Mark Thompson wrote:
> The figures are only valid for a population rather than for
> individuals. The tables are useful mainly in arguments about
> compulsion. They do, however, give a ball park figure.
>
> It is interesting to note that cycling as transport is
> notorious for being underestimated[3] so it is likely that the
> dangers of cycling have been over-estimated here. I'm not sure
> whether the same is true of walking or not.
>
> It would be interesting to see figures corrected for the young,
> the infirm, the just plain doddery, the drunks etc but
> modifying one set of not particularly accurate figures with
> other even less accurate figures is probably going to be even
> less accurate. Anyone care to do it?
No analysis but some background data:
RAC foundation; New figures reveal that more than seven out of ten of young
adult pedestrians (aged between 16 -34) killed on the UK’s roads and
included in the study had been drinking
&
A report** two years ago suggested that the risk of fatal accident
involvement for adult pedestrians starts to increase rapidly at blood
alcohol concentrations above 120mg/100ml. Australian research*** adds that
at alcohol levels of 150 mgs/100ml and above, the risk of a pedestrian
having an accident is 15 times greater. The risk of non-fatal injury is also
considerably increased by alcohol consumption
http://www.idf50.co.uk/idfmotoring2.htm
For elderly people, road accident fatalities are primarily pedestrians. For
everyone aged 60 and over, 49 percent of all fatalities are pedestrians, and
outnumber car occupants, who are 43 percent of all fatalities. For people
aged 80 and over, pedestrians are 61 percent of all fatalities.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/graphic/dft_transstats_505588-38.gif
gives an informative plot by age
&
..15 For all casualties, including slightly injured, children accounted for
about 40 per cent of pedestrian casualties in 1997, but only 14 per cent of
fatalities. In contrast, only 10 per cent of casualties were aged 70 and
over, but 34 per cent of those killed were in this age group.
5.16 One factor in the generally higher casualty rates among men could be
higher alcohol consumption. In 1995, about a third of pedestrian fatalities
aged 16 and over who had their blood tested were found to have blood alcohol
levels over 80mg/100ml, the legal limit for drivers. For pedestrian
fatalities occurring between midnight and 4 am, over three quarters were
over this limit. The overall percentages may be lower, as only about half of
road fatalities were tested for blood alcohol levels, possibly those where
alcohol use was suspected
&
5.25 Some police forces collect data on factors which may have contributed
towards pedestrian accidents. No national data are collected, and there are
likely to be variations in these factors by area. However, in London the
three primary factors recorded most often in 1995 were:
crossing road heedless of traffic elsewhere - 45 per cent
crossing road masked by parked vehicle - 14 per cent
crossing road heedless of traffic at pedestrian crossing - 9 per cent
&
Relative risk of walking, compared to other modes
5.28 In 1996, about 1,800 car occupants were killed as a result of accidents
on the roads of Great Britain, about twice the number of pedestrian
casualties. However, per kilometre travelled, pedestrians are now up to 16
times* more likely to be killed than car occupants (Table 23). This relative
risk has nearly doubled over the last twenty years. Using this measure, the
risk of fatality is about the same for pedestrians as for pedal cyclists,
but only about half that of motorcyclists.
* The risks are calculated using unadjusted NTS data from weekly travel
diaries on distances travelled. Since the NTS is known to underestimate
these distances, the fatality risks shown in Table 23 are likely to be over
estimates. In addition, the pedestrian risk relative to that of car users is
also likely to a slight over estimate, as the NTS excludes short walks of
less than 50m, and may generally underestimate walk distances more than car
distances.
>>
The above references seem to say that pedestrian and cycling fataliies are
broadly comparable and that pedestrian fatalities are heavily weighted for:
<16, >65, high blood alcohol and being less than sensible crossing the road.
ie if I'm >16, <80 and pay proper attention to traffic when crossing the
road, I'm safer as pedestrian than cyclist
Anyone have a source for stats on cycling injuries wrt age, alcohol etc or
mode of cycling accidents
pk