Matt Seaton in the gradian: "Parris, je ne t'aime pas"

[Ekul Namsob]

David Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 4 Jan, 07:39, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:37:36 GMT someone who may be "burtthebike"
> > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
> >
> > >The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
> > >average figure is less than one. It is not clear whether the majority of
> > >these are on the pavement or the carriageway.
> >
> > That distinction sounds rather close to the motoring lobby's view
> > that pedestrians should get out of the way of motorists.
> >
>
> The point was to show that no distinction was made between those
> killed due to the actions of the cyclists and those killed where the
> cyclist was not to blame.

You made the point poorly since it is entirely possible for a cyclist to
be blameworthy in the event that a pedestrian is killed on the
carriageway.

Cheers,
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Colin McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Hansen wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:37:36 GMT someone who may be "burtthebike"
> > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >>The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
> >>average figure is less than one. It is not clear whether the majority of
> >>these are on the pavement or the carriageway.
> >
> > That distinction sounds rather close to the motoring lobby's view
> > that pedestrians should get out of the way of motorists.
>
> Its main relevance is to the constant whingeing about pavement
> cyclists. Not only is less than one pedestrian killed by a cyclist in
> an average year, but also less than less than one is killed by a
> pavement cyclist. Or fewer.
>
> (Not that I think that pavement cycling is a good thing).

Do we know about numbers of injuries?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> Motorists break the law in vast numbers.

Mainly victimless technicalities.

> Speeding, in particular , is rife,

Yet only reported as one of the contributory factors in 5% of all
casualty collisions, so not a very significant problem in terms of road
safety.

> and despite the evidence that the faster you go the more likely
> you are to kill or be killed if you crash,

And despite that fact, you seem still to be happy that we still
concentrate on "speeding" (speed in excess of the limit), rather than
inappropriate speed, which is usually speed below the limit, and which
is reported as one of the contributory factors in 11% of all casualty
collisions.

Inappropriate speed is a much more significant road safety issue than
"speeding", and yet it is positively encouraged by the message that
speed cameras give, that you will not be challenged for driving at up to
35 mph in built-up areas.

> when speed cameras are erected we don't laugh at
> the idiots who get caught, we rail against the "stealth tax" on
> motorists.

Given our dismal recent road casualty record, especially the loss of our
historically strong downward trend, which incidentally correlates with
the increased used of speed cameras under the "netting off" scheme, we
should be demanding an public inquiry as to why they were ever used, and
into the quality of the evidence and "science" used to justify them.

It's funny, don't you think, that now the proceeds from the cameras can
no longer be kept by the authorities erecting them, that they are now no
longer the be-all and end-all of road safety. Has their effectiveness
suddenly diminished, or /were/ they a convenient and politically correct
source of "stealth tax" income - you decide.

--
Matt B

 

[David Lloyd]

On 4 Jan, 09:26, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:42:30 -0800 (PST) someone who may be David
> Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >> >The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
> >> >average figure is less than one.  It is not clear whether the majority of
> >> >these are on the pavement or the carriageway.
>
> >> That distinction sounds rather close to the motoring lobby's view
> >> that pedestrians should get out of the way of motorists.
>
> >The point was to show that no distinction was made between those
> >killed due to the actions of the cyclists and those killed where the
> >cyclist was not to blame.
>
> Cyclists are not to blame if they kill a pedestrian who is on the
> road? That just makes it sound more like the motoring lobby's view.
>

You think that there are no circumstances where a pedestrian can be at
fault? Look, I ate enough at Christmas, so stop putting words in my
mouth.

David Lloyd

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's funny, don't you think, that now the proceeds from the cameras can
> no longer be kept by the authorities erecting them, that they are now no
> longer the be-all and end-all of road safety. Has their effectiveness
> suddenly diminished, or /were/ they a convenient and politically correct
> source of "stealth tax" income - you decide.

I was with you until you repeated the old nonsense of "stealth tax"
(although I notice it was Spindrift who brought it up). There is no tax
element to the fine. There is no legal stealth element to the fine.
Speed limits are widely advertised on most roads and in the Highway
Code.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Matt B]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> David Hansen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:37:36 GMT someone who may be "burtthebike"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>>
>>>> The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
>>>> average figure is less than one. It is not clear whether the majority of
>>>> these are on the pavement or the carriageway.
>>> That distinction sounds rather close to the motoring lobby's view
>>> that pedestrians should get out of the way of motorists.
>> Which "motoring lobby", and can you cite references please. The
>> progressive view is that, in community spaces, all users, foot, bike,
>> car, should have equal priority.
>
> That is, to my mind, nonsense: equal priority is not priority. In any
> case, that is /a/ progressive view.

Equal priority means you rely on human interaction and "negotiation",
rather than legislation, regulation, enforcement and punishment, like
you do on foot when you meet someone coming the other way through a
narrow doorway, or whatever - eye contact and body language will
generally make it obvious who goes first.

> Another progressive view is that, in
> community spaces, the most vulnerable road users should have priority
> over the least vulnerable.

That is the inevitable consequence of true /equal/ priority. As
pedestrians we all /do/ have "equal priority", and, generally, the less
vulnerable (the strongest, and fittest) give way (a product of human
courtesy), to the more vulnerable (the frail and less able).

--
Matt B

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:

> > Another progressive view is that, in
> > community spaces, the most vulnerable road users should have priority
> > over the least vulnerable.
>
> That is the inevitable consequence of true /equal/ priority. As
> pedestrians we all /do/ have "equal priority", and, generally, the less
> vulnerable (the strongest, and fittest) give way (a product of human
> courtesy), to the more vulnerable (the frail and less able).

Whoah. We seem to agree.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[spindrift]

On 4 Jan, 09:40, [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)
wrote:
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Hansen wrote:
> > > On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:37:36 GMT someone who may be "burtthebike"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> > >> The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
> > >> average figure is less than one.  It is not clear whether the majority of
> > >> these are on the pavement or the carriageway.
>
> > > That distinction sounds rather close to the motoring lobby's view
> > > that pedestrians should get out of the way of motorists.
>
> > Which "motoring lobby", and can you cite references please.  The
> > progressive view is that, in community spaces, all users, foot, bike,
> > car, should have equal priority.
>
> That is, to my mind, nonsense: equal priority is not priority. In any
> case, that is /a/ progressive view. Another progressive view is that, in
> community spaces, the most vulnerable road users should have priority
> over the least vulnerable.
>
> I don't, by the way, intend this to develop into a long, protracted
> debate. By now, I think our views on these matters are fairly clear.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>
> --
> Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
> exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

"Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006 - Annual Report" published by the
Department for Transport shows a very different picture :

Pedestrians killed following collisions cyclists: 3
Pedestrians killed with motor vehicles: 672
Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with cyclists: 48
Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with motor
vehicles: 5,821
- Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with cyclists: 151
- Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with motor
vehicles: 21,642

2006 was acknowledged as an odd year. In the preceding 3 years, there
had only been 1 pedestrian fatality following a collision with a
cyclist. And it should be noted that these figures are about the
outcomes of collisions - they are not about who is to blame.

In the last five years only 2 cyclists have been proven to have been
responsible for the deaths of a pedestrian.



Meanwhile speeding drivers kill 1200 people a year and drivers who
ignore the law claim they are being "taxed".

 

[Matt B]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's funny, don't you think, that now the proceeds from the cameras can
>> no longer be kept by the authorities erecting them, that they are now no
>> longer the be-all and end-all of road safety. Has their effectiveness
>> suddenly diminished, or /were/ they a convenient and politically correct
>> source of "stealth tax" income - you decide.
>
> I was with you until you repeated the old nonsense of "stealth tax"
> (although I notice it was Spindrift who brought it up).

I was offering evidence for "spindrift" to consider, which may suggest
that the income from them was an important element in their
justification - perhaps more important than their effectiveness.

> There is no tax element to the fine.

"Tax" in the sense that the money went into the pot used to sustain
those responsible for the camera activities. Fines paid by shoplifters
are not given directly to the private security firms who catch the
shoplifters.

> There is no legal stealth element to the fine.

"Stealth" in so much as the reasons for their implementation was heavily
disguised in controversial road safety claims.

> Speed limits are widely advertised on most roads and in the Highway
> Code.

There is no excuse for not knowing the speed limit at any given point,
but it is odd that it is/was illegal to display 30 mph reminder signs in
most places where the limit is 30 mph, and that it wasn't a requirement
to have a speed limit sign prominently displayed directly ahead of each
camera.

--
Matt B

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 01:50:25 -0800 (PST) someone who may be David
Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>You think that there are no circumstances where a pedestrian can be at
>fault?

No.

>Look, I ate enough at Christmas, so stop putting words in my mouth.

My words are based on the ones you typed and you have yet to
indicate why my interpretation of them is incorrect.


--
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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006 - Annual Report" published by the
> Department for Transport shows a very different picture :
>
> Pedestrians killed following collisions cyclists: 3
> Pedestrians killed with motor vehicles: 672
> Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with cyclists: 48
> Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with motor
> vehicles: 5,821
> - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with cyclists: 151
> - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with motor
> vehicles: 21,642
>
> 2006 was acknowledged as an odd year. In the preceding 3 years, there
> had only been 1 pedestrian fatality following a collision with a
> cyclist. And it should be noted that these figures are about the
> outcomes of collisions - they are not about who is to blame.
>
> In the last five years only 2 cyclists have been proven to have been
> responsible for the deaths of a pedestrian.

Thanks for that. I think responsible cyclists would do well to remind
those who believe that pavement cycling is fine that there have been as
many as 200 injuries caused by cyclists to pedestrians. I accept, we
don't know whether this was on the road or on the pavement and that you
claim 2006 was peculiar. I assume we shall have to wait a few months for
the totals for 2007.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Matt B]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006 - Annual Report" published by the
>> Department for Transport shows a very different picture :
>>
>> Pedestrians killed following collisions cyclists: 3
>> Pedestrians killed with motor vehicles: 672
>> Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with cyclists: 48
>> Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with motor
>> vehicles: 5,821
>> - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with cyclists: 151
>> - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with motor
>> vehicles: 21,642
>>
>> 2006 was acknowledged as an odd year. In the preceding 3 years, there
>> had only been 1 pedestrian fatality following a collision with a
>> cyclist. And it should be noted that these figures are about the
>> outcomes of collisions - they are not about who is to blame.
>>
>> In the last five years only 2 cyclists have been proven to have been
>> responsible for the deaths of a pedestrian.
>
> Thanks for that. I think responsible cyclists would do well to remind
> those who believe that pavement cycling is fine that there have been as
> many as 200 injuries caused by cyclists to pedestrians. I accept, we
> don't know whether this was on the road or on the pavement and that you
> claim 2006 was peculiar. I assume we shall have to wait a few months for
> the totals for 2007.

If you look at the figures for "rates", which take account of exposure
in terms of mileage, rather than absolute numbers, you will see, that
despite their inferior mass, power and speed potential, that pedal
cycles kill and seriously injure pedestrians at about the same rate as cars.

Pedestrians *hit*, *killed*, and *seriously injured*, on all roads, per
100 million vehicle km:

Pedal cycle: 4.9, 0.1, 1.0
Car: 6.3, 0.1, 1.3

Interestingly you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured if
hit by a bicycle than if hit by a car.

Buses are the pedestrians worse enemy.
Bus: 31.0, 1.0, 6.2

WVM fair better than most.
LGV: 2.3, 0.1, 0.4

--
Matt B

 

[JNugent]

Ekul Namsob wrote:

> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

>>It's funny, don't you think, that now the proceeds from the cameras can
>>no longer be kept by the authorities erecting them, that they are now no
>>longer the be-all and end-all of road safety. Has their effectiveness
>>suddenly diminished, or /were/ they a convenient and politically correct
>>source of "stealth tax" income - you decide.

> I was with you until you repeated the old nonsense of "stealth tax"
> (although I notice it was Spindrift who brought it up). There is no tax
> element to the fine.

Not in the absolute technical sense. That is correct. But it
nevertheless provides the Treasury and/or local authorities with very
large sums in revenue, whether it is strictly correct to call it a
"tax" or not.

> There is no legal stealth element to the fine.
> Speed limits are widely advertised on most roads and in the Highway
> Code.

I agree that that phrase (originally coined, I expect, as an
eye-catching soundbite - IYKWIM) has now become over-familiar and too
easily "rubbished" via linguistic pedantry. It doesn't matter - there
is still an issue of all that revenue. It all goes somewhere, and that
somewhere is the same place that taxes go.

 

[Señor Chris]

Matt B wrote:
>> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006 - Annual Report" published by the
>>> Department for Transport shows a very different picture :
>>>
>>> Pedestrians killed following collisions cyclists: 3
>>> Pedestrians killed with motor vehicles: 672
>>> Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with cyclists: 48
>>> Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with motor
>>> vehicles: 5,821
>>> - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with cyclists: 151
>>> - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with motor
>>> vehicles: 21,642
>>>
>>> 2006 was acknowledged as an odd year. In the preceding 3 years, there
>>> had only been 1 pedestrian fatality following a collision with a
>>> cyclist. And it should be noted that these figures are about the
>>> outcomes of collisions - they are not about who is to blame.
>>>
>>> In the last five years only 2 cyclists have been proven to have been
>>> responsible for the deaths of a pedestrian.
>
> If you look at the figures for "rates", which take account of exposure
> in terms of mileage, rather than absolute numbers

Why would you do that ? Including the millions of miles travelled by
cars on motorways where there is no risk to pedestrians just distorts
the figures. That wasn't your intention, surely ?

 

[JNugent]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>"Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006 - Annual Report" published by the
>>Department for Transport shows a very different picture :
>>
>>Pedestrians killed following collisions cyclists: 3
>>Pedestrians killed with motor vehicles: 672
>>Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with cyclists: 48
>>Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with motor
>>vehicles: 5,821
>>- Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with cyclists: 151
>>- Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with motor
>>vehicles: 21,642
>>
>>2006 was acknowledged as an odd year. In the preceding 3 years, there
>>had only been 1 pedestrian fatality following a collision with a
>>cyclist. And it should be noted that these figures are about the
>>outcomes of collisions - they are not about who is to blame.
>>
>>In the last five years only 2 cyclists have been proven to have been
>>responsible for the deaths of a pedestrian.

> Thanks for that. I think responsible cyclists would do well to remind
> those who believe that pavement cycling is fine that there have been as
> many as 200 injuries caused by cyclists to pedestrians.

Probably not all on footways (and some may well have been on
pedestrian crossings, whether of the pelicon or zebra type). But one
would be one too many.

 

[Martin Dann]

Matt B wrote:

> Pedestrians *hit*, *killed*, and *seriously injured*, on all roads, per
> 100 million vehicle km:
>
> Pedal cycle: 4.9, 0.1, 1.0
> Car: 6.3, 0.1, 1.3
>
> Interestingly you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured if
> hit by a bicycle than if hit by a car.

> Buses are the pedestrians worse enemy.
> Bus: 31.0, 1.0, 6.2

First of all these rates do not take into account where vehicle miles
are. Most cycle miles are done in urban areas, (towns and cities), where
as a larger proportion of car miles are done on bigger roads and motorways.
Equally a lot of buses are used in urban areas.

Secondly the killed figures are totally meaningless for the above data
for cars, cycles and LGV. The (seriously injuried)/hit are comparable
for cars and cyclists. I suspect that many hits from cars and cycles go
unreported if there is absolutely no injury.


> WVM fair better than most.
> LGV: 2.3, 0.1, 0.4
>

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> "Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006 - Annual Report" published by the
> Department for Transport shows a very different picture :

A different picture to what?

> Pedestrians killed following collisions cyclists: 3
> Pedestrians killed with motor vehicles: 672
> Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with cyclists: 48
> Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with motor
> vehicles: 5,821
> - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with cyclists: 151
> - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with motor
> vehicles: 21,642

Why did you choose to show the absolute numbers, rather than the more
realistic measure using rates? Why did you choose to lump all motor
vehicle types together? Perhaps you thought some of us would be fooled
into believing that all cyclists are safer than any motor vehicle
drivers. Perhaps you were hoping to conceal the fact that WVM hit less
than half the number of pedestrians per mile than cyclists do.

> 2006 was acknowledged as an odd year.

By whom? The RCGB figures for 2005 and 2004 show a similar pattern.

Pedestrians hit, killed, and seriously injured by vehicle type per 100
million vehicle km...

2004
Pedal cycle: 6.1, 0.0, 1.3
Car: 7.0, 0.1, 1.4
Bus: 37.0, 1.0, 6.8
LGV: 2.5, 0.1, 0.5

2005
Pedal cycle: 6.3, 0.1, 1.4
Car: 7.0, 0.1, 1.3
Bus: 36.0, 0.9, 6.7
LGV: 2.6, 0.1, 0.5

2006
Pedal cycle: 4.9, 0.1, 1.0
Car: 6.3, 0.1, 1.3
Bus: 31.0, 1.0, 6.2
LGV: 2.3, 0.1, 0.4

> Meanwhile speeding drivers kill 1200 people a year

Can you cite a source for that? The RCGB 2006, which also gives
contributory factors, gives "exceeding speed limit" as one of the
"contributory factors" (there were likely to have been at least one
other factor) in _381_ fatal collisions in 2006.

> and drivers who
> ignore the law claim they are being "taxed".

No. Some claim that the non-discretionary practice of using speed
cameras to automatically convict and fine motorists who commit the
victimless technical offence of exceeding an arbitrary speed limit, even
when no significant extra danger was created, "justified" on the back of
possibly wilfully misrepresented statistics, and then using the proceeds
of those fines to fund more cameras, and the departments that deploy
them, as tantamount to an extra back-door motoring tax.

--
Matt B

 

[JNugent]

Señor Chris wrote:

> Matt B wrote:
>>> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> "Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006 - Annual Report" published by the
>>>> Department for Transport shows a very different picture :

>>>> Pedestrians killed following collisions cyclists: 3
>>>> Pedestrians killed with motor vehicles: 672
>>>> Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with cyclists: 48
>>>> Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with motor
>>>> vehicles: 5,821
>>>> - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with cyclists: 151
>>>> - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with motor
>>>> vehicles: 21,642

>>>> 2006 was acknowledged as an odd year. In the preceding 3 years, there
>>>> had only been 1 pedestrian fatality following a collision with a
>>>> cyclist. And it should be noted that these figures are about the
>>>> outcomes of collisions - they are not about who is to blame.

>>>> In the last five years only 2 cyclists have been proven to have been
>>>> responsible for the deaths of a pedestrian.

>> If you look at the figures for "rates", which take account of exposure
>> in terms of mileage, rather than absolute numbers

> Why would you do that ? Including the millions of miles travelled by
> cars on motorways where there is no risk to pedestrians just distorts
> the figures. That wasn't your intention, surely ?

Why do you say there is no risk to pedestrians on motorways when every
year, there are multiple cases of pedestrians being killed on
motorways and other restricted roads?

It is for that reason that the official advice now (it never used to
be) is to get all passengers out of broken-down vehicles, and that the
police and other emergency services now take such elaborate
precautions at the sites of breakdowns, accidents and other incidents
(they never used to). And have those boys on the M56 at Frodsham and
that fugitive on the M25 at Dartford been forgotten so soon?

 

[JNugent]

Martin Dann wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Pedestrians *hit*, *killed*, and *seriously injured*, on all roads,
>> per 100 million vehicle km:
>>
>> Pedal cycle: 4.9, 0.1, 1.0
>> Car: 6.3, 0.1, 1.3
>>
>> Interestingly you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured if
>> hit by a bicycle than if hit by a car.
>
>
>> Buses are the pedestrians worse enemy.
>> Bus: 31.0, 1.0, 6.2
>
>
> First of all these rates do not take into account where vehicle miles
> are. Most cycle miles are done in urban areas, (towns and cities), where
> as a larger proportion of car miles are done on bigger roads and motorways.
> Equally a lot of buses are used in urban areas.
>
> Secondly the killed figures are totally meaningless for the above data
> for cars, cycles and LGV. The (seriously injuried)/hit are comparable
> for cars and cyclists. I suspect that many hits from cars and cycles go
> unreported if there is absolutely no injury.

The latter is more likely with a bike. Not so likely (I think you'll
agree) with a motor vehicle of any type. Because any accident
involving a motor vehicle and an injury is legally reportable, the
scope for non-reporting is smaller.

That law probably isn't complied with 100% (particularly in low-speed
manoeuvring incidents where the parties know each other or are
related), but it's still an important factor. It doesn't apply to
bicycles, of course.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> spindrift wrote:
> >
> > "Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006 - Annual Report" published by the
> > Department for Transport shows a very different picture :
>
> A different picture to what?
>
> > Pedestrians killed following collisions cyclists: 3
> > Pedestrians killed with motor vehicles: 672
> > Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with cyclists: 48
> > Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with motor
> > vehicles: 5,821
> > - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with cyclists: 151
> > - Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with motor
> > vehicles: 21,642
>
> Why did you choose to show the absolute numbers, rather than the more
> realistic measure using rates?

Perhaps because of the reasons stated several times previously in
replies to your posts: cyclists and pedestrians don't use motorways.

Figures showing the numbers of KSI / distance within urban areas and,
perhaps separately, off motorways would be more useful for comparison.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>