased by 10 per cent since
1993, and that the rate of reported pedal casualties has decreased by
more than 34
per cent over the same period.

Roger Geffen, CTC campaigns and policy manager, said:

"The relationship between increased cycle use and reduced cycle
casualties found in mainland Europe also holds for Britain - the more
people that cycle, the safer it is to cycle."

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/22045/More-cycling-is-making-UK-roads-safer

The more people cycle, the more aware drivers become and the safer the
roads are for cyclists.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/4188.aspx

CYCLING MAKES ROADS SAFER!

Recent statistics gathered throughout the UK confirm that an increase
in cycle use leads to safer roads. Apart from the fact that drivers
who also cycle tend to be more aware of other road users, more
cyclists on the road ensures that even drivers who don't cycle are
more likely to expect the presence of cyclists, motorcyclists and
pedestrians.

http://www.cyclingscotland.org/didyouknow.aspx


After all, the more people who take up cycling, the safer it will be
for all road users, not just for cyclists - hence the conference
title:

"Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer
Cycling = More Cycling ....."

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4802

Perception is a big problem here," says Wilson. "Unsurprisingly, many
people think cycling is dangerous but it has been proved that the more
cyclists there are on the road, the safer it is per cyclist. Drivers
get used to them."

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/features/article1088929.ece

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?

 

[Peter Clinch]

spindrift wrote:
> 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".

> 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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[spindrift]

"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!!"

 

[David Hansen]

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

>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

 

[Martin Dann]

spindrift wrote:
> 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 ;-)

 

[marc]

Martin Dann wrote:
>
> spindrift wrote:
>> 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 ;-)

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

 

[David Hansen]

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

>spindrift wrote:
>> 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, 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

 

[Tony Raven]

David Hansen wrote:
>
> 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

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:40:23 +0100, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin Dann wrote:
> >
> > 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.

> 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|
|/ \|

 

[[email protected]]

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



--
Charles

 

[The other view point, there is one you know...http]

On Aug 8, 3:58 pm, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
>
> > 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...

 

[Matt B]

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

 

[Adam Lea]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:13:05 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>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).

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> 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.

> 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

 

[Matt B]

marc wrote:
> Martin Dann wrote:
>>
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> 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 ;-)
>
> 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.

> 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?

> but nothing says that the cyclists should be

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

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

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

> 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

 

[Matt B]

Tony Raven wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
>>
>> 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?

> - they
> could have legally levitated into position ;-)

Yes, or just simply driven there legally ;-)

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

" 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.

 

[spindrift]

"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.

 

[Peter Clinch]

spindrift wrote:

> 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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/